I appreciate your perspective, but I also think removing language/overriding values that many UUs still hold can be damaging to both sides of the conversation. Something that gets a good compromise in place allows the conversation to continue, in my view.
1 Like
Mine and Marsha Bates also added the 8th.
If I remember correctly, at least 12 of the 86 proposed amendments included an updated and expanded list of the seven principles. As DebJ noted previously, updating and including the principles was also one of the most active conversations before the amendment window opened.
Clearly, including the principles as something other than a historical footnote or transitional stage was important to many people. I particularly appreciated amendment #49 offered by Welch (and in slightly different form by others), which updated the principles and added the 8th. I am saddened to see that rather than prioritize an amendment which would allow us to discuss and vote on whether we want an updated version of the principles that includes all voices within our association, the board and moderators offer only this amendment (#61) which situates the principles as an historical footnote to which some of us still cling.
I encourage folks to read Welchâs amendment and compare it what is offered here.
The other 71 proposed amendments were reposted since I first wrote this, so the following no longer applies: [Unfortunately, it appears that the 71 proposed amendments that did not make the prioritized list have been removed from the discuss.uua.org website. At least I cannot find them, so I cannot add a link to the alternate proposals. I am mystified by their removal if the goal of this forum is open discussion.]
I wish more comments were suggesting adding the 8th to the existing 7 as part of the insert to the proposed language. Several amendments included the 8th but they did not get prioritized.
1 Like
Well said. Thank you for sharing this observation.
I also find it surprising and frustrating that the board did not select another amendment involving the principles. I submitted one, #10, that added an 8th principle and some language about love in place of the values/covenant statements which I find less poetic and spiritual. It had support within in my congregation and in the small group discussion sponsored by the UUA in May on this section. I am not sure how to proceed when we vote⌠I wish we could vote on each subsection individually, that would tell us how much people actually like the new values/covenant language vs. voting for it because people feel like they have no vote. Disappointed and wish the Moderator would explain why an amendment along these lines is not allowed.
FYI, this is the draft UUFMC Statement about Amendment 61:
We do not agree with nesting an historical document inside a new document in order to placate those who still want the 7 Principles. For those people, the essence of the 7 principles needs to be found within the language of this new document in order for it to have its own worth. Historical references should be separate. We recommend that this amendment not be used.
If any version of the 7 Principles were to be included, we would recommend that it REPLACE the Covenants Section. For example, Amendment #83 appears to address the Commissionâs Charge and therefore could actually REPLACE the Covenants. Then the only work that would remain would be to decide whether to add a summary and/or separate brief Section of Values.
2 Likes
@rholmgren , @member1990 's amendment is still here. The site is getting a bit cumbersome to try to navigate around, though!
Amendment 49 to Article II - Proposed by Julie Welch - General Assembly 2023 / Prioritized Article II Amendments - UUA General Assembly Business
I think thatâs a misreading to say âThis will be a TEST of whether, or how, we can love alike or think differentlyâ â open discussion seeking to understand context, dear Jerry, is what weâre doing in this conversational process. Itâs appropriate to contextualize the meaning as each of us as delegates see it, and to dialogue with one another. Iâm not sure I agree yet for instance. Iâm pondering whatâs needed now and how your amendment reads in the context of the full Article II (which I need to review). The person who commented earlier has their own perspective. Itâs not a âtestâ to my eye â itâs a chance to respectfully dialogue with one another â being and thinking differently as you mention, and loving alike with the richness of our differences. 
light and care and love to you and your dear ones and us all and our dear, challenged world.
1 Like
@KLusignan Thank you. They werenât there when I looked last night. They now appear on the prioritized amendment page below the line that indicates new content added since my last visit to the site. My guess is I had the misfortune of looking while the site maintainers were trying to clean things up to make the volume of material more manageable. I do not envy them.
1 Like
My proposed amendment #10 does the same thing, replace values/covenant, but includes an 8th principle and statement about love as those were highlighted in the charge. I will look up #83, thank you for mentioning it.
@KathyKerns
Kathy. Thank you for pointing to your proposed amendment, which was not included in many earlier lists of amendments centered on the seven principles. I believe 17 (20%) of the 85 amendments proposed by June 5 included some version of the seven principles. Please let me know if I miss any such proposed amendments in the categorization below:
Five amendments including this one were nearly identical and included the principles for historical context, which is a formulation that does not work for me, since it has the unintended effect of minimizing their importance to so many of us:
#58 Patrick Deak
#59 Lurine DeVos
#61 Jan Radoslovic
#66 Pablo deVos-Deak
#84 Becky Sandman
Seven included yours modified and expanded the seven principles to address some of the most significant critiques of the current articulation of the principles and include language aligned with the eighth principle. I support including something along the lines of one of these in a revised article II and hope we can discuss and vote on at least one of these in the mini-assembly:
#10 Kathy Kearns
#41 Dick Burckhart
#49 Julie Welch
#78 Marsha Bates
#79 Chris Stotler
#83 Linda Richardson
#85 Lynn Wagner
Five amendments proposed including the principles in their current form without addressing the eighth principle and our evolution as a denomination or placing them in their historical context. I do not support these amendments and suggest that anyone holding this view simply vote no to continuing the Article II revision process:
#2 - Kenneth Button
#3 - Eric Burch
#9 - Merridy McDaniel
#29 Jim Hall
#44 Nancy Henley
@rholmgren I have sometimes not been able to get to that earlier list because even though I clicked on an appropriate heading, the âprioritizedâ filter was still on. Sometimes you have to go back to all the headings and check what is still âactivated,â as it were.
