I appreciate your comments here Maria. My ancestors are disruptors and that sometimes means throwing a brick. As a BIPOC, I have found some white folks sometimes weaponize language around peace as a way of silencing, tone policing or even judging resistance to all kinds of oppression. So I am not in favor of peace being added.
If you want peace, work for justice, equity and generosity and all the other values in A2 we will have peace. Multiple other BIPOC UUs agreed at the spring Caucus I just attended on A2 agreed or stated themselves that white UUs weaponize peace to silence/tone police BIPOC UUs.
I agree with those who disagree. Peace is a complicated concept. It seems lovely to a straight, white, middle-aged, hippie like me. But if you spend any amount of time talking to people who don’t look or identify as I do about what upsets them, you’ll inevitably hear about calls for a peaceful resolution to disputes or complaints about disrupting the peace as a way to casually dismiss the perfectly valid arguments and protests being made by people who have every right to be angry. I think peace is great as a standalone idea, but it’s true that the word is often weaponized to silence dissenting voices. It’s true that peace is no longer mentioned in Article II, but love is. In fact, love is at the center of it all. For an old hippie like me, that’s just fine.
One of the ways I look at these amendments is to ask how do they tell someone about what we as a community (with LOTS of relatives) care about. Parts of an amendment may not speak specifically to me as an individual, but does it fit as a member of a community? Think of that bumper sticker “Whirled Peas”…maybe that really personifies the chaos around ‘peace’. When I was little (and I am now an old hippie), I would pray for world peace… especially at Christmas). But even for a child there was an existential anxiety about un-peace. And un-peace is different for different people at different times. Yes, I remember the fenced in holding pen for protesters at the Democratic convention and I acknowledge the current efforts to restrict descent. But I think Peace is a value and achieving it is messy.
I am not sure this is a good idea? On paper, I want the UUA to work for peace. Outside of UU, who doesn’t want world peace? Everyone wants world peace. No one says a person has to be UU to want World Peace. I have several buttons at home from the Plowshares Organization. Plowshares are a Catholic organization dedicated to peace, because the Bible has the passage about “turn these swords into plowshares.” I think doing this would put UU children in a difficult situation though? I don’t know about UU girls, but, UU boys might have to come in conflict with their faith, and their requirement by law to register for the draft when they become 18? I don’t know if that is still in play, but, registering for the draft is one thing I had to do when I became 18. It opens the door to financial aid.
A scenario is that a UU boy wants to go to college. They scored a perfect score on their SAT. They got admitted into the school they want. Their parents don’t make enough to afford tuition. So, the boy signs up with the Army or the Marines, and they will help cover the costs through the GI Bill. If the peace amendment passes, the fact that that a person has signed up to an organization that is dedicated to killing, because he can go to higher education, I’m not sure it’s healthy for an 18 year old to get a knock at his door asking to choose his faith or the military , but you can only have one? That presents a situation for the kid that they will have a lose lose situation, because neither option is a net gain.
Apart from that, June is Pride Month. It is the month that has other anniversaries. June 6, which is tomorrow, is the anniversary of D-Day when the Allied Expedition Force captured the beaches at Normandy and the long road to winning WWII for democracy against Nazi aggression started. June 26, is the anniversary when President Kennedy stood at the Berlin Wall and declared “Ich bin ein Berliner.” June 12, is when President Reagan said, “tear down this wall.” A concern is if the peace amendment passes, then the UUA pulls out of its UN or other humanitarian organizations like UUSJ? Another idea is that Military chaplains go to war for the military, then that violates our faith. And the dismantling of UU Chaplains begins. The wording says “no one is obligated to pacifism,” and yet all it takes is for the right people to get into a position where they can twist the meaning. How would that be checked? That needs to be answered before it is enshrined. I’m concerned we could take baby steps to withdrawing from the world. I want us to not do that and be able to engage in the world, because that’s how our UU values will be set forth.
I don’t think joining the military is anti-peace at all. The primary purpose of having a military is deterrence. We don’t want war, so we have a military. In a perfect world there would be no need for armies. In this world, those not protected by a military, or allies with a strong military, are vulnerable to terrible injustices (i.e. Palestinians are not permitted to have their own armed forces per the Oslo Accords).
I like this amendment. Peace is a value we strive for, although we all know we will not see it fully realized in our lifetime. Just like justice.
We have UU chaplains in the military, and this amendment will not change that. The goal of world peace is included in the current Article II, and none of the scenarios that you describe actually happened, at least not in any substantial way (there may be some individual cases of which I am unaware, and certainly with our diverse views, interpretations may vary).
I understand your concern, I am not trying to minimize it, but simply to point out that having Peace as a value is simply a lens to look through; although any wording can be weaponized by people with the intent of doing so (look at the use of “antisemitism”: those who criticize the government of Israel are often called antisemitic by supporters of that government, even if they are Jewish themselves and admirers of Jewish culture and religion).
When I love, it comes out sometimes as anger. Anger is not peace. To have peace as a value would counter and dismiss Justice and Equity. In 2023, the builders asked “peace for Who”? In the struggle for justice, we follow peaceful assembly, however we are in a culture of attention and sometimes choices are not peace to get attention, such as a Peaceful March - with signs that point out to where we do not have peace. When I was 5, a neighborhood kid tried to shoot my eye out with his bb gun. My dad got the gun, and broke it over his knee and he yelled at the parents. It was not peace. It was the right response. Justice and love. Peace is found in the other wisdoms. Vote no on this amendment.
