Seems like almost any value could be weaponized if we assume that they are all going to be used in bad faith and not in alignment with the others. I’m very puzzled by these discussions. I feel like we could object to Generosity because what if it’s weaponized to make the non-wealthy give more of their resources than is fair? Pluralism could be a huge red flag because what if it is weaponized to make us accept fascists or other harmful views. Etc.
2 Likes
I think the intent of this amendment is to have both Justice (already there) and Peace. Right?
I’ve been an activist since I was a Unitarian child. Recently, when I try to speak up for the rights of people with disabilities, for Trans rights, for compassionate treatment of asylum seekers, I have often been shushed, sometimes silenced, often misquoted. I seen this happen to BIPOC as well. When we say “peace,” some people mean “come to our table & follow our rules of nice [not good], and follow our norms whether you know them or not.” Have you read DiAngelo’s book White Fragility?
1 Like
I’m not sure we are reading the same words … or maybe we are interpreting them differently?
I’m not understanding how these clear words: “We dedicate ourselves to peaceful conflict resolution at all levels” and “Whenever and wherever possible we will support nonviolent means to achieve peace” could be interpreted/changed to suggest that “This does not actually make pacifism a core value …” (the words I’m reading suggest exactly that), and the words I’m reading most certainly do not say “that we consider violence a last resort if needed for self-defense, etc.” Where are you seeing these words?
The words of the proposed amendment very clearly read: “We dedicate ourselves to peaceful conflict resolution at all levels,” which, based on the input from BIPOC UUs, clearly discourages other forms of conflict resolution (directly making pacifism a core value).
They also very clearly read: “Whenever and wherever possible we will support nonviolent means to achieve peace,” so I’m not understanding where you’re finding wording about ‘a last resort,’ and/or ‘if needed for self-defense.’
I do think we can all come to different conclusions about whether or not we support the amendment as written, but I hope we can respond to the words as they are written, in our efforts to share our thoughts and information about the proposal.
Just a gentle reminder: the purpose of this particular discussion thread is to offer space to reflect on the proposed “Peace as a UU Value” amendment.
@zoehart and @Kitty – I’m finding it unclear how these particular posts/replies pertain to the topic at hand: a discussion of the proposed “Peace as a UU Value” amendment. Would love to hear your thoughts on what Article II (current and proposed) means to you; theme-based worship; RE resource materials; and/or supports for congregations re: retaining the 7/8 principles – on other threads pertaining to those topics. Thanks for contributing to these conversations!
Complicated, this was part of a thread from back in April that got a little bit off-topic! All connected with Peace ultimately
“We dedicate ourselves to peaceful conflict resolution at all levels.
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.”
I read this as coming out of the long liberal religious tradition of opposition to war and the aspiration for a world without (or with less) catastrophic violence and destruction, and to nonviolent resistance in the tradition of the SCLC and other movements. Our Second Principle aspires to “Peace, Equity and Justice” in human relations. Notwithstanding the fact that some UUs do not always behave well and that white fragility is a real problem, I find it hard to trace a direct line from these ideas, from aspirations to peace and nonviolent resistance, to mean people trying to silence or control others unjustly. 
I heard her presentation at a previous GA and hated it. She is a racist who wants to pretend that everyone else is, also, and I was appalled that her book was published by Beacon Press, which has done so much better.
I’ve been continuing to reflect on this whole process, and thinking of a key distinction that was made in a college text years ago -
peacekeeping: Preventing violence or friction from breaking out or escalating, if it does, taking swift action to suppress the conflict - this is what police do.
peacemaking: Exploring and mediating conflict to seek a solution acceptable to both/all parties.
peacebuilding: Creating/cultivating systems that support peacemaking and generally support a culture in which all people’s needs are met/ conflict is avoided not through suppression but through mutually agreeable arrangements.
What I think I’m hearing in these discussions is that for some people, the term ‘peace’ automatically connotates peacemaking and/or peacebuilding, while for others it connotates peacekeeping. I can say for myself that I see the problems with peacekeeping, and am an advocate for peacemaking and peacebuilding. I used to be totally opposed to peacekeeping as I saw it as a suppression of conflict instead of a healthy resolution of conflict, but I now think there is a time and a place for it.
