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

Monday, June 19, 2006

How Rev. Ray Drennan's Intolerance & Bigotry Tarnished The Public Image Of The Unitarian "Church" of Montreal aka The "Church" of the Tarnished Image



Click your mouse cursor on the image of the newspaper page to go to a larger more readable image file. Click on the box that will appear in the lower right corner of the image to see it at its full size. Needless to say the same principle applies to all the other images on this blog.

Montreal Unitarians excommunicated me from the Unitarian Church of Montreal for allegedly tarnishing the public image of the far from immaculately polished reputation of this alleged Unitarian "church". My alleged "image tarnishing" activities were my entirely legitimate public protest and the resulting television, radio and print media news stories that publicly exposed the anti-religious intolerance and bigotry of Rev. Ray Drennan and other Montreal Unitarians and also exposed the incompetent, negligent and effectively complicit failure (or more properly the obstinate refusal) of the Board and congregation of the Unitarian Church of Montreal to responsibly redress my serious grievances in a manner that even remotely lived up to Unitarian*Universalist "covenants" to "affirm and promote" justice, equity and compassion in human relations.

Most ironically, one of the very reasons that I felt that it was necessary to file my formal complaint about Rev. Ray Drennan's slanderous intolerance and bigotry in the first place was because I was concerned that he would unleash his intolerance and bigotry on others in the future. I was actually trying to spare the Unitarian Church of Montreal from future public embarrassment by giving them a very early warning of Rev. Ray Drennan's arrogant and abusive behaviour towards me that I had good reason to believe would surface more publicly in the future. Regrettably for all concerned the Board ignored this clear warning that was contained in my initial letter of grievance arising from Rev. Ray Drennan's demeaning and abusive slanderous attack on me.

The letters to the editor that appear in the above image represent the overwhelmingly negative public response to Rev. Ray Drennan's intolerant and bigoted anti-Catholic attack on the fact that former Canadian Prime Minister Pierre Elliot Trudeau's state funeral was a Roman Catholic rite. Most ironically titled 'Wrong Message', Rev. Ray Drennan's intolerant and offensive opinion editorial was published in the October 9th, 2000 Montreal Gazette. The letters to the editor were published several days later on the 13th of October. Gazette editorial staff informed me that a "ball-park figure" of about 50 Montrealers had written letters to the editor expressing the fact that they were "shocked and appalled" by Rev. Ray Drennan's anti-religious intolerance and bigotry. Five representative letters were published. One need only read the letters to see that the public image of Rev. Ray Drennan and thus by extension the Unitarian Church of Montreal who he formally represented in his offensively opinionated Op/Ed piece were "tarnished" as a result of his 'Wrong Message'.

My point here is very simple. I am no more guilty of "tarnishing" the "image" of the Unitarian Church of Montreal than the five people who entirely justifiably wrote letters to the editor that condemned Rev. Ray Drennan's anti-religious intolerance and bigotry by expressing their "horror" at the "petty and wrong-headed", "totally disrespectful", "narrow views" spouted by "Mr. Drennan" in his "bald attack" on Pierre Elliot Trudeau's funeral rites that were "unbecoming of a minister of a church". . . The "devout atheist" R. W. Morel hit the proverbial nail on the head when he wrote, "Mr. Drennan preaches tolerance, but his article leaves the impression that he doesn't practice it. . ."

40 Comments:

Blogger indrax said...

This is good, I think.

I'd like to see the Drennan article that prompted this.

Why haven't you responded to the other post?

Monday, June 19, 2006 10:51:00 pm  
Blogger The Emerson Avenger said...

The 'Wrong Message' article is not handy but you can find plenty of info about the intolerant and offensive things that Rev. Ray Drennan said in it by Googling -

"Ray Drennan" and "Wrong Message"

A Google Groups search can't hurt either. . .

I haven't responded to your earlier post yet because I have had better things to do with my time than point out all of your misunderstandings, misconceptions, and otherwise faulty reasoning, especially when I am highly confident that I don't really need to point them out for most other people to perceive them themselves. I will get around to it later but my initial response to your first comment is more than sufficient for the time being.

Monday, June 19, 2006 11:16:00 pm  
Blogger indrax said...

Three sentences.
Can you do it?
Have you tried?

Tuesday, June 20, 2006 12:38:00 pm  
Blogger The Emerson Avenger said...

How about three three word slogans for now?

U*Us CONDONE BIGOTRY

U*Us PERVERT JUSTICE

U*Us SUPPRESS DISSENT

Tuesday, June 20, 2006 2:52:00 pm  
Blogger indrax said...

I'll take that as a 'no'.

Unless you are willing to make real steps towards reconciliation, then there is no way it can happen.
In fact if you're not even willing to make a reasonable request for dialog, then there is really little I can do to help.


As an aside, I visited my local Church of Scientology last week, and I'm writing a blog entry about it. I wanted to get your you thoughts on what the proper Unitarian Universalist approach to the subject would be.
I'm concerned about their recruiting and retention practices, their approach to medicine, and their organizational practices.
On the one hand, they can believe what they want, on the other hand, we need to stop things that are wrong.

Tuesday, June 20, 2006 7:35:00 pm  
Blogger The Emerson Avenger said...

Chow down on your words Indrax. . .

Unless U*Us are willing to make real steps towards reconciliation, then there is no way it can happen. . .

In fact if U*Us are not even willing to make a reasonable request for dialog, then there is really little I (i.e yours truly. . .) can do to help.

I have made well-documented "requests" and even demands for U*Us to implement responsible conflict resolution measures in an effort to resolve this conflict. U*Us have repeatedly ignores, dismissed and rejected these "requests".

I suggest U*Us should clean up their own problems before going after Scientologists or any other religious group. U*Us have ZERO moral authority to demand that other religious groups to clean up their problems when U*Us so obstinately refuse to acknowledge their own serious problems and work hard to remedy them.

I am concerned about their U*U recruiting and retention practices, especially the false and outright fraudulent advertising U*Us engage in.

I am concrerned about U*U organizational practices.

On the one hand, U*Us can believe what they want (unless it these beliefs completely disregard and brazenly violate their own public claims about what they believe as, quite regrettably is so often the case. . .), on the other hand, U*Us need to stop DOING things that are wrong. . .

Allah prochaine,

The Dagger of Sweet Reason

PB2U*Us

Tuesday, June 20, 2006 7:51:00 pm  
Blogger indrax said...

You tell me to chow down on my own words. You recognize the reciprocal nature of reconciliation, but you think those words don't apply to you?

I am a UU.
I Have entered into dialog.
I spend most of my time here asking you for more information, and helping you clarify your side of the story.
I do almost nothing but request dialog.

Many of my requests have been ignored. 'I will get to it later.' you say.

If you're going to badmouth my religion ("U*U's"), fine, but don't lie about us.(me)

Making demands for anything is not a step towards reconiliation.
Beyond that, I don't think I've seen you say what kind of conflict resolution practices you would approve of. Despite the fact that I'm pretty sure I've asked you.

The fact is, you're not working towards anything, you're just harping on keywords.

You ignore my 'aside', and refuse to treat me as a human being, instead reverting it back to your personal campaign.

So let's try this again:
What do you think is a proper moral response to Scientology?

Wednesday, June 21, 2006 2:14:00 am  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The withdrawal of Mr. Edgar’s membership from the Unitarian Church of Montreal was not motivated by his religious beliefs, but by his disruptive and aggressive behaviour towards the members of this congregation. His inappropriate behaviour has continued for more than ten years. Seven years ago he was brought before a Disruptive Behaviour Committee, where over the next three years attempts were made to have him moderate his unacceptable behaviours. He would agree to proposed solutions and then go on as before. He was repeatedly warned that failure to comply with what he had agreed to do would result in serious consequences. Over this period, he was suspended from participation in Church life for six months. Unfortunately, upon his return his behaviour worsened , and he was suspended for an additional year. Again when he returned, his inappropriate behaviour continued. Finally in November 1999, at a meeting of the full congregation, during which he spoke on his own behalf, a congregational vote was taken and his membership was revoked. This decade long process, during which sincere attempts were made by the congregation to negotiate a solution, ended when it became clear that he had no intention of ceasing his disruptive and aggressive behaviours. It should be noted that Reverend Ray Drennan did apologise, in person, on more than one occasion. However, this did not meet with Mr Edgar’s satisfaction. Mr. Edgar has redressed his grievances to whomever he has saw fit, be it the UUA, CUC, etc., and his complaint to the Quebec Human Rights Commission in 2002 was summarily dismissed as being without merit. Mr Edgar continues to picket the church in the futile belief that the Church will act. Reverend Drennan is no longer the minister as he left to follow his own life’s journey; and the church has simply moved on.

Thursday, June 22, 2006 12:59:00 pm  
Blogger The Emerson Avenger said...

I have already rebutted this fine example of U*U institutional denial over ten times in the past. . .

Thursday, June 22, 2006 2:53:00 pm  
Blogger The Emerson Avenger said...

Well actually, to be more accurate, I just very thoroughly rebutted this fine example of complicit U*U misinformation and institutional denial once way back in February soon after it was first posted as a comment, but Anonymous U*U just keeps on reposting it verbatim again and again. Here is a link to my point-by-point rebuttal of Anonymous U*U's lame attempt at U*U "damage control", U*U disinformation and U*U "spin". . .

Friday, June 23, 2006 9:39:00 pm  
Blogger The Emerson Avenger said...

:You tell me to chow down on my own words.

Correct. I did so to underline the well-documented facts that your criticism of me is much more appropriately directed at the Unitarian Church of Montreal to say nothing of the UUA and its negligent and complicit Ministerial Fellowship Committee. I have repeatedly offered reconciliation once U*Us initiate genuinely just and equitable conflict resolutions procedures but U*Us have repeatedly refused to do so. I have repeatedly suggested mediated dialogue and U*Us have repeatedly refused to enter into any dialogue with me about this matter.

:You recognize the reciprocal nature of reconciliation, but you think those words don't apply to you?

Not at all. They do apply to me AND to U*Us. It is U*Us who are obstinately refusing to enter into a process that could lead to reconciliation. I have always maintained that the door is open for dialogue the minute U*Us decide that they want to enter into dialogue with me but the Unitarian Church of Montreal has ignored and/or rejected all of these clearly stated offers including the most recently stated one in my email to interim minister Rev. Peter Boullata. He had an opportunity to enter into meaningful dialogue with me that could have led towards a resolution of this conflict but chose not to do so. I might add that during my conversation with him that preceded that email he made it clear that he had sounded out th church leadership about the situation and determined that they were not the least bit interested in entering into dialogue or otherwise seeking reconciliation with me. That should bre clear from Anonymous U*Us SPAM that he keeps sending ad nauseum. What is the last thing he or she says?

:I am a UU.
:I Have entered into dialog.

Correct

:I spend most of my time here asking you for more information,

Correct and I have provided plenty. You have more than enough information available to you to wotk with.

:and helping you clarify your side of the story.

My side of the story is abunmdantly clear to most people who have read my letters of grievance, internet postings and picket sign slogans. In fact you have often confused the issues or otherwise muddied the waters. Most recently by changing the subject to what is wrong with Scientology. Please not that this is not the L. Ron Hubbard Avenger blog. I will not be discussing Scientology's failings here, only injustices, abuses and hypocrisy that occur with U*Uism.

:I do almost nothing but request dialog.

And you get it most of the time. I can't always respond to your statements and answer your questions immediately and if they seem redundant or unproductive or just plain wrong I don't feel obliged to answer them at all if previous posts have already provided appropriate responses as is often the case. I do have other priorities in my life you know.

:Many of my requests have been ignored. 'I will get to it later.' you say.

Please provide a list of those *many* requests that have been "ignored" and which I have not responded to at all. I dare say that you have ignored or failed to appropriately act on some of my reasonable requests. Please do fill me in on your communications with the Unitarian Church of Montreal in your efforts to try to resolve this conflict. So far I have heard absolutely nothing from you about what you have done in thos regard. Is it possibly because you have donme nothing ar all or is it because the Unitarian Church of Montreal blew you off as I predicted it would.

:If you're going to badmouth my religion ("U*U's"), fine, but don't lie about us.(me)

What lies have I told about you? None as far as I can see. OTOH you have very recently "lied" about me by asserting that I have done nothing to seek reconciliation with the Unitarian Church of Montreal. I have done plenty. Far more than any U*U has done. Ever. . .

:Making demands for anything is not a step towards reconiliation.

Wrong. There will be no reconciliation without some genuine justice and accountability in this matter so it is perfectly reasonable for me to demand justice and accountability etc.

:Beyond that, I don't think I've seen you say what kind of conflict resolution practices you would approve of.

I have proposed a variety of things in the past but I have always left it open to the Unitarian Church of Montreal to propose viable alternatives. Unfortunately the Unitarian Churcgh of Montreal has done virtually nothing when it comes to initiating genuinely just, equitable and compassionate conflict resolution procedures in this matter in spite of their highly misleading and indeed outright false claims to the contrary. Ask the Unitarain Church of Montreal to provide documentation from their claimed conflict resolution efforts and you wll find that there is none or that it does not constitute genuinely just and equitable conflict resolution procedures.

:Despite the fact that I'm pretty sure I've asked you.

I am not sure that you have but in any case it should be clear from many earlier documents that I have always been open to dialogue with the leadership and congregation of the Unitarian Church of Montreal but that they have always refused to enter into dialogue because that would mean that somer very unpleasant truths about their alleged "church" would become abundantly obvious during the course of that dialogue. . . U*Us have obstinately refused to enter into dialogue because ignorance allows them to remain in their sate of blissful willful ignorance about this conflict and allows them to pretend that they are the victims in this conflict.

