I feel that I have been gaslit by this "Shouting" piece. Unfortunately online discussion is mostly an exchange of words since over 90% of the communication as compared to in person is absent, therefore potentially leading to hard feelings. As for the content of the proposed amendment, consider the approach to "exploitation." Most mammals, including ourselves, routinely exploit other animals in order to live. Consider that in some cultures, exploitation is a direct necessity of life. How arrogant are we to presume upon the lifestyle of those people? Please separate our own aspirations from an imposition on other humans. And how can we campaign for equity while simultaneously respecting the current practice of some religions? I see too much doublethink in the proposed amendment, and I do not apologize for seeing what I see. If I read the by-laws correctly, a proposal could give another two years to reconstruct the proposed amendment and mend a lot of fractures. Not a bad thing, since the elements of Widening the Circle of Compassion are already in action.
The “exploitation” language is in an amendment to the proposed Article II revision that has not passed yet. It will be voted on at GA. It sounds like you will vote against that amendment, and that’s okay. I’m not sure I agree with your take on it.. to me there’s a difference between using resources, including other life, and exploitation. I’m not sure the amendment makes that difference clear, and I’m going to have to think about it more before I cast my vote on the amendments. But it isn’t a done deal, it’s a proposed amendment to the proposed bylaw revision.
As for pluralism, again this is a matter of opinion, but I think it is absolutely possible to respect the human beings who follow any particular religious or cultural practice, to listen with curiosity and respect to them, and still disagree vehemently with their behaviors and practices. Just like we have all been charged with affirming and promoting the inherent worth and dignity of every person … which is a tall order in traffic some days, I will tell you! … we also respect and celebrate differences between human beings. But we don’t have to condone their behavior or practices. Pluralism is about being open, curious, and respectful of differences. When those differences, however, are in opposition to our values, we are encouraged to oppose the actions people take that cause harm. I can be respectful toward people who participate in religions that forbid queer and trans people from being themselves. I can refrain from calling them names, or screaming at them, or glitter-bombing their worship spaces. But I can also make it clear that they may not bring their hateful ways inside our sanctuaries or try to impose their values on society at large. I can try to understand where they’re coming from. I do not have to approve of or condone their behavior.
Anyway, I’m going on and on and I really need to go to bed and recharge my brain so it works in the morning. I’m sorry you found Rev Kimberley’s writing today so unsatisfactory. Me, I am glad I’m a UU arguing about whether the rainbow of principles will be replaced by JETPIG
values instead of being in the Southern Baptist Convention where they’re currently trying to ban women from leadership and are wordsmithing the freaking Nicene Creed. I love our faith and I love that we continue to try to move along a path toward greater love and welcoming of everyone who needs to be in our spaces.
Thank you , Lauren. I appreciate your clarity and agree with your perspective. My problem is with the unclarity in the proposed amendment. I am not a delegate. Our congregational delegates who are committed to the emotions in the proposed amendment will probably be voting for it. The chances are very good that it will become part of the by-laws. To my way of thinking, by-laws should be clear and unambiguous. Of course they have to be interpreted, but that can be done with less conflict if the wording is not contradictory in places. Perhaps the mixing of principles with the values on which those principles are based creates apparent contradictions. I suspect that the seemingly stubborn grasping onto the existing principles is because of their clarity. Why is it not possible for the proposed amendment to expound on the fundamental values underlying those principles while still being clear on the principles? If I read correctly, the process allows for a proposal to be made which would take us through the amending steps again during the next two or three years and very likely strengthen Unitarian Universalism.
Do you mean that this article has helped you realize that you've been gaslit before and now you have a better understanding?
Or are you saying that you think you've been gaslit by this piece?
I see you've made several comments over the last nine hours. I'm wondering if something in particular is bothering you? I know you've said words do matter. And I haven't read anything to the contrary in this piece, so again, I'm wondering what you're referring to when you say that.
As usual, you are spot on. Thanks for this. I hope everyone who needs to see this sees this.
