# data[].attributes.headline
A Principle or An Action and More Marilyn Medén

# data[].attributes.subject
A Principle or An Action and More Marilyn Medén

# data[].attributes.body
I am writing this note from a concern over the series of workshops organized by the CUC in support of an eighth principle.

I “showed up” last Wednesday and did not “walk along the shore” but participated.  My understanding was that these meetings were for discussion, not conversion.  But the word “converted” was actually used.

A question people in my discussion group responded to was “What is your greatest fear?”  I was far from the only one with a fear of division within congregations.  I have heard of, and am one of those who, for many reasons, believe that the proposed Eighth is both unnecessary and harmful to those very people it purports to help.

First, as has been said many times, it is not a principle, it is an action.  We have the first principle.  It requires action.  Second, I ask “What do you think those who we wish to aid would rather have, words or action?”  We already have the words.  “The worth and dignity of EVERY person.”  This is an inclusive statement.  It does not leave anyone out.  It is stating the principle on which we can base our actions.

Third, if the effort, time, and money were spent on action instead of these “discussions” the result could result in a significant advance for every person..

What are we accomplishing by proposing an eighth principle?  I would say talk is cheap, but in this case it is not.  It may well be very expensive for many of our congregations.

Another concern is that the very “first past the post” method of voting negates the vote of many, and in history those many are often the very people we wish to help, those with interests that concern minorities.  Some effort might have gone into reforming this.

In conclusion I believe, from words I have heard, that many, as a result of this “conversion” attitude, will loosen their ties with the Unitarian Church. They believe in a free and responsible search for truth and meaning, and they have not seen it.

I urge those who have any control over these sessions to moderate their attitude and attempt to mend as many fences as possible.

# data[].attributes.body
I believe part of the debate about the proposed 8th principle has been due to a lack of a common understanding of the purpose behind it. Was it to make UU congregations truly welcoming in the broadest sense, or was it to help move to a more just society by dismantling oppressions? If the former, as long as it was consistent with existing principles and aspirations, it would normally be advanced with a program like Welcoming Congregations (just more broadly defined). If the latter, it would normally be principle-driven and be part of an externally-oriented social justice program. I believe the Study Team, and the CUC resolution establishing it, intended the purpose to be focused on changes within the UU world, yet their Report recommended a new principle. Focusing our discussions on the 8th principle makes it harder to address the best way to achieve truly welcoming congregations if that was the purpose.
Sanford

# data[].attributes.body
Indeed the issue of racism in our society and in our denomination and congregations is a very important one and it requires action.  Our congregation has been taking action and we will continue to take action.  Our seven principles support this action.  As others have said, the proposed 8th principle isn’t a principle it’s more like a call to action.

The process of introducing an 8th principle has produced division within CUC and within congregations; this saddens me.  I appreciate Keith Wilkonson’s reflection on the times the CUC has successfully found ways to listen and incorporate diverse views of members.  I am hopeful the CUC will use their consensus building knowledge and help us resolve the current situation.  It is premature to hold a vote on this proposal.

Carol Woodworth

# data[].attributes.headline
Incoherent impasse. Let's get Counterweight support

# data[].attributes.subject
Incoherent impasse. Let's get Counterweight support

# data[].attributes.body
# Summary:

1. The proposed principle is redundant cherry picking; inserting it would not be in keeping with our Canadian Unitarian meta-principles.
2. I strongly believe the current CUC board process to fast track this violates our democratic principle (the spirit if not the letter). The end does not justify the means. (Further: the end is difficult to specify, because "racism" is a loaded term; and there are more constructive ways to handle the issues.)
3. The philosophy behind the current P8 movement/wording (CSJ and postmodernism) is not merely invalid; it is incompatible with liberal humanism, the philosophical backdrop of modern Unitarianism. (It's also been discredited by leading scientists and philosophers; e.g., Dan Dennett, "postmodernism and truth". )
4. We are not even in a position to address changes to our principles at the moment. We should be asking: how can we deal with the conflict between the ideology of those who are pushing for change (postmodernism power  principle/ CSJ) and humanist liberals who are opposed to both racism and the critical 'social justice' /postmodern philosophy? There is a solution   [Counterweight,](https://counterweightsupport.com/),  "a non-partisan, grassroots movement advocating for liberal concepts of social justice including individualism, universalism, viewpoint diversity and the free exchange of ideas". They are opposed, as I am, to the ideology cited by the anti-racism report tabled at the last minute in May (i.e., Critical Social Justice ideology and postmodernism.) Counterweight is willing to help the CUC and member congregations deal with the current situation.
5. I hope each board member and executive is willing to take this open-minded approach, or to resign if they feel they value pushing through with a solution above respecting the meta-principles.

copyright notice: This memo is written quickly and may contain typos and errors. Any quotation of my text should include this disclaimer.