:The fact is, you're not working towards anything, you're just harping on keywords.

Wrong. I am ready, willing and able to work towards reconciliation with U*Us the minute they decide to enter into an appropriate process. It is U*Us who have obstinately refused to work towards anything for over a decade now. My work towards reconciliation based on truth and genuine justice is very well documented.

:You ignore my 'aside', and refuse to treat me as a human being,

Wrong. I refuse to allow you to change the subject to the problems of Scientology when this blog is about problems within U*Uism. I went to you blogs to see what you had posted about Scientology soon after I got your message and saw nothing posted in any of them that I could find. I might have said a thing or two on your blogs but there was nothing to respond to at the time.

:instead reverting it back to your personal campaign.

Yoo hoo Indrax. This blog is about my personal campaign against U*U injustices, abuses and hypocrisy. Read the intro again if you need to refresh your memory. You tried to change the subject to Scientology's failings, possibly in order to divert attention away from U*Uism's serious failings, and I chose not to allow you to divert our dialogue away from U*Uism's failings towards Scientology's failings.

:So let's try this again:
What do you think is a proper moral response to Scientology?

See above Indrax. . . I am dealing with the moral response to U*Uism's injustices, abuses and hypocrisy here. I don't have much to spare to discuss Scientology's problems.

Saturday, June 24, 2006 11:33:00 am  
Blogger indrax said...

Correct and I have provided plenty. You have more than enough information available to you to wotk with.
Ok, listen up. This pisses me off.
I can't work with shit. Ya know why? Because you won't tell me what the hell drennan said.
You throw around little fucking phrases, but never give me any fucking context. You refuse to quote me or even paraphrase one fucking sentence he said. This conversation is absofuckinglutely central to this conflict and you won't shed one fucking ray of light on it. For ten fucking years you've been bitching about this and as far as I know you've never told anyone what he really fucking said.
What did he say Robin? What did you say? If I don't have any fucking context then I can't fucking work.
This refusal, this omission, makes me question both your sanity and your motives. What are you hiding? Why should anyone believe any of this?

Don't think that answering this will get you off the hook, because there's a whole shitload of information I need, this is just what pisses me off.

My side of the story is abunmdantly clear to most people who have read my letters of grievance, internet postings...
You clearly have no concept of clarity. Why would you make someone wade through a letter of grievance in order to figure out what's going on? Have you read them? have you noticed how they are all horribly long?
Have you noticed how even your blog titles are so horribly long that they break blogger's comment page? I can't even read all of my first comment here.
And let's not forget the google links.
L. Ron Hubbard Avenger blog.
That sir, is a fabulous idea, you shouldn't tempt me like that.

previous posts have already provided appropriate responses as is often the case.

I have read every blog post here. If I ask a question, it is becasue it is either not covered, not covered clearly, or I am getting to something.

I do have other priorities in my life you know.
No, how would I?
Part of the power of blogs is that you get to know other people somewhat personally, as human beings. You completely squander that. People can't sympathize with you as a victim because you don't present any real humanity to them. You come off as just another internet kook with an ax to grind.
If you actually talk about other things, people will see that you have depth. You have an SO? go to see shows? have conversations? see some awesome bit of niceness on the street? have a nasty coworker? People have to see how you carry yourself in different situations and how you react to things in general, in order to give context to how you are reacting to this.
This is a hugely important point, and I'll cover it more if you need me to.

Please provide a list of those *many* requests that have been "ignored" and which I have not responded to at all.

Lucky for you I set up a special folder in my bookmarks, just for them.

this you just never replied to
I will try to answer you tommorrow
in the next day or two. ... Happy Thanksgiving.
You have a responsibility to heal yourself. You have a responsibility to heal others. - still avoiding the issue.
this letter does not provide me with much useful information - No response.
I look forward to April.
And most recently:
I do look forward to seeing your list of things that I need to seek forgiveness for

See how it's almost like a little table of contents of what you asked for? It might even be in chronological order.
If I were posting this for other people to read, I would provide more descriptions of what I had asked in each thread that had gone unanswered. The links then would be only for documentation. It would also be a bulleted list.

Oh wait, that wasn't most recently. In THIS VERY THREAD, you blow off my request for Ray Drennan's actual letter, leaving me to judge him only by his critics.

Please do fill me in on your communications with the Unitarian Church of Montreal in your efforts to try to resolve this conflict.
I will never discuss private communications on this matter without express consent.
But more to the point, I don't make acusations until I have a case, and you haven't given me a case yet.

You said UU's are not making requests for dialog, that is a lie becasue I am.

perfectly reasonable for me to demand justice and accountability etc.
No.
Not at this point, not if what you want is reconciliation.
At this point your goals should be: be nice, try to get someone to talk to you, listen, do not talk.

I have always left it open to the Unitarian Church of Montreal to propose viable alternatives.
WEll you see that's just it. AS you state later in the paragraph, the UUCM ran their system and made their choices, and yet reject that conflict resolution system as invalid. You went through channels of the UUA, got nothing, and declare their system invlid. You can't tell them you reject the system they gave you, then leave it to them to set up the new one. If you're going to e the peacemaker you have to find a real mediatior that you will accept and listen to, and then get them to listen to the mediator too, or let the mediator do it.

I have always been open to dialogue with the leadership and congregation of the Unitarian Church of Montreal
No, it's clear that you're open to accusing them and letting them ask your forgiveness, but it's not at all clear that you're open to listening to them.
Tell me, if they agreed to this 'dialog' what kinds of things do you think they would say? how would you envision the conversation progressing?

Wrong. I refuse to allow you to change the subject to the problems of Scientology when this blog is about problems within U*Uism.

Oh you mean you don't like it when somebody comes onto your blog and changes the subject? and then insults you when you refuse? Is that inconsiderate?
Gee I guess I'd kind of have to be a dick to press you on it. I'd have to really be a dick to link to it and insult you more on my blog, and make 1984 references if you deleted it as offtopic.
And I'd have to be a really huge dick to run around the UU blogosphere pestering people about scientology and never really communicating with them on their issues.
Heck that might get me banned.
(I'm half tempted to run this experiment just to show you that your treatment isn't at all about UU censorship, and is entirely about you being a dick.)


I went to you blogs to see what you had posted about Scientology soon after I got your message and saw nothing posted in any of them that I could find.
Well I was waiting for your input. As it is I think I'm just going to talk about what happened, and leave the larger issues for a later post.

What do you mean by "Scientology's failings"?

Monday, June 26, 2006 1:24:00 am  
Blogger Chalicechick said...

Oh you mean you don't like it when somebody comes onto your blog and changes the subject? and then insults you when you refuse? Is that inconsiderate?
Gee I guess I'd kind of have to be a dick to press you on it. I'd have to really be a dick to link to it and insult you more on my blog, and make 1984 references if you deleted it as offtopic.
And I'd have to be a really huge dick to run around the UU blogosphere pestering people about scientology and never really communicating with them on their issues.


Ha!

CC

Saturday, July 01, 2006 10:01:00 am  
Blogger The Emerson Avenger said...

:Oh you mean you don't like it when somebody comes onto your blog and changes the subject?

Hi CC,

Thanks for confirming that Indrax was indeed trying to change the subject. . . This blog is indeed about some of U*Uism's failings and has virtually nothing to do with Scientology. Indeed Indrax could be justifiably accused of trying to shift attention and discussion away from U*Uism's failings here.

:and then insults you when you refuse?

Thanks also for pointing out that Indrax has indeed been rather insulting because I comparatively politely refused to play along with his canard.

:Is that inconsiderate?

I would say so. . . Wouldn't you?

:Gee I guess I'd kind of have to be a dick to press you on it.

Or a ChaliceChick. . . ;-)

:I'd have to really be a dick to link to it and insult you more on my blog, and make 1984 references if you deleted it as off topic.

Well I have clearly stated that censorship is scorned on this blog so you will not see me delete anything for any reason with the sole exception of my own blog entries if I make an HTML error or something like that. You know very well that one of my serious grievances vis a vis U*Uism is the U*U prediliction for censorship and suppression of criticism and dissent which prove U*U claims to be "opposed to censorship by church, state or any other institution" to be nothing but outrageously cynical and hypocritical "pure wind". . .

:And I'd have to be a really huge dick to run around the UU blogosphere pestering people about scientology and never really communicating with them on their issues.

Or running around the Scientology blogosphere pestering people about U*Uism and never really communicating with them on their issues. . .

Of course it should be just fine for an unjustly excommunicated Unitarian to "pester" U*Us about U*Uism's failings, especially if he or she is really communicating with them on U*U issues as I have been doing for over a decade now. . .

Saturday, July 01, 2006 12:01:00 pm  
Blogger indrax said...

Of course it should be just fine for an unjustly

unjustly? You haven't shown that. You rarely describe your own conduct in your accounts, and without some kind of corroboration, there's no way for us to really know what you did. A reasonable person would tend to trust the judgement of the congregation, until shown otherwise.
I won't even get into what your activity online adds to the evidence.

excommunicated
What do you mean excommunicated? You're not kicked out of UUism, not even the UUA, just the UCM. One building, really. Nothing is stopping you from joining another congregation, or the CLF, or even starting your own congregation.

Unitarian
What do you mean by Unitarian? I know the basic meaning matches your theology, but it seems you me that you've never really claimed yourself as a UU in the first place, even before your banishment.
Do you want to be a member of the UCM, or not? If so, why?

What is your purpose in being a UU?

[it should be just fine] to "pester" U*Us about U*Uism's failings,
No, no, no, no, no. Were you raised by wolves?!? Who taught you that this was ok? You don't harass people for the actions of another. Your statement goes against the most basic concepts of justice and even courtesy.

especially if he or she is really communicating with them on U*U issues as I have been doing for over a decade now. . .

No, You haven't. Your failure to do so is evident in your own records.

Sunday, July 02, 2006 6:13:00 pm  
Blogger The Emerson Avenger said...

A very slight modification of another U*U's words provides my definitive answer to ChaliceChick and Indrax and indeed any other U*U regarding my alleged, or indeed actual. . . *pestering* of U*Us about U*U injustices, abuses and hypocrisy -

And today I will continue to question and *pester* as I have for the past (decade); I will continue bring to light those ideas that many would choose to relegate to darkness. That is my job, that is our job as people of a liberal faith, of a faith that calls us to root out the causes of injustice and treachery. For by discovering their source, we cannot help but find ways to alleviate and, ultimately, eliminate them.

Monday, July 03, 2006 2:41:00 pm  
Blogger indrax said...

I insist that you want dialog, but when you get dialog, you reject it. Why?

Monday, July 03, 2006 3:42:00 pm  
Blogger The Emerson Avenger said...

You are quite mistaken Indrax. I am very interested in productive dialogue that could lead to a genuinely just, equitable and compassionate resolution of this decade long conflict with appropriate representatives of the Unitarian Church of Montreal and/or the UUA and CUC or indeed other U*U groups or committees that could play a role. To date, for the better part of a decade. . . it is they who have repeatedly rejected dialogue and mediation that could provide some justice equity and compassion in this matter.

Dialogue with you and other U*Us is fine too but if I have little or no reason to believe that it can lead to the resolution of this conflict I may have better things to do with my time than respond immediately to posts from you and other U*Us. The above post was a rapid terse response to ChaliceChick's and your own posts about the fact that I am indeed ready, willing and able to "pester" U*Us about U*U injustices, abuses and hypocrisy in order to hopefully " alleviate and, ultimately, eliminate them." Actually I am not so naive as to believe that they will ever be eliminated but I do expect U*Us to responsibly redress any and all past injustices and abuses that have been perpetrated and perpetuated by U*Us and I do expect U*Us to do their best to prevent the occurence of future injustices and abuses. Likewise I expect U*Us to acknowledge the outrageous hypocrisy that U*Us regularly engage in and try harder to actually practice what they so insincerely and even quite cynically preach.

I am busy with important matters right now and have better things to do with my time than rebutt your recent combative posts. But don't worry I will probably get around to it eventually. U*Us have dragged this conflict out for over a decade now so don't be surprised if I take my time to respond to your own and other U*Us' posts, especially if they include insults, victim blaming, or the DIM Thinking of Denial, Ignorance and Minimization, or are otherwise constitute an unproductive waste of my time. I am happy to let the readers of this blog decide for themselves who is really not insterested in productive dialogue. My position has been very clearly communicated hundreds of times to U*Us and the general public over the last decade or so.

Monday, July 03, 2006 5:01:00 pm  
Blogger indrax said...

Dialogue with you and other U*Us is fine too but if I have little or no reason to believe that it can lead to the resolution of this conflict

Then why have you spent so much time bugging us? If there's nothing we can do about it, who can? and why aren't you talking to them?

In the past you seem to have been demanding action from us, why the change now?

I may have better things to do with my time than respond immediately to posts from you and other U*Us.

I'm not asking for immediate responses, but I did request information that is fundamental to your case. I think that warrants a response within a month or two.



I'm not being combative, I'm being demanding.

Stating your position isn't dialog, Robin.

Friday, July 07, 2006 1:07:00 pm  
Blogger The Emerson Avenger said...

:Then why have you spent so much time bugging us? If there's nothing we can do about it, who can?

Actually there are things that you and other U*Us can do but, so far. . . you and other U*Us have not done them, thus I have little reason to believe that endless "dialogue" with U*Us who are neither ready, willing or able to DO something about this matter is productive. Dialogue with the Board and congregation of the Unitarian Church of Montreal is absolutely essential to resolvung this conflict but they have very consistently failed or refused to enter into any meaningful productive dialogue since this conflict began.

