The Russ and Dee Show
This morning two of my friends from Alabama in the Universism movement were guests on the Russ and Dee Show. After some Alabama listeners were discussing on Universism's "Faithless Community" chat room what they heard on the show, I called in and spent almost a half hour on the line with the host, my two friends, and a guest theologian. The Universists on the chat room were ecstatic about how I came off on the radio and responded to the theologian. I think it's been recorded and maybe I can eventually get it as a download for you.
Comments
netmouse on Mar. 18, 2005 2:54 PM
cool! way to go!
paranthropus on Mar. 18, 2005 3:06 PM
Congratulations on the call-in, Matt, but I have to say... why would any nascent movement so severely handicap itself by selecting such a confusing name?
To the religious person, "Universist" looks and sounds almost exactly like "Universalist". To the religious person, the two movements have basically the same goals: no ten commandments in the courthouse, keep evolution in schools, and take "under God" out of the pledge. Upon hearing of "Universism / UniversALism" his reaction will be simply to laugh, and perhaps become comforted by the impression that the godless atheists are fracturing and splitting their allegiances over nuanced variations of their lack of faith. Where Dawkins' exceptionally ill-advised "Brights" movement served to anger and insult those on the religious right, the Universist movement will probably do little more than amuse them.
Have a look at the URL of that radio show article on Universists. Even they mis-spell it as "universalists". The movement must change its name or it will fail.
matt-arnold on Mar. 18, 2005 3:44 PM
It's too late now. Ford never realized this problem when he selected the name of Universism, and even worse, he named the promotional organization which sounds too much like "United Universists." It has since been changed to "The Universist Movement."
The difference between Universism and Unitarian Universalism is more than a nuance. Universalist Unitarians accept all faiths, and Universism rejects all faiths. I have nothing against UUs personally-- in fact I love and appreciate their churches-- but I'm not one of them as a simple matter of demographic category.
One thing I've learned, is that no label will ever satisfy. What name would you suggest? The minute you come up with one, 90% of the intended recipients will reject it anyway. I accept them all. I call myself a Bright, a Universist, a Secular Humanist, a Vector in the Church of Virus, and a member in absentia of the Fellowship of Reason in Atlanta Georgia, just for starters. These labels don't matter much. Even most of the secular people who reject the labels have got our backs when it comes to issues such as those you listed-- we're all doing basically the same thing. These labels just motivate and organize the most active and concerned of us. That's not failure.
matt-arnold on Mar. 18, 2005 3:52 PM
To answer the question about the name I should also add in way of apologetic explanation that the "univers-" in "Universism" was meant to express the kind of naturalistic non-supernatural awe in the universe that scientists like Albert Einstein and Carl Sagan felt. "What do you believe in?" "The universe." We used to have a spinning galaxy on our homepage to reflect this but people thought it had too much new-agey connection; hence the new twin skyscrapers bring our minds to the concrete here-and-now.
The "univers-" in "universalism," by contrast, meant "universal" as in "all religions, universally, have the supernatural truth.
paranthropus on Mar. 19, 2005 2:59 AM
I understand your definition of Universism. Just about the closest I have ever come to "spirituality" was watching Sagan's "Cosmos" series on PBS as a child (I nabbed the series on DVD when it became available - it's wonderful). As a definition of what the movement is, "Universism" is perfectly descriptive. There seems to be an interest, at least from you, on promoting Universism and its goals to a wider audience. That's where the name can be a problem.
I disagree that labels serve only to motivate and organize the membership. They are a public face of the organization, and should be used to inform and influence non members. They should pre-emptively disarm the movement's detractors. In the same way, it is common for bills in Congress to be labeled in a manner that is completely contrary to their content. This helps to shut down debate.
As far as alternative names, I might pick Integralism, Actualism or Experientialism. All of those are positive sounding, non-confusing words. The name does not have to be so descriptive. "People for the American Way", an organization committed to fighting the radical religious right, has an entirely generic name and is no worse off for it. "Americans United for the Separation of Church and State" is commonly referred to as "Americans United". It becomes an even more powerful statement when it is abbreviated and made generic.
Positive advocacy, public relations and propaganda (in the non-pejorative sense) has to be a key objective of any movement that is focused on growth and change. The name of the organization is the prow of that vessel. Some non-theistic and freethought movements seem to show a lack of understanding in this area. "The Brights" is the best example that I can think of. Consider how the Creationist movement has reinvented itself as "Intelligent Design". Two positive words. They cast the movement in a favorable light, and have helped to re-invigorate it and allowed it to gain traction in the forum of public opinion.
North Korea calls itself the "Democratic People's Republic", and I am sorry to say that my opinion of Kim Jong Il softens even as I type those words.
delosd on Mar. 18, 2005 3:15 PM
Just remember the little people when you're a famous pundit making regular appearances on CNN. (But probably not FoxNews. )
twoofdtm on Mar. 18, 2005 3:20 PM
Oh I love you Steve! *hugs upon you*
delosd on Mar. 18, 2005 7:37 PM
Ooh! Watch out for that love though - I AM getting married tomorrow! :)
twoofdtm on Mar. 18, 2005 8:07 PM
Okay!! *loves upon the soon to be a wife in a few hours as well* HA!! Now tell me no!! :P
Early Congrats on your wedding day plans!
matt-arnold on Mar. 18, 2005 3:33 PM
We've already been on Fox News. It's the conservatives who love our guest appearances the most because it gets their listeners interested and riled up. Strategically speaking, we got the most ideal possible characterization of Universism from the minister: that we are a vast, dangerous movement predicted by God himself in the bible. This is perfect for our publicity. It's the same reason that Kevin Smith joined the crowds of devout little old ladies picketing his film "Dogma." He carred a sign reading "DOGMA IS DOGSHIT" and said it was to increase the box office take. Ford and Todd are very savvy publicist provocateurs.
cosette-valjean on Mar. 19, 2005 4:41 PM
I'm so proud of you, my darling little devil. *Kisses*
Leave a Comment