The Emerson Avenger

The Emerson Avenger is a "memory hole" free blog where censorship is scorned. This blog will "guard the right to know" about any injustices and abuses that corrupt Unitarian Universalism. Posters may speak and argue freely, according to conscience, about any injustices and abuses, or indeed hypocrisy, that they may know about so that the Avenger, in the form of justice and redress, may come surely and swiftly. . . "Slowly, slowly the Avenger comes, but comes surely." - Ralph Waldo Emerson

My Photo
Name:
Location: Montreal, Quebec, Canada

In 1992 I underwent a profound revelatory experience of God which revealed that the total solar eclipse "Eye of God" is a "Sign in the Heavens" that symbolizes God's divine omniscience. You may read about what Rev. Ray Drennan of the Unitarian Church of Montreal contemptuously dismissed as my "psychotic experience" here: http://revelationisnotsealed.homestead.com - This revelatory religious experience inspired me to propose an inter-religious celebration of Creation that would take place whenever a total solar eclipse took place over our planet. You may read about what Rev. Ray Drennan and other leading members of the Unitarian Church of Montreal falsely and maliciously labeled as a "cult" here: http://creationday.homestead.com - I am now an excommunicated Unitarian whose "alternative spiritual practice" includes publicly exposing and denouncing Unitarian*Universalist injustices, abuses, and hypocrisy. The Emerson Avenger blog will serve that purpose for me and hopefully others will share their concerns here. Dee Miller's term DIM Thinking is used frequently and appropriately on this blog. You may read more about what DIM Thinking is here - http://www.takecourage.org/defining.htm

Sunday, November 13, 2005

Insane Again? Will UUs ever learn?

I believe that the following "memory holed" posts to Philocrites' Where, oh where are the Philocritics? thread deserves a special thread of their own here.

An anonymous poster attempted to disingenuously pathologize me by insinuating that my ongoing protest activities constitute "insanity". No doubt because in his or her sincerely ignorant and conscientiously stupid mind I am "doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results."

My response to Anonymouse reveals the fallacy of that logic, at least in terms of inappropriately applying it to my ongoing protest activities. Au contraire I actually demonstrate that the members of the Unitarian Church of Montreal, and indeed many other sincerely igorant and conscientiously stupid UUs. . . are in fact "doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results" by obstinately ignoring my ongoing protest activities and doing their damnedest to censor and suppress my legitimate protest rather than responsibly attempting to properly redress my serious grievances. . .

I can't help but wonder why this anonymous poster expected "different results" with respect to his or her thinly disguised attempt to pathologize me. . . ;-)

I can't help but wonder also why it is that Philocrites chose to "memory hole" not only my response to anonymouse but anonymouse's original disingenuous comment and all of the follow up posts as well. . . Just what is Philocrites trying to hide (aka cover-up and deny) via his repeated "memory holing" censorship and suppression of my own and others' "problematic" posts to his blog?

anonymous:
October 31, 2005 04:55 PM Permalink for this comment

Robin-

One of the conventional wisdom definitions of insanity is "doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results." It seems like you've been pushing the same boulder for 10+ years with nothing to show for it. Is that insanity?

There is nothing wrong with starting a new religion, but most prophets find it useful to gather a few disciples before they martyr themselves. Your martyrdom seems pretty lonely.

And, I am confused about why Emerson needs to be avenged. Has Emerson been wronged? It seems that Emerson has survived quite well without your defending his honor.

It must suck for Emerson's transparent eyeball to get all the glory and oooohs and ahhhhs while your "eye of God" is ignored.


Robin Edgar:
October 31, 2005 05:50 PM Permalink for this comment

My Response to anonymouse

: One of the conventional wisdom definitions of insanity is "doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results."

Quite right and the members of the Unitarian Church of Montreal have been "doing the same thing over and over" for about a decade now and expecting different results. . . I am getting most, albeit not all, of the results that I expect in terms of my own "doing the same thing over and over". . .

: It seems like you've been pushing the same boulder for 10+ years with nothing to show for it.

Actually I have plenty "to show" for the UU "boulder" that I have been pushing 10+ years with even more "to show" in the next 10+ years. . .

: Is that insanity?

Is that a rhetorical question?

Because, if so, you just added yourself to the list of people who foolishly, and often maliciously, seek to pathologize me.