# intro

I'm a very effusive, philosophically liberal humanist (and optimist) Unitarian, and a philosophical realist. While it's uncomfortable for me to do so, I feel the need to push back here against the approach taken by the CUC board/executive re P8. I know that CUC wants this to be a very positive space, but I also feel that this process is undermining that which it wants to achieve and our basis. I am heartened, however, that within my congregation large numbers are equally concerned.

The intentions behind the proposed principle may be good ; but the road to hell is paved with good intentions.  I don't agree with inserting this principle,nor the variants I've seen.

# meta-principles

The proposed principle is not in harmony with our _meta-principles_ .   It is not conducive to meditation.  It is divisive. It cherry picks one call to action over others. There is no end to the possible calls to action. Historically, as one of our members pointed out  "the Principles  go from a focus on the individual (#1) to a focus on all of existence", which this violates.

Our current principles are positive, inspirational, aspirational and suitable to meditation. Unlike the Lord's prayer, for instance, they do not mention temptation and evil, tresspasses, or cast us as sinners.  Our principles are not condescending. They do not assume that we are besieged by a problem. However, they are  _implicitly_ proscriptive; they implicitly proscribe racism and all manner of other vices that are incoherent with them; and implicit is enough.  Our current principles do not explicitly or implicitly threaten members or invoke accountability (congregations have other means of sanctioning individuals, they are not reminded of these possibilities in our principles). They are not calls to action.

In our principles we do not, and we ought not, explicitly express one, let alone  a long litany, of things that we are against. Racism is one of many vices and societal ills to which we are opposed.  Our principles, are, and should be abstract enough that each member can choose to focus on any particular vice _if she or he chooses._ No particular vice or sin should be foisted upon us by the elect as a focus in our principles. (Google "John McWhorter 'the elect'").

When CUC split from UUA years ago, we retained the UUA's principles. Good! I don't recall anyone complaining about them. Many of us joined because of them. However, we split explicitly bc we wanted to not be controlled by American realities. It seems clear to me that this movement to tinker with our principles is driven by a flawed American movement that has infiltrated Canada. This is not to deny racism exists in Canada. But our society is very different. And there are many ways to deal with whatever issues we face (including racism). See process section next.

# process

I strongly disagree with the process imposed on us top-down by the CUC board/execs here, including its "fast tracking". (I know many will say "this has been years." See below.)  Here is part of the history as I see it: A motion around an 8th principle, which I consider flawed, was made at the AGM in May; it was based on a late presented report, which I also consider to be flawed (explicitly citing  flawed, unsavory American literature, such as the White Fragility book; lacking an adequate literature review of current enlightenment liberalism, and psychology research that has refuted CSJ). The CUC board/execs, in forcing a quick vote this fall, are acting as if we must rush (not wait till next AGM) to respond to the flawed ideas in the report. This they are doing in the midst of a pandemic where congregational work is still very challenging, a period including a difficult summer recess; and following a federal election, and in fundraising season.  This fast-track, top-down process is throwing one of our principles, the democratic principle, under a bus to push what some members think is a sufficiently urgent necessity to do so, as if the ends justify the means.

The philosophical backdrop of this  movement is clearly postmodern. As the humanist Unitarian group of our congregation seem to agree unanimously (see https://cogzest.com/humanism/pm/), postmodernism is non-humanistic, extreme epistemic relativism that believes that knowledge is a power game. (See Pluckrose's book Cynical Theories. Or read Daniel Dennett or Noam Chomsky on postmodernism. And other works I cited on CogZest.) I may be wrong, but it looks to me like P8 is playing out as a power game, and humanists (not playing the game) are losing.

I was aghast that CUC literally wrote the following regarding their latest session around P8  "In this forum, “Transmuting Resistance,” we will reflect on some questions that have surfaced, and explore our resistance and fears about the work of dismantling racism and the proposed 8th Principle, and staying in relationship with each other." Anyone familiar with criticisms of Freud will recognize this as a fallacy of the type, "if you're not in agreement with us, it's because you have some psychological anxieties, or defense mechanisms". (Read Karl Popper's refutation of Freudianism). The suggestion that we should go through the board/exec "anti racism" forum (whose content I actually consider to be quite racist; scholars have said same of CSJ) in order to express an "informed opinion" before voting is a travesty of justice. Imagine if the federal government of the day (LPC) were to say to Canadians "before you vote in the federal election we strongly recommend that you take our series of workshops, designed by us." As Cyrano de Bergerac said, "non merci!"

The perspective behind P8 is not aligned with enlightenment liberal/humanism à la John McWhorter, Steven Pinker , or Steven Weinberg, Helen Pluckrose, or other great minds opposed to postmodernism.

Further, anyone familiar with research methods knows that survey results can be biased by the question asked. Similarly, vote results can be biased by the question asked. We need to be very careful what questions we choose to ask and when. (To choose random examples, the Meach Lake referendum or GST/HST in BC, both disasters.)