:and why aren't you talking to them?

I have been talking to them and have repeatedly made it clear that I am ready willing and able to talk to them any time that they decide to enter into dialogue with me. . . It is "them" (i.e. the Board and congregation of the alleged Unitarian Church of Montreal to say nothing of the UUA and CUC) who are obstinately refusing to enter into any kind of dialogue or negotiation with me. So I talk to them on Sunday mornings with my picket sign slogans and sidewalk chalk slogans since they quite evidently are not interested in any other kind of talk.

:In the past you seem to have been demanding action from us, why the change now?

There is no change. I am still demanding action from U*Us but close to a decade of inaction from U*Us has made it clear that it is unrealistic to expect any productive action from U*Us. . .

:I'm not asking for immediate responses, but I did request information that is fundamental to your case. I think that warrants a response within a month or two.

I believe that I have provided more than enough information to you and other U*Us over the last decade or so. If I feel that it can serve a useful purpose I am prepared to provide more information but will not waste my time doing so unless I have very good reason to believe that it can lead to a genuinely just, equitable and compassionate resolution of this ongoing conflct. If and when you can demonstrate to me that you can actually accomplish real progress towards a genuinely just resolution of this conflict I will provide more information but at this time I think that you already have more information than you need and that you have done next to nothing to try to persuade the leaders of the Unitarian Church of Montreal to attempt to settle this conflict through dialogue.

:I'm not being combative, I'm being demanding.

You are going beyond demanding to being quite combative and even coming across as a victim blaming adversary who is attempting to discredit my legitimate grievances that arise from very well documented U*U injustices, abuses and hypocrisy. Most reasonable people reading your recent posts will concur with me on this point.

:Stating your position isn't dialog, Robin.

Tell that to Anonymous U*U and the Unitarian Church of Montreal Indrax. . . I am ready, willing and able to enter into dialogue with representatives of the Unitarian Church of Montreal and/or the UUA and CUC as soon as they are willing to enter into dialogue with me. To date they have avoided, evaded and outright refused to enter into dialogue with me.

Friday, July 07, 2006 3:54:00 pm  
Blogger indrax said...

of inaction from U*Us has made it clear that it is unrealistic to expect any productive action from U*Us. . .

Then say 'will' not 'can'.

Dialogue with the Board and congregation of the Unitarian Church of Montreal is absolutely essential

I agree, now, going forward, what is your plan for establishing this dialog? Standing on the sidewalk for the next 10 years?

You say you have gotten emails of support, but in these 10 years, has anybody gone to bat for you on this? Why are you out there alone every week? Does no one in Montreal think this is important? You've posted all over the UU space and the internet in general, so why does it come down to pretty much just you and me talking on this blog? Why is no other UU on your side here? Why is no one else on the entire internet interested enough to do anything?

I'm smart, stubborn, and commited to making you a member of the UCM, maybe you should step back and look at what I'm saying.



You want me to convince the UCM to enter into dialog? Great. What am I supposed to say to them? How can I answer their allegations if you won't answer my questions? How can I convince them that dialog with you will yeild anything but more deadlock if I'm already in deadlock with you?

I believe that I have provided more than enough information to you and other U*Us over the last decade or so.

Frankly, you don't get to decide that. You want me to do you a favor, and I have questions about it, if you won't answer those questions then I don't have enough information. I can't and won't make a case for you to the UCM until I know virtually everything about your side.

I'm not being combative. Not even close. I'm still on your side.

Tell that to Anonymous U*U and the Unitarian Church of Montreal Indrax. . .
I believe I have.

I am ready, willing and able to enter into dialogue with representatives of the Unitarian Church of Montreal and/or the UUA and CUC as soon as they are willing to enter into dialogue with me.

No, you are not ready, and certainly not willing.
Dialog means answering questions. It means listening to the feelings and complaints of the other person without dismissing them as victim blaming.
You present an unwillingness to admit wrongdoing about anything, this gives the UCM no reason to expect their concerns will be addressed in any dialog. It also dehumanizes you in the eyes of everyone else.

It doesn't make any sense to say that you're willing to enter into dialog and in the same post say that your case is clear and you have nothing more to say. It likewise doesn't make sense when you also reject and criticize their every communication and decision.
You have nothing you say, and you reject everything they say. What is left for dialog?

It seems that the only thing you really want is a series of apologies, which really has nothing to do with dialog.

Oh, and saying any of this is 'well documented' is a joke. It's almost impossible to sort through, and most of the documents are just you complaining, or referencing your prior complaints. Yes it is all important information, but it does nothing to establish the truth of your core claims.

Further, telling me that you don't have time is bullshit. In the time it took you to write that last response, you could have just answered some of my questions.

Now you have a choice. Are you going to pick apart this post, or start really working on this problem?

Friday, July 07, 2006 6:49:00 pm  
Blogger Jamie Goodwin said...

A ding ding ding ding dididing ding bing bing pscht,
Dorhrm bom bom bedom bem bom bedom bom bum ba ba bom bom,
Bouuuuum bom bom bedahm, Bom be barbedarm bedabedabedabeda
Bbrrrrrimm bbrrrrramm bbbrrrrrrrrraaammmmm ddddddraammm,
Bah bah baah baah ba wheeeeeee-eeeee-eeeee!

Sunday, July 09, 2006 5:50:00 am  
Blogger The Emerson Avenger said...

Well that makes almost as much sense as Anonymous U*U's institutional denial SPAM Jamie. . .

Sunday, July 09, 2006 10:49:00 pm  
Blogger indrax said...

Come on Robin, what ya' got?

Wednesday, July 19, 2006 8:48:00 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I am “Anonymous”. I am a member of the UCM and I shall remain anonymous as I have myself and my family to PROTECT. Robin has been verbally abusive over the years with a number of members as they have entered the church on Sunday, myself included, and there was a chair throwing incident while he was a member that scared the staff, who demanded that something be done. I was in church one Sunday when, during “Cares and Concerns” Robin got up and publicly harangued Minister Drennan before the congregation for how he felt he had been wronged.

. My reaction, how socially inept your behaviour was, especially as Reverend Drennan had already apologised, but you never came forward later and apologized for your behaviour. How many times were you asked to stop “harassing” members with your handouts complaining about your situation and our church’s refusal to continue to support your “Creation Day”; and of course how badly Reverend Drennan had treated you? What you wanted was his head “on a plate.” You promised to stop handing out your letters and then just started up again. One of them was 23 pages long! You were asked to stop using church stationary to promote your “Creation Day” and were really upset when office privileges were finally denied you.

How many times have you sent unsolicited emails of your complaints, to members, who are in no way interested in having anything further to do with you, myself included?

If you read the post I have added to many of Robin’s blogs etc., you will see that the UCM made every effort to accommodate Robin, but he convinced us by his behaviours that he was ONLY interested in what he WANTED, and “BE DAMNED THE REST OF YOU.” If anything YOU took advantage of our being tolerant, to a fault. If you had behaved in another church as you did in ours, you would have been told to leave and not come back long before we voted to revoke your membership.

I was present as this drama unfolded over several years until finally the congregation decided to revoke your membership. And there was much debate and discussion before members made that decision. In the 164 year history of the UCM, never has a membership been revoked before yours, nor has it happened since! I wonder why? Could it be that Robin did enough unacceptable things, often enough, that finally, the only avenue left to the church, was to remove Robin?

Go through what Robin has written about us wherever it has been written, it’s always negative and/or insulting. Robin resorts to name-calling, he has defamed several of our members (we have a legal opinion to that effect). Look at the pictures he so proudly posts, and his sidewalk writing, it’s always NEGATIVE. Why would our church even contemplate talking to someone who has done nothing but “dump” on us, add infinitem.

His efforts to drag the UCM before the Quebec Human Rights Commission were summarily dismissed as being without merit, and of course Robin denigrated the Commission’s decision. There is a pattern throughout this saga from its very beginning until today, “Everybody is out of step but Robin.” He is always right and EVERYONE, without exception, is wrong. The UCM, the CUC, the UUA, and their leadership, and the Quebec Human Rights Commission, you name them, they are wrong.

BTW, I thoroughly expect Robin to flame me for this post.

We have “walked the walk with you” Robin and NEVER will we (the UCM) entertain the idea of even talking to you ever again. We want absolutely nothing to do with you. You have so turned us off that I, for one, would leave the church should the idea of entering into a dialogue with you even be raised. Continue to picket, and picket, and picket until you are either too old and/or too infirm; for as far as I am concerned, the UCM should divest itself of its assets and surrender its charter and disband the membership before YOU cross our threshold again.

You are a mean-spirited, petty, little man, who is so obsessed with his being right and always right, that your blinkers preclude anyone else even having a modicum of sense or reason to support their point of view.

I know that if you were to rejoin us that soon we would be right back where we were before your membership was revoked. We would be expected to support your “Creation Day”, providing manpower, and space, and office supplies, etc.; and then someone would wrong you and you would go after them and there would be letters of complaint, and meetings, and discussions, and more meetings, and more discussions, and more letters from you, and more discussions, etc., etc., etc.

We have moved on Robin, you should do so as well.

Thursday, August 17, 2006 1:18:00 pm  
Blogger indrax said...

That was spectacular.

Friday, August 18, 2006 12:32:00 am  
Blogger The Emerson Avenger said...

Yes it was a genuinely spectacular example of willfully ignorant, if not outright malicious, U*U BS. . .

Friday, August 18, 2006 12:51:00 am  
Blogger The Emerson Avenger said...

Herewith is my point by point rebuttal of the U*U BS spewed here by "Anonymous" -

:I am “Anonymous”.

OK so you claim to be "Anonymous". May I presume that this means that you are the "Anonymous" U*U who has repeatedly posted the exact same U*U institutional denial SPAM that has been posted here well over a dozen times now even after I thoroughly rebutted it after the first time it was posted here? It's not like that obviously DIM Thinking U*U is the only one who has posted here as "Anonymous".

:I am a member of the UCM and I shall remain anonymous as I have myself and my family to PROTECT.

PROTECT from what pray tell? In the decade that this dispute has dragged on due to U*U stonewalling and institutional denial just what harm has any U*U or their family needed to be protected from? Nothing worth talking about as far as I can see. What harm did I ever inflict on Rev. Ray Drennan and/or his family? Just what harm did I ever inflict on UCM Board members or malicious UCM prosecution witnesses who lied under oath in court in their deeply misguided and ultimately futile efforts to suppress my peaceful protest. None whatsoever. OTOH I have in fact been assaulted by several members of the Unitarian Church of Montreal and the two that I decided to charge with assault were pled guilty of the criminal act of assault and were subjected to non-judicial treatment for their criminal act.

:Robin has been verbally abusive over the years with a number of members as they have entered the church on Sunday, myself included,

Oh really. What specifically did I say to you and other U*Us that you characterize as "verbally abusive"? I have clearly and repeatedly stated just what Rev. Ray Drennan's and other U*Us' verbally abusive behaviour consisted of. Please be so kind as to state clearly what I said that you consider to be "verbally abusive". I am all ears. . .

:and there was a chair throwing incident while he was a member that scared the staff, who demanded that something be done.

This is complete and utter U*U BS. In fact it is the very first and only time that I have even heard of any alleged "chair throwing incident" that allegedly took place while I was a member of the Unitarian Church of Montreal. There never was any "chair throwing incident" that I was even remotely involved in. I have had various objects, including lit cigarette butts and my own picket signs, thrown at me by abusive U*Us as they enter the Unitarian Church of Montreal but I have never thrown any object at U*Us at all. No chair. No nothing.

Please be so kind as to state your version of specifically what happened during this alleged "chair throwing incident". When did it allegedly take place? Who allegedly threw the chair? Who or what did they allegedly throw the chair at? Which UCM "staff members" allegedly witnessed this alleged incident. Please be so kind as to produce copies of official UCM church documents that support your claim that "staff members" complained about this alleged (dare I say mythical?) "chair throwing incident". Please produce a plausible explanation as to why this alleged "chair throwing incident", which presumably allegedly took place in the Unitarian Church of Montreal, was never once mentioned in ANY of the extensive court testimony of church prosecution witnesses in their perjurious and futile attempts to have me convicted of the crime of disrupting a church service in their cynicalo effort to force an end to my legal and peaceful protest activities. I look forward to hearing your elaboration of this completely and utterly mythical event. . .

:I was in church one Sunday when, during “Cares and Concerns” Robin got up and publicly harangued Minister Drennan before the congregation for how he felt he had been wronged.

Well if you actually were in church on the Sunday when I brought the congregation's attention to Rev. Ray Drennan's intolerant and abusive during the Sharing Concerns segment of a Sunday service you know perfectly well that I did not "harangue" Rev. Ray Drennan but very briefly and very simply and directly described his demeaning and abusive behaviour to the congregation. Not one UCM member criticized me at the time and several made supportive statements including one who said, "That took guts."

:My reaction, how socially inept your behaviour was, especially as Reverend Drennan had already apologised, but you never came forward later and apologized for your behaviour.

Because I had absolutely nothing to apologize for. . . and Rev. Ray Drennan had not in fact offered his "sorry excuse for an apology" to me at that stage of the conflict. In fact Rev. Drennan's inadequate and insincere expedient "apology" was only delivered more than a year later after I caught him lying to Baord members about his verbally abusive clergy misconduct. Your alleged "facts" here are pure U*U BS. . . In fact the abusive and malicious behaviour of Rev. Ray Drennan and no shortage of other U*Us, including you "Anonymous" U*U, that is much more appropriately described as being socially inept. Ditto for Rev. Ray Drennan's intolerant and abusive "socially inept" attack on the Roman Catholic state funeral of Pierre Elliot Trudeau that prompted about fifty people to write letters to the editor of the Montreal Gazette expressing their proverbial "shock and horror" at Rev. Ray Drennan's intolerant and abusive "socially inept behaviour". . .