In my reading, your father speaking with the other child’s parents and getting rid of the weapon was a nonviolent response, with the goal of peace. No hostility going forward. As opposed to retaliation, or escalation.
The article II revision defines justice as inherently peaceful - we work to be beloved communities where all thrive. Justice is not the opposite of peace; it’s the goal.
I am leaning toward voting against this amendment. I particularly have concerns with the second sentence which says we’ll support nonviolence means to achieve peace. What is meant by nonviolence?
For instance - for some a protest would not be considered nonviolent if it includes property damage, trespassing, disruption of traffic and similar actions.
Additionally, peace can be achieved without liberty and human rights for all - in fact ‘keeping the peace’ often results in some people’s liberties being curtailed.
If liberty and human rights are the goals of this amendment, I feel these can be achieved through living out the values already listed in the revised Article II.
It WAS peace—violence would have been to take the gun and shoot the neighborhood kid. People can be righteously angry without resorting to violence, without “any eye for an eye until everyone is blind”, but also without simply yielding to what is wrong. Breaking an inanimate object and yelling are appropriate responses.
Well, kind-of—but violence to property, in particular a weapon with at most defensive value, but used for aggression—is far different from violence against a living human being. (Somewhere between, for some, is violence against animals, but I am reminded that early violence against animals is a warning sign for psychological disturbance/psychopathy.)
A couple of decades ago, KKK and White Supremacists demonstrated in Ann Arbor, and were confronted by anti-fascists. There was a violent confrontation, and people were injured.
I spoke to our UU congregation about the importance of attending and demonstrating our values. The following year they came back, and this time our UU congregation had helped organize peace-keepers. I still have a vivid memory of our minister at that time, on the front lines holding up a fence barricade to separate the brick throwing anti-fascists from the White Supremacists.
Peace in action, and UUs in action!
If we’re going to be anti-racist, and pursue social justice, we also need to adopt the principle of Peace and Non-violence.
It’s basic and fundamental to what we believe as UUs, so we should definitely pass this amendment.
In addition to reaffirming UUs historic commitment to peace, the amendment also adds to the Bylaws for the first time progressive support for “human rights” at a time when innocent civilians have become targeted victims of war crimes in Africa, Europe and the Middle East.
There is no need to remove the longstanding Bylaws commitment to peace in order to continue and expand the UU commitment to anti-racism, LGBTQ+ and other human rights.
The amendment applies to “all levels.” In addition to racial conflict in the US, “whenever and wherever possible” we favor peace at the international level, within our congregations, in personal relations with others and within ourselves.
The current UUA Bylaws commitment to peace
has not prevented UUs from defending against and denouncing racist and homophobic aggressors,
has not prevented No Justice No Peace advocacy for “any means necessary" to end racism
has not prevented afflicting the comfortable by calling members to account for failure to act on their professed moral commitments
Instead of repudiating our historic commitment, Vote to Keep Peace a UU Value,
Article II has always been a definition of who we are as a faith denomination. And it’s important to note that Article II is not the UUA telling us, as congregations and congregants, what to do or believe. Article II, which we vote on, is us telling the UUA what we want our faith to be. The charge to the Commission on Article II was based on a vote of GA delegates, not some vision of UUA leadership.
And theme-based worship? That’s a choice of each congregation. A resource available for congregations to use or not use as they choose. Not something being forced on anyone. Our Society has, I think, found it a positive change. Our ministers over the years have sometimes chosen different themes from those suggested and have always felt free to preach on what they feel called to preach, even when it didn’t meld with the theme. It’s not a requirement or a rigid structure. Just a resource and an opportunity.
While peace may be controversial, non-violence (whenever possible) should not be. Disturbance and protest can be peaceful by the commonly understood use of the word, but if people object, there is literally zero reason to object to a non-violence inclusion. “Whenever and wherever possible, we will support nonviolent means to achieve peace”. Peace should be the aim, and the no justice no peace argument is that justice is a fundamental requirement of peace.
The problem with violence is, even if supposedly restorative, it creates injustice, too, that can almost never be fully healed. It is self defeating. Someone mentioned Gandhi and King as proponents of nonpeaceful protest - except that is based on how some are choosing to interpret peace and peaceful today. As the word was understood then, they were unabashedly peaceful, and by today’s anachronistic consideration, at the very least non-violent.
The trouble with this being a choice is, all the resource materials for RE will be about the new Article II. Congregations that want to retain the 7/8 Principles will get no support, no resources to tap into.
This is a necessary amendment. I am a snowbird and I promoted sponsorship of this amendment in both my summer and my winter churches. It was unfortunate it was left out of the original revision.
But it is just lipstick on a pig. It may make the Article II Revision less unattractive but it is still a pig.
When it was originally proposed there were 813 amendments offered as I recall. How can a revision be so far off Target? Even with amendments, the Article 2 Revision proposal is deeply flawed and divisive. I suggest we vote yes on the amendment but vote NO on the article 2 revision
We need to go back to the table and seek a less divisive solution.