Our 7 principles are not a constitution. yes they have changed in the past. But the fact is that this is exactly what most of us have signed up for. We all knew what we were signing up for. We should therefore treat a change to our principles as though it were a constitutional matter. As such I don't think a simple 50% threshold would be enough. Something more like 60% of the congregations and 66% of individual members in a referendum seems better. But the question would need to be designed properly. Thus...

# Fast or slow?

I know that many people feel this process has been too slow. However, we are dealing with a report which was only recently tabled. And difficult issues do take time.

If we really want to be anti-racist, let's learn a bit from the First Nations. This point was argued quite well, in my opinion, in _A Fair Country_ by John Ralston Saul. They often take many years, many discussions to come to a conclusion together. I find it very unfortunate (and obviously ironic) that a CUC movement that claims to be anti-racist is ignoring the wisdom of one of the sets of populations that have been discriminated against most systematically/deeply, our first nations, while treating Canada as if we were a cookie cut state of the USA.

# Counterweight

We need a counterweight to the current CUC board and executives' push towards rapid "solutions". Clearly the topic is a hot button topic. Many people want urgent change to our principles, as if this were the only way to address the problems. There are many ways to deal with racism. We can draw from humanism to better understand and address  racism (and other moral issues) without violating our principles. (And we had better not draw on flawed ideas to deal with social justice.) It is absolutely incorrect that the rushed report on racism, or rushing to a vote on any particular "solution", is the only way to address concerns around racism. Many of us are opposed to the change in our seven principles; and at a minimum are opposed to the process (as it is not adequately democratic).

If we do not proceed carefully, we will weaken the CUC (the body, the member congregations), and make it more difficult for CUC to pursue any of our causes.

Therefore, I recommend the CUC , and/or member congregations, hire [Counterweight  ](https://counterweightsupport.com/) or an equally expert body that can deal with the tensions within CUC between what I consider to be dogma and what I consider to be humanism. I have exchanged emails with Helen Pluckrose of Counterweight and as I noted above Counterweight has expressed willingness to help us.

Their academic affiliates include Sam Harris, Steven Pinker, John McWhorter, and others.

# coda

Well, there you have it. I am assuming best intentions, but I have pointed out the problems I have seen so that we can avoid deeper problems. And I have pointed to a possible solution.

See also [Rev. Craig Moro speaks about the UUA's proposed 8th principle - YouTube](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XkV2lBnl6gE)

# data[].attributes.headline
I would like to echo some of the other comments here

# data[].attributes.subject
I would like to echo some of the other comments here

# data[].attributes.body
1. I do not believe we need the proposed principle as this issue is addressed in the First, Second, Third and Fifth principles.

2. The proposal as written is not a principle - a call to action, perhaps.

3. There is a group which seems to have been blinded by their own rhetoric. They write as if the problem will be solved as soon as we pass this principle, like revolutionaries who told us everything would be great after the glorious revolution.

4. I believe that the process for adopting or amending principles should be a more deliberate process than what is now taking place.

# data[].attributes.body
thank you Greg Suttor for your intelligently articulated concerns about the proposed 8th pinciple. I concur.

# data[].attributes.body
What we are being asked to approve is not a principle. Therefore I urge a vote of NO to this motion.
We are not being asked to vote as to whether or not we WANT an additional principle. That question is not on the table.
We are not being asked to vote as to whether we approve of this process as the one in which Canadian Unitarians wish to consider adding new principles. The question of the process is not on the table.
We are not being asked to agree as to what constitutes a principle or how a statement might need to be worded in order to be a guiding principle of our faith. That question is not on the table.
The only question we are being asked to consider is whether or not to adopt the currently worded motion to be an additional principle for Canadian Unitarians. If your congregation has any concerns or reservations or objections to the questions NOT on the table, or to the wording of this motion, then I urge them to vote NO.
I suppose it must be said that a vote of NO to the motion does not in any way shape or form mean that we are voting no to dismantling racism and other oppressions. That question, too, is not on the table.
The only other option that I see is to propose a motion to postpone indefinitely. If approved, that motion would effectively kill the proposal as it is currently worded. It would allow the issue of adding more principles to come up in another way at another time and would certainly allow for action to be taken on dismantling racism for our member congregations.
Sue Sparlin
Beacon Unitarian Church
Past President, Past CUC delegate

# data[].attributes.body
The proposed 8th Principle is a call for action, a very worthy one, but it is not a principle. Its wording does not fit within the framework of the existing 7 Principles. Worst of all, it demands accountability. No other principle makes such a demand. Indeed, the very idea that an 8th Principle should include accountability offends the most enduring Unitarian philosophy, the free and responsible search for truth.
If the 8th Principle is adopted with its current, awkward wording or in any revised form that incorporates concepts of being accountable (to whom? when? or for what?), then the Unitarian denomination will have succumbed to the fatal flaw of all other faiths: orthodoxy.

