Friday Business Update

Good afternoon!

I will largely skip the preamble from last night. Tonight, I am one of three song leaders in the Synergy bridging worship, so I am pushing out this post in the brief space between General Session and that worship. As such, my summaries will be shorter, and I will have less freedom to reply and converse before voting ends at 10:00. However, please do send me your thoughts, and I will address them to the best of my ability.

I plan to vote as follows on the amendments presented today, which can as before be viewed in this document.

Amendment 51 by Janet Leavens: adds a revised version of the current Six Sources

I plan to vote no to this amendment. Similar to my points about the seven principles yesterday, I do not believe that these kinds of historical documents belong in our bylaws going forward. That does not diminish their importance at all, but the bylaws of the organization need to move on fully from this old language.

In addition, these sources aren’t even our previous six. This list was written in consultation with a comparatively small number of UUs, and (like any list of sources), by default leaves out the spiritual and religious sources of many people within our faith. Even the best-intentioned lists of sources will always leave people out. They have no place in our bylaws.

Amendment 52 by John Millspaugh: revises value of interdependence

I plan to vote yes to this amendment. Here is my verbatim note which I took on the spot in general session: “The Article II commission has been really pushing to get rid of loopholes like “cherish” that let us say we’re supporting the world and not actually do anything about it. This amendment takes that even further. Let’s do it.”

This amendment adds a much-needed (in my opinion) emphasis on truly acting to support sustainability.

Amendment 6 by Anne Schneider: emphasizes individual conscience

I plan to vote no to this amendment. I should note, there was an error in the linked document and in the slides displayed during general session. Lines 60 and 61 are already included in the proposal, and are not part of the amendment.

I can see both sides of this amendment. On one hand, we do need to make sure to hold on to our individual rights to decide on our beliefs. However, I don’t think this is the way to do it. In this world where everything, everything, everything comes down to the individual’s rights over the collective, we do not need more emphasis on that concept. Maybe over the coming year of discussion and amendments we can find a better wording than “central to our heritage” which sounds less like we’re putting that chapter in the past (which is definitely not what was meant by it), but I do not agree with this amendment’s wording.

I plan to vote no to this amendment. We should not feel compelled to welcome those who do not share the values of our organization. That does not mean that we cannot welcome those who do not share our personal values, and it certainly does not mean that we would discriminate on the basis of differing beliefs. We can (and do!) believe very differently while sharing our values. That’s the whole point of UUism, and we should move that into the forefront as much as we can.

Additionally, I do not see the proposed language in the revised Article II as excluding those who come from different backgrounds (for example, discriminatory traditions and systems whose values we disagree with). In my view, the very self-realization that a person’s previously held beliefs are possibly or probably harmful brings that person into alignment with our values.

Amendment 5 by Matthew Johnson: adds language on mystery and wonder

I plan to vote yes to this amendment. I am as yet unsure about including this language as “a primary source”. However, I do believe that the rest of the language here belongs in Article II. Over the coming year, I am confident that this language will be refined, and that we will emphasize non-direct scientific understanding more. It is important to recognize that the version of the Article II proposal which will exist at the end of this general assembly is not what will go into our bylaws. This document will be revised and revised and revised again over the next year. I am mostly in support of this amendment, and will work as we go forward to make it better.

Amendment 70 by Melissa Egbertson: adds gratitude as a value

I plan to vote no to this amendment. Another Young Adult delegate mentioned that they found this filled with “toxic positivity”, and I definitely agree with that. Additionally, gratitude is already lifted up in the “Generosity” section. We just don’t need this.

Amendment 1 by Patricia Shifferd: adds current Six Sources

I plan to vote no to this amendment. Once again, these are bylaws, not a history book.

Also, our six sources have never even remotely included everyone we claim to include. The Article II commission was called in part to revise the sources. Let’s leave the old ones in the history books.

Amendment 13 by Kathi Bayne: revises justice/democracy value

I plan to vote no to this amendment. I agree entirely with the sentiment, but this needs to explicitly include the UUA as well. I will make sure to lift this up in the coming year of further revisions. If this passes, I will make sure that the Article II commission hears that we need, need, need to include the UUA in our demand for the democratic process.

Those are the proposed amendments for today. Please let me know promptly if you think I need to make any changes. I will be voting as I have said above at 9:30. For now, I’m off to go sing and worship with our rising young adults.

Signing off,

-Hans