: There is nothing wrong with starting a new religion, but most prophets find it useful to gather a few disciples before they martyr themselves. Your martyrdom seems pretty lonely.

The rumours of my "martyrdom" are greatly exaggerated. . .

: And, I am confused about why Emerson needs to be avenged.

You are indeed confused. Think again.

: Has Emerson been wronged?

Have I made that claim anywhere?

: It seems that Emerson has survived quite well without your defending his honor.

Who ever said that I am defending Emerson's honor?

: It must suck for Emerson's transparent eyeball to get all the glory and oooohs and ahhhhs while your "eye of God" is ignored.

Actually it is God's symbolic "Eye of God", not mine. . . It gets plenty of glory and and oooohs and ahhhhs every time that it is manifested during a total solar eclipse. . .

Half a million page views and counting is hardly "ignored". . .

17 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

You are correct that it is innappropriate for someone to try and make a clinical diagnosis of you. There are two major problems with this. First is that such a diagnosis can not be made by one's online presence. It's simply folly to do so.

But far more importantly it's totaly not the point. You sir are a world class schmuck. Who, for whatever reason, has chosen to exact revenge by being an obnoxious annoyance.

If there were a clinical reason behind your obnoxious behavious you could be pitied. So why would anyone want to label you with a clinical problem. You are a schmuck, a troll, an obnoxious blight making the internet a slightly more annoying place.

Monday, November 14, 2005 10:18:00 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Oh yeah, and I forgot to add on. Half a million page hits ain't bad. But don't assume that people are actually interested in believing your spew. People watched WB Superstar and listen to the kids of widney high. It's not cause of their talent. Hell, I might even point a few people to your site. You are a frick'n joke, and jokes are funny.

Monday, November 14, 2005 11:27:00 pm  
Blogger The Emerson Avenger said...

I do try to inject some humour into my protest activities as witness my UNSAFE SECT? picket sign slogan which gets plenty of chuckles from the public.

My UNE ÉGLISE QUI N'EST PAS TRÈS CATHOLIQUE picket sign slogan elicits some knowing smirks and even guffaws from Montreal's Francophone population. I was told by a friend that even the Francophone Crown prosecutor couldn't suppress some laughter when I cross examined one of the Unitarian Church of Montreal's prosecution witnesses about this particular picket sign slogan.

I am reasonably confident that I will eventually have the last laugh in this ludicrous conflict. . .

Tuesday, November 15, 2005 8:43:00 pm  
Blogger indrax said...

Robin:
What is your system of morality/ethics/whatever?

Friday, November 18, 2005 12:15:00 am  
Blogger The Emerson Avenger said...

Good question. Probably hard to answer in some ways but I do think that I have a pretty good grasp of what's "right" and what's "wrong". I am pretty easy going and forgiving as a rule however you have to draw the line somewhere. . . I am definitely not big on moral relativism which often devolves into moral degenaracy. I am not big on the concept of self-forgiveness which seems pretty popular amongst UUs these days. I believe that true forgiveness can only come from the victim of the transgression and no the transgressor him or herself. It seems to me that a psychopath or sociopath effectively engages in conscienceless "self-forgiveness" n'est-ce pas? Feel free to follow-up with more specific questions.

Friday, November 18, 2005 1:29:00 am  
Blogger indrax said...

What makes something right or wrong?
What kinds of moral obligations do people in general have?
How is God related to morality?

Friday, November 18, 2005 5:49:00 am  
Blogger The Emerson Avenger said...

Good questions again Indrax and questions that can obviously lead to some lengthy philosophical responses. Heck one could devote a book or two to more fully answering any one of your three philosophical questions. I will try to be brief and concise and answer the questions within a specifically UU context.

Needless to say society as a whole largely determines what is "right" and what is "wrong" and different societies will have differing concepts of what is "right" and "wrong". Even within a particular society there may be conflicts between what some members of that society consider to be "right" and others consider to be "wrong". The ongoing abortion debate is well known to UUs. To some people abortion is not only "right" but "a right" whereas other people are convinced that it is morally and ethically "wrong" and equivalent to murder. UU "society" has its Seven Principles which UUs "covenant" (i.e. solemnly promise) to "affirm and promote" thus it would be "wrong" and indeed "a wrong" for UUs to violate these purported covenants. Needless to say I have very good reason to believe that UUs have made a complete mockery of most of these "covenants", to say nothing of other purported UU guidelines, policies and ideals, in their human relations with me. I have been "wronged" and I am attempting to "right" those UU defined "wrongs" that I have quite evidently been subjected to by UUs who flaunt UU principles and ideals.

