Phew. That was a hard one.

Friends, I must sincerely apologize for not posting this update before voting closed. Today has been, by a wide margin, the hardest GA day I have ever attended. I did vote, and I will explain why I voted the way I did. This is not what I promised to do, and for that I hope you will accept my sincerest apologies.

I firmly believe that dessert is best enjoyed both before and after a meal, so let’s start with the easier stuff:

Article II Proposed Revision

I voted yes to continuing the discussion around the wonderful work done by our Article II study commission. The work is not done. The work, honestly, should never be done. If we ever feel our work is done in this faith, it is time for us to step down and let someone else take up our place.

I want to start here by saying that no one is calling for the abolition of the principles as a core foundation of our faith. The revised Article II is (and I will not use the word “simply”) adding, and not taking away. The principles will still be relevant to many (probably most) of us, for whom they were relevant before. The revised Article II leads us further than was possible in 1985 when the current seven principles were drafted. The argument here is not that there is no place for the principles, but rather that there is no place for the principles in the bylaws of the association. We need more concrete language which makes firm declarations that we will take action. That is what belongs in the bylaws.

Further, I feel the need to hammer home the point (again and again) that this is not a vote to change the bylaws! This is a vote to continue the rich discussion we’re having about the future of our faith, and how we want to move into the future together. The vote to change the bylaws is next year. Do we want to continue having conversations, or do we want to put our heads in the sand and ignore the multitudes of people who say that the current principles do not go far enough to make them comfortable in our movement?

I voted to continue our discussion.

Business Resolution on Divestment and Reparations

And here’s the hard part.

I chose to abstain from voting on this resolution. We obviously need reparations. We obviously need divestment. I’m not convinced that the UUA has acted entirely in good faith following previous divestment resolutions. However, the resolution before us today, to me, addressed divestment in a way which is impractical and irresponsible, and addressed reparations in a way which we have been told by those who we would pay reparations to would do more harm than good.

The argument was made that the UUCEF and the UUA are taking the position of money being more important than anything else, by not immediately divesting. I understand that view, but I disagree. I do not believe that acquiring more monetary wealth is the aim of the UUA. I believe money is a tool, nothing more and nothing less. The more money we have, the more money we spend fulfilling our mission. We are already mostly divested from fossil fuel companies, and we’re only getting more so. The UUA board is already working towards relationship-based (first, followed by monetary assistance when we are asked) reparations work.

That being said, I also cannot in good conscience vote against my peers in the YA space and the Youth Caucus. I believe (although we have all been told otherwise) that the recent spree of divestment was inspired, at least in part, by the traction that this resolution gained. This work has spurred action from a body which was ignoring (sometimes with reason, sometimes without) its previous committments. I will not (and did not) lend my support to that failure to act with a vote against this resolution.

My abstention on this resolution should be taken as a vote against the resolution (which I think is very nearly what we need), and also a vote against the UUA’s response to the resolution, and general inaction on this issue. I will not support either side with my vote.

Actions of Immediate Witness

We heard presentations of three actions of immediate witness. I’m not going to go through them right now, as it’s late, I’m tired, and I do not have the bandwidth. I voted in favor of all three, as I feel they are pure common sense. I’ll write down some more thoughts that the AIWs have inspired in the coming weeks.

That was all the actual business from General Assembly. I will probably come up with more thoughts based on these items in the near future, and a lot of other stuff happened. However, I do not have the capacity to spell it all out tonight. In the future, I would like to expand more on all of these items. I hope to keep this blog going after GA, and publicize it more.

Signing off for now,

-Hans