:How many times were you asked to stop “harassing” members with your handouts complaining about your situation and our church’s refusal to continue to support your “Creation Day”; and of course how badly Reverend Drennan had treated you?

Handing out legitimate letters of grievance after church services are over is hardly "harassing" church members. It is no more harassing than someone handing out Amnesty International pamphlets or other human rights and justice oriented material that is commonly handed out after church services in numerous U*U "churches". The only difference is that it exposes and seeks redress for internal U*U injustices and abuses rather than external ones. . . But thanks so much for affirming that U*Us tried to coerce me into ceasing informing church members about my legitimate grievances by threatening me with expulsion from the church for doing nothing more than handing out letters of grievance that never would have needed to be handed out if the church Board and/or the UUA's Ministerial Fellowship Committee had responsibly sought to redress my totally legitimate and very serious grievances.

:What you wanted was his head “on a plate.”

Wrong. What I wanted was some genuine "justice, equity and compassion" in my "human realtionships" with U*Us. Somethiong that I have yet to obtain I'm afraid. . .

:You promised to stop handing out your letters and then just started up again.

Wrong. In response to the unjust, inequitable, and uncompassionate coersion and intimidation tactics of the Unitarians Church of Montreal's so-called 'Disruptive Behaviour Committee' I promised to stop handing out letters of grievance to ordinary church members following Sunday services and I actually never broke that promise. I was thrown out of the church ostensibly for delivering an important letter of grievance to the church Board that I put in their office mailboxes.

:One of them was 23 pages long!

Yes the very first letter of grievance to the Board of the Unitarian Church of Montreal detailed Rev. Ray Drennan's demeaning and abusive behavior towards mer in order to establish exactly what happened, show a clear pattern of intolerant and abusive behaviour on his part, and provide detailed testimony that could be deposited as evidence in a court case if Rev. Ray Drennan was so foolish as to try to sue me for slander. . . I take note of teh fact that although U*Us have repeatedly accused me of slandering Rev. Ray Drennan that they have never sought to prove that charge in a civil suit. I welcome such a civil suit that they would surely lose. Indeed I hereby publicly challenge U*Us to sue me for my alleged "image tarnishing" slander of Rev. Ray Drennan and the Unitarian Church of Montreal. I look forward to once again telluing the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth about Rev. Ray Drennan and the Unitarian Church of Montreal in a genuinely just and equitable court of law. . .

:You were asked to stop using church stationary to promote your “Creation Day” and were really upset when office privileges were finally denied you.

Wrong. I was quite justifiably "upset" when Rev. Ray Drennan and the Board of the Unitarian Church of Montreal anti-democratically banned Creation Day from being celebrated in the sanctuary of the Unitarian Church of Montreal during a totally secretive and highly manipulative "in camera" segment of the October 1996 Board meeting even though it had been unanimously approved by the UCM's Religious Activities Committee and had obtained the express written support of a significant number of UCM members.

:How many times have you sent unsolicited emails of your complaints, to members, who are in no way interested in having anything further to do with you, myself included?

You tell me "Anonymous U*U". When was the last time that I sent you or any other member of the Unitarian Church of Montreal "unsolicited emails" and just how many have I sent to members that are not Board members who have a responsibility to deal with grievances? Very few or indeed none as far as I can recall. . .

:If you read the post I have added to many of Robin’s blogs etc., you will see that the UCM made every effort to accommodate Robin,

That is pure unadulerated U*U BS oh "Anonymous" U*U. On the contrary, it is a very well documented fact that the Unitarian Church of Montreal went to extreme and deeply hypocritical and cynical lengths to try to deny and stonewall my legimate grievances and to censor and suppress my letters of grievance and subsequent public protest activities. Show me where the Unitariam Church of Montreal and/or the UUA and CUC set up ANY just and equitable conflict resolution procedures. You can't because they never did so. . .

:but he convinced us by his behaviours that he was ONLY interested in what he WANTED, and “BE DAMNED THE REST OF YOU.”

Wrong I wanted and still want genuine justice, equity and compassion. It is you and other small-minded and suspicious minded U*Us who have effectively said "BE DAMNED" to me. It is very well documented.

:f anything YOU took advantage of our being tolerant, to a fault.

Well you really got me there oh "Anonymous U*U". Yes, quite regrettably you and other U*U were indeed "tolerant, to a fault" of Rev. Ray Drennan's and other U*Us' intolerant and abusive behaviouyr towards me. . . It is a just a pathetic DIM Thinking delusion on your part if you believe that you and other U*Us were "tolerant, to a fault" towards yours truly though. The anti-religious intolerance and bigotry of Rev. Ray Drennan and no shortage of other U*Us is very well documented and it includes, but is by no means limited to, Rev. Ray Drennan's intolerant and outright bigoted attack on Pierre Elliot Trudeau's Roman Catholic state funeral. . .

:If you had behaved in another church as you did in ours, you would have been told to leave and not come back long before we voted to revoke your membership.

Wrong. First of all there was virtually no inappropriate behaviour by yours truly in the confines of the Unitarian Church of Montreal and I have good reason to believe that almost no other church in Montreal, or indeed Canada, would have tolerated Rev. Ray Drennan's demeaning and abusive anti-religious intolerance towards me and other God believing people. In fact, if my memory serves me well, and I am quite assured that it does. . . it would not be unfair to suggest that the main reason that Rev. Ray Drennan decided to become a U*U minister was because he was told by the Presbytarian Church "to leave and not come back" following what he himself once referred to as a "heresy trial." I must say that I am curious about just what "heresy" convinced Presbytarians to "excommunicate" Rev. Ray Drennan. . .

:I was present as this drama unfolded over several years until finally the congregation decided to revoke your membership.

Well for someone who was allegedly "present" during this decade long conflict you are either badly misinformed, willfully ignorant, lying or a shameful and insidious blend of all three. . .

:And there was much debate and discussion before members made that decision.

Really? Why wasn't I present for all this "debate and discussion". I dare say that I could probably have exposed a pack of lies that were told about me by Rev. Ray Drennan and other leading U*Us if I had been included in this alleged "debate and discussion". . .

:In the 164 year history of the UCM, never has a membership been revoked before yours, nor has it happened since! I wonder why?

Maybe because no one ever had the guts to publicly expose and denounce U*U anti-religious intolerance and bigotry, other injustices and abuses, and outrageous hypocrisy before I did. . .

:Could it be that Robin did enough unacceptable things, often enough, that finally, the only avenue left to the church, was to remove Robin?

Just what unacceptable things did I allegedly do oh Anonymous U*U? Please provide your no doubt long list. To my knowledge I only distributed legitimate letters of grievance to Board members and church members and subsequently engaged in totally legal peaceful public protest when U*U failed and indeed refused to responsibly redress my serious grievances.

:Go through what Robin has written about us wherever it has been written, it’s always negative and/or insulting.

And very truthful and accurate and supported by plenty of evidence unfortunately. . . And just where are the positive and non-insulting things that you and other U*Us have said about me oh "Anonymous U*U"? Nowhere to be seen I'm afraid. I wonder why?

:Robin resorts to name-calling,

Robin exposes and denounces U*U "name-calling" and only tells some regrettably well documented truths about U*Us. That is not name-calling. Just speaking Truth to U*U mediocrity. . .

:he has defamed several of our members (we have a legal opinion to that effect).

So why haven't you and other U*Us sued me yet? I have a legal court documents proving that U*Us are guilty of assaulting me and stealing my picket signs. . . All you have is an untested "legal opinion" that may well have been provided to the UCM by the idiotic Queen's Counsel lawyer Kenneth Howard QC who foolishly counseled the Unitarian Church of Montreal to have me charged with the crime of disrupting a church service even though I had never disrupted a church service during the whole time I was a member of the Unitarian Church of Montreal or even after they "excommunicated" me. BTW Kenneth Howard QC is the same fool of a lawyer who was the first member of the Unitarian Church of Montreal to be found to have committed a criminal act during the course of this dispute after I had him charged with theft and assault after he stole my picket signs when his "legal opinion" did nothing to prevent my ongoing protest as he and other U*Us had so fervently hoped. . .

:Look at the pictures he so proudly posts, and his sidewalk writing, it’s always NEGATIVE.

Dare I ask "I winder why"? Could it possibly be because I am PROTESTING against very NEGATIVE behaviour by Rev. Ray Drennan, the Board and congregation of the Unitarian Church of Montreal and other U*U injustices and abuses?

:Why would our church even contemplate talking to someone who has done nothing but “dump” on us, add infinitem.

Because my alleged "dumping" is entirely justified by U*U injustices and abuses that have yet to be acknowleged and responsibly redressed by U*Us. Aren't U*Us always harping on about how DIALOGUE is essntial to resolving disputes, including much more serious disputes that involve terrorism and murder etc.? Isn't it deliciously ironic that U*Us will demand that Israelis must enter into dialogue with Arab terrorists but obstinately refuse to enter into dialogue with big bad Robin Edgar. ROTFLMU*UAO

What a bunch of pathetic two-faced hypocrites. . .

Hence my highly justified "CHURCH" OF THE TWO FACES picket sign slogan that "Anonymous U*U" and all other DIM Thinking Montreal U*Us have blissfully ignored for close to a decade now. . .

:His efforts to drag the UCM before the Quebec Human Rights Commission were summarily dismissed as being without merit, and of course Robin denigrated the Commission’s decision.

Because the Quebec Human Rights Commission did in fact screw up badly. . . It is well known that it has a poor track record when it comes to dealing with religious discrimination. If someone calls a homosexual a "fifi" they will act on it. If someone calls a Negro the "N word" they will act on it. But if an obviously intolerant and bigoted church miniter calls a congregant "psychotic" and falsely and maliciously describe his religious activities as a "cult" they will do their very best to turn a blind eye to it and pretend that it is not religious discrimination. . .

:There is a pattern throughout this saga from its very beginning until today, “Everybody is out of step but Robin.” He is always right and EVERYONE, without exception, is wrong. The UCM, the CUC, the UUA, and their leadership, and the Quebec Human Rights Commission, you name them, they are wrong.

Right. The UCM, the CUC, the UUA, and their leadership, and the Quebec Human Rights Commission, are indeed wrong and in time this will be clearly demonstrated. . .

:BTW, I thoroughly expect Robin to flame me for this post.

Nope. Just thoroughly rebut your U*U BS as I have just done.

:We have “walked the walk with you” Robin and NEVER will we (the UCM) entertain the idea of even talking to you ever again.

Never say never oh Anonymous U*U. You are acting as though you and the one and only legitimate representative of the Unitarian Church of Montreal. Yoyu are not and I do believe that the day will come when the UCM, the CUC, the UUA, and their leadership, and the Quebec Human Rights Commission are forced to admit that they are wrong. . .

:We want absolutely nothing to do with you. You have so turned us off that I, for one, would leave the church should the idea of entering into a dialogue with you even be raised.

Good riddance "Anonymous U*U". The Unitarian Church of Montreal could do without such ignorant and arrogant self-appointed representives. . .

:Continue to picket, and picket, and picket until you are either too old and/or too infirm;

That's a laugh. If anyone is old and infirm it is likely to be you and other "aging and dwindling" members of the Unitarian Church of Montreal. . .


:for as far as I am concerned, the UCM should divest itself of its assets and surrender its charter and disband the membership before YOU cross our threshold again.

Well that may well be your own small-minded and willfully ignorant opinion but I am reasonably confident that it is a minorty opinion. . .

:You are a mean-spirited, petty, little man, who is so obsessed with his being right and always right, that your blinkers preclude anyone else even having a modicum of sense or reason to support their point of view.

Wrong. I am not always right and often admit errors. I just happen to be right in this particular dispute. . . I dare say that you appear to be engaging in psychological projection here oh "Anonymous U*U".

:I know that if you were to rejoin us that soon we would be right back where we were before your membership was revoked.

Not very likely. . . The Unitarian Church of Montreal will never be "right back where we were before (my) membership was revoked." Right?

:We would be expected to support your “Creation Day”, providing manpower, and space, and office supplies, etc.;

Oh dear what a terrible fate. . .

:and then someone would wrong you and you would go after them and there would be letters of complaint, and meetings, and discussions, and more meetings, and more discussions, and more letters from you, and more discussions, etc., etc., etc.

Yes knowing what I know about the Unitarian Church of Montreal as it currently is the chances are indeed pretty good that some intolerant and bigoted Montreal U*U would indeed wrong me. Hopefully however, after learning the hard way not to unjustly ignore and dismiss legitimate grievances, the Unitarian Church of Montreal would act quickly to acknowledge the wrong and responsibly redress it rather than pretending that no wrong had been done, engaging in egregious victim blaming, and going to extreme lengths to dismiss and deny the wrong for over a decade. . .

:We have moved on Robin, you should do so as well.

Sorry but I am not moving on until U*Us acknowledge the various ways that they have wronged me for over a decade now and responsibly redress those diverse injustices and abuses. I guess you will be seeing me in the fall oh "Anonymous U*U". Thanks for putting in your non-sense worth though.

Friday, August 18, 2006 3:21:00 am  
Blogger The Emerson Avenger said...

