Jan - I also followed Jerry Ross’ draft in proposing an amendment. Delegates from my congregation (including myself) are strongly in support of your proposal. I believe that returning the 7 principles to Article II, while still retaining the new language, will help unite more delegates in support of a version of article II that we can all move forward with together. Thank you for making this proposal!
1 Like
If we are writing something new, we don’t preface it with something old. It is my opinion that the best place for the seven principles is to include it in our list of inspirations and sources. The seven principles have served Unitarian Universalism well but as we look toward the future and work to rewrite our bylaws to reflect the growth and knowledge that has been gained since 1986, we need to recognize that we need new language. By keeping one foot in the past, I believe that we are unnecessarily holding ourselves back from the possibilities of what lies ahead. As a non-creedal faith organization, our attachment to the seven principles runs dangerously close to becoming a creed, if it hasn’t already become that. We must adapt and evolve, or we face the very real chance of not attracting new people to our faith and watching as our numbers dwindle and we fade into a shadow of what we already are.
6 Likes
As an insert of historical information, they will not be what we affirm and promote. They will be a list of what we used to affirm and promote.
1 Like
My friend, who attends our congregation weekly, points out this political reality:
“It’s not a good idea to have an historical document inside the new document just to draw more votes for a document that does not meet approval. Let the new document stand on its own.”
3 Likes
Something is of value “historically”, that is a “historical framework” is something that belongs in inspirations. Ideas that “remain important to the identity, moral orientation and spiritual journey for many Unitarian Universalists” sounds like an inspiration. If our values “evolved” from them— isn’t that exactly what an inspiration involves?
I can see retaining the 7 / 8 principles in the revised Article II. I can see adding them as an inspiration. I can see an argument for omitting them entirely. But – they don’t make sense as a preface. So, I can’t support this amendment.
2 Likes
I have read carefully and appreciate all the replies to this proposed Amendment. I will make every effort to connect with the delegates who submitted Amendments 59, 66 and 84 to see if we can settle on a course of friendly amendments. Re: 8th Principle - at GA2017 there was a discussion re: amending the Principles to add an 8th Principle, but not adopted by vote at that or any subsequent GA, hence not included in this amendment. It has since been adopted by many individual UU congregations, and with that momentum the SC incorporated the values and intent of the 8th Principle into the new language of the Values and Covenant in their proposed revisions to Article II.
1 Like
I urge delegates to take a closer look at Amendments #49–Welch and #83 Richardson–each of which thoughtfully updates the current principles.
These amendments built upon the earlier work of Kara Stebbins and many others (see Amendment #486) and deserve your consideration. I hope that one or both of these amendments are added to the “priority list” for consideration during the mini-assemblies.
1 Like
@DebJ
@jrad2023
@Lrlexuu
@CharlesD
Deborah, I would also mention that Suggestion #486 was essentially submitted as priority Amendment #83 by Linda Richardson, so you might look at that.
I would remind us that as #486, my intention was to revise the Principles to meet the main charges UUA gave the Commission, including “honoring historic roots.” Therefore #486 was intended as a REPLACEMENT of the Values & Covenant Section.
To be clear: I personally want us to meet the charge of the Commission, I just disagree with how it has been done.
And to again quote my friend: “It’s not a good idea to have an historical document inside the new document just to draw more votes for a document that does not meet approval. Let the new document stand on its own.”
1 Like
The question is, would the new document stand on its own? The one that was presented before this discussion forum opened would not have gotten my vote. As it is, I am waiting to see what comes out of the miniassembly to decide on my vote.
Sally,
I agree that the Commission’s original Proposed Revision would not get my vote.
I don’t know whether or not my point is coming across: I’m suggesting that if we insert the Principles (with or without changes), but do NOT identify, grapple with, and vote clearly on what needs to be removed from or revised in the Proposed Revision … Let’s just say it is possible that the Principles would just be window dressing until they are “grandfathered out.”
If we have the time, energy and ability to work on the Amendments that capture our concerns about the Proposed Revision, then that is a document that could stand on its own, in my opinion.
Right this minute, I’m not feeling very optimistic about having all the time, energy and ability to do that.
got it, thanks!
I do see us working to put in what we believe was left out of the original—did we get close enough? Hard to tell until we see a final document.
I do believe that the A2SC did improve their initial draft based on feedback, which was encouraging. Will we get close enough for a vote in favor this week? We’ll see. If so, the process for discussion during the interim until GA2025 will be really important.