The moral obligations that people in general have are again largely defined by the society that they live in and those moral obligations are based upon what that society considers to be right and wrong. We Westerners generally agree that it is "wrong" and a moral outrage to fly commercial airliners into office buildings killing thousands of innocent people however from the perspective of exteme fundamentalist Muslim society doing such a thing, and similar things such as suicide bombings, is quite evidently considered to be "right" and even a "moral obligation". Within the context of UUism and my ongoing conflict I believe that UUs have moral obligation to make a reasonable effort to practice what they preach and responsibly attempt to "right" any "wrongs" as defined by UU ideals and moral principles etc., especially "wrongs" committed by UU clergy and other UU leaders.

God is related to morality in human societies primarily within the context of theistic religious beliefs that attribute certain moral qualities, and indeed specific moral principles, guidelines, and obligations to God. Some of these moral qualities and specific moral principles and guidelines etc. etc. may well come from God however, in that there are some glaring contradictions between some of these moral qualities, principles, and guidelines etc. etc. that are attributed to God and God's own actions or the actions of human beings ostensibly acting in compliance with God's alleged requests and commands, there exists some confusion as to what God's own moral qualities really are. In fact one can rationally question whether or not God is a moral being at all. None-the-less the common monotheistic concept that God is the ultimate judge of human morality, or lack thereof, is a fundamental belief of most monotheistic religions. The fact that witnesses are usually required to swear on the Bible to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth in most courts of law testifies to this fundamental monotheistic belief. The Koran repeatedly reminds its readers that God is "Aware of what you do" and the ultimate Judge of human thoughts, words, and actions. My own profound revelatory experience of God bears witness to God's divine omnniscience and reveals a bona fide "Sign in the Heavens" that serves as a cosmic symbol of God's "oversight" of the world and everything that takes place in it.

Friday, November 18, 2005 9:45:00 pm  
Blogger indrax said...

Needless to say society as a whole largely determines what is "right" and what is "wrong" and different societies will have differing concepts of what is "right" and "wrong". Even within a particular society there may be conflicts between what some members of that society consider to be "right" and others consider to be "wrong".

Isn't that moral relativism?

UU "society" has its Seven Principles which UUs "covenant" (i.e. solemnly promise) to "affirm and promote"

I'd like to point out that it is UUA congregations that make that covenant. Individual UU's are in no way bound to it. If individuals had to subscribe to it, it would be a creed.
For example, It posssible for an individual UU to believe that Hitler had no 'inherent worth and dignity', even while their congregation affirms that everyone does have worth.

a bona fide "Sign in the Heavens" that serves as a cosmic symbol of God's "oversight" of the world and everything that takes place in it.

So God is watching, but does she care? I guess my question is, does God dictate morality? is the eye in the sky judging?

If so, what are her morals?

Saturday, November 19, 2005 2:45:00 pm  
Blogger The Emerson Avenger said...

: Isn't that moral relativism?

Indeed what I described above is one form of moral relativism. Does that mean that I approve of moral relativism? Not a all. I am simply describing objective reality not the ideal situation. Ideally all human beings would arrive at a single moral code, or at least a single set of fundamental moral principles, that all could agree on and try to uphold and enforce.

: I'd like to point out that it is UUA congregations that make that covenant. Individual UU's are in no way bound to it. If individuals had to subscribe to it, it would be a creed.

I hate to burst UUism's alleged "creedless religion" bubble but the Seven Principles of UUism are most certainly a form of creed. Can you or any other UU credibly argue that the Seven Principles of UUism are not a formal statement of religious belief and/or a system of belief, principles, or opinions? I think not.

Please don't take this too personally but the fact that you and no shortage of other individual UUs quite evidently believe that they are "in no way bound" to "subscribe" to the UU "creed" of the Seven Principles is moral relativism of the worst kind as far as I am concerned.