In rereading this post I noticed that I made a small typo that constitutes a factual error it was during the October 1995 (not 1996) Board meeting that the Board of the Unitarian Church of Montreal banned Creation Day from being celebrated again in the UCM even though it had been very successfully celebrated in 1994 when Rev. David B. Parke was the significantly more open-minded, tolerant, principled and indeed supportive interim minister of the UCM. Less than a month after this highly secretive and clearly manipulative UCM Board meeting Rev. Ray Drennan was most ironically labeling Creation Day as a "manipulative and secretive" cult to my face, after having contemptuously dismissed my revelatory religious experience as "your psychotic experience" and my monotheistic religious beliefs, as informed by my experience, as being nothing but "silliness and fantasy". Now that is a fine example of much vaunted U*U "tolerance" for you. . .

Friday, August 18, 2006 3:39:00 am  
Blogger indrax said...

Please be so kind as to state clearly what I said that you consider to be "verbally abusive".

If we consider the interent to be a verbal forum, then you have been abusive and harassing to countless UU's for nearly a decade.
Some recent examples of this are documented in your own posts on 'UU censorship'.

Hint: telling people what they must do and insulting them when they disagree is abusive.

Anonymous: I'd like to hear more about what happened at the church.


Please be so kind as to state your version of specifically what happened during this alleged "chair throwing incident". When did it allegedly take place? Who allegedly threw the chair? Who or what did they allegedly throw the chair at? Which UCM "staff members" allegedly witnessed this alleged incident[.............etc]
While these are all very good questions, why should he (presuming gender) answer them? If you can make vague acusations and refuse to answer questions, why can't he?

I did not "harangue" Rev. Ray Drennan but very briefly and very simply and directly described his demeaning and abusive behaviour

I would never describe you as brief, Robin. What do you mean by it? You just used a 150 word rant to correct a one digit typo.

..."apology" was only delivered more than a year later after I caught him lying to Baord members about his verbally abusive clergy misconduct.
Back the Truck up....
While some of your published letters implied that Drennan may have denied making comments, I haven't seen anything that indicates you 'caught him lying'. Did he deny the words you ascribe to him? What did I miss?

What you wanted was his head “on a plate.”
Is that a quote? Can you put it in context?

during a totally secretive and highly manipulative "in camera" segment of the October 1996 Board meeting
If it was secretive, how do you know it was manipulative? What does manipulative even mean in this context? Do you realize that it is not unusual for boards to privately discuss sensitive issues?

even though it had been unanimously approved by the UCM's Religious Activities Committee

That really doesn't count for anything. The board trumps any committee, unless the UCM uses a very different structure than what I'm familiar with. The only thing that can trump the board is the congregation, and in the end, the congregation was against you too. (Don't even start in about the conditions of the congregational meeting, because in a congregation of 80 people, those people know you and made there decisions mostly based on your conduct before them.)

Because my alleged "dumping" is entirely justified by U*U injustices and abuses that have yet to be acknowleged and responsibly redressed by U*Us. Aren't U*Us always harping on about how DIALOGUE is essntial to resolving disputes, including much more serious disputes that involve terrorism and murder etc.? Isn't it deliciously ironic that U*Us will demand that Israelis must enter into dialogue with Arab terrorists but obstinately refuse to enter into dialogue with big bad Robin Edgar. ROTFLMU*UAO

What a bunch of pathetic two-faced hypocrites. . .


Damnit robin. when you say 'U*Us' you paint with too broad a brush. This section is specifically insulting to me and for that you should apologize.

Right. The UCM, the CUC, the UUA, and their leadership, and the Quebec Human Rights Commission, are indeed wrong and in time this will be clearly demonstrated. . .

Good, because it certainly hasn't been clearly demonstrated yet.

You have so turned us off that I, for one, would leave the church should the idea of entering into a dialogue with you even be raised.

Robin, this is the person you need to win over if you ever want to be back in the UCM.
This person feels wronged by you. This person you need to reconcile with.

:We would be expected to support your “Creation Day”, providing manpower, and space, and office supplies, etc.;

Oh dear what a terrible fate. . .


So he's right about this? You think that reinstating you brings an implied obligation to promote and host creation day? That's a problem Robin, a big problem. The UCM board decided not to host creation day, and absent a contrary congregational descision, there is nothing wrong with that choice. UU churches do NOT have an obligation to help out every little religious tradition that comes along. they have every right to use their facilities in the way that works for them.

Since nearly the beginning of this, you have been trying to hammer your beliefs into UUism, and that has got to stop.

Sunday, August 20, 2006 3:58:00 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anonymous here,

As I predicted, Robin's immediate response to my last post here was to "flame" me and I quote:

"Yes it was a genuinely spectacular example of willfully ignorant, if not outright malicious, U*U BS. . ."

I rest my case!

Monday, August 21, 2006 12:23:00 pm  
Blogger The Emerson Avenger said...

Sorry Anonymous U*U but my response to my last post here was to systematically rebut it point-by-point. If you want call that a "flame" be my guest. The fact of the matter is that your own posts are effectively "flames" themselves. You are a fool if you expect to ignorantly or even maliciously "flame" someone and not get a little singed yourself when they respond to your "flame". . .

Unfortunately for you, the Unitarian Church of Montreal your post was in fact a genuinely spectacular example of willfully ignorant, if not outright malicious, U*U BS. . ."

I have clearly demonstrated how your post contained misinformation, disinformation and other DIM Thinking. Your post was characterized not only by obvious ignorance of the facts but also contained statements that can be properly described as BS. Just one glaring example of your U*U BS is your allegation of "chair throwing incident" that I had absolutely no involvement in and probably never happened at all. That "chair throwing incident" allegation attempts to paint me as having very poor anger management and being physically violent when in fact my anger has always been very controlled and I have never engaged in any physical violence of any kind throughout the whole course of this conflict that is now over a decade long. Your post attempts to demonize me and I therefore have plenty of good reason to consider that your motivation is malicious. So what you quote as a flame is nothing more than a reasonable opinion that is supported by the misinforming and disinforming U*U BS that you spouted in your post.

Instead of whining about my alleged "flame" I suggest that you admit to the ignorant and quite possibly malicious misinformation and disinformation that your post contains or provide some clear evidence that it is not just a truly spectacular example of U*U BS. Unfortunately for you and U*Us more generally I can produce documents or other evidence that disprove many if not most of the ignorant claims you made in your own attempt to "flame" me. . .

I hereby publicly challenge you to provide a scrap of first hand testimony or solid documentary evidence that supports your allegation about the "chair throwing incident" that I was supposedly involved in. You can't do so because it never happened or, if their was some "chair throwing incident" it was someone other than yours truly throwing the chair and I had no involvement whatsoever in that alleged "incident".

Monday, August 21, 2006 1:36:00 pm  
Blogger The Emerson Avenger said...

Obviously I meant to say *your* last post here. Again, oh Anonymous U*U, instead of whining about my alleged "flame" why don't you just try to defend your position? I know. . . It's because you can't. I very systematically blew your demonstrably ignorant and apparently malicious U*U BS right out of the water with my well aimed broadside.

Monday, August 21, 2006 1:44:00 pm  
Blogger The Emerson Avenger said...

::Please be so kind as to state clearly what I said that you consider to be "verbally abusive".

:If we consider the interent to be a verbal forum, then you have been abusive and harassing to countless UU's for nearly a decade.
Some recent examples of this are documented in your own posts on 'UU censorship'.

Anonymous U*U was specifically referring to my being "verbally abusive" in the course of my protest activities outside of the Unitarian Church of Montreal. He or she was not referring to internet activity. I want Anonymous U*U to back up that claim with clear examples of what he or she considers to be my "verbally abusive" behaviour on my part during Sunday protests. Is it the picket sign slogans? If so which ones? Is it something I am saying to people as they pass by? If so, what am I allegedly saying to people that Anonymous U*U considers to be "verbally abusive". I am most curious as to just what Anonymous U*U will present as evidence of my alleged "verbally abusive" behaviour.

:Anonymous: I'd like to hear more about what happened at the church.

As would I. . . I am all ears concerning Anonymous U*U's demonizing allegations about that completely mythical "chair throwing incident" that I was allegedly involved in. I am also curious about other myths that may have arisen over the years such as the myth I once heard that alleges that I spat in the water ceremony bowl. That one actually has a small basis of truth to it but grossly distorts what actually happened. I am most curious about and interested in any and all demonizing myths about me that Montreal U*Us may have formulated about me over the years above and beyond the myth that I am "psychotic" and Creation Day is a "cult" of the "manipulative and secretive" variety. . .

::Please be so kind as to state your version of specifically what happened during this alleged "chair throwing incident". When did it allegedly take place? Who allegedly threw the chair? Who or what did they allegedly throw the chair at? Which UCM "staff members" allegedly witnessed this alleged incident[.............etc]

:While these are all very good questions, why should he (presuming gender) answer them? If you can make vague acusations and refuse to answer questions, why can't he?

I have made virtually no "vague accusations". Most if not all of my accusations are very detailed and specific and I have repeatedly answered questions about them. If on occasion I fail or refuse to answer questions it might be because the questionj has already been repeatedly answered in the past.

::I did not "harangue" Rev. Ray Drennan but very briefly and very simply and directly described his demeaning and abusive behaviour

:I would never describe you as brief, Robin. What do you mean by it? You just used a 150 word rant to correct a one digit typo.

I can be very brief when I want to be Indrax. Most of my picket sign slogans are very brief and to the point. Some are just two-word zingers such as - UNSAFE SECT? - while others are three to seven word zingers such as - UNE EGLISE QUI N'EST PAS TRES CATHOLIQUE.

::"apology" was only delivered more than a year later after I caught him lying to Baord members about his verbally abusive clergy misconduct.

:Back the Truck up....
While some of your published letters implied that Drennan may have denied making comments, I haven't seen anything that indicates you 'caught him lying'.

Denying saying something that you actually said is lying Indrax. OK so I didn't actually catch Drennan in the act of lying to Board members but during my one and only meetiung with the Unitarian Church of Montreal's so-called 'Disruptive Behaviour Committee' I was informed by John Pike, who was a Board member as well, that Rev. Ray Drennan was denying having said the words that I was accusing him of saying. I confronted Rev. Drennan about that denial immediately after the meeting when he came into the church kitchen to gloat at his Phyrric victory of having me hauled before the DBC. I followed up with the strongly worded letter that prompted Rev. Ray Drennan to issue his inadequate and insincere purely expedient "sorry excuse for an apology."

:Did he deny the words you ascribe to him? What did I miss?

Yes, according to the UCM's Disruptive Behaviour Committee, Rev. Ray Drennan had in fact denied having said the words that I ascribe to him in my letters of grievance. Apparently you missed this this archived thread amongst other things. . .

::What you wanted was his head “on a plate.”
:Is that a quote? Can you put it in context?

Definitely not a quote of something I ever said but it's definitely a quote of the U*U BS spewed by Anonymous U*U and other like minded U*Us. . .

::during a totally secretive and highly manipulative "in camera" segment of the October 1996 Board meeting

:If it was secretive, how do you know it was manipulative?

The very fact that it was secretive was a manipulation. . . It was so secretive that it wsn't even mentioned in the official minutes of the meeting. Indeed part of the anti-democratic political ploy of making the decision to ban Creation Day during a totally secretive "in camera" segment of the October 1995 UCM Board meeting was to prevent me, or indeed other supporters of Creation Day. . . from being present at the Board meeting and to be able to answer any questions or counter the opposition to Creation Day. That was definitely part of how it was politically manipulative to make the decision during an "in camera" segment of the meeting.

:What does manipulative even mean in this context?

See above.

:Do you realize that it is not unusual for boards to privately discuss sensitive issues?

Well there was virtually no reason for the second observance of Creation Day to be considered a "sensitive issue" after it had already been quite successfully celebrated the year before. In any case this wasn't just a private discussion. The whole segment of the meeting concerning Creation Day was held "in camera", partly to prevent me from being present at the meeting and to be able to counter the opposition's arguments.

::even though it had been unanimously approved by the UCM's Religious Activities Committee

:That really doesn't count for anything.

Wrong. It counts for plenty. It shows that there was support from the RE Committee and that it was unanimous.

:The board trumps any committee, unless the UCM uses a very different structure than what I'm familiar with.

Indeed it does, especially when it manipulates the democratic process. . .

:The only thing that can trump the board is the congregation, and in the end, the congregation was against you too.

In the "end" perhaps but not in the beginning. . . I had a significant level of support for Creation Day from the congregation until it was banned by the Board and labeled as a "cult" by Rev. Ray Drennan, Frank Greene and other fundamentalist atheist bigots holding prominent positions in the Unitarian Church of Montreal. . .

:(Don't even start in about the conditions of the congregational meeting, because in a congregation of 80 people, those people know you and made there decisions mostly based on your conduct before them.)

Actually I can and will start on that but not right now. That congregational meeting was a carefully orchestrated kangaroo court "show trial" that was seriously flawed in both process and execution.

::Because my alleged "dumping" is entirely justified by U*U injustices and abuses that have yet to be acknowleged and responsibly redressed by U*Us. Aren't U*Us always harping on about how DIALOGUE is essntial to resolving disputes, including much more serious disputes that involve terrorism and murder etc.? Isn't it deliciously ironic that U*Us will demand that Israelis must enter into dialogue with Arab terrorists but obstinately refuse to enter into dialogue with big bad Robin Edgar. ROTFLMU*UAO

What a bunch of pathetic two-faced hypocrites. . .

:Damnit robin. when you say 'U*Us' you paint with too broad a brush. This section is specifically insulting to me and for that you should apologize.

I don't think so Indrax. I am talking about U*Us as a group and so far, as a group, U*Us have done exactly what I am accusing them of here. The fact that the occasional individual may seek dialogue does not "trump" the group behaviour in my opinion and I expect most people will agree with me. . .

::Right. The UCM, the CUC, the UUA, and their leadership, and the Quebec Human Rights Commission, are indeed wrong and in time this will be clearly demonstrated. . .

