I hope the Article 2 Commission will consider a few edits that doesn’t change the meaning but addresses concerns expressed so we can be as inclusive as possible. Perhaps:
As Unitarian Universalists, [we proclaim that] direct experiences of transcending mystery and wonder [are a primary source of inspiration. These experiences] open our hearts, renew our spirits, and transform our lives. We draw upon, and are inspired by, sacred, secular, and scientific [understandings] wisdom that help us make meaning and live into our values. We are mindful of [respect] the histories, contexts, and cultures in which these understandings were created and are currently practiced. These sources ground us and sustain us in ordinary, difficult, and joyous times. Grateful for the experiences that move us, aware of the religious ancestries we inherit, and enlivened by the diversity which enriches our faith, we are called to ever deepen and expand our wisdom.
Oh!!! These (and the rest you suggest) are WONDERFUL friendly edits. Removing that phrase- “a primary source of inspiration” - turns it from false to true for me.
I sure hope the Commission welcomes and incorporated these!!!
I imagine the Covenant team will eventually send it to me, because they don’t really manage how discuss.uua.org is used.
If the proposal is approved and sent to the Commission, the Article II Study Commission will produce a version incorporating the approved amendments. We (the Board) would then post that version on discuss for people to review. People, with similar ideas, would be able to find one another.
I was disappointed the mini assembly was cut very short and did not give any opportunity for straw votes or at least for questions. It was a missed opportunity.
Thanks for this explanation and all your and the Commission’s efforts, Charles!
I realize I may be way off here, but it seems to me that this entire Article II rewrite endeavor is built on the premise that our 7 Principles are at fault for any/all past ethical failures and oppressions. Minimally, this is an unproven premise. Potentially, it is a false and highly divisive premise, because presently it completely disregards the current Principles that are foundational to many fellow UU as it relates to UU identity, ethics, spirituality, and potentially congregational membership.
I realize this train is out of the gate and that in human institutions, it is extremely hard to stop a moving train, get off, rethink, and regroup. However, I urge the Commission and Board to do just that as I imagine the proposal will receive over 50% support at this GA. Might it be possible to step all the way back and ask whether the underlying premise of this radical (not meant to be inflammatory but truthful) is true and if not, how might the group proceed in a way that better honors our historical and current UU Principles while also inspiring for our future becoming?
Again, I realize I could be way off, but I am leaning toward a no vote based on the fact that Amendment 61 failed and those of us that support and heard support from our fellow congregants to maintain our current 7Ps somehow/someway have not received any signals from the Commission (at least I have not heard or seen any) that they will work to find an integrated or middle way forward. I was particularly disheartened by Thursday’s communications from members of the Commission which landed, for me, as dismissive and adversarial.
For the health and unity of our congregations and denomination I truly hope and pray for a both/and way forward.
Again, many thanks to you, the Commission, and the Board for all your efforts!
With appreciation,
Denise Frizzell, delegate
Eno River UU Fellowship
Durham, NC
Most importantly, we did not vote on our “HIGHEST purpose” – or discuss whether that sentence could to be changed to BALANCE inner spiritual growth with outer action.
There also was not enough time to discuss major concerns about Inspirations, Inclusion and Freedom of Belief – for us to understand each other and look for common ground.
I just spoke at GA - very nerve racking for me. As I hear other people speaking focus on their own “stories,” rather than on “arguments,” I realize it makes sense for me to share my “story,” which I will do just briefly, then repeat my “speech” in writing:
I initially was excited about the Proposed Revision.
When most in my congregation did NOT support the Revision, it was my task to work with them to understand what they didn’t like and to see if we could suggest Amendments to address their concerns.
In the process, I came to share some of my fellow congregants’ concerns - but more than that to be excited about how concerns could be addressed in a way that I thought still preserved the intent behind the Proposed Revision.
So I was very disappointed by the Amendment process at the national level.
However, I believe the process can and should continue. I would prefer it continue after a strong NO vote, but I also will participate if there is a YES vote.
I myself will be voting NO, both to respect my congregations’ wishes AND due to the concerns I expressed in an earlier post:
Here is what I said in my “speech” if you missed it:
A NO vote sends a clear message.