1 Like
I agree - and that seems to be what is happening. It appears this amendment (#61) is the only amendment addressing the current 7 Principles that is on the mini-assembly agenda (as of today). I agree with @DeborahJohnson that this amendment merely acknowledges the past importance of the Principles, and does not frame them as something still at the core of the UU covenant. Yet marginalizing the Principles (with or without the 8th) will alienate many UUs who feel committed to the 7 Principles. Why do this?
There are many other amendments as noted by @MerridyMcDaniel that more strongly keep the 7 Principles as part of our collaborative covenant. (Plus mine, #49 that is close). I can’t support this one, and wish one of the amendments that do keep the Principles could be voted at the mini-assembly. The only alternative to keeping the 7 Principles is to vote down the proposed Article II revision, which I don’t want to have to do.
Just a note: I don’t think “transition language” in any amendment is important because whatever emerges out of the mini-assembly and subsequent voting will be a rough draft again, and the Commission will need to provide the transitional and smoothing language based on the approved amendments.
Thanks Kara! It’s worth noting that your original amendment #486 received the third highest number of views (799) and the third highest number of responses (69 replies) among the suggested amendments–clearly there was a lot of interest in the proposal which inspired both priority amendment #49-Welch and priority amendment #49-Richardson. Another reasons or one or both of these priority amendments to be included among those which will be discussed/voted on later this week.
@klsteb2 I haven’t been able to follow the Principles/Values discussions much, as the Inspirations/Sources have used up most of my time and energy, but I will just agree that this was our thinking in our Amendment #51, and as you know, in the collaboration done earlier among yours, ours, and others in the email group that came out of the May workshop: We should get as far as we possibly can to capture what is the best and most inclusive compromise Unitarian Universalists can make now, today, that tries to truly address concerns.
Yes, my priority amendment #83 is Kara Stebbin’s amendment #486. I submitted it after she posted that she had decided not to do so, and had posted that others were free to use it. I had been following #486 closely, as it best aligned with my feelings and that of others in my congregation. I am aware of all the work and collaboration that Kara put into this. It was also important to me that the 8th principle is included.
This will indeed get a great deal of attention this week. The 1985 principles statement holds an emotional tie for many of us, but in the 30 plus years since, our world has changed and the language of our UU past does not resonate with all the communities that we have since embraced. For these voices to be heard our A2SC has started over in how we hold ourselves accountable to each other and the greater world community. With this understanding, I am torn between following the guidance of ALL the voices at the table or compromising to hold onto some language that could cause further harm to both sides of the conversation. May our deliberations be done with care and kindness.
While our By-laws will present us in our covenantal relationship, each congregation may continue, as the are doing now, maintain their set of 7 or 8 principles in their own communities.
agree with Jim Sanders, having just completed recently a bylaws revision process taking out many things that didn’t belong bylaws, the history of our principles should be in a support document of its own and include ALL the forms of our principles so we could learn and refer in the future how this all came to pass. bylaws are not a historical document but one of clarifying and showing flexibility of process in the most open. welcoming and fluid terms
My amendment #10 proposed keeping amendments and adding an 8th principle. I am fine with both as long as the new language is modified to sound more supplemental rather than redundant. They is my problem with both, the document will read like two separate sections rather than an integrated whole.
1 Like
–presentation being a key point for most everyone, in common among varying perspectives in our discussion here.
@jrad2023 I have an enormous amount of faith in the flexibility of language and a conviction there are always, many, many ways to frame something. (That is one reason this collaborative process has been so fantastic for those interested in UUsm, language, and spiritual and intellectual exchange, I think.) Perhaps the authors of all the other amendments can collaboratively and intensively brainstorm about language that incorporates/includes/bridges without seeming dismissive of the 7 principles. I know that in my first feedback submission that included draft suggestions for all sections, I used some bridging language from the Charge to the Commission (which in my view, does also support a more synthesized, reconciled, overlapping merger of past and present language). @clandrum pointed out that actually quoting the directions for a document within the document would quickly date and is not appropriate, but maybe y’all can get some ideas there, as you think about how to draft language. There are a few sections where words can be tinkered with. I really hope you all can come up with something to present here and also have ready as a possible friendly amendment to mention at the GA mini-assembly (which I strongly, strongly urge all delegates to attend). I believe that the removal of the 7 principles is a big stumbling block for many who might otherwise be on board with the proposed new (added) direction.
1 Like