@RachelRott reading the specific language of this Amendment in the context of its whole, do you seriously think that the value of (true) reason could be used to uphold, for example, fascist views?
[ETA: Only the above line was addressed to @RachelRott , re her comments. Below follows my general thoughts about this amendment and responses I have seen. None of this is addressed to anyone in particular, and where a direct address form is used, it should be construed as directed towards the Commission, or simply directed towards the language of the Article II revisions.]
My general comments:
I would personally vote against the Revisions passing without this amendment. As someone who has suffered marginalization over the past 20+ years (and also countless “MeToo” moments throughout my life), I find reason a defense against, not a weapon of, the kind of injustices Article II revisions have specifically been raising up.
Listening is what I use to try to understand my fellow congregants, especially those who have not been listened to enough in the past, and reason is what I use to oppose especially destructive actions and to try to analyze and distinguish the components of problems so that we might create more effective congregational processes.
As has been pointed out, Article II references congregations. Thus, the “we” who listen does not mean that each person “must” listen to each other, in my view. For example, no one who has experienced harassment in a context of discussions on race, disability, gender/sexual orientation/trans rights, etc. is obliged to listen to these views themselves. When we talk about how we are going to be together, not what people are “required to believe” but how we are going to act together in congregational space, I think we need to remember that there are many different congregational spaces.
However, the way we reach a congregational agreement on the policies and processes needed for a healthy community and effective conflict resolution is by open discussion. Without such discussion and listening by SOMEONE to really understand the many and varied different views, decision-makers will simplify, caricaturize, and distort the nature of the problem and create theoretical responses that may fall short, fall flat, or backfire.
Without the listening part (which might just mean the Board or a particular committee holding and evaluating whole-congregation polls on right relations policies, for example, before just imposing a few people’s ideas) we are flying blind, and we are destined to repeat similar kinds of conflicts in different configurations. In my congregation, if we had not tried our best to listen to and understand different reasons people left, we could not have expanded our ideas about (1) the many different components in a congregational conflict and how they may interact over time and (2) different, additional, more expansive processes for resolving conflicts in a healthy way that promotes congregational growth rather than a “win/lose” scenario.
I do not disagree that the word or claim of “reason” could be subject to misuse. However, the same is true of “accountability” and “covenant.” These claims and goals may also be misused, along with right relations and disruptive persons policies. These have even been poorly applied in apparently opposite directions within the same congregation depending on who holds decision-making power. Someone who is on board with employing a “disruptive person” policy for someone else may find the idea oppressive when they are on the other side of the argument.
Please do not argue–at least on my behalf–that demoting reason and science “helps” marginalized people. Scientific data (rigorously, honestly, and ethically used) is the foundation of, and actions guided by reason and compassion (rather than bias and mere self-interest) set us on the path to addressing, the worst problems in this troubled world, including so many like poverty, disease, armed conflicts, and climate change that impact people disproportionately.
When we realize that atrocities of the past misused claims of “science” and “reason,” where does that realization–as a society–come from? It is not just from people eloquently telling their stories and others having the grace and compassion to listen. It is also from guidance reason may give us to expose, uncover, and peel away the biases, bigotry, abuses, and misunderstandings of the past and use the improved knowledge as a foundation for changing not only attitudes but laws.
Moreover, trying to shoot down this amendment in my view is potentially destructive on a larger scale for two reasons. First, claiming that this value may be misused but ignoring that potential in others whose language sounds more “welcoming” to us would be gaslighting. To me,that demonstrates a sort of “bending-over-backwardness” that could torpedo these Revisions–either by actually defeating passage of the revised Article II or by undermining its credibility so much that we end up with a somewhat naked Emperor.
Second–and this is based on the past five years of doing my best to listen to UUs in a variety of spaces, discussion groups, etc.–this Article II revision is NOT yet balanced and thus does not really represent “our shared values.” It is heavily weighted towards communal, not individual values (every named Value has a relational aspect). It does not balance “liberal” and “liberating,” but places a greater emphasis on “liberating” couched in specific language that is not understood, agreed on, or shared by all.
Finally, I will close by quoting the case made for both the Reason and Peace amendments by the Racial Justice Task Force of another congregation (I will try to add a link to their full statement of support for the Article II revisions as a separate comment below). I think they simply and succinctly express my final point–that each of these pieces of Article II, including the proposed Amendments, should be understood in the context of a balanced whole.
“Regarding the additional two values proposed in the amendments:
We support the addition of Peace with the expectation that it won’t be used to push back on healthy discussions and action when there is conflict.
We support the addition of Reason with the expectation that it won’t be used to discredit people’s stories and lived experiences.
Change can be challenging, at the same time we firmly believe that social justice requires us to evolve and adapt to new ways of thinking and speaking. We are confident that these changes will help us create a more just and inclusive community.”
— Woodinville Unitarian Universalist Church Racial Justice Task Force