:Good, because it certainly hasn't been clearly demonstrated yet.

Actually it has but evidently you can't see that. I am confident that "in time" you and many other people will see how all these groups are indeed "wrong" in this matter.

::You have so turned us off that I, for one, would leave the church should the idea of entering into a dialogue with you even be raised.

:Robin, this is the person you need to win over if you ever want to be back in the UCM.

I disagree. I can easily completely ignore this person and still be back in the UCM if I want to. It may even be advisable to totally bypass this clearly misinformed and misinforming Anonymous U*U who almost certainly is not credible representative of the Unitarian Church of Montreal even though they have tried to present their SPAM as some kind of official response of the Unitarian Church of Montreal or greater U*U "religious community".

:This person feels wronged by you.

This person may well feel "wromged" by me but this person seems totally unwilling to acknowledge that I was wronged by Rev. Ray Drennan and the Board and congregation of the Unitarian Church of Montreal long before I ever did anything to supposedly "wrong" them. This person is clearly and unequivocally engaging in what Dee Miller calls DIM Thinking, an insidious synthesis of Denial, Ignorance and Minimization of the wrongs inflicted by ministers and religious communities on the victims of clergy misconduct.

:This person you need to reconcile with.

I disagree. This person has clearly indicated that they are not the least bit interested in dialogue and/or reconciliation. Why should I waste my time with them when other more rational and reasonable U*Us will eventually choose to seek reconciliation with me? Why not simply let this person follow their stated preference?

:::We would be expected to support your “Creation Day”, providing manpower, and space, and office supplies, etc.;

::Oh dear what a terrible fate. . .

:So he's right about this? You think that reinstating you brings an implied obligation to promote and host creation day?

I didn't say that did I? My sarcasm was in response to Anonymous U*Us obvious intolerance of Creation Day. . .

:That's a problem Robin, a big problem. The UCM board decided not to host creation day, and absent a contrary congregational descision, there is nothing wrong with that choice.

Wrong. There is plenty wrong with the highly secretive and manipulative anti-democratic manner that that choice was made by the UCM Board over a decade ago now. I have every right to propose Creation Day celebrations and/or observances of World Day of Conscience to the Board and congregation of the Unitarian Church of Montreal following reinstatement of my membership. Anonymous U*U and other like-minded U*Us have every right to vote against my proposals but not to misuse and abuse the democratic process in their efforts to oppose my perfectly legitimate religious initiatives as they have done in the past.

:UU churches do NOT have an obligation to help out every little religious tradition that comes along. they have every right to use their facilities in the way that works for them.

Agreed but they do not have a right to anti-democratically ban perfectly legitimate religious inititives that have significant support from the congregation and have a precedent of having been approved and successfully observed in the past. . .

:Since nearly the beginning of this, you have been trying to hammer your beliefs into UUism, and that has got to stop.

Wrong. I have been trying to freely and openly share my beliefs with U*Us I have not been trying to "hammer" them into U*Uism as you are alleging here and as others have alleged in the past. Does this attempt to share my beliefs with U*Us look like "hammering"? I think not. . . And it came at a time when I was already under duress as a result of Rev. Ray Drennan and other anti-religious fundamentalist atheist U*Us' efforts to "hammer" my religious beliefs and practices by labeling them as "silliness and fantasy", "psychotic" or otherwise insane, and a "secretive and manipulative" "cult". . .

Monday, August 21, 2006 8:57:00 pm  
Blogger The Emerson Avenger said...

Oops! Forgot the link from "this attempt". . .

Monday, August 21, 2006 9:00:00 pm  
Blogger indrax said...

Anonymous U*U was specifically referring to my being "verbally abusive" in the course of my protest activities outside of the Unitarian Church
of Montreal. He or she was not referring to internet activity.


No, but is is important.
I have no trouble imagining you being abusive to people, harping and making demands about your cause; because I've seen you do it.
If you're invasive online, and someone tells me that you're invasive in person, I'm inclined to believe them.

the myth I once heard that alleges that I spat in the water ceremony bowl. That one actually has a small basis of truth to it but grossly distorts what actually happened.

A small basis in truth? Do you think, maybe, that might be the kind of thing I need to know about before I try to make your case to the UCM?

Aparently I haven't been asking enough questions.

I have made virtually no "vague accusations".

Your main acusation against Drennan is not specific. You give us a handful of words and only bits and peices of the context.
The reasons for your disatisfaction with the UCM DBC, and the conflict resolution in general, are not specific. If they were specific, it might be possible to construct a conflict resolution process without those faults.

I have repeatedly answered questions about them. If on occasion I fail or refuse to answer questions it might be because the questionj has already been repeatedly answered in the past.

Umm, no.
We just covered this a month ago, and I STILL don't have a timeline.

Apparently you missed this this archived thread amongst other things. . .

No, I've read everything on this blog. For some reason I didn't realize that Pike's statement was made during the official meeting. This greatly changes how I see the situation.

OK so I didn't actually catch Drennan in the act of lying...

Well, let's all be clear and say what we mean, ok?

Anyway, assuming Pike was accurate, in order to 'catch him lying' you also have to demonstrate that he was in fact lying. As it stands, it is your word against his. This makes it that much more important that you present a coherent and complete description of what was said by both of you.

You paint this conflict as one of mere oppression, that Drennan said some abusive words and the UCM sanctioned those words. But if Drennan denied your allegations, then the DBC's decisions could be the result of judging the facts, not in judging the acceptability of the alleged words.

Did they decide it was ok for drennan to say you needed help, or did they decide they believed him more tan you? or do you even know?

part of the anti-democratic political ploy of making the decision to ban Creation Day during a totally secretive "in camera" segment of the October 1995 UCM Board meeting was to prevent me, or indeed other supporters of Creation Day. . . from being present at the Board meeting and to be able to answer any questions or counter the opposition to Creation Day.
A church decides not that have an event in their facility, and you paint it as a ban. That's bullshit.
How do you know what this 'political ploy' was?

That was definitely part of how it was politically manipulative to make the decision during an "in camera" segment of the meeting.

What the fuck is even the point of this sentence? Reiteration is not truth.

Well there was virtually no reason for the second observance of Creation Day to be considered a "sensitive issue" after it had already been quite successfully celebrated the year before.

That quite obviously makes no sense. If the UCM is full of radical atheists, then some of them were probably unhappy with having creation day at the church.
You say it was successful, but was it an event that the church as a whole wanted to be associated with? That is exactly the kind of decisions boards make all the time, and if they think that one or more sides will be upset about it, they might just make the decision on their own.

::even though it had been unanimously approved by the UCM's Religious Activities Committee

:That really doesn't count for anything.

Wrong. It counts for plenty. It shows that there was support from the RE Committee and that it was unanimous.


Yeah, that's what you said, and I said it doesn't count for anything, repeating it doesn't make it count. Sometimes a committee comes up with an event that they are very enthusiastic about, and the board, for many possible reasons, says no. It happens.

You might have something if there was a 'political ploy' and if the congregation was in support of you, but I'm not seeing either of those.

In the "end" perhaps but not in the beginning. . . I had a significant level of support for Creation Day from the congregation until it was banned by the Board and labeled as a "cult" by Rev. Ray Drennan, Frank Greene and other ....

Well now you're just relying on the old stereotype of Unitarians thinking alike and doing what they're told. Oh, wait....

'Significant' was not a majority, was it?
If you did have a majority, you should have asked them to ask the board to reconsider, all of them. Board members go to coffee hour too, and having 3 or 4 or 8 people talk to you about something has an impact.

That congregational meeting was a carefully orchestrated kangaroo court "show trial" that was seriously flawed in both process and execution.

There is no such thing as a show trial where the jury are the witnesses. The process and execution of the meeting is largely irrelevant, because most people were decided against you going into it. They saw your behavior, they decided it was disruptive.
You pissed off 77 Unitarians enough that they didn't want to let you in church anymore.

I am talking about U*Us as a group
What part of 'too broad a brush' don't you understand?

Robin, 99% of UU organizations still welcome you as a member. But you have no apparent interest in BEING a UU. As near as I can tell your only interest in UUism is in getting access to the church building for your own projects.
Virtually all you interactions with the wider UU community are accompanied by demands to take your side in this dispute.
But you never just participate, you don't offer the UU community anything of value; a member.


What exactly is the QHRC wrong about?

I can easily completely ignore this person and still be back in the UCM if I want to.
yeah, how's that working for you?
How do you plan on getting back into the UCM if you're continually pissing off the members?
Do you have a magic wand?

You can not and should not force your way into a church at the expense of other members of the congregation. That is not reconciliation at all.

I disagree. This person has clearly indicated that they are not the least bit interested in dialogue

Actually, this may be the only person at the UCM who still listens to you. In fact, the majority of his post was directed at you, not me, not 'the audience'. That was dialog. Did you write back to Him??



:::We would be expected to support your “Creation Day”, providing manpower, and space, and office supplies, etc.;

::Oh dear what a terrible fate. . .

:So he's right about this? You think that reinstating you brings an implied obligation to promote and host creation day?

I didn't say that did I? My sarcasm was in response to Anonymous U*Us obvious intolerance of Creation Day


Read what he wrote, Robin.
He isn't intolerant of creation day, he is intolerant of what he percieves as your sense of entitlement. Would you expect them to support creation day, or not? what if they didn't?

Agreed but they do not have a right to anti-democratically ban perfectly legitimate religious inititives that have significant support from the congregation and have a precedent of having been approved and successfully observed in the past. . .

Take out anti-democratically, and yes, they do. Agreed?

Does this attempt to share my beliefs with U*Us look like "hammering"? I think not.

It's funny, that was exactly the same post I was going to use for my example of you hammering. Let's look at it:
These statements, and others too numerous to quote, lend support to my assertion that the Unitarian Universalist religious community has a responsibility, a duty, indeed an obligation, to take steps to document, critically examine, and even to "validate" my claim of a genuine revelation of God, particularly since if found to be valid it would evidently be a revelation of considerable significance.

You asserted that the Unitarian Universalist religious community has an obligation to validate your claim of a revelation. I could go into this, but I'll let you expand on it first. Just how is that not hammering your beliefs into UUism?

What did you really expect?

Tuesday, September 05, 2006 12:49:00 am  
Blogger The Emerson Avenger said...

:No, but is is important.
I have no trouble imagining you being abusive to people, harping and making demands about your cause; because I've seen you do it.
If you're invasive online, and someone tells me that you're invasive in person, I'm inclined to believe them.

As a rule the only people that I am verbally abusive too are those who have behaved abusively towards me or others first and I usually do it primarily to demonstrate to them just how abusive their words are. My favorite technique is to make these verbally abusive people, and those who support them. . . chow down on their own abusive words. Montreal U*Us, as well as the UUA and CUC, have obstinately refused to acknowledge the demeaning and abusive nature of Rev. Ray Drennan's words for over a decade now. I wrote many letters of grievance about Rev. Ray Drennan's abusive, and even hostile and malicious, labeling of Creation Day as "your cult" and my revelatory religious experience as "your psychotic experience" but U*Us refused to acknowledge his verbally abusive clergy misconduct. Yet, when the words "cult" "psychotic" and "Solar Temple" appeared in my picket sign slogands in the context of protesting against Rev. Ray Drennan's verbally abusive behaviour U*Us cried foul and described my picket sign slogans as "abhorrent". Some U*Us even accused me of "hate speech" and "hate crime" and I was eventually permanently expelled from the Unitarian Church of Montreal because my protest activities, especially the picket sign slogans that protested against the verbally abusive words that Rev. Ray Drennan and other U*Us had directed at me, were "image tarnishing". U*Us have yet to acknowledge that these abusive words were used by Rev. Ray Drennan and other intolerant and abusive U*Us to seriously tarnish my image long before they indirectly ended up tarnishing the image of the Unitarian Church of Montreal in the context of protesting against the hostile and malicious use of these abusive words.

:A small basis in truth? Do you think, maybe, that might be the kind of thing I need to know about before I try to make your case to the UCM?

Not particularly. It's a grossly exaggerated and distorted myth about me that was created by Anonymous U*U and like-minded DIM Thinking Montreal U*Us who create various myths about me in their misguided efforts to further demonize me.

:Apparently I haven't been asking enough questions.

Not at all. The demonizing myth about me allegedly spitting in the water ceremony bowl is just a distraction from the real issues involved in this conflict and is very easily countered if and when any U*U has the temerity to try to pin it on me. I only volunteered the information to illustrate how U*Us create myths to demonize me such as Anonymous U*Us completely and utterly mythological "chair throwing incident" allegation. That demonizing myth has absolutely no foundation in fact or truth. None whatsoever. It never happened or, if someone did throw a chair in the Unitarian Church of Montreal I was in no way involved in that "chair throwing incident".

::I have made virtually no "vague accusations".

:Your main acusation against Drennan is not specific.

Wrong. It is very specific and my 20+ page original letter of grievance is very detailed, truthful and accurate. Unfortunately I am not able to provide the file to you at this point in time but do feel free to request a copy from the Unitarian Church of Montreal or the UUA or CUC.

:You give us a handful of words and only bits and peices of the context.

Which is all that is necessary in terms of my complaint against Rev. Ray Drennan. My grievances arising from Rev. Ray Drennan's verbally abusive clergy misconduct are primarily about his intolerant (even outright bigoted), demeaning, abusive, hostile and malicious use of "a handful of words"; specifically his use of the words "cult", "psychotic" and "silliness and fantasy" to describe my religious beliefs and/or practices.

:The reasons for your disatisfaction with the UCM DBC, and the conflict resolution in general, are not specific.

