Amendment 68 to Article II - Proposed by Edward Wilson

General Assembly 2023 Prioritized Article II Amendments
, , ,
21

As I look at all of these comments for the very first time, I find myself wondering if we’re splitting the wrong hairs here. When I talk to people about UU, about the “covenant to affirm and promote,” I talk in terms of behavior. In short, I really don’t care what you believe. I care how you behave. “Deeds, not creeds.” So as we wrestle with this idea of who we do or do not welcome in our midst, could we potentially solve the problem by dropping any language of “sharing” or “embracing” or “exploring” UU values/beliefs, and rather use language of behavior, which creates expectations that preserve our right as congregations to disengage with someone who is dangerous, hostile, disruptive or harmful to others, but does not create any other standard by which we might exclude people?

Perhaps it’s as simple as replacing the word “share” with the word “respect.” Respect our values, even if you don’t agree with them or aren’t yet sure if you share them?

5 Likes
22

respect could work; other suggestions have included want to explore and similar phrases.

23

I like the amendment as proposed. However, there are some questions about not being truly inclusive, etc.
I find that the words…willing to explore, or who share our values …can be interpreted as restrictive. Also, I think that just to say 'welcome to all" is weak.

However, I would be open to the following change:
line 54: an association of congregations tht truly welcomes all persons to embrace UU values in their own search for truth and meaning.
embrace is a strong word that connotes action, in other words to get your arms around a matter and struggle.

24

This improves this addition. I was very concerned that who ‘share our values’ could be used by the overly zealous to exclude people rather than truly welcome them. This wording is gentler and less likely to be exclusionary. I would further prefer to drop the word ‘will’ so it reads “persons who embrace UU values in their own search for truth and meaning.”

1 Like
25

The clock is ticking towards the mini-assembly as I write this. Can the wording be changed AT the mini-assembly, to remove the concept of “embracing” our values? If not, I’m stuck with a Hobson’s Choice of voting for this as written, because it is better than the proposed revision, but still on the controlling side.

26

Thank you for this amendment. I was very concerned about the implied meaning that congregations would be encouraged/enabled to EXCLUDE those who don’t preemptively share all UU values. And by values, do we mean UU culture as it is at the time (now or in the future) or do we mean whatever ends up codified in Article II? Exclusion goes against the UU value of radical hospitality. How are people to learn of our values, have time consider their value, and see them in (imperfect) action if they are not first unconditionally welcomed?

2 Likes
27

I don’t really understand the objection to language that speaks to the values we share. That has, as I understand it, always been the purpose of Article II. While we are each on our own journeys to search for truth and meaning, UUism is not a “believe anything you want” faith. It has always been the case that you have to support the principles and now you need to share the values. Without language like this in Article II, there is, in my mind, no shared understanding of what UUism is as a faith community.

28

I dislike the wording on #68 and complicates and actually makes it less welcoming. I agree with Paula Cole Jones con statement in general session iii.

29

@zoehart

Even if you don’t understand the objection, do you object or agree with this option:

This wording includes both Values, as desired by the Commission, and search for truth and meaning, which is suggested by Amendment 68.

Can we come to compromise?

1 Like
30

@trovatore and other proponents of this and other amendments that were opposed by the Commission and voted down at GA, I heard that this part of the Discuss site will be locked on Tuesday.
This is just to let you know that Blue Boat Passengers, the lay-led public Facebook group for discussing Article II and GA, will remain open for commenting a couple weeks longer. It will still be visible for viewing as a public record afterwards. Note: During the remaining time, people may use the group to coordinate for the 15-congregation amendment process if they wish to do so.

Anyone who wishes to comment there may, but please be sure to review the rules and the announcement about the planned suspension of the group before commenting. Thanks very much.
Blue Boat Passengers: Info & Constructive Discussion re Article II, etc. | Announcement: This group will soon be suspended | Facebook

31

Updated: Here are some comments about the 15-congregation amendment process, from someone who used to be on the GA Planning Committee:

"“Unlike how the amendment process was run for this GA (ie at the discretion of the moderators and board), the process you’ve mentioned is bylaw and subject to little to no interpretation. I wouldn’t wait however. You need to get the petition from the UUA Board Secretary in the next couple weeks, and you have to have it turned Into the Board before February 1st.”

“You don’t even have to have a congregational vote. You just have to get their board to sign off.”
“ETA: IMPORTANT NOTE!!!
You HAVE to check the bylaws of the local congregation. There are congregations scattered thru the entire Association who DO NOT let their Boards sign off on such a proposal and REQUIRE it to be a Congregational vote.”

32

Hi @trovatore,

I wonder whether you would be open to further discussion of the ideas in these posts?