I feel that I have been gaslit by this "Shouting" piece. Unfortunately online discussion is mostly an exchange of words since over 90% of the communication as compared to in person is absent, therefore potentially leading to hard feelings. As for the content of the proposed amendment, consider the approach to "exploitation." Most mammals, including ourselves, routinely exploit other animals in order to live. Consider that in some cultures, exploitation is a direct necessity of life. How arrogant are we to presume upon the lifestyle of those people? Please separate our own aspirations from an imposition on other humans. And how can we campaign for equity while simultaneously respecting the current practice of some religions? I see too much doublethink in the proposed amendment, and I do not apologize for seeing what I see. If I read the by-laws correctly, a proposal could give another two years to reconstruct the proposed amendment and mend a lot of fractures. Not a bad thing, since the elements of Widening the Circle of Compassion are already in action.
So, I’m interested in this perspective.
The “exploitation” language is in an amendment to the proposed Article II revision that has not passed yet. It will be voted on at GA. It sounds like you will vote against that amendment, and that’s okay. I’m not sure I agree with your take on it.. to me there’s a difference between using resources, including other life, and exploitation. I’m not sure the amendment makes that difference clear, and I’m going to have to think about it more before I cast my vote on the amendments. But it isn’t a done deal, it’s a proposed amendment to the proposed bylaw revision.
As for pluralism, again this is a matter of opinion, but I think it is absolutely possible to respect the human beings who follow any particular religious or cultural practice, to listen with curiosity and respect to them, and still disagree vehemently with their behaviors and practices. Just like we have all been charged with affirming and promoting the inherent worth and dignity of every person … which is a tall order in traffic some days, I will tell you! … we also respect and celebrate differences between human beings. But we don’t have to condone their behavior or practices. Pluralism is about being open, curious, and respectful of differences. When those differences, however, are in opposition to our values, we are encouraged to oppose the actions people take that cause harm. I can be respectful toward people who participate in religions that forbid queer and trans people from being themselves. I can refrain from calling them names, or screaming at them, or glitter-bombing their worship spaces. But I can also make it clear that they may not bring their hateful ways inside our sanctuaries or try to impose their values on society at large. I can try to understand where they’re coming from. I do not have to approve of or condone their behavior.
Anyway, I’m going on and on and I really need to go to bed and recharge my brain so it works in the morning. I’m sorry you found Rev Kimberley’s writing today so unsatisfactory. Me, I am glad I’m a UU arguing about whether the rainbow of principles will be replaced by JETPIG
values instead of being in the Southern Baptist Convention where they’re currently trying to ban women from leadership and are wordsmithing the freaking Nicene Creed. I love our faith and I love that we continue to try to move along a path toward greater love and welcoming of everyone who needs to be in our spaces.
Thank you , Lauren. I appreciate your clarity and agree with your perspective. My problem is with the unclarity in the proposed amendment. I am not a delegate. Our congregational delegates who are committed to the emotions in the proposed amendment will probably be voting for it. The chances are very good that it will become part of the by-laws. To my way of thinking, by-laws should be clear and unambiguous. Of course they have to be interpreted, but that can be done with less conflict if the wording is not contradictory in places. Perhaps the mixing of principles with the values on which those principles are based creates apparent contradictions. I suspect that the seemingly stubborn grasping onto the existing principles is because of their clarity. Why is it not possible for the proposed amendment to expound on the fundamental values underlying those principles while still being clear on the principles? If I read correctly, the process allows for a proposal to be made which would take us through the amending steps again during the next two or three years and very likely strengthen Unitarian Universalism.
I feel like I have been gaslit after reading your Shouting article.
Do you mean that this article has helped you realize that you've been gaslit before and now you have a better understanding?
Or are you saying that you think you've been gaslit by this piece?
I see you've made several comments over the last nine hours. I'm wondering if something in particular is bothering you? I know you've said words do matter. And I haven't read anything to the contrary in this piece, so again, I'm wondering what you're referring to when you say that.
Somehow, I feel like I have ben gaslighted.
I'd love to know more - who's been gaslighting, and what's been your experience of it?
Words do matter.