@KathyKerns From the latest language, it sounded to me like the Commission wants the friendly amendments submitted directly to them, but I also don’t know what is happening at the mini assembly vis a vis the “This is not a final list” part of the statement. I am only an alternate delegate so not attending though I will do my best to watch the sessions that are available to view.
I don’t like relegating our 7 principles to history but it is better than losing the centrality of these important principles which have drawn so many of us to this faith. I would have preferred if the board’s charge would have suggested using the current Article II as the basis but encouraged some modernizing of the language to engage the younger generations and otherwise improve. Now that opportunity will have to wait some years.
1 Like
What I find difficult in this amendment (#61) is the first sentence after of the statement of principles:
“These principles remain important to the identity, moral orientation, and spiritual journey for many Unitarian Universalists,”
As a friendly amendment, I suggest deleting this sentence which suggests these principles are not important to or they are dismissed by other UUs. Perhaps that is true, but I know that many members of my congregation, including me, would feel dismissed if that statement is included in the bylaws. Including this sentence would also cause me to wonder, who among us does not affirm and promote these principles, and why is that so?
2 Likes
I regret you have misunderstood the use of the word historical, which perhaps in retrospect I should have avoided. I am the author of the original language. Historical was meant to acknowledge the long-standing role these principles have had in Unitarian Universalism, but after listing them I clearly state they remain deeply important to many UU’s and I state why. They are central to our spiritual practice (in our hymns, in our RE curriculum), they offer a moral framework (a perspective on value and a good way of living), and they are central to identity (we write about them and put them on our walls and little cards and to hand out to newcomers). I don’t believe they are sufficient, we are more, we can entertain new language, but we should not abandon powerful ideas that have served us well. It is not an historical document. They are relevant and active in my life and I believe that is so for many UU’s.
1 Like
The use of “historical” in the proposed amendment seems appropriate to the intent. However, when cast in this historical context, the implications of “many” in the sentence that follows the statement of principles feels dismissive of those like me for whom the principles are central to our identities as UUs. It suggests we are relics clinging to the past when the rest of the denomination has moved on. Perhaps that is true, but calling it out in this way is unnecessarily hurtful and divisive.
Rather than suggesting deleting “many,” which would be my preference, I suggest deleting that entire sentence, since that deletion would likely be more broadly acceptable. The proposed amendment would then read:
This change retains the principles as foundational while acknowledging the need to expand the vision and calling.
2 Likes
@jrad2023
Jan,
Please consider asking the article II study commission to make the friendly amendment suggested above: Delete the sentence immediately below the principles, “These principles remain important to the identity, moral orientation and spiritual journey for many Unitarian Universalists.” Alternatively, please delete “many” from this sentence.
Thank you for considering this request.
1 Like
Jerry, I saw in the Mini Assembly that you regret including the word, “historical”. I think you and Jan could email the Article II Study Commission and ask for that to be included as a friendly amendment as you are the original author.
Personally I am comfortable and happy with moving from the principles to the proposed values and covenants. The principles don’t go away and any congregation can continue to lift them up. They are just no longer the language we use to define what congregations must uphold in order to be a member congregation in our association. For me, the new values and covenants speak more powerfully to what UUism means than the principles ever did. I grew up with the principles and have valued them greatly, but I find the proposed values and covenants resonate with me more deeply and I’m ready for this change.
1 Like
I would support a better word than historical if someone could come up with it. I think Jan would have to email the Commission since she submitted the amendment. I did message her explaining I was concerned “historical” was being misconstrued. I’'ll follow up with her on your suggestion about emailing the Commission.
1 Like
Jan - Not sure you saw my personal message to you so posting it here. A Lynn Wagner
on Discuss.org has just suggested you or I email the Commission explaining how the word historical has been misconstrued or substituting language as a friendly amendment. I think if that is to be done you would have to do that as the person submitting the amendment. As I said before, I just couldn’t think of a better word when I wrote it. Maybe “Foundational Principles” would work as the title, and just move the sentence currently after the list of principles to the top. Something like this: “Historically, the member congregations of the Unitarian Universalist Association covenanted to affirm and promote the following seven principles. They remain central to the identity, moral orientation and spiritual journey for Unitarian Universalists.” (Then omit that sentence after the list of course and go on to the sentence "Evolving… etc.) Your call. Again, thanks for picking up on my earlier suggestion and running with it. Jerry.
What about replacing “historical” with “foundational” and taking out the word, “Historically” or replacing it with “Foundationally”? I got the word “foundational” from Rick Holmgren’s comment above.
1 Like
Would you be willing to accept a friendly amendment that moves the list from C-2.2 (Values & Covenant) to Inspirations C-2.3?
This historical perspective seems to belong in inspirations for us at 1st UU society in Newton MA.
Greetings All: I am carefully reading your comments. After presentation and pro/con discussion at GA Session II, I will consider all your suggestions. The only friendly amendment that I have a concern about is moving the Principles to Inspirations, which I feel would be buried there and not have the bridging/linking effect of the current position between the Purposes and Values/Covenant sections. Also, there are Amendments about the Inspirations/Sources, that if accepted, could also make it problematic for the 7 Principles to fit in that section.
I agree with you Linda R. I also feel the A2SC spoke well to con for this amendment. I’m also no as they didn’t include the 8th.
I feel like the con speakers were very persuasive and I’m finding myself agreeing with them. Even the pro speakers are convincing me of a no on this one. I wonder if they even read the charge of the A2SC “The Commission is charged with reviewing all sections of Article II, and is free to revise, replace, or restructure them as needed to meet the objectives stated above. There is nothing sacred about the number of principles or sources, nor their specific wordings, nor in the way that Article II is laid out. We encourage creativity. The Board would like to see an Article II that is inspirational, memorable and poetic. The language should be inclusive and welcoming, and explicitly anti-racist.”
1 Like
A comment was made about a earlier rewrite of Article II. (1985?) That rewrite changed “he” pronouns to gender-inclusive words, added the 7th principle, and numbered the principles. The rewrite updated and expanded the previous version, but did not toss everything out and start from scratch.
2 Likes
Though Mr. Ambrose spoke eloquently about making a break from the current principles and embracing the new values espoused in the proposed Article II, I think this approach risks the alienation of thousands of current UUs. While I support the progressive goals the proposed Article II seems to be reaching for, I do not think tossing out the beloved principles that most of us cherish is the way to do that. To be frank, by dumping the 7 principles and adopting the proposed article II without them we are “getting way out over our skis” as an association. Therefore I support the amendment.
4 Likes
You make the “charge” seem like it came from God or something. The UUA issued the charge. That doesn’t make it scripture.
3 Likes
That assumes we are leaving the 7 principles behind, which is the crux of the issue. MANY of us do not want to do that.
1 Like
Unitarian Universalists of Canada have approved an eighth principle:
We, the member congregations of the Canadian Unitarian Council, covenant to affirm and promote: Individual and communal action that accountably dismantles racism and systemic barriers to full inclusion in ourselves and our institutions.
I don’t think the principles should be within our By-Laws. On the other hand, I would like to suggest that the UUA consider adopting this new principle in keeping with your Canadian neighbours.
Mollie Twidale
Delegate, First Unitarian Church of Victoria
2 Likes