You and other UUs are technically correct in stating that "it is UUA congregations that make that covenant" (as it were) however a "congregation" is not an abstract entity that is set apart from the various individuals that make up that congregation. If any group of individuals publicly claims to collectively hold to any set of principles as a "congregation", or indeed any other form of collectiviy, then it is perfectly logical and reasonable to expect that each individual member of the larger congregation holds to the same set of principles as a person. It makes no sense whatsoever that a group of individuals can publicly profess to "covenant" to "affirm and promote" any principles yet none of the individual members of the group are "in any way bound" to "affirm and promote" those purported "covenants" themselves. To do so is the height of double-speak and hypocrisy and effectively fraudulent.

: For example, It posssible for an individual UU to believe that Hitler had no 'inherent worth and dignity', even while their congregation affirms that everyone does have worth.

Which helps to explain why UUism is such a "conflicted" religion. . .

: So God is watching, but does she care?

Yes God is "watching". How much she cares is open to considerable debate however.

: I guess my question is, does God dictate morality?

Evidently according to the "dictates" of the Bible, the Koran and various other monotheistic religious texts God does indeed dictate morality. The Ten Commandments of the Bible are the most familiar moral dicates that are attributed to God by Western society. The Koran and other monotheistic religious texts contain similar moral dictates attributed to God. The problem is that there are some glaringly obvious contradictions and conflicts between some of those moral "dictates" that are attributed to God, including the Ten Commandments, and other "dictates" and even actions that are attributed to God or human beings acting on God's behest. In light of these unresolved contradictions and conflicts (dare I say moral relativism?) I believe that modern civilized human beings have little choice but to formulate their own moral and ethical codes and guidelines etc. that take God's alleged moral "dictates" into account but do so within a humanistic and humane framework. This is pretty much what modern Western society has effectively done in the last few centuries.

: is the eye in the sky judging?

The total solar eclipse "Eye in the sky" is purely symbolic. It is not capable of seeing or judging anything as far as I am concerned. The total solar eclipse "Eye of God" is a cosmic symbol, a "Sign in the Heavens" signifying God's attribute of divine omniscience, which by the way extends well beyond the physical sense of seeing. According to monotheistic religious beliefs and my own personal revelatory experience God is highly if not completely and utterly aware of everything that takes place in the world including human thoughts, words, and actions. God is thus most certainly capable of judging human beings. The degree to which God actually is judging human beings and why, when, and exactly how God renders her judgment on individual human beings, or on humanity more generally, is open to considerable debate. In terms of my own profound revelatory experience of God I was given the distinct impression that God was more than a little bit displeased with the way human beings are degrading and destroying God's Creation here on Earth and could render her judgment on humanity in various ways. Indeed one way God could render judgment on humanity would be to simply allow us to continue to destroy ourselves without intervening in any way to prevent our self-destruction.

: If so, what are her morals?

Unfortunately I am not in a position to authoritatively answer that question. I wish that I and/or other human beings could do so for the ultimate benefit of all humanity. Of course we have various indications of what God's morals might be in the Bible, the Koran, and numerous other religious scriptures.

Saturday, November 19, 2005 5:35:00 pm  
Blogger indrax said...

Ideally all human beings would arrive at a single moral code

And what would that look like?
This brings me back to my original question: What is your system of morality?


I can certainly argue that the 7 principles are not a 'formal statement of religious belief; a confession of faith'. The second definition is so broad that it includes 'an architectural creed that demanded simple lines'. Clearly this is not the pertinent definition in this context.

"the fact that you and no shortage of other individual UUs quite evidently believe that they are "in no way bound" to "subscribe" to the UU "creed" of the Seven Principles is moral relativism of the worst kind as far as I am concerned. "

Is it moral relativism, or is it simply describing objective reality?
The language is clear, the 7 Principles simply are not a mandate of personal morality, ethics, or belief. They are some insipirational concepts that some organizations have decided to promote. I am not a congregation.

It makes no sense whatsoever that a group of individuals can publicly profess to "covenant" to "affirm and promote" any principles yet none of the individual members of the group are "in any way bound" to "affirm and promote" those purported "covenants" themselves.

It makes perfect sense in any system based on freedom and democracy.
Democracy, because a majority might decide to promote a view that a minority disagrees with. Almost any descision will have a minority.
Freedom, becuase in a free system disagreeing with the democratic majority (or whatever leadership) does not itself bar you from membership.