# data[].attributes.body
I blieve it is important too spell out all oppressed groups or none. To only specify racism isn't fair.
Someone else here wrote "...promote active respect and inclusion of everyone regardless of race, ethnicity, colour, creed, and gender identity" which is closer to the intention.
I'd include age.

# data[].attributes.headline
Penny Blake, Unitarian Cong of Niagara: I agree with most of these objections & thanks Greg Sutton for putting in important sources of CRT. I have read a few articles about that.   So here are just a few more observations, I don't want to be redundant - Robbie Brydon wrote in the Leader's List an account of the time leading up to the proposal, and suggested that the BIPOC caucus would feel like it was asking them to 'move to the back of the bus' if the proposal was not adopted. It's a political dilemma, in other words.  One that is exaggerated by the fact that Unitarianism seems to have very few important source documents. Guy & Lisa and other supporters point out that people don't seem to know about much else.  To which I replied:  think it is perhaps a more political question than an 'of itself' question whether the 8th P becomes a 'principle' or an 'action plan'. And, in a way, a bit of culture shock. Coming from my 'religion natal (Jewish)' where you could fill a small library with what would be considered important sources - and each covers different areas of concern, such as origin stories, stories about the origin stories, commentaries about the origin stories, laws from them, ethics to lead them, etc.,etc., etc., ancient sources & modern disagreements and agreements to the foregoing - to a religion (or something?) where everything important needs to be crammed into a few short sentences is well...different, let us say. I realize that the UU movement is in a bit of a pickle from what Robbie has said, and in the spirit of let's not tear everything apart, I wrote this awhile ago, but decided to wait until we'd had some congregational discussion and a questionnaire about the 8th P.: ... I suggested we follow the broader path of 'truth & reconciliation' rather than dismantling. For my entire post, see the attachment.

# data[].attributes.subject
Penny Blake, Unitarian Cong of Niagara: I agree with most of these objections & thanks Greg Sutton for putting in important sources of CRT. I have read a few articles about that.   So here are just a few more observations, I don't want to be redundant - Robbie Brydon wrote in the Leader's List an account of the time leading up to the proposal, and suggested that the BIPOC caucus would feel like it was asking them to 'move to the back of the bus' if the proposal was not adopted. It's a political dilemma, in other words.  One that is exaggerated by the fact that Unitarianism seems to have very few important source documents. Guy & Lisa and other supporters point out that people don't seem to know about much else.  To which I replied:  think it is perhaps a more political question than an 'of itself' question whether the 8th P becomes a 'principle' or an 'action plan'. And, in a way, a bit of culture shock. Coming from my 'religion natal (Jewish)' where you could fill a small library with what would be considered important sources - and each covers different areas of concern, such as origin stories, stories about the origin stories, commentaries about the origin stories, laws from them, ethics to lead them, etc.,etc., etc., ancient sources & modern disagreements and agreements to the foregoing - to a religion (or something?) where everything important needs to be crammed into a few short sentences is well...different, let us say. I realize that the UU movement is in a bit of a pickle from what Robbie has said, and in the spirit of let's not tear everything apart, I wrote this awhile ago, but decided to wait until we'd had some congregational discussion and a questionnaire about the 8th P.: ... I suggested we follow the broader path of 'truth & reconciliation' rather than dismantling. For my entire post, see the attachment.

# data[].attributes.body
I am concerned there appears to be little attempt at consensus.

I see a strong pro and con for having an 8th principle. Good people feel strongly on both sides.

In my work place, our head of general practise would apologize if there was debate on an issue.  He would ask for a motion to table the issue and for the dissenters to contact him with their ideas.  And he and his board would try to find a consensus.  They almost always did!

If this 8th principle comes to a vote, I would consider it a major mistake on the part of our leadership. (Unless it be after a substantial effort at finding consensus.)

Earl Morris
Coquitlam, BC
ebmorris@telus.net

# data[].attributes.headline
Let's do the work first, Carmen Contreras First U, Ottawa.

# data[].attributes.subject
Let's do the work first, Carmen Contreras First U, Ottawa.

# data[].attributes.body
I think it would make sense to talk about an 8th principle, once the work it refers to was greatly advanced. This would require to have many more conversations about the subject. Until such time when we are truly comfortable expressing and confronting our own biases. And, until we stop being judgmental of those whose biases are reflected in the ways they speak or behave. Then, the naming of another principle will fall like ripe fruit from a tree: effortlessly. Until then, let's keep doing the work.

# data[].attributes.headline
John Boyle, Vancouver Unitarians - Concerns

# data[].attributes.subject
John Boyle, Vancouver Unitarians - Concerns

# data[].attributes.body
The proposal isn’t a principle.  It is a covenant to action, already present for all our principles in the “promote” in the preamble.  It would thus rest awkwardly within the existing set of principles which are timeless guides to right living.

