Hi @klusignan, @CharlesD ,
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.
As examples, I will just focus on the areas that are the biggest concerns for me in the following order of importance: (1) Purposes; (2) Freedom of Belief; (3) Inclusion; and (4) Inspirations. I encourage others to express their additional concerns in a similar general format.
(1) For the Purpose Section, the Amendments that passed were 30 (spiritual development), 26 (support creation of new UU communities). I support both of those Amendments.
However, the Amendment about Purposes that we did NOT have a chance to discuss and vote on was Amendment 11 (highest purpose: transform the world thru liberating love). (In my mind, this should have been the first Amendment that was considered at GA!)
Even if the word “highest” is not included, by listing this purpose as the last one, and in a separate paragraph, it can be interpreted to imply that it is either the highest, most important, or perhaps is intended to summarize the rest.
I would like the intended implication to be clearly articulated so we can reflect on - and discuss - whether or not we all agree with that implication. Just as importantly, I believe the implication needs to be clearly articulated in the document itself.
I don’t feel strongly about the specific words used (I have already made multiple suggestions in discuss.uua.org). But my general concern is that the words do not convey a BALANCE or yin/yang or both/and - of “inner AND outer work,” “individual spiritual growth AND collective social activism,” “individual freedom AND interdependent community?” etc.
Is there some reason the Commission would object to working to improve this balance? If so, I would like to understand it.
(2) For the Freedom of Belief Section, no Amendment passed, but about 23% voted YES for Amendment 6 (freedoms part of heritage and we remain committed).
I agree that the specific wording of Amendment 6 could be improved. But I genuinely do not understand the Commission’s substantive reason (if any) for not supporting this amendment. Does their position relate to the issue of individual freedom vs. interdependent community? If so, I would like to raise the possibility of focusing on how to improve the yin/yang balance (both “individual freedom” AND “interdependent community”) within this Section.
I probably need to go back and listen again to the entire PRO line on this one. But I would appreciate if the Commission could reiterate/articulate their position officially in writing, in case that would help us move along in this constructive process.
(3) 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)
Again, 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.
(4) For the Inspiration Section, the Amendment that passed was 5 (direct experience of transcending mystery). However, 29% voted NO.
I have written at length about this in other posts, so I’ll try to be brief.
I’m glad that direct experience of transcending mystery is included, but I understand why some might object to the word “primary” even if the phrase is “a primary.”
I myself object to limiting “direct experience” to only “transcending mystery.” That’s why I supported Amendment 34 (experience of transcending mystery, nature, wonder and inherent wisdom of each and all). I am not necessarily tied to that specific language, but for me, it captures the 6 sources more poetically and clearly than just “sacred and secular.” More importantly to me, it includes the idea that our direct experience of EACH OTHER is a source of inspiration. To me, direct experience of people who are different from me – different experiences, different race, different gender identity or sexual orientation, different class, different ability – is what inspires me!
Thanks for “listening!” I hope both 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.