Inidivual congregations or the UUA might make any number of moral statements, but you can bet that there is someone who disagrees with it, either wholesale or on a technicality. (or just on the principle that the UUA/congregation should not be taking such a stand either way.)
Democracy means a dissenting minority, freedom means they are still UU's.

: For example, It posssible for an individual UU to believe that Hitler had no 'inherent worth and dignity', even while their congregation affirms that everyone does have worth.

Which helps to explain why UUism is such a "conflicted" religion. . .


Indeed.

In terms of my own profound revelatory experience of God I was given the distinct impression that God was more than a little bit displeased with the way human beings are degrading and destroying God's Creation here on Earth and could render her judgment on humanity in various ways.

So God wants us to take better care of the environment?

Indeed one way God could render judgment on humanity would be to simply allow us to continue to destroy ourselves without intervening in any way to prevent our self-destruction.

But, if your experience really is a revelation, hasn't she already intervened?

Sunday, November 20, 2005 3:32:00 pm  
Blogger The Emerson Avenger said...

::Ideally all human beings would arrive at a single moral code

:And what would that look like?

It would need to be something relatively simple and universal. Something like the Ten Commandments or even the Seven Principle's of UUism. Some fundamental and highly universal moral principles that would cover most of the bases as it were. BTW This ideal universal moral code would not prevent various cultures and religions from adhering to their traditional moral codes as well.

: This brings me back to my original question: What is your system of morality?

That is not so easy to answer briefly but essentially my own personal moral code is firmly rooted in traditional and well accepted Western moral and ethical ideals and values. I am a political and religious liberal so I tend to lean to the left both politically and religiously.

: I can certainly argue that the 7 principles are not a 'formal statement of religious belief; a confession of faith'. The second definition is so broad that it includes 'an architectural creed that demanded simple lines'. Clearly this is not the pertinent definition in this context.

I think the broader definition of "creed" is pertinent in the context of the Seven Principles and, in any case, surely you will acknowledge that the Seven Principles of UUism do clearly constitute a "formal statement" of Unitarian Universalist "religious belief".

::"the fact that you and no shortage of other individual UUs quite evidently believe that they are "in no way bound" to "subscribe" to the UU "creed" of the Seven Principles is moral relativism of the worst kind as far as I am concerned. "

:Is it moral relativism, or is it simply describing objective reality?

It is a form of moral relativism for individual people to join and belong to UU congregations that publicly claim to "affirm and promote" certain principles as congregations, indeed as a larger association of congregations, but to then believe that they, and indeed all other UUs, have no moral obligation whatsoever to live up to those stated principles.

:The language is clear, the 7 Principles simply are not a mandate of personal morality, ethics, or belief. They are some insipirational concepts that some organizations have decided to promote. I am not a congregation.

You and all other UUs are members of UU congregations. You are a part of the congregation. How can UU congregations credibly claim to "affirm and promote" the Seven Principles if any and all individual members of the congregation are free to willfully disregard these principles and even flagrantly flaunt them? Put another way just how many individual UUs can disregard and flaunt UU principles before the congregation as an entity is guilty of breaking its alleged covenants?

::It makes no sense whatsoever that a group of individuals can publicly profess to "covenant" to "affirm and promote" any principles yet none of the individual members of the group are "in any way bound" to "affirm and promote" those purported "covenants" themselves.

:It makes perfect sense in any system based on freedom and democracy.
Democracy, because a majority might decide to promote a view that a minority disagrees with. Almost any descision will have a minority.

And what if the majority of UUs in any particular congregation break their purported covenants?

:Freedom, becuase in a free system disagreeing with the democratic majority (or whatever leadership) does not itself bar you from membership.

In my case it does.

So much for UU freedom and democracy. . .

:Inidivual congregations or the UUA might make any number of moral statements, but you can bet that there is someone who disagrees with it, either wholesale or on a technicality. (or just on the principle that the UUA/congregation should not be taking such a stand either way.)
Democracy means a dissenting minority, freedom means they are still UU's.

But if most or all UUs in any particular UU congregation believe that they are "not in any way bound" to their congregation's own publicly professed covenants they are no longer a dissenting minority. Is it not highly misleading at best, and outright fraudulent at worst. . . for UU congregations to "covenant" to "affirm and promote" the Seven Principles if any and all of their members may flaunt any and all of said "covenants" or principles?

Indrax said - For example, It posssible for an individual UU to believe that Hitler had no 'inherent worth and dignity', even while their congregation affirms that everyone does have worth.

