So I've been chewing on this one for a couple of weeks. I posted that FlUUnking History post, and my pal Chutney posted an elaboration on his blog, which can be seen here. And its on his point about "our prosetylization of the dead." I absolutely love that wording. In my New UU class, for example, we had a worksheet scavenger hunt on old famous UUs.
The whole New UU class was rather pointless, and this just reiterated it.
He may wonder why we're obsessed with declaring important dead people to be UUs, and actively pushing the fact, but it seems somewhat clear to me in my relative New-UUness. It seems twofold to me, neither which seem pretty to me. We want to seem more important than we really are, and we are so desperate to communicate with people outside UUism that we want to use a historical figure to explain it. Since we can't quite look to Jesus, Abraham, Mohamed, etc.
We are a small group of individuals, and on the national political spectrum, especially right now, we have little if any voice in either religious matters or political matters. We're hardly on the map. Take a gander at this mapping of religion in the US. We're so tiny it's a sand castle in the way of the red tidal wave of Baptists. If we can claim famous dead people, any sort of governmental official at all, it gives us something to be proud of and not feel so alone, and makes us sound more important that we actually are in the national historical spectrum.
The communicative effects are offbeat too. We can tell people that Thomas Jefferson was a UU. They know who Thomas Jefferson was. Therefore, they know who UUs are and its our in. That sounds, well, stupid, but it seems to happen. There are soooo many more wonderful things about UUism than famous dead people that we could use in evangelist efforts, but we stick to the dead people. If I was flirting with UU and someone told me all the famous dead people who were members of UU, it would put me off. It's like a desperate old fart holding on to their last vestiges of youth by wearing spandex top at 80. A scary sight, and makes me want to nervously scoot towards the exit.
Some people might say we're proud of our heritage, but if I'm not mistaken, a lot of that famous UU list aren't people who were actual Unitarians or Universalists, but people who had like-minded ideals. We have so many other things to be proud of than old dead white guys…why can't we push those instead?
We really need classes on evangelism if we think the dead guy think works.






8 responses so far ↓
chutney // April 20, 2006 at 12:02 pm |
I realized last night that we’re smaller than the city of Tulsa. Yikes.
Kevin M // April 20, 2006 at 12:24 pm |
I think it’s a desire to establish to others that we have deep and respectable roots, that we’re not just something that got made up one day by a bunch of rootless relativists. Our first impression to the unfamiliar/skeptical can make us look pretty flaky otherwise.
chutney // April 20, 2006 at 12:43 pm |
Sure. I mean, that’s the tack when I told my grandmother, but it seems sometimes that that’s all we believe we’ve got. Or that it keeps up from moving forward.
Why is it always a Jefferson or Priestly or Thoreau? Why not a Vonnegut or Wright?
Better, why don’t we have a way to tell people who we are without them thinking we are flaky?
danielle // April 21, 2006 at 8:31 am |
Don’t you want people to realize that UUism has been around longer than Vonnegut? Giving them a famous name/face to associate with UU’s also gives them a timeline to place us in.
fouralarmfire // April 21, 2006 at 10:18 am |
but UUs in the purest sense haven’t been around that long. we only stopped pretending to be christian in the mid-20th century, right? i don’t find it particularly respectful to call jefferson or any of the others something they clearly were not, even if they were like-minded.
it’s not really any better than the mormons and their mania for genealogy and baptising their ancestors into the mormon church. at least they believe that it’s about getting their ancestors into heaven. we’re using it to validate our faith and make ourselves feel more like a “real” religion.
if that’s all we got, we might as well stay home.
kinsi // April 21, 2006 at 1:57 pm |
who the hell is Vonnegut?
I agree with fouralarmfire. We claim a lot of old dead peple as UUs who were Unitarians or had Unitarian leanings back in the day. Well, UUism has changed dramatically since then.
Don’t you cringe when you hear the GOP call itself the Party of Lincoln, when you know good and well that if Lincoln were alive today there’s not a shot in hell he’d be a Republican?
Tom // May 3, 2006 at 11:42 pm |
I am going to proselytize this blog if you don’t snap to it, mister.
kinsi // May 6, 2006 at 6:59 pm |
aye aye sir!