This Sunday we will continue our roundtable-style services with Equity. This summer we are exploring the subjects of the Unitarian Universalists Article II Study Report.
These services are designed to allow participants to share their thoughts if they choose to do so. Sharing is always voluntary; active listening is welcome too. While you are speaking, all others are asked to remain silent and listen carefully and completely. In part one of the discussion we do not permit cross-talk, reactions, or questions except to ask someone to repeat or clarify. Facilitator, Belle Mendoza, will guide us through our discussion.
Subject For This Sunday:
Equity. We declare that every person has the right to flourish with inherent dignity and worthiness. We covenant to use our time, wisdom, attention, and money to build and sustain fully accessible and inclusive communities.
The proposed revision of Article II includes this section on the UU value of Equity: “We declare that every person has the right to flourish with inherent dignity and worthiness. We covenant to use our time, wisdom, attention, and money to build and sustain fully accessible and inclusive communities.”
1. The word “equity” is defined by the Oxford English Dictionary as “The quality of being equal or fair; fairness, impartiality; even-handed dealing.” I think we can all think of lots of cases in which our country/state/churches/schools/legal system/organizations have not been fair or impartial. Can you think of some ways our country/state/churches/schools/legal system/organizations have tried to employ or bring about more “even-handed dealing”? Have any of those efforts been successful? Can we learn from those that have been successful or partially successful?
2. I don’t think any UU would have a problem with the first sentence (“We declare that every person has the right to flourish with inherent dignity and worthiness”). After all it is the first UU principle. But the second sentence (“We covenant to use our time, wisdom, attention, and money to build and sustain fully accessible and inclusive communities.”) says it’s not enough to agree with or believe in the first sentence; we must DO something to create and maintain “accessible and inclusive communities.” Do you agree with the above that the revised Article II calls on us to ACT, not just believe? Or do you see it saying something different?
3. What are some ways Mosaic or Unitarian Universalism in general is already using its “time, wisdom, attention, and money” to build these communities?
4. Do you have suggestions on how Mosaic or Unitarian Universalism could do more?