After a greater than 50% NO vote, we do NOT have to stop constructive work:
Section Fifteen of the Bylaws says we can’t repeat a “similar” proposal for two years, but it leaves room to propose a DIFFERENT study commission: for example, one that tries to understand and constructively respond to the concerns that do remain for a large number of UUs.
Conversations on discuss.uua.org suggest that significant concerns have not been discussed during GA - and more importantly, creative ideas to address those concerns have not been fully considered.
Even if there is a less than 50% NO vote, the size of the NO vote matters - in order to send a clear message:
We all love this Faith. We do NOT want to quote-unquote “go backward” – a phrase sometimes used to shame people into voting YES. What we want is to HELP EACH OTHER go forward together (just at a slower pace).
I’d like to share the Covenant written by consensus in my home Fellowship, which says in part: “To resolve disputes: Trust that others have good intentions. Set aside fear, doubt, and pride. Work through knots of confusion and disagreement …”
We have not worked through our disagreements at this GA.
Hi Kara, In your messages, I can heard the sincere wish to wrestle well with the issues, to find a concensus path forward and to document the wrestling and the knots of weeds yet to be undone. Thank you for being a delegate, delegated to wrestle and wrangle between ideas and people.
I think it’s time to start thinking about what happens post-GA.
I’m not sure exactly when Voting closes and when we will have results on the Vote.
I hope the vote will be No.
But given the >2/3 margins for the Amendments, and the tenor of the on-site crowd, I assume the vote will be Yes.
Either way, I hope the folks who vote No can come together to understand each other and to try to brainstorm how we can work constructively. I think this website, discuss.uua.org, is an essential but not adequate forum in which to do that.
I know personally, I prefer small, focused Zoom meetings. But others may have other ideas.
ON ANOTHER NOTE, I wanted to share something I had to leave out of my GA “speech” due to the 90 second time limit (and because my congregational work-team helped me stay focused!):
I know Article II can never be “perfect,”
and I know it can never be everything I personally want it to be.
But I think we need more TIME.
As I notice interdependence, one thing I notice is that I am dependent on TIME. Things take as much TIME as they take.
For example, the average human takes 8-10 hours to sleep - to recover from the activities of the day. Some (lucky?) people just need 4 hours. I personally function better on 11 hours. I don’t know of anyone who needs 24 hours of sleep! Generally, 8-10 hours is usually “good enough.”
Interdependent humanity has to deal with so much variation across individuals in how much time they take - to sleep, to learn how to walk/speak/read, to find a job, to do the tasks of that job - and to work through their own experience in a way that allows them to acknowledge others’ experiences.
It takes as long as it takes. That doesn’t mean it has to take forever.
And I agree with the Proposed Revision’s statement, “never complete and never perfect.”
But I think we need to have more time to make the Revision “good enough,” to address the concerns of - or at least not alienate - many UU’s.
A note on other forums. The public, lay-led Facebook group, Blue Boat Passengers, which was started to address Article II issues, will be suspended in a couple weeks. (It not be deleted or archived but will remain viewable for the public record). We are leaving it open for people to express their final thoughts and welcome any amendment authors whose voices were not heard, or others who want to continue the conversation for a while or achieve some closure.
Also, people may find others with whom they may want to discuss issues and coordinate for the process of submitting amendments via 15 congregations, if they choose to. The group will remain open for comment for another couple of weeks and should allow time to connect.
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.”
“If one congregation has a thought, send an email to 50 others and say “we are discussing X. What do you think?”
That is also the kind of thing that we have District and Regional assemblies for, both in person and virtual.
That is also the type of thing your religious professionals should be talking about at their regular meetings with their colleagues like minister Association chapter meetings.
It is the responsibility of your board president and other trustees to be deeply aware of the affairs of your closest congregations.
You discover by being in relationship and talking to one another.
You coordinate by email and phone call, same as we have for the last quarter century.”
“You don’t even have to have a congregational vote. You just have to get their board to sign off.”
