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

Thursday, November 24, 2005

UUism hates clarity too Will. . .

The following parody was posted in response to the 'capitalism hates clarity' thread on Will Shetterly's 'it's all one thing' blog -


Unitarian Universalism hates clarity too. . .

From the "Religious" Left's Vaporware: Unitarianism and Universalism have merged under a new moniker, "Unitarian Universalism", or in their officially-sanctioned shorthand UUism™. Yes, the trademark symbol is part of the abbreviation to remind people that they're not that "Unitarian" nor "Universalist" anymore. And in case you get any funny ideas about exposing and denouncing any of UUism™'s intellectual dishonesty, every UU web site is accompanied by a "moderator" aka "UU-Thought Police Person" and a mouseclick or two to the UUism™ "memory hole". . .

The jury may still be out on whether or not UUism™ is a thinly-disguised atheist "Humanist" circlejerk, one thing is already clear. They're not really "Unitarian" nor truly "Universalist". I've always considered the intentional misuse of English words to be a 1984™ phenomenon, but the guys in UUism sure are quick learners. . . It's actually rather hard to find the true meaning of "Unitarian Universalism". Google the definition, and you get a whole lot of misleading gobbledygook and false advertising. Typically programmed by volunteers from "Humanist" organizations, the "source code" of the Unitarian Universalist religion is free and available to fundamentalist atheists who would like to use it or modify it for their own purposes. . .
But Unitarian Universalists hate dictionary definitions of good English words. "Honesty" in UUism apparently means "Hypocrisy". "Welcoming" means nothing more than "Gay-friendly." "Minister" can mean "atheist bigot". "Principles" can mean "you won't feel good when you gullibly buy into this "Fox News"!"

This isn't new, of course. Atheist Unitarians won't admit that truth in advertising laws came about because Unitarians in the late 19th century thought putting atheists in a "Church" and claiming it was "Unitarianism" wasn't dishonest; it was just good business. To UUs, words, like everything else, have one purpose: to make the "Church" richer.

5 Comments:

Blogger The Emerson Avenger said...

Here is some parody 'clarity' that Will Shetterly saw fit to "memory hole" a few days ago when I posted it in response to his 'when they say we had to attack Iraq' thread on his http://shetterly.blogspot.com/">'it's all one thing' blog. . .

BELLICOSE UUA ADMINISTRATION REFUSES TO CONCEDE ITS ERRORS

If UUs suffer from the UU amnesia of 1996-2005, they might like a look at our suppressed UU past.

Thursday, November 24, 2005 9:43:00 pm  
Blogger The Emerson Avenger said...

Oh well. I guess that I will just leave that mangled HTML as is.

Thursday, November 24, 2005 9:45:00 pm  
Blogger indrax said...

I'm confused about what your gripe here is.

Unitarian and Universalist are historical names for our denomination[s]. Do we have to drop the name just because the majority of us have drifted away from those theologies?

You seem to have a problem with atheists. If you do not, you need to work on your presentation.

You don't seriously think that UUism is just atheist humanists, do you?



Also, I think this is a good example of a post that is very far off the original topic.

Thursday, November 24, 2005 11:27:00 pm  
Blogger The Emerson Avenger said...

: I'm confused about what your gripe here is.

Well if you read the post carefully you will see that there are actually a few of my standard "gripes" dealt with in it. Surely I need not enumerate them.

: Unitarian and Universalist are historical names for our denomination[s].

Needless to say I am perfectly aware of that as the post makes clear.

: Do we have to drop the name just because the majority of us have drifted away from those theologies?

When it comes to the issue of "clarity" of language and truth in advertising the answer to that question may well be yes. When bona fide God believing Unitarians, especially those who are very Christian-centered in a very traditional version of Unitarian faith, are considerably less than welcome in many a so-called Unitarian Church then perhaps such Unwelcoming UU congregations should acknowledge that they are no longer really a "Church" and no longer genuinely "Unitarian" either, at least in any traditional dictionary definition sense of the word. There already is some movement in that direction by some UUs, including UU clergy, who openly admit that UUism is no longer genuinely Unitarian nor truly Universalist. In that the literal meaning of the word Unitarian means belief in One God the term atheist Unitarian is an oxymoron. I whole-heartedly agreed with Rev. Ray Drennan when he asserted in the "church" newsletter that it is "false advertising" to call the Unitarian Church of Montreal a "church". Furthermore I also fully agree with Kenneth Howard QC who pointed out in a follow-up letter to the editor in the Unitarian Church of Montreal's "Nuusletter" that it is similarly false advertising to call the Unitarian Church of Montreal "Unitarian" and suggesting changing the name to something completely different as it were. . .