It focuses on what we don’t want – racism – rather than on what we do want and intend to live and create, the focus of the existing principles.  It is generally much more empowering to be for something rather than against it.

I would much prefer, and endorse, a proposed principle like:

“We, the member congregations of the Canadian Unitarian Council, covenant to affirm and promote active respect and inclusion of everyone regardless of race, ethnicity, colour, creed and gender identity.”

# data[].attributes.headline
Keith Wilkinson, Vancouver Unitarians - Alternative Principle  (Post 2 of 2)

# data[].attributes.subject
Keith Wilkinson, Vancouver Unitarians - Alternative Principle  (Post 2 of 2)

# data[].attributes.body
If the CUC Board and Staff deliberate and do conclude that it’s in our overall interest to have another principle right now, I find several proposed elsewhere on this padlet to be quite nuanced and inspiring. This one by ANON is my current favourite:

To affirm and promote:      “Individual and communal action that redresses racism, colonialism, and other injustices that harm our human family and the earth”

And I find this one by Anna Vallentin almost as appealing:

To affirm and promote:      "Action to effectively uplift and exemplify our principles in ourselves, our communities, and in the world"

# data[].attributes.headline
Keith Wilkinson, Vancouver Unitarians - Strategic Priorities & Calls to Action (Post 1 of 2)

# data[].attributes.subject
Keith Wilkinson, Vancouver Unitarians - Strategic Priorities & Calls to Action (Post 1 of 2)

# data[].attributes.body
Several times in recent years, CUC Board and Staff have found ways to listen to the diverse views of dedicated members of member congregations and have found ways to articulate a path forward that satisfied a large majority of those members and even inspired some. I felt that the 2016 approvals of a new vision statement and five new aspirations were in this category. National solidarity on these subjects laid solid groundwork for attracting new members across all ages and cultural backgrounds.

The proposed 8th principle doesn’t meet this community-building standard for consensus. Instead, it threatens to divide us, and unnecessarily. As currently worded, many feel or believe that the 8th principle is redundant in light of the first principle and that it violates some of our other principles and the wisdom of our sources.

I have heard no one in my UU circles suggest that systemic racism, colonialism, and other injustices aren’t real and causing real harm. Nor have I heard anyone suggest that we should not take action to end these, or at least diminish them. So, I urge the CUC Board and the DRSG to put this particular proposed principle aside for now, or at the very least reword it, for the sake of our common cause, and put in place instead some well-conceived and appropriately financed action plans.

Delegates at the May 2021 CJC AGM already approved a group of social justice initiatives as strategic priorities. These included “dismantling racism” and “truth, healing, and reconciliation” along with seven others. Perhaps we should simply set these two as our top strategic priorities, or as Anna Vallentin suggests elsewhere on this padlet, “Calls to Action”. The requirement to seek approval annually for strategic priorities is already embedded in CUC Bylaws, so a mechanism for accountability is already in place if that is a matter of concern to us.

# data[].attributes.body
I don’t think we need another principle, and the one proposed by the DRSG simply has too many flaws as others are pointing out.  If we MUST have another principle, I rather like this one posted by someone else here on Padlet 2:

To affirm and promote:

individual and communal action that redresses racism, colonialism, and other injustices that harm our human family and the earth.

# data[].attributes.headline
Concern about the Dismantling Racism Study Group's report - John Smith, Vancouver Unitarians

# data[].attributes.subject
Concern about the Dismantling Racism Study Group's report - John Smith, Vancouver Unitarians

# data[].attributes.body
I am concerned about the proposed 8th principle and agree with most of the concerns stated on this padlet.  I am also concerned about the many misinterpretations of the survey data in the Dismantling Racism Study Group’s May 8, 2021 report, which is a much-referred-to document in this discussion.  As a statistician, I reviewed their report and found the interpretations of the data from their survey to which 831 Canadian Unitarians responded were not supported by their own graphs and tables, and did not support their conclusions on which the proposed 8th principle is based.  I did not review their “lived experiences”.  If anyone would like a copy of my review, please email me at johnsmith.van@yahoo.com. I sent my review to the authors a few weeks ago.