I said - Which helps to explain why UUism is such a "conflicted" religion. . .

Indrax then said - Indeed.

I say - You can say that again. . .

::In terms of my own profound revelatory experience of God I was given the distinct impression that God was more than a little bit displeased with the way human beings are degrading and destroying God's Creation here on Earth and could render her judgment on humanity in various ways.

:So God wants us to take better care of the environment?

That was one major part of the messages that I received. Hence the inspiration for Creation Day.

::Indeed one way God could render judgment on humanity would be to simply allow us to continue to destroy ourselves without intervening in any way to prevent our self-destruction.

:But, if your experience really is a revelation, hasn't she already intervened?

She has indeed already intervened with me AFAIAC, and no doubt other people too. Perhaps God has even intervened in other ways that do not involve communicating with or otherwise influencing human beings. God can intervene in many ways now and in the future but I have reason to believe that God could "judge" human beings by simply choosing not to intervene on our behalf in the future in order to divert us from heading towards self-destruction. I also have good reason to believe that God could actively intervene in ways that would serve to accelerate our path to self-destruction if God so wished.

Monday, November 21, 2005 12:09:00 am  
Blogger indrax said...

It would need to be something relatively simple and universal. Something like the Ten Commandments or even the Seven Principle's of UUism. Some fundamental and highly universal moral principles that would cover most of the bases as it were.

I think you should work on that.

surely you will acknowledge that the Seven Principles of UUism do clearly constitute a "formal statement" of Unitarian Universalist "religious belief".

Nope :-)
Formal statement, yes.
Religious, probably.
Belief, no.
and certainly not 'a confession of faith'

The principles are not statements of belief because they don't state anything. They are based on certain assumptions, but they don't assert that anything is factual. The only statement made is that the congregations covenant to...
I can say 'the republican party is against gay marriage' but that doesn't mean I agree with them on that issue, even if I am a republican, and even if they made a formal statement to that effect.

And what if the majority of UUs in any particular congregation break their purported covenants?

You are confusing acts of individuals with acts of a congregation.
A congregation acts in votes it takes, and indirectly through the board and committees.
A congregation might vote to make public statements on the environment (promoting the interdependent web) even while every one of it's individual members own businesses with poor environmental practices. In this unlikely scenario, the congregation has lived up to it's covenant (perhaps very well, at that), even while it's people have failed to be inspired.

In my case it does.

That is a whole other conversation, We shall deal with that in time.

:So God wants us to take better care of the environment?

That was one major part of the messages that I received. Hence the inspiration for Creation Day.


I think that would make an excelent keystone for a universal moral code.

I also have good reason to believe that God could actively intervene in ways that would serve to accelerate our path to self-destruction if God so wished.

But would she?

Monday, November 21, 2005 2:45:00 am  
Blogger The Emerson Avenger said...

:I think you should work on that.

Perhaps but it is something that I would want to do with plenty of input from other people of diverse cultural and religious backgrounds.

::surely you will acknowledge that the Seven Principles of UUism do clearly constitute a "formal statement" of Unitarian Universalist "religious belief".

:Nope :-)
Formal statement, yes.
Religious, probably.
Belief, no.
and certainly not 'a confession of faith'

Belief, yes.

The Seven Principles are in fact a formal statement of UU defined religious belief(s) and thus fit the first narrower definition of a creed as well as the broader definition.


: The principles are not statements of belief because they don't state anything.

Yes they do. . . Affirm and state are pretty much synonyms. An affirmation is a particular kind of statement.

:They are based on certain assumptions, but they don't assert that anything is factual.

I suggest that you read the Seven Principles again. A free and responsible search for truth and meaning of the Seven Principles will reveal that they are in fact a formal statement of Unitarian Universalist religious beliefs and thus a form of creed.

: The only statement made is that the congregations covenant to...
I can say 'the republican party is against gay marriage' but that doesn't mean I agree with them on that issue, even if I am a republican, and even if they made a formal statement to that effect.

If your personal beliefs were in direct conflict with the clearly stated public policies, or indeed "creed", of the Republican Party (or any other "congregation") you would probably be expected to follow the just might be asked to leave.


::And what if the majority of UUs in any particular congregation break their purported covenants?

:You are confusing acts of individuals with acts of a congregation.