@rholmgren your list seems very clear. Iâm not able to check right now to see if you omitted any, but I agree with two changes that I think many others would also support and wonder if you might draft up a friendly amendment to THIS proposal incorporating them, in collaboration with folks on this thread, to submit to the Commission to consider before this amendment is proposed for discussion (if none of the others replace it). From a recent Facebook post, it sounds like no friendly amendments will be debated in the limited time at the mini assemblies and during the pro/con line comments, but they should be submitted to the Commission directly:
The Board has decided that to prioritize⌠- UUA Board of Trustees | Facebook
The two changes are (1) to include a reference to the 8th Principle (direct language incorporated, I am assuming) and (2) to include different introductory and/or bridging language that doesnât seem to put the Principles in the past. I agree that this is problematic because it risks implying that âsome peopleâ still draw on the Principles but âall peopleâ move forward with these Values.
I believe a more accurate formulation is that there are large groups of people supporting the language of the Principles and large groups of people supporting the language of the Values. I understand the desire to move forward with transforming our faith by creating congregations and communities that are more mutually respectful, listening to one another and acting on our promises, claims, and intentions.
But my read is that we may be earlier along in this process (if you look at the sum of us) than perceived. The initial draft from the Commission that simply removed most of the âPrinciplesâ language, and the need to edit this for the second draft, I think is an indication. I fear that jumping the gun with language that âpushesâ a desired goal risks playing roulette with whether more people will simply vote the proposal down. Also, I donât agree with politicizing this strategizing too much. Simply trying to override the will of a huge group of people (on either âsideâ) to me is against UU values (or principles).
In our congregation, I think our discernment process for the 8th Principle worked well, allowing people to express concerns and discuss how we might address them in our congregation, and then come along together at our own pace. We didnât get full agreement, but we got a large majority. I would guess that some of the congregations that voted the 8th Principle down didnât engage in this gradual and inclusive a process.
What I would like to see for this amendment is language that is inclusive to âbothâ ways of framing what is important to us and acknowledges this is where we are now. I think some of the forward-looking language, stated as already accomplished, may be premature, but we can maybe get there together during the coming year. I think there are always word choices that can try to emphasize and acknowledge certain traits some people wish to emphasize, without falling into âdealbreakerâ language for other people.
Something that talks about the history of these principles bringing us to this pointâincluding in the 8th Principle with a reference to a grassroots, ongoing movementâand then talks about folding in or including in new language that envisions carrying out a more relational community together-, I believe would be a better âsnapshotâ of where we are now. The 8th Principle itself might be positioned in this bridging language.
I spoke in our last intensive process of collaboration on amendment #51 (then amendments #147 and #51) about the toughest parts of editing being trying to craft words, phrases, or paragraphs that are âJanus-looking.â That is, we may not only be trying to balance potentially conflicting, but valid, considerations, but we are trying to get the language to look in two directions at once.
This entire project has something of that orientation, because indeed, we are talking about Bylaws, and most bylaws are pretty dry and legalistic. But for better or worseâand since it is required to include âpurposeâ in the Bylawsâthis is where our Principles and Sources currently reside. The arguments that talk about leaving the Principles or Sources behind because the Bylaws arenât the place for them, in my view, fail because the Values also fall under this designation. (Indeed, a strictly legalistic interpretation of the language runs into a hitch with all the âcovenants,â which in fact many have pointed to as feeling legalistic and binding.)
This section is particularly Janus-looking because we are trying to look in different directions in a couple of ways.
First, we are trying to include two sets of seemingly competing or at least overlapping/not overlapping ways of framing what is important to us, and the overlapping/not overlapping causes an inherent gap or at least stutter in logic. The language for how to address this is hard to find in the context where Bylaws are supposed to be complete in some way.
Second, we are trying both to look âbackward and forwardâ and look at ânow,â when many of us (far more, in my estimation, than the group of people who arenât comfortable with the 8th Principle goals) simply donât agree on what ânowâ is. Language that is too overtly putting the Principles in the past (even with the attempted qualifying language that they are still important to many UUs) and the Values in the future misses the very important step of Now.
Klunigan-- interesting points.
I agree aby version of the principles should have the 8th principle (mine, #10, is one example, but there are other good examples).
It is not clear to me if the board will entertain any more amendments but I wish they would. It seems a bit too heavy handed that we cannot have a simple amendment about retaining the principles, nor can we vote on subsections of the proposal to express what parts of the proposed revision we like (I do like some of the new language).
1 Like
list is helpful, thanks
@KLusignan
I donât see any straightforward way to amend this amendment (#61) to address my concerns about the way this amendment relegates the principles to the past and to add the eighth principle. Any suggestions I would make would end up making this amendment look much like but not as clear as #49 or #83, both of which incorporate the eighth principle and are intended to serve as a preamble to the proposed values and covenant, as is this amendment (#61). Amendment #49 includes many other edits, which I would welcome, and #83 keeps the current principles and adds the 8th. I welcome suggestions from this community, which has been a fount of great ideas.
2 Likes
Any thoughts about starting a new thread indicating support for Amendment #49 and Amendment #83 being included amongst the prioritized motions?
Iâm not media-savvy and donât even know how to start a new thread on this discussion board (so I just hit âreplyâ). But I fear that all the replies supporting the affirmation and promotion of the 7/8 Principles will be too easy to overlook because they are scattered.
Thoughts?
Good idea but I also could not figure out how to start a new thread!
I think you cannot start a new thread here because this is a sort or filter of âprioritized.â So I think youâd have to create that thread at the bottom of one of other amendments you want to suggest to replace this one (i.e., in the other, earlier listing of amendments, maybe link to it in a comment here?