Wrong again. They are very specific as evidenced by my various letters of grievance most of which are either in your possession already or readily available on the internet including in this blog.

:If they were specific, it might be possible to construct a conflict resolution process without those faults.

Those faults were largely pointed out already, sometimes many times over. I suppose I could be more specific about some of those faults and I certainly intend to use my bitter experience of seriously flawed U*U "justice" to make recommendations for improvements in procedures but that will come after this conflict has been resolved to my satisfaction, not before. . .

::I have repeatedly answered questions about them. If on occasion I fail or refuse to answer questions it might be because the question has already been repeatedly answered in the past.

:Umm, no. We just covered this a month ago, and I STILL don't have a timeline.

I sent you a selection of documents months ago and there are copies of documents posted on this blog and elsewhere on the internet. The dates on the letters provide the timeline. Right?

::Apparently you missed this this archived thread amongst other things. . .

:No, I've read everything on this blog. For some reason I didn't realize that Pike's statement was made during the official meeting. This greatly changes how I see the situation.

Well John Pike's, and indeed the other Disruptive Behaviour Committee members' assertions, that Rev. Ray Drennan was denying having labeled Creation Day as "your cult" and my revelatory religious experience as "your psychotic experience" etc. etc. were indeed made during my first and only meeting with the Unitarian Church of Montreal's so-called Disruptive Behaviour Committee. That should be clear from the available documentation that you claim to have read. BTW that meeting was tape recorded with my full knowledge and consent and that tape will make for very interesting listening if it has not been destroyed by the Unitarian Church of Montreal in order to rid itself of damning
evidence that can be used against it. . . Also it should be understood that the DBC was set up primarily, if not exclusively, to try to intimidate me into silence about Rev. Ray Drennan's own verbally abusive "disruptive behaviour" by threatening me with expulsion from the "church" if I continued to distribute letters of grievance to "church" members following Sunday services.

::OK so I didn't actually catch Drennan in the act of lying...

:Well, let's all be clear and say what we mean, ok?

I believe that I have done so as a rule.

::Anyway, assuming Pike was accurate, in order to 'catch him lying' you also have to demonstrate that he was in fact lying. As it stands, it is your word against his.

I think that the vast majority of people will understand that Rev. Ray Drennan was indeed lying and denying in that he provided his "sorry excuse for an apology" for his verbally abusive clergy misconduct within days of receiving my letter that accused him of lying to the Board of the Unitarian Church of Montreal by denying having said what he and I both know he actually said. Do you or anyone else, U*U or otherwise, actually believe that Rev. Ray Drennan would offer any kind of apology for "distressing" words that he did not actually say? If so that would stand as a spectacular example of deep denial and obstinate willful ignorance.

:This makes it that much more important that you present a coherent and complete description of what was said by both of you.

Been there done that many times over. I will get around to providing a copy of my original letter of grievance but it is not really necessary as the various follow-up letters of grievance that you have read are coherent and complete enough AFAIAC.

::You paint this conflict as one of mere oppression, that Drennan said some abusive words and the UCM sanctioned those words. But if Drennan denied your allegations, then the DBC's decisions could be the result of judging the facts, not in judging the acceptability of the alleged words.

The UCM has effectively sanctioned Rev. Ray Drennan's abusive words. It should have been obvious to them that he had in fact lied to them when he offered his expedient "apology" immediately after I challenged him about his lying to the Board about what he had in fact said to me. The far from wise response to my original letter of grievance by the UUA's Ministerial Fellowship Committee under the direction of Rev. Diane Miller explicitly stated that Rev. Ray Drennan's verbally abusive "disruptive behaviour", as I had described it in my very detailed, truthful and accurate original letter of grievance "seemed to us to be within the appropriate guidelines of ministerial leadership." Doh!

::Did they decide it was ok for drennan to say you needed help,

He went well beyond saying that he thought I needed "professional help" he contemptuously dismissed my revelatory religious experience by angrily interrupting me as I was describing it to him by saying "you mean your psychotic experience."

::or did they decide they believed him more tan you? or do you even know?

I suggest that you ask them as only they can properly answer that question. Right? I have my own well informed opinion about their position but I suggest that you question them about their motivations and responses.

::A church decides not that have an event in their facility, and you paint it as a ban. That's bullshit.

No it is not. Creation Day was quite effectively banned from being celebrated in the Unitarian Church of Montreal during a totally secretive "in camera" segment of the October 1995 Board meeting. It was so secretive that the official minutes of this Board meeting made no mention whatsoever of this "in camera" decision to banish Creation Day from being celebrated in the Unitarian Church of Montreal.

:How do you know what this 'political ploy' was?

Making the decision to ban Creation Day from being celebrated in the sanctuary of the Unitarian Church of Montreal during a totally secretive "in camera" segment of the October 1995 Board meeting was in itself a "manipulative and secretive" political ploy to prevent me from being able to counter the opposition to Creation Day by hearing any objections to Creation Day and being able to address them.

:What the fuck is even the point of this sentence? Reiteration is not truth.

See above. . .

::Well there was virtually no reason for the second observance of Creation Day to be considered a "sensitive issue" after it had already been quite successfully celebrated the year before.

:That quite obviously makes no sense. If the UCM is full of radical atheists, then some of them were probably unhappy with having creation day at the church.

Congratulations Indrax! You got it. . . I apologize. I guess I should have said that there was no *valid* reason for the second observance of Creation Day to be considered a "sensitive issue" after it had already been quite successfully celebrated the year before.

:You say it was successful, but was it an event that the church as a whole wanted to be associated with?

The church as a whole was never given an opportunity to make that decision right? The fact of the matter however is that I almost certainly had more overall support for Creation Day than opposition to it but the opposition had control of the Board thus "trumping" me, the Religious Education Committee and the at least 20 to 30 UCM members that had shown their support for Creation Day in one way or another. . .

:That is exactly the kind of decisions boards make all the time, and if they think that one or more sides will be upset about it, they might just make the decision on their own.

I would have been a lot less upset if the process had been genuinely open and democratic rather than totally secretive and highly manipulative. Right? My initial complaint that predated my complaint against Drennan was about this cyncal manipulation of the democratic process that favored the fundamentalist atheist opposition to Creation Day who had their say but denied me not only my say but my listen. . .

:sometimes a committee comes up with an event that they are very enthusiastic about, and the board, for many possible reasons, says no. It happens.

How often does *it* happen in a totally secretive and clearly manipulative misuse and abuse of the democratic process Indrax? If you or anyone else presented a viable project to your church Board and they denied you any say in the matter by holding the debate and voting in a totally secretive "in camera" segment of the meeting wouldn't you have good reason to be just a little bit upset, especially if you knew that your opponents cynically ontrolled this anti-democratic manipulation?

:You might have something if there was a 'political ploy' and if the congregation was in support of you, but I'm not seeing either of those.

Because you are apparently willfully blind Indrax. Open your eyes and smell the rotten Bridgehead coffee if you will pardon the mixed metaphor. . .

:'Significant' was not a majority, was it?

There never was a congregational vote on the matter Indrax but I definitely had more people who supported Creation Day, or were neutral on the issue, than the small but highly influential minority of intolerant fundamentalist atheists like Rev. Ray Drennan, Frank Greene, Val Bourdon and some others who controlled the Board.

:If you did have a majority, you should have asked them to ask the board to reconsider, all of them.

Unfortunately there was no time for that. I wanted the decision to be made during the September Board meeting but it was delayed to the October meeting. The director of Religious Education submitted a petition in favor of Creation Day soon after it was banned by the Board but the petition was ignored or dismissed just as my formal letter of complaint about the anti-democratic nature of the "in camera" debate and voting was summarily dismissed by the Board.

:Board members go to coffee hour too, and having 3 or 4 or 8 people talk to you about something has an impact.

Not on intolerant fundamentalist atheist bigots it doesn't. . .

::That congregational meeting was a carefully orchestrated kangaroo court "show trial" that was seriously flawed in both process and execution.

:There is no such thing as a show trial where the jury are the witnesses.

Yes there is in U*U "justice". Indeed some of the "jury" were the perpetrators. . . Frank Greene, who repeatedly labeled Creation Day as a "cult" in a conversation with a supporter of Creation Day and who had snidely suggested that there was a link between Creation Day and the notorious Solar Temple suicide cult to my face was the "president" of the congregational kangaroo court that permanently expelled me from the Unitarian Church of Montreal for having the audacity to publicly protest against his and Rev. Ray
Drennan's anti-religious intolerance and bigotry by displaying picket signs slogans that said -

CULT IS A FOUR LETTER WORD

"CHURCH" OF THE "PSYCHOTIC" REACTION

A "CHURCH" WHERE MALICIOUS GOSSIP IS CONDONED

etc.

:The process and execution of the meeting is largely irrelevant, because most people were decided against you going into it.

The process and execution is by no means irrelevent if it was neither just nor equitable but rather was a carefully manipulated "showe trial".

:They saw your behavior, they decided it was disruptive.
You pissed off 77 Unitarians enough that they didn't want to let you in church anymore.

If they had practiced what they preached rather than making a total mockery of U*U principles and purposes they never would have expelled me from the church. They happily allowed themselves to be manipulated by those who wanted to manipulate them. They could have seen how seriously flawed the process was and objected to it but they did not do so. BTW All they saw was my letters and picket signs because that is the only "behaviour" that was considered to be "disruptive". I might add that Anonymous U*Us' mythical "chair throwing incident" was never mentioned in any of the so-called "charges" that the Board brought against me nor was it ever brought up by the DBC. This should be evidence enough that it never happened as you can be sure that it would have been mentioned in th "charges" against me if it had ever actually occurred.

::I am talking about U*Us as a group

:What part of 'too broad a brush' don't you understand?

None. U*Us "as a group" have quite regrettably very consistently behaved exactly as I have described them in my "image tarnishing" public protest.

:Robin, 99% of UU organizations still welcome you as a member.

Don't be so sure of that but even if that were true it is that 1% that has subjected me to a variety of injustices and abuses that I am concerned about here and I am also concerned about the fact that more than 99% of the U*Us I know and more than 99% of U*U organizations have either abjectly failed or obstinately refused to take the steps that are necessary to ensure that these injustices and abuses are responsibly redressed. Right?

:But you have no apparent interest in BEING a UU.

Wrong. In fact I just may join a U*U church or two in the coming months. In fact I am loudly and publicly protesting against the fact that 99% of the U*Us that I have the misfortune to know have no apparent interest in BEING U*Us if you catch my drift. . .

:As near as I can tell your only interest in UUism is in getting access to the church building for your own projects.

Now that is a very good example of U*U BS Indrax. In fact when I joined the Unitarian Church of Montreal it barely even had a building to speak of because the Unitarian Church of Montreal had been razed to the ground by its transexual organist several years before I decided to join it. If you really believe your own U*U BS that you have spouted here I have little reason to have anything more to do with you since you are apparently a very small-minded and suspicious-minded indivual.

:Virtually all you interactions with the wider UU community are accompanied by demands to take your side in this dispute.

And why should they not be? I am only demanding that U*Us live up to their claimed principles of justice, equity and compassion in human relations. Unfortunately it would appear that 99.99% of U*Us have chosen to ignore or flaunt U*U principles in this matter.

:But you never just participate, you don't offer the UU community anything of value; a member.

I offer plenty of value to the U*U community but 99% of U*Us chose to ignore, reject or even unjustly and abusively attack the valuable things that I have to offer the UU community. The nearest and most conveniently located U*U "church" is the Unitarian Church of Montreal and they unjustly, unequitably and uncompassionately decided that they did not want me as a member. Right? What do you want me to do? Join the First Unitarian Church of San Francisco? Don't tempt me. . .

:What exactly is the QHRC wrong about?

Plenty. They are wrong in pretending that Rev. Ray Drennan's demeaning and abusive, false and malicious, labeling of Creation Day as "your cult", my religious beliefs as "silliness and fantasy" and my revelatory religious experience as "your psychotic experience" are "not discrimination" to quote the agent who was responsible for my case. They are wrong to fail to fully investigate my case and bring it before a Human Rights Tribunal especially when I identified falsehoods and/or outright lies in the depositions of Frank Greene and Rev. Ray Drennan. They have a very poor track record when it comes to dealing with religious discrimination. They have let down Sikhs and Muslims who have faced discrimination of various kinds as well. Also the Unitarian Church of Montreal and Anonymous U*U are wrong in claiming that the QHRC dismissed my case as being without merit. This is a falsehood and misrepresentation of the well documented facts. The QHRC decided not to bring my case before a Human Rights Tribunal without providing any explanation or reason for this decision. They did not in fact exonnerate Rev. Ray Drennan or the Unitarian Church of Montreal they just refused to take on my case after doing an inadequate and incompetent initial "investigation" that consisted of taking written depositions from me, Rev. Ray Drennan, and Frank Greene. There was no real investigation of my complaints.

::I can easily completely ignore this person and still be back in the UCM if I want to.
:yeah, how's that working for you?

Just fine Indrax. . . I will happily see the back of Anonymous U*U and other like-minded small-minded and suspicious-minded U*Us if and when my unjust expulsion from the Unitarian Church of Montreal is overturned. The U*U "religious community" can do without such ignorant and intolerant members.

:How do you plan on getting back into the UCM if you're continually pissing off the members?

Once they learn the well documented truth and meaning about what actually went down in the last decade or so I am confident that they will be rather more pissed off at Rev. Ray Drennan, Frank Greene, Val Bourdon, Jeremy Searle, John Inder, Anonymous U*U and various other members of the Unitarian Church of Montreal than they will be pissed off with me. And the day will come when the truth will out. . .