# data[].attributes.headline
from George Atherton, UCV: Yes, we should address the concerns of our IBPOC members. Let’s be mindful too of the concerns of others here, like Anna Vallentin. There’s a principles-in-practice group at UCV, so it seems quite natural to affirm and promote *Action that embodies our principles in practice* as another take on Anna’s suggestion. More at ucv.im/side-by-side:

# data[].attributes.subject
from George Atherton, UCV: Yes, we should address the concerns of our IBPOC members. Let’s be mindful too of the concerns of others here, like Anna Vallentin. There’s a principles-in-practice group at UCV, so it seems quite natural to affirm and promote *Action that embodies our principles in practice* as another take on Anna’s suggestion. More at ucv.im/side-by-side:

# data[].attributes.body
update: I have no idea why there is an error message when you click on the link. If you expand the post and click on the View Original button at top right, you see the file. —G

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
side-by-side comparison: Unitarian principles then (1961) and now

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
side-by-side comparison: Unitarian principles then (1961) and now then … members of the Unitarian Universalist Association, dedicated to the principles of a free faith, unite in seeking: 1. To strengthen one another in a free and disciplined search for truth as the foundation of our religi…

# data[].attributes.headline
8th: "Action to effectively uplift and exemplify our principles in ourselves, our communities, and in the world", AND: a set of *Calls to Action* to be a *new 3rd pillar* of our faith, in parallel with Principles and Sources, with dismantling racism and other oppressions at the top of the list

# data[].attributes.subject
8th: "Action to effectively uplift and exemplify our principles in ourselves, our communities, and in the world", AND: a set of *Calls to Action* to be a *new 3rd pillar* of our faith, in parallel with Principles and Sources, with dismantling racism and other oppressions at the top of the list

# data[].attributes.body
***AMMENDED*** Yes, confronting and dismantling racism is extremely important.  There are other extremely important causes also, such as preventing new and repairing existing environment destruction, dismantling homophobia/transphobia, eliminating economic and political corruption, etc.  I think these are specific causes, not fundamental principles.  I think these causes are already embedded in our existing 7 principles.  I think what is lacking in our commitments and driving the desire for the proposed 8th principle is an explicit commitment to action regarding our existing principles and a willingness to hold ourselves accountable for that rather than giving lip service to it and carrying on as usual, in other words, "walking the talk".  *HOWEVER, I've come to understand concerns that accountability opens up a whole can of concerning questions about specifically to whom, measured how, judged by which standards, ramifications, etc., and whether all that is incompatible with our existing principles, thanks to the wise words and references of others in these padlets. And I've come to that understanding after reading in our CUC's document 2. The 8th Principle Process: Next Steps 2021-06 statement that " We need an effective mechanism or structure to ensure this." I agree and propose this wider alternative 8th Principle:   --->Action *and accountability to *effectively uplift and exemplify our principles in ourselves, our communities, and in the world.<---  We are failing in many ways and on many levels in the essential task to dismantle racism in ourselves and our institutions. I think we can and should formalize this as a clear, prominent, and vibrant *call to action*.  In fact, I think we need a slate of Calls to Action that is positioned as prominently as, and in parallel with our clear and beautiful slate of Principles and Sources. Dismantling racism and other oppressions should the the first on that Calls to Action list.
Oct. 13 Addition:  These facts:
1. We have on our CUC website a separate page titled "Vision & Mission" which states both that we aspire and challenge ourselves to be "radically inclusive" and "actively engaged"
2. We have a deeply passionate request from our BIPOC members and a recommendation from our Dismantling Racism Study Group to add the 8th principle proposed in the spring
3. That we already at least once have set aside the question of calling ourselves to action (see CUC Statement of Principles Task Force_Final Report. 2008-05)
...lead me to add two thoughts:
1. We are already not living up to our words and adding and 8th principle specifically about racism and other oppressions may not accomplish anything more. Instead, it is high time we all, individually and collectively, walked our talk.
2. Since aspirations and challenges have proven to not be enough and BIPOC have continued to suffer, perhaps ww will do better if we elevate *something* about dismantling racism and other oppressions to the SAME level as our existing 7 Principles without diluting those 7 principles, preferably by adding an equal weight 3rd pillar of Calls to Action as I propose above.

# data[].attributes.body
My concern is not so much with the principle itself as with the hasty process by which it is being adopted. I think the basic idea is good but the wording could use some tweaking, perhaps by making explicit some of the other forms of oppression. I think that the original schedule, where the report would be introduced in May, and the principle would be voted on the following May, would have allowed plenty of time to address people's concerns and arrive at a pretty good consensus. The haste and confusion seems to have aroused a lot of hostility on both sides. I am reminded of what has been happening to the Canadian Green Party and fear that whichever way the decision goes, valuable people will leave our movement and no one will join. Could we pause, take a deep breath, and start over, taking whatever time we need to arrive at something we can all (or, realistically, almost all) be proud of?

Meanwhile, of course, there is nothing to stop individuals and congregations from working against racism, as we certainly should be doing.