@CharlesD what do future discussions look like over the next year? This site has been great but I agree with others that this site is not adequate. I would love to have small zoom group discussions focused on the inspirations but would like to have the UUA or study commission also participating in those discussions. For example for amendments that were not able to be prioritized and heard, I feel like just having them on this platform is not adequate. They are not listed by topic or title (inspirations etc. as the previous iteration was). This means very few delegates likely read the 85 amendments listed here and even fewer will engage on this site in the future. Additionally, I would love feedback from the commission or board on amendments that were not prioritized (e.g. #27). Before spending another year of effort trying to get at least 15 congregations to support additional amendments, I would like to hear from the study commission specifically why amendments were not prioritized (e.g. not enough support vs. fundamental ideological issues). Even the authors of the inspirations amendment that passed #5 have said that they think a specific focus group on the inspirations section is needed in the future. I may have misinterpreted the study proposals statement of need for a process for creating “an official list” of inspirations. I am not sure “an official list” is needed but I do think there are fundamental questions that have not been adequately addressed or discussed such as what the difference is between sources and inspirations and the purpose of this section. How can I get answers to those questions? Is this something to bring up during UUA board open house meetings? Do I need to start with regional discussions with UUA staff? Will there be opportunities to engage specifically with the study commission again over the next year etc?
Note re amendments that weren’t prioritized or presented: This forum is closing for comment tomorrow, but our lay-led public Facebook group, Blue Boat Passengers, will remain open for another few weeks for commenting (and still be viewable after that).
People who want to find others to coordinate about the 15-congregation amendment process may use the group to do so while it is open. There’s now a specific post for this in the group (“A post for those wishing to do the 15-congregation amendment process to coordinate”). Please read both the rules and the pinned post before posting or commenting there.
Here are some comments about the process and timeline from a former member of the Planning Committee who has been posting in that group:*
“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.”
“If one congregation has a thought, send an email to 50 others and say “we are discussing X. What do you think?”
That is also the kind of thing that we have District and Regional assemblies for, both in person and virtual.
That is also the type of thing your religious professionals should be talking about at their regular meetings with their colleagues like minister Association chapter meetings.
It is the responsibility of your board president and other trustees to be deeply aware of the affairs of your closest congregations.
You discover by being in relationship and talking to one another.
You coordinate by email and phone call, same as we have for the last quarter century.”
“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.”
15.1(c)(4)
At the next regular General Assembly following the process described in subsection (c)(3)(v), above, the Article II proposal is subject to amendment only by a three-fourths vote in favor of an amendment submitted to the General Assembly in writing by the Board of Trustees or a minimum of fifteen (15) certified congregations, as described in Section 15.2 of these Bylaws. Final approval of the Article II proposal requires a two-thirds vote of the General Assembly
…
15.2(d)
not less than fifteen certified member congregations by action of their governing boards or their congregations; such proposed amendments to Bylaws must be received by the Board of Trustees on February 1 whenever the regular General Assembly opens in June; otherwise not less than 110 days before the General Assembly;"
Will there be an official announcement of if/when discuss.uua.org will be closing?
It seems odd to get the notification from a fellow delegate.
On another note, I have 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’s great that we have a lot of ideas for specific wording changes. But it would also help to express things in general terms. If both the Commission and the folks who voted NO on the Revision could express their respective concerns in general terms, I think that would facilitate constructive work.
I will work on a post that gives examples of this to explain further, but right now I just want to make sure that this post gets posted before a possible shut down of the website.
Delegates received some kind of an email notification, which was forwarded to me as an alternate delegate. You can also see an announcement at the top of this site if you scroll up.
Your idea sounds like a good one. The announcement at the top says these threads will close at 2 PM my time (PDT). You may want to post your suggestions on a few key threads to be sure it is seen.
PS: How is the conversation supposed to continue? Will Discuss be reopened after the summer so that congregants have a way to continue these discussions inter-congregationally before the February 1 deadline for submission of a 15-congregation-sponsored amendment, @CharlesD ? Looking at the GA 2022 thread, it appears that this thread wasn’t opened until March of that year. Thank you.
Meanwhile, some other individuals who participated on Discuss have started a Slack group as a temporary hub:
“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:" (Posted by @cdenario ) UU Article 2 Amendment Work Group