:Do you have a magic wand?

I have a few aces up my sleeve that I haven't played yet. . . I have kept a fair number of things in reserve that I can bring into play at a time of my choosing.

:You can not and should not force your way into a church at the expense of other members of the congregation. That is not reconciliation at all.

Perhaps not but it may well be justice. . . It is Montreal U*Us who are collectively responsible for the various injustices and abuses that they have subjected me to. They have to seek reconciliation with me as much as if not more so than I have to seek reconciliation with them. If they don't want reconciliation I am quite prepared to continue this war of words for another decade or two. . .

:Actually, this may be the only person at the UCM who still listens to you.

Wrong Indrax. It is very obvious that Anonymous U*U is not actually listening to me and has absolutely no interest in actually listening to what I have to say. He or she just posts their DIM Thinking institutional denial "flames" and refuses to respond to my point-by-point rebuttals of their misinformation and disinformation.

:In fact, the majority of his post was directed at you, not me, not 'the audience'.

Read it again Indrax. . .

:That was dialog.

Wrong. It was mostly a spectacular example of DIM Thinking monologue.

:Did you write back to Him??

Or her. . . Yes Indrax, you know perfectly well that I wrote back to Anonymous U*U. My point-by-point rebuttal was my response to his/her "flame" and I am still waiting for Anonymous U*U to respond to my point-by-point rebuttal of his/her misinformation and lies. If and when Anonymous U*U deigns to respond to my rebuttals he or she will be engaging in dialogue but at this point in time his/her posts remain monologue to say nothing of DIM Thinking SPAM. . .

:Read what he wrote, Robin.
He isn't intolerant of creation day, he is intolerant of what he percieves as your sense of entitlement.

Wrong. He or she is very clearly intolerant of Creation Day itself.

:Would you expect them to support creation day, or not? what if they didn't?

Yes as a matter of I would "expect" U*Us to support or, at minimum, refrain from unjustly undermining and attacking. . . Creation Day and/or other religious initiatives that are entirely compatible with the purported principles and purposes, and claimed ideals and policies, of the U*U religious community. I would not "expect" intolerant fundamentalist atheists, or anyone else, to be allowed to maliciously malign and undermine my religious initiatives that are fully compatible with claimed U*U ideals as they have done in the past and effectively continue to do. . .

::They do not have a right to anti-democratically ban perfectly legitimate religious inititives that have significant support from the congregation and have a precedent of having been approved and successfully observed in the past. . .

:Take out anti-democratically, and yes, they do. Agreed?

I am not going to "take out" the word "anti-democratically" when one of the U*U injustices and abuses that I am protesting against is in fact anti-democratic behaviour perpetrated by U*Us.

::Does this attempt to share my beliefs with U*Us look like "hammering"? I think not.

:It's funny, that was exactly the same post I was going to use for my example of you hammering. Let's look at it:

Yes. Let's look at it. . .

::These statements, and others too numerous to quote, lend support to my assertion that the Unitarian Universalist religious community has a responsibility, a duty, indeed an obligation, to take steps to document, critically examine, and even to "validate" my claim of a genuine revelation of God, particularly since if found to be valid it would evidently be a revelation of considerable significance.

:You asserted that the Unitarian Universalist religious community has an obligation to validate your claim of a revelation.

Correct because according to both the letter and the spirit of it's quite evidently insincere and even outright fraudulent propaganda the U*U religious community does in fact have an obligation to "respond in responsibility" to ANY and ALL credible claims of contemporary prophecy and revelation, not just mine Indrax. . .

:I could go into this, but I'll let you expand on it first. Just how is that not hammering your beliefs into UUism?

It's not "hammering" at all Indrax. It is just me quite reasonably and politely pointing out to U*Us that according to their own apparently totally insincere, and thus effectively fraudulent. . . propaganda U*Us actually do have a moral and ethical obligation to respond to contemporary claims of revelation and prophecy in a manner that is genuinely responsible. That means responsibly investigating contemporary prophecy and revelation in an effort to determine its "truth and meaning" and then respond to it in an appropriate manner.

:What did you really expect?

One word Indrax - better. . .

Thursday, September 07, 2006 11:00:00 pm  
Blogger indrax said...

Your unresponsivness is disappointing.

I'm still waiting for an answer.

As a rule the only people that I am verbally abusive too are those who have behaved abusively towards me or others first

That is not true. You have been abusive to every UU blogger I can think of, right from the start. You are agressive and invasive, and you harp. You come into people's space, tell them what 'UUs of conscience must' do. You consistently veer to your own topic, and do not stay on topic when asked. You spam.

My favorite technique is to make these verbally abusive people, and those who support them. . . chow down on their own abusive words.

Like you 'made' me 'chow down' on my words earlier in this very thread?
Me:
Unless you are willing to make real steps towards reconciliation, then there is no way it can happen.
In fact if you're not even willing to make a reasonable request for dialog, then there is really little I can do to help.


Were these words so abusive, or did you just disagree? What warranted the disrespectful pantomime you responded with? You have done this kind of pantomime to people many times, usually in repsonse to posts that have nothing to do with you. Such mockery, just by itself, constitutes unprovoked abuse, and I suspect is a big reason why you were banned from some blogs.

Montreal U*Us, as well as the UUA and CUC, have obstinately refused to acknowledge the demeaning and abusive nature of Rev. Ray Drennan's words for over a decade now. I wrote many letters of grievance about Rev. Ray Drennan's abusive, and even hostile and malici...they indirectly ended up tarnishing the image of the Unitarian Church of Montreal in the context of protesting against the hostile and malicious use of these abusive words.

This is entirely too much text. You are saying two things here, I think. One is that because abusive words were used against you, it's ok for you to be abusive back. The other is that because the abuse against you was not condemned at the time, your abuse against others should not be condemned now.
I think both of these points are obviously wrong when stated clearly.

Me:Do you think, maybe, that might be the kind of thing I need to know about before I try to make your case to the UCM?
You:
Not particularly.


You're horribly wrong. If I were confronted by any such acusation, I would need to know how to respond.
You say now it's a distorted myth, but how would I know that? It's only 'very easily countered' if one is aware of it. If I were presented with a list of alleged abuses, I would need to know what to clarify,(spitting) what to deny outright,(chair throwing) and what to work through. (letter distribution). Without a good understanding of significant events, I would have to rely on confering with you, which would waste time at best and waste opportunities at worst.

The demonizing myth about me allegedly spitting in the water ceremony bowl is just a distraction from the real issues involved in this conflict
No, your conduct at the UCM IS a real issue. They kicked you out for being abusive and disrepsectful, and it is possible that this rumor played a part in that perception. This, like the chair-throwing incident, and every other alleged abuse absolutely has to be aired and dealt with.

:Your main acusation against Drennan is not specific.

Wrong. It is very specific and my 20+ page original letter of grievance is very detailed, truthful and accurate. Unfortunately I am not able to provide the file to you at this point in time but do feel free to request a copy from the Unitarian Church of Montreal or the UUA or CUC.


So you've made specific acusations, but You don't have the document, and you haven't posted it online in past 9 years. You have to understnad that from my perspective that is exactly like you have never been specific.

:You give us a handful of words and only bits and peices of the context.

Which is all that is necessary in terms of my complaint against Rev. Ray Drennan.


No, as you say yourself, your complaint is about his use of the words. The words themselves are inert, only context can let anyone decide if they are abusive or not.

:The reasons for your disatisfaction with the UCM DBC, and the conflict resolution in general, are not specific.

Wrong again. They are very specific as


Ok, name one specific problem with the DBC, and cite where you've stated it here. Shit, Just name one instead of spending time saying how specific and informative you are.

...I certainly intend to use my bitter experience of seriously flawed U*U "justice" to make recommendations for improvements in procedures...

That's awesome. I think it's a great way to show your value to the UU community as a whole.

...but that will come after this conflict has been resolved to my satisfaction, not before. . .

That's stupid. Very stupid.

I sent you a selection of documents months ago and there are copies of documents posted on this blog and elsewhere on the internet. The dates on the letters provide the timeline. Right?

hehe heh, phew, aahh um, meh. ooooh.

NO!

These are timelines. timelines are a great way to deal with large amounts of information that has chronological relevance. Some of these deal with the entire history of the universe, and present the information consisely.

It does not need to be graphical, of course. You should present a chronological list of events, with approximate or exact dates. Ideally with links to deeper descriptions and documentation, but that can come later.

This isn't just for me, this is for anyone coming to your blog. You shouldn't expect people to sift through documents to sort out a picture of what happened and when.

As an aside, I don't think you've published the documents you sent me, so they're useless to anyone else.

Do you or anyone else, U*U or otherwise, actually believe that Rev. Ray Drennan would offer any kind of apology for "distressing" words that he did not actually say?


Do you or anyone else, U*U or otherwise, actually believe that Rev. Ray Drennan would offer any kind of apology for "distressing" words that he did not actually say?

Actually, yes. "I am sorry that you heard my words as offensive." is exactly the kind of apology I would expect a minister to give if someone took his words out of context, misunderstood him, or misquoted him entirely. It is an apology intended to difuse the situation and make peace, without admitting to anything.
Politicians do it all the time. It doesn't always mean they were scummy.

If so that would stand as a spectacular example of deep denial and obstinate willful ignorance.

Again, you ask a question and then try to make the decision for me. you insult me pre-emptively based on my opinion of what Drennan might do. If I don't agree with you, then I'm in denial, obstinate, and willfully ignorant. This is not a statement condusive to dialog.

Been there done that many times over.
Oh yeah, where?
I will get around to providing a copy of my original letter of grievance

Oh, yeah mean that 20+ page letter of grievance that is detailed, that you haven't provided?

but it is not really necessary as the various follow-up letters of grievance that you have read are coherent and complete enough AFAIAC.


First of all, as I've told you before, it is a pain in the ass to dig through dozens of letters to find information. It is the very definition of incoherent, because the information is scattered.
Second, it is obviously incomplete because the other, original, longer, absent, letter of grievance is complete. (I hope.)

Bottom line: What did Drennan say?

The UCM has effectively sanctioned Rev. Ray Drennan's abusive words.

Nope, I don't see any reason to assume that they believed you over him with regard to the facts.

Rev. Diane Miller explicitly stated that Rev. Ray Drennan's verbally abusive "disruptive behaviour", as I had described it in my very detailed, truthful and accurate original letter of grievance "seemed to us to be within the appropriate guidelines of ministerial leadership."

Well now that's not quite what she said now is it? She said:
"Your complaint was shared with the minister, which is a standard step in our procedures. It was then reviewed by me with the chairperson of the MFC. We did not see, in the volume of material you sent, that your complaint is within the purview of the MFC.

While we recognize that your expectations of ministry are not being met in your relationship with the Rev. Ray Drennan, we did not see cause to further investigate the minister's conduct. It seemed to us to be within the appropriate guidelines of ministerial leadership."
Which could very well mean that they believed him instead of you.
It could also mean that the full transcript of your version the conversation paints a different picture than the snippets you usually use.

he contemptuously dismissed my revelatory religious experience by angrily interrupting me as I was describing it to him by saying "you mean your psychotic experience."

HOT DAMN! That is a Sentence!
Thank you, that's a start.
But wait, That phrase isn't found Anywhere else on google.
But I DID find, ON MY OWN DAMN BLOG:
The Emerson Avenger said...
I have in fact provided the full phrases and sentences that Rev. Drennan spoke to me many times over, as well as the context that he spoke them in. You are apparently engaging in a certain amount of denial and ignorance yourself here....

So I ask you, What the fuck?

Now I'll admit that your description of this exchange does sound familiar, so maybe I saw it on Bnet years ago. I thought it might be in the documents you sent me, but I couldn't find it.

The point is, this information is not readily available, you said it was, and you belittled and insulted me because I asked for it.

That makes you an Ass.

Again.

I suggest that you ask them as only they can properly answer that question. Right?
Well, what did they say?

::A church decides not that have an event in their facility, and you paint it as a ban. That's bullshit.

No it is not.
...
Yes, it is. There are probably a dozen events a year that any given church board opts not to do. they aren't 'banned' they just aren't done. More if you count all the events turned down by committees.
All it means is that the church didn't want to do it.
In fact, thinking on this, I'd bet that that's literally all it was.
Was creation day proposed as a church event, and turned down on that basis? Did you then ask if it could be held in the church but not by the chruch? Was that turned down too?
I'm guessing you didn't try that approach, which means it's quite possible that You, Robin Edgar could have had your event, in the church building, If only you had asked. Or am I wrong?
I mean my church building hosts a reform judaism congregation, and the board sometimes turns down doing an event, but allows the use of the space.
Even if they would not have let you use the space at all, 'ban' is a stretch.

:How do you know what this 'political ploy' was?

Making the decision to ban Creation Day from being celebrated in the sanctuary of the Unitarian Church of Montreal during a totally secretive "in camera" segment of the October 1995 Board meeting was in itself a "manipulative and secretive" political ploy to prevent me from being able to counter the opposition to Creation Day by hearing any objections to Creation Day and being able to address them.


Ahh, so you label it a political ploy, therefor it is a political ploy, and you know it's motives. flawless logic.

:What the fuck is even the point of this sentence? Reiteration is not truth.

See above. . .


No, you don't get off that easy.
That paragraph too the form of:
Bill is called 'stretch' because he is tall. That is why bill is called stretch.
The final sentence was hard to read, and provided no new information at all!
Brevity, Clarity. Drop the fluff.

...there was no *valid* reason for the second observance of Creation Day to be considered a "sensitive issue" after it had already been quite successfully celebrated the year before.

Well, if the chruch is mostly mild athiests and