Roy Blake, Unitarian Congregation of Niagara

# data[].attributes.body
I'm concerned that so much energy is going into discussing a proposed 8th principle which is proving to be very controversial. On November 27 we should vote on the action-oriented recommendations in the Study Team's Report: for the CUC to develop a curriculum, educational materials and a program for individuals and congregations to take action against racism and other oppressions.
Sanford

# data[].attributes.headline
What are some concerns about adopting an 8th principle?

# data[].attributes.subject
What are some concerns about adopting an 8th principle?

# data[].attributes.body
I agree with points that have already been raised about redundancy, that white UUs will think that the work is done once this lip service has occurred, and about the wording. I also would like to raise that I don't like the idea of inconsistency between various organizations within the UU faith. As a small religious group, I would be disappointed for Canada to have a different set of spiritual principles than other UU organizations around the world. I feel that this has the potential to complicate our international relations internally, but also that it minimizes the experiences of those in international communities that may have different ways of approaching this issue than ours.

But more importantly than that, I feel that developing this principle and going through this process and the resulting change in documentation, etc., is a huge waste of capacity that could be used in action. We already have multiple principles that would call us to resist racism and structural oppression as UUs. The resources being used on this potentially tokenistic change could be used much more effectively than on bureaucracy.

# data[].attributes.body
My biggest worry with adopting this Principle is that the majority of Canadian UU's will think the work will be done. The adoption of the 8th Principle really is only one step in many.

# data[].attributes.headline
I like Anna Vallentin's alternate wording as well !  

# data[].attributes.subject
I like Anna Vallentin's alternate wording as well !  

# data[].attributes.headline
PARTICIPANT COVENANT: I agree that by participating in this platform, I will speak only from my perspective, use language that is respectful, and not disparage others' opinions or comments. I understand that if I do not keep to this, my comment/s may be deleted.

# data[].attributes.subject
PARTICIPANT COVENANT: I agree that by participating in this platform, I will speak only from my perspective, use language that is respectful, and not disparage others' opinions or comments. I understand that if I do not keep to this, my comment/s may be deleted.

# data[].attributes.body
If we are to make this proposal a principle and make it more comprehensive, I like Anna's proposed wording.

# data[].attributes.body
From Terry Anderson Westwood Unitarian, Edmonton.
Like many of the comments here, I too have concerns with the proposed principle. I especially am concerned with the "accountable" word as I see this in direct contradiction to the 4th Principle -  A free and responsible search for truth and meaning.  How can we have a free search if  if what we do or say is held to account! By who? Sounds like we will need more thought and speech police to insure accountability! The 8th principle is a component of the "wok" mentality that been inculcated by CUC, UUA and Ministers' Association.  The Responsibility Covenant (from CUC web page ) is even worse and if adopted will likely drive more freethinking and liberal Canadian UUs out the door. We need to grow NOT provoke dissension and intolerance in our ranks.

# data[].attributes.body
There is no doubt in my mind that most Canadian UU's find "racism and other oppressions" unacceptable and deserving of our immediate attention and action.  Having read, listened to and researched all the reports and debates on the proposed 8th principle,  it seems unbeleivable that Canadian UU's cannot come up with an approach or wording that achieves wider acceptance and represents our Canadian context.  I prefer the idea of having a separate "Calls to aciton" or "Postlude" segment to our principles where this committment (and others) would be stated.   However, I am aware that is a more involved process. Subsequently, I throw into the hat the following wording for an 8th which might be more in line with the tone of our existing 7 principles.

To affirm and promote :

“individual and communal action that (accountably) redresses (or confronts) racism, colonialism, and other injustices that harm our human family and the earth”

# data[].attributes.headline
From Eric Nidd – UU Congregation of Durham:	I feel that it is redundant	I feel that adopting it will cause significant division within the Canadian UU religion	I feel that we will no longer be able to say that our religion is guided by principles, because the current wording is a call to action and not  a principle

# data[].attributes.subject
From Eric Nidd – UU Congregation of Durham:	I feel that it is redundant	I feel that adopting it will cause significant division within the Canadian UU religion	I feel that we will no longer be able to say that our religion is guided by principles, because the current wording is a call to action and not  a principle

# data[].attributes.headline
From Norah Love:   I am 100% in agreement with Audrey Taylor's comment on the Q1 padlet !! (sorry I have posted my comments mistakely to that page ).     This is an action statement , not a principle.   If Canadian UU’s insist that an 8th principle is necessary, it should be reworded as a principle or placed somewhere else as a current area of social justice focus.  ( see Audrey Taylor’s suggestion or those of  Michael Scales or Marlene Koehler in the Leader’s Discussion).  Furthermore,  I wish we , in Canada, had the fortitude to decide our own priorities .  This initiative has come from the UUA and Black Lives Matter movement in the USA.  Their history and evolution is different than ours .  Yes, of course  black lives matter and there is anti-black racism in Canada …..and many Canadian UU’s are engaged in social action around that issue including myself.  However , there are many other “oppressed” or marginalized people in Canada who deserve our attention too …….most obviously our First Nations people !   Do we create new principles for each ??  Why did we discard the language of our 2007 resolutions (which replaced the 2003 wording) …… in 2007 we suggested we aspire to being “active witnesses for racial, religious and First Nations equity” …..a more positive statement than stating that which we intend to “dismantle”. Finally, I believe the original motive of this principle was for UU’s to examine and “dismantle” our internal institutional racism and  white bias……not as a call to become better allies out in the world.  Now that intention has become blurred or perhaps buried.  The wording is confusing not only to UU’s but non-UU’s  as well……and  who are we to be accountable to ??  I thought we were a non-dogmatic faith ?? This principle suggests otherwise.          Our Principles  should be easily understandable to members, but more importantly,  to non-members as well.  It was the 7 principles that drew most of us to this faith community in the first place !  If we hope to keep current members or attract new ones, I don’t think these controversial discussions,   or a decision to add the proposed 8th Principle as it is currently written, will achieve that goal.  I have been an active Canadian UU for over 50 years .  The excessive focus and energy that has gone into this issue, to the exclusion of other important issues,  is deeply troubling to me and has shaken my confidence and pride the Canadian UU community.  Nonetheless, thank you for a platform in which to express my views more widely. 