: You seem to have a problem with atheists.

I do not have a problem with atheists in general. I do have a problem with what I and others quite justifiably refer to as "fundamentalist atheists". i.e. The kind of intolerant and bigoted militant atheist who fervently believes that God is a "non-existent being", that belief in God "seems primitive", and who actively attacks, ridicules, insults and slanders theistic religions and God believing people more generally. That is precisely why I use the term "fundamentalist atheist" or sometimes "militant atheist" to distinguish between your average run-of-the-mill inoffensive non-believer and the species of anti-religious atheist bigot that I am well known to "gripe" about.

: If you do not, you need to work on your presentation.

Clarity and parody do not always go well together. . . Perhaps in trying to stick as closely as possible to most of Will Shetterly's words I may have given the impression that I had a problem with atheists more generally. I do not. I have some very good friends who are card-carrying atheists and I get along just fine with plenty of atheist "strangers" who do not overdo it when it comes to criticizing theistic religion or antagonizing God believing people.

As should be clear from what I have said earlier in this thread, to say nothing of elsewhere. . . I do have a bit of a problem with atheists calling themselves "Unitarians" or indeed "Universalists" since this is the anti-thesis of clarity and highly misleading.

: You don't seriously think that UUism is just atheist humanists, do you?

Of course not. That should be abundantly clear from most of my posts here to say nothing of elsewhere on the internet. I am fully aware that UUism is not just atheists humanists and fully acknowledge that intolerant and bigoted "fundamentalist atheists" are but a subset of atheist Humanists and are thankfully a minority amongst UUs. Unfortunately however Unitarian Universalists of the bigoted fundamentalist atheist variety are a very vocal minority who regularly go out of their way to make God believing Unitarians and Universalists far from genuinely Welcome in so-called UU "Welcoming Congregations". . . It only takes a handful of outspoken intolerant and offensive fundie atheists in any given "Unitarian Church" to turn it into a rather UnWelcoming Congregation to God believing people of all kinds who might otherwise join the "Church" and become good Unitarian Universalists.

: Also, I think this is a good example of a post that is very far off the original topic.

This post was, and still is, very much ON the original topic of clarity of language and false and misleading advertising. The whole purpose of the post was to point out that Unitarian Universalists are just as bad as Will Shetterly's "capitalists" when it comes to lack of clarity and false advertising. . .

Friday, November 25, 2005 3:19:00 pm  
Blogger indrax said...

Surely I need not enumerate them.

Actually, it would be very helpful. I am vaugely aware of what happened at the UCM, from reading your beliefnet posts years ago. I looked for a link to your story somewhere on your blog, but I couldn't find one. The many, many links you make to search engines often point right back to your blog.
You need to tell your story in a stand-alone blog post, simply, clearly, and without links. Because anyone coming to this blog without any background will be completely lost.

When it comes to the issue of "clarity" of language and truth in advertising the answer to that question may well be yes.

You make a good point, but words, especially in names, have meanings beyond their dictionary definitions. Is the Catholic church catholic?
There is(was) a distinction between the Unitarian denomination(Big U), and the unitarian theology (little u).
I'm not convinced, but I will ponder. (Although, I've been half wishing for a UU name change for a while, just for brevity!)

I and others quite justifiably refer to as "fundamentalist atheists". i.e. The kind of intolerant and bigoted militant atheist who fervently believes that God is a "non-existent being", that belief in God "seems primitive", and who actively attacks, ridicules, insults and slanders theistic religions and God believing people more generally.

Why do you have a problem with that? I mean, why is it a bad thing?

The whole purpose of the post was to point out that Unitarian Universalists are just as bad as Will Shetterly's "capitalists" when it comes to lack of clarity and false advertising.

And yet you restated your point in only twenty words! That should leave plenty to talk about: open source; OSM; capitalism; Libertarians; or democracy in Guatemala, Vietnam, and any nation that might choose communism over capitalism.

I read your post before I read Will's, and I could not have possibly guessed what Will's was about based on yours.

Saturday, November 26, 2005 3:09:00 am  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home