I’ve been thinking more about what might facilitate a constructive Amendment process - both during the next 6 months and the additional 6 months before the next GA.

It seems difficult to tease out whether folks who voted or wanted to vote NO just “need to get used to the new language,” or whether they have substantive concerns which, if understood by the Commission, might or might not be addressed. It seems possible that the new language does not express the new ideas clearly enough so that they can be understood and embraced in the way they were intended.

It’s great that we have a lot of ideas for specific wording changes, and that the Commission can look at and consider those ideas. But it would also help to express things in general terms. If both the Commission and the folks who voted NO on the Revision package could express their respective remaining concerns in general terms, I think that would facilitate constructive work for both groups.

A list of 4 examples of this can be seen on my post under the umbrella category “Preliminary List,” but here I’ll just focus on my concern about your Amendment, number 68.

For the Inclusion Section, no Amendment passed, but about 20% voted YES for Amendment 68 (welcome persons who embrace UU values and their own search for truth and meaning)

I probably need to go back to listen to the CON line comments. Do people object to the word “embrace” instead of “share”? Is there a concern that by adding the phrase “their own search for truth and meaning” we somehow water down the phrase “UU values”? Is it possible that folks didn’t read the Amendment clearly? Afterall it does include both the phrase “UU values” AND “their own search for truth and meaning.”

I keep on thinking that all of the discussion about Amendment 68 on discuss.uua.org show both that this is an important issue and that there are many different ideas for addressing it.

But unless I understand the Commission’s objections better, it is difficult for me to come up with additional ideas to address them.

Thanks for “listening!” I hope you, the Commission, and the people who voted or wanted to vote NO on the package will consider expressing concerns in a general format similar to the above, in order to facilitate a constructive process.

33

Hi @klstebw, @Klusignan,

. I think that we had healthy and meaningful discussions on-line among the small group of delegates that participated prior to the presentations on the floor at the general meeting. For my part at 86 years old, I was somewhat clumsy in addressing the podium on-line when #68 came up.
My feeling is that it was difficult for most of us who tried to improve what we felt were limitations or restrictions in some of the wording as presented by the Art. II committee.
I still feel that way. However, it is difficult to get words that mean the same to everybody.
Also, the committee folks did an excellent job not only in drafting this new language which is more comfortable to the new generations of UU’s.
We can now live with this for a time and see if we will want to address what we believe will be improvements when the next GA occurs in 2024. In the meanwhile, if there is energy, I am willing to work with you all to be ready for the next GA.

Thank you for your heartfelt interest in bringing UU values forward.

By the way…trovatore is Italian for wanderer, searcher…my apologies to the Sufy poet

2 Likes
34

@trovatore , thanks for your reply. I have heard that the translation of that “wanderer” poem is not very accurately attributed!

Please note that there has been a Slack group set up already by another delegate who wants to continue the conversation. I’ll post the link below.

Folks can also continue to view what gets posted in the Facebook group (lay-led) Blue Boat Passengers even if they are not on Facebook because it is a public and open group, and after it is suspended, we will not delete or archive it but keep it open for viewing. There is a specific post now for people wishing to coordinate about the 15-congregation amendment process.

Given the paucity of amendments that were actually brought forward and the way the Commission opposed some, I do not personally have confidence that this final stage represented real consent and participation by the congregations as had been expected.

We have to wait and see what the coming year brings–but as Donald has pointed out if people want to try to bring their amendments forward using the 15-congregation approach, they cannot wait until close to GA 2024, but need to start now. Hope this helps.

I found it distressing that, with all its claims of inclusiveness and centering marginalized voices, that a senior speaker was cut off while still presenting. I believe that was you but am not sure. I am certainly not getting up there with you in years yet, but already vintage, and I know there are changes in how we process and present language as we age. If you were the speaker who was cut off, I am sorry for that and wish the facilitator would have done better.

35

@trovatore , here is the information about the Slack group that was posted by @cdenario. If they have time in the next 45 or so minutes, maybe they can include a little explanation on their post about how Slack works and step by step what people need to do to join.

(For anyone who tries to join Slack but fails, this is being run by @cdenario and someone else, but will also try to post instructions later in the Facebook group, Blue Boat Passengers, cited above, for how to join if you have problems.)

cdenarioChristine Denario

22h

Here’s an idea, although I’m just experimenting with the free version of this app. It’s called Slack, and it’s supposed to be a collaborative workspace app. I’ve created a group called Article 2 Amendment Work Group in Slack, but I don’t know if the link will work or not. Try it, and see if you can join:
UU Article 2 Amendment Work Group
I think I have a free 90-day trial on this…that should be enough to get anyone who wants to work on amendments to be considered at GA 2024 to at least get started until we find a more permanent way to communicate with one another.
It’s worth a shot, right?
Christine