# data[].attributes.subject
From Norah Love:   I am 100% in agreement with Audrey Taylor's comment on the Q1 padlet !! (sorry I have posted my comments mistakely to that page ).     This is an action statement , not a principle.   If Canadian UU’s insist that an 8th principle is necessary, it should be reworded as a principle or placed somewhere else as a current area of social justice focus.  ( see Audrey Taylor’s suggestion or those of  Michael Scales or Marlene Koehler in the Leader’s Discussion).  Furthermore,  I wish we , in Canada, had the fortitude to decide our own priorities .  This initiative has come from the UUA and Black Lives Matter movement in the USA.  Their history and evolution is different than ours .  Yes, of course  black lives matter and there is anti-black racism in Canada …..and many Canadian UU’s are engaged in social action around that issue including myself.  However , there are many other “oppressed” or marginalized people in Canada who deserve our attention too …….most obviously our First Nations people !   Do we create new principles for each ??  Why did we discard the language of our 2007 resolutions (which replaced the 2003 wording) …… in 2007 we suggested we aspire to being “active witnesses for racial, religious and First Nations equity” …..a more positive statement than stating that which we intend to “dismantle”. Finally, I believe the original motive of this principle was for UU’s to examine and “dismantle” our internal institutional racism and  white bias……not as a call to become better allies out in the world.  Now that intention has become blurred or perhaps buried.  The wording is confusing not only to UU’s but non-UU’s  as well……and  who are we to be accountable to ??  I thought we were a non-dogmatic faith ?? This principle suggests otherwise.          Our Principles  should be easily understandable to members, but more importantly,  to non-members as well.  It was the 7 principles that drew most of us to this faith community in the first place !  If we hope to keep current members or attract new ones, I don’t think these controversial discussions,   or a decision to add the proposed 8th Principle as it is currently written, will achieve that goal.  I have been an active Canadian UU for over 50 years .  The excessive focus and energy that has gone into this issue, to the exclusion of other important issues,  is deeply troubling to me and has shaken my confidence and pride the Canadian UU community.  Nonetheless, thank you for a platform in which to express my views more widely. 

# data[].attributes.body
I suggest we need to take action to combat all forms of racism, discrimination and injustices rather than just make a statment that we are against them.
I suggest we use the word confront rather than dismantle because confronting is something we can do. How can we dismantle racism and discrimination and injustices in others and in government? They are beyond our control and for this reason i find the word dismantl  to be too wishy washy '- almost  meaningless.
I like the UFL suggestion  of adding a clause to the 7th principle that encompasses all of the principles with a call to action - confront in ourselbves and others rather than adding an 8th princople.
And what happens when we have another crisis -' climate chage for example - we do a kneejerk reaction and create a 9th and 10th 'principle to address the issues of the day.
By creating an 8th principle it suggests that this is new
- that we were not against racism before but now we are.

# data[].attributes.body
I think the proposed 8th Principle is not a principle but a call to action. I think this call to action is very important, but I do not think we need another principle. Our current 7 Principles cover the necessary issues. During Women's Suffrage and Women's Equal Rights and Gay Rights, and other important social justice issues, UU's did not create another principle, they recognized the importance of the issue and took action in various forms. This is what we need to do with the issue of Racism. And, perhaps in the process, we need to focus more attention on the principles that support anti-racism. What good is one more principle if we are not living up to the ones we already have.

# data[].attributes.body
The process seems to be a simple "motion" and not even a "resolution", which seems somewhat "light" for amending principles. As a resolution, the proposal lacks an action plan. In terms of the Special Meeting Process, it seems to allow only 1 motion, rather than the topic. And the normal time period for considering important matters has been significantly constrained, presumably to demonstrate respect for the importance and urgency of "dismantling racism" and the number of 2021 AGM delegates who wished to do so without consulting their congregations (or because their congregations had empowered them to act as they saw fit on any new issues).