My readership constantly surprises me. When I write something, I frequently find that my commenters challenge my assumptions, and rightly so. I privately think of this as me "getting hit with the clue baton."
Yet again, I find that some of y'all were thinking a step beyond where I was. In my thread asking people if they considered themselves "Unitarian," "Universalist," both or neither, Clyde's response:
Unitarian Universalist is the chosen name of the faith community that I identify with, I would think we could have found a different name...
and CK's response:
Unitarian Universalist, but since I'm a humanist agnostic, I don't really consider those categories relevant for me personally.
Both sort of surprised me, to be honest. As I wrote, I'd been focused on redefining the terms to something I could agree with.
But it's true that a lot of the commentors don't seem to identify with either term.
I know this has come up before various places. But I'm asking it here mostly because the responses seem to beg the question.
Is "Unitarian Universalism" just a name for us now? If the individual words don't have any meaning for us anymore, should we change the name to something more descriptive or perhaps easier? (e.g. I've heard "Church of the Free" proposed by someone I respect a lot.)
who doesn't want to personally, but she identifies with those two terms more easily than a lot of people here.