::A congregation acts in votes it takes, and indirectly through the board and committees.
A congregation might vote to make public statements on the environment (promoting the interdependent web) even while every one of it's individual members own businesses with poor environmental practices. In this unlikely scenario, the congregation has lived up to it's covenant (perhaps very well, at that), even while it's people have failed to be inspired.

Nope. Even while it's people engage in empty posturing and outrageous hypocrisy. . .

Indrax said - So God wants us to take better care of the environment?

I said - That was one major part of the messages that I received. Hence the inspiration for Creation Day.

Indrax responded - I think that would make an excelent keystone for a universal moral code.

I say - So do I. It already is a part of the purported Unitarian Universalist moral code that, according to you and rather too many other UUs, individual UUs are supposedly free to willfully disregard and flagrantly violate. . .

I said - I also have good reason to believe that God could actively intervene in ways that would serve to accelerate our path to self-destruction if God so wished.

Indrax responded - But would she?

I say - Quite possibly. . .

Monday, November 21, 2005 6:35:00 pm  
Blogger The Emerson Avenger said...

I meant to say - If your personal beliefs were in direct conflict with the clearly stated public policies, or indeed "creed", of the Republican Party (or any other "congregation") you would probably be expected to follow the *paty line or you* just might be asked to leave.

Monday, November 21, 2005 6:37:00 pm  
Blogger indrax said...

On universal moral princples/environmentalism:
Perhaps but it is something that I would want to do with plenty of input from other people of diverse cultural and religious backgrounds.
---
I say - So do I. It already is a part of the purported Unitarian Universalist moral code that, according to you and rather too many other UUs, individual UUs are supposedly free to willfully disregard and flagrantly violate. . .

I agree that global perspectives are very important in formulating such a code.
Your UU knock does serve to bring up the point that such a code is next to useless if no one adheres to it. There should be some inherent reason to adopt this standard, whether it be explicit or implicit.
Now, I'm trying to think of reasons why the environment is important, that are valid from culturally diverse standpoints. What is the environmental ideal, and why?

Yes they do. . . Affirm and state are pretty much synonyms. An affirmation is a particular kind of statement.

Yes, but the principles do not affirm or state anything, other than declaring the covenant.
e.g.
"Our congregation promotes the inherent dignity and worth of every person." is a fundamentaly different kind of sentence than "Every person has inherent dignity and worth" or even "I believe that every person has inherent dignity and worth"

The latter is a statement of belief, the middle is a statement for fact, but the first is really just a statement about actions and statements. It assumes that there is dignity and worth to affirm and promote, but it does not state that as fact or belief.

I'd hardly say that the 'kids version' should be taken to make a philosophically rigorous argument.

If your personal beliefs were in direct conflict with the clearly stated public policies, or indeed "creed", of the Republican Party (or any other "congregation") you would probably be expected to follow the *paty line or you* just might be asked to leave.

Organizations can't really react to your beliefs, only your actions. If a Republican started campainging for gay marriage, then yes, they would likely face conflict from the party. If a racist UU wanted to use a church for a KKK meeting, the congregation would probably
forbid it, depending on how it's members interpret it's covenant.

Nope. Even while it's people engage in empty posturing and outrageous hypocrisy. . .

No, it would not be posturing or hypocricy. It is the congregation making statements, and the individuals acting contrary to them. It is a very important distinction.
This is not a case of someone saying 'We must protect the environment at all costs.' and then driving a Hummer.

A congregation is not a person, it cannot believe. It can only act and state. It is controlled by people who have a wide range of motivations. Statements that the congregation makes are not statements that the individuals make, and vice versa.

I'm not sure I'm giving a very good explanation of this. My point is that since individual UU's are not required to promise to affirm the principles, it is not necessarily hypocrisy for them to take actions or positions that run counter to the principles. If there is no covenant, then there is no covenant breaking.


::would she?
Quite possibly. . .
Why?
I mean, it seems harsh.

Tuesday, November 22, 2005 1:25:00 am  
Blogger The Emerson Avenger said...

Hi Indrax,

Sorry to be rather slow to respond to you here however I will do so in the next day or two.

Happy Thanksgiving.

The Emerson Avenger

Thursday, November 24, 2005 9:49:00 pm  
Blogger indrax said...

bump

Tuesday, November 29, 2005 10:03:00 pm  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home