@ElaineBall Does this speak to your questions about feeling like you’re getting radically different meaning from the words than others?
1 Like
When the statement of conscience, Creating Peace, was finalized at GA2009 in Salt Lake City, the title was deliberately chosen because of the technical meanings of peacekeeping and peacemaking. Mac Goekler was very involved in the Commission on Social Witness at the time, IIRC, maybe chairperson? moderator of e-mail list? The wording of this amendment is very clearly chosen, much as Mac’s well-scripted presentations today.
I have voted to approve this amendment.
2 Likes
I was just going back and reading your comments over the past number of months and noticed that you had already brought in this distinction - between the first two anyway. Nice to see a meeting of the minds in that way.
To refer back to the amendment, “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.”
I’m having trouble understanding how this could be interpreted to mean or include police “taking swift action to suppress conflict.” The Police do not use nonviolent means but often employ wanton violence to suppress protest, as we have seen with Occupy, BLM and most recently the student encampments. This amendment is coming out of a long liberal religious tradition of peacemaking and peacebuilding, and apsiring to a world without so much catastrophic violence and destruction. It’s in our current Second Principle, but it feels to me like an omission that the word does not appear anywhere in the A2 draft.
I feel like this discussion has strayed quite a bit from the spirit and intent of the language (and the stated rationale) as folks are focusing instead on the ways that the word “Peace” could ever possibly be used (twisted?) to go against UU values.
2 Likes
Your mind is made up. That is your choice…
I operate from the other side of this frame. I was speaking from my own experience and from directly witnessing the treatment of others.
In any case, voting is closed now.
1 Like
I noticed that just after posting it, apologies!
Yes, @Meagan_F this clarified so much! Thank you for sharing the many different ways ‘peace’ can be interpreted, how connotations have impacted how people have been thinking about the language of the proposed amendment. Of course now that it has not received the votes necessary to add it to the proposed Article II revisions, this conversation is mostly moot, but I do appreciate your thoughtful clarifications.
1 Like
I’m finding it unclear myself. That’s a response to a different post on a different topic. I have no idea how it ended up in this discussion of Peace as a value. Which, though I hadn’t posted before, I am totally in favor of. How can we in this war torn world, with new nukes being created by Russia and China (who may join together making them the biggest arsenal) and the US, possibly want to remove Peace from our values. (I hope this comment doesn’t end up on the page I tried to post that other comment.
1 Like
If the amendment said ‘restorative justice’ rather than ‘peaceful conflict resolution’ my feelings might be different. But even then, in the next bit I’d rather it said ‘promote a just world community’ and ‘achieve the peace which is the presence of justice’ – But all of that is redundant of the current art2 draft isn’t it?
1 Like
Hi James,
I’m going to take a healthy risk here and say “Ouch.” I imagine this is in part due to text-based communication not carrying tone of voice, but when I read your words that you’re having trouble understanding how peace could be interpreted to mean suppression of conflict, it lands as dismissive of the real experiences people are sharing here about having had the language of peace used to silence them or avoid conflict.
While I support(ed) this amendment, would have liked to see it pass, and find it unfortunate that people have these predominantly negative connotations with the word peace, the way I see forward is mutual understanding of what the barriers are to agreeing on language.
There has been a lot of discussion in all of these forums about how the different values, proposed and otherwise, balance each other or work together. I think it would be helpful if proponents of the amendments could bring in some of the values like love and compassion to empathize with the experience of people who have these negative connotations.
For me it is not hard to understand why a lived experience of not being listened to and told to keep your feelings to yourself for the sake of peace is more personally relevant than historical understandings of a word, but this is my bias as somebody with some education in neuroscience. Those lived emotional experiences form memories via our amygdala, which is a much more effective way of forming memories - that’s why we can remember vivid details of emotional moments in our lives much better than things we learned by rote in school (or an RE class about a church’s history).
Part of me wants to say this is a place where we need to integrate reason (analyzing words within context) and compassion/love (meeting people where they are with empathy even if they may be inferring unintended meaning). But I also think it’s very “reason”-able to consider how emotions work and opinions are formed in a way informed by what we know about brains.
3 Likes