And no one will be required to use those resources. If they would rather have resources around the 7/8 Principles they can use older resources, or create their own. Or even ask the UUA to create some - if there is enough of a demand I imagine they would work to fill it.
The RE resources around the Article II proposal are there because people created them because there was a demand. You can argue that they should have waited to see if the proposal passed - that’s a fair point. Then again, if someone provided a resource around the seven proposed values but didn’t link it to the Article II proposal would you find any of them objectionable?
We covenant to promote a peaceful world community with liberty and human rights for all. Whenever and wherever possible we will support nonviolent means to achieve peace.
The word promote is not strong enough. It is the only action word in this phrase.
“Commit to take action to promote” , “Step into and take action to promote”, “We demand that the first action taken in any conflict is to promote” , “We covenant to push for a peaceful world community etc…”
Out of Curiosity, has the AIISC weighed in on this? From reading all of the comments above, I’m inclined to vote no, which isn’t to say that I do not want peace. I just think we humans have a tendency to weaponize anything that can be weaponized.
Merriam Webster is a much more frequently used dictionary in my experience. Here are their top 3 definitions:
"1 : a state of tranquility or quiet: such as
a
: freedom from civil disturbance
Peace and order were finally restored in the town.
b
: a state of security or order within a community provided for by law or custom
a breach of the peace
2
: freedom from disquieting or oppressive thoughts or emotions
I have been in perfect peace and contentment—
3
: harmony in personal relations
The sisters are at peace with each other"
Me (Cat) again:
I live in Florida where no one is allowed to teach in our schools anything that might cause others (with an implication in this situation that the others are white "Christians’) to experience disquieting emotions. “Good trouble” is not peaceful. All of us who speak out when we see those in power engage in macroaggression have had the experience of being accused of not being peaceful.
My name is Lóre (rhymes with story) Stevens. I am an ordained UU minister with an MDiv and certificate on Religion, Conflict, and Peace from Harvard University. I encourage you to vote No on this amendment.
Oppressive governments often call for “peace” when what they mean is silence. Peace might be the goal, but it is not a sufficient strategy on its own. Nonviolent resistance, on the other hand, is when a priest illegally burns draft cards to protest the way war burns children. Civil disobedience is when black students expect to be harmed but sit at the lunch counter anyway. And for my peers who are disillusioned even with nonviolent resistance, statistical analysis has found that, across the world, nonviolent strategies are TWICE as effective as violent ones, because nonviolent resistant movement can include people who could not be combatants and then leads to diverse methods of innovative civil disobedience. I encourage all UU individuals and organizations to practice these active, disruptive, powerful, and statistically effective methods of nonviolent disobedience, which work to reduce harm while refusing to cause more of it. However, I encourage you to vote no on this amendment, because the amendment is too proscriptive and peace is not sufficient.
I didn’t have time to speak this during the discussion, but I also recognize that nature is sometimes violent and violence is not always bad. Childbirth is violent. Storms, volcanoes, grief are violent. People who are BDSM or atheletes practice consensual violence. It is actually a lack of consent that’s the problem, not violence itself. And even peace can lack consent.
klsteb2 and Maria,
I appreciate your points. For me the “whenever and wherever possible” approach could mean that that Ukraine should just surrender and not be supported. It is possible to do that. I think it is wrong but it is possible
I’m chiming in here to say that I am uncomfortable with how many concerns are being expressed about the idea of ‘peace’ being weaponized or misused, by people who seem very comfortable with the word ‘justice’ and don’t seem concerned about that concept being misused.
Many people’s conceptualization of justice involves revenge or punishment, people “getting what they deserve.” I hope that is not the vision for many UUs, but I’ve seen it in activist scenes and beyond my entire life. I’ve conflated these ideas myself. We’ve seen it throughout history and in the contemporary death penalty and other examples that are perhaps too gruesome to go into here. I hear people express fantasies about hurting people who have hurt others all the time.
The idea of peace to me is a balancing principle that helps clarify how justice is to be enacted, just as justice can help clarify how love is to be enacted. They can be part of an integral whole.
@anastasia2017 Can I ask if you are concerned about ‘peace’ being weaponized, are you also worried about other values being weaponized?
Thank you so much for your comments. Yes, exactly. Peace happens when we work towards the other values. I believe in riots, disruptions, protests and more! I’m a no on this amendment.
By identifying “peaceful conflict resolution” as what we’re called to do, this amendment makes a fundamental mistake. For me, it feels too much like someone shushing me. MLK sought to bring “the peace which is justice” – If this amendment had said something like “we dedicate ourselves to bringing about the peace which is the presence of justice” I might be persuaded to be in favor. But then it would really be clear that it is redundant with the Justice value statement. I will vote against this amendment.
Peace is good, but peace without justice can be oppressive. We hear that concern. Luckily, we UUs name justice & equity as core values, and we UUs support peace with justice & equity. UUs value peace. My congregation publicly displays a peace pole, and I bet we’re not the only one. We UUs should be up front about how much we value peace. Martin Luther King was clear-eyed about peace. He said “We must pursue peaceful ends through peaceful means.” He said that riots are the voice of the unheard, and he also condemned riots as self-defeating. Let’s honor King’s legacy and endorse peace as one of our core values.
Thank you. My discomfort with talking about peace as a goal is that if we don’t at least try to embody prefigurative practices (doing things in the manner we want them to be done now, not ‘eventually’), then we can probably always find an excuse to put off peace (or any other principle/value) to another day.
The idea of a peaceful state along with a state of wellness and contentment/happiness (for all beings) are the stated goals of loving kindness meditation. For us humans, the goal of peace can be considered as a preference (by policy) for non-violent thoughts to arise first when the person perceives an unexpected event of series of events. Mindfulness is expected to promote non-violent thoughts in the presence on unexpected events. A person’s baseline response to categorize events as either “I like that” or “I do not like that” and then making a quick reaction accordingly (while allowing an interruption to his/her mindfulness state) could be a definition of not having peace (for a short time). Delaying one’s tendency to react quickly (potentially in a very excited or a very angry manner) based on likes or dislikes could be considered moving against the goal of peace. For instance, one’s perception of bad motivations (to explain some person’s behavior in the course of unexpected events) could unreasonable interrupt one’s balanced sense of peace (along with the mindfulness and deliberate action which come with it). Wishing peace towards beings is quite similar to wishing peace, wellness and happiness towards those beings. Stating peace as a UU value would give a nod of gratitude towards those who have introduced the Eightfold Path and loving kindness meditation as suggestions for spiritual practice towards the goal of peace. Maybe the words Peace and Love could be placed together in the middle of the Article II diagram.
I completely makes sense UU seem to always discuss words. I’m not in favor of adding it but it’s the will of the votes. I’ll live with it and find inspiration from the writers here.
No justice, no peace. I think that covers it all. You can have peace with absolutely no justice. To me, justice gives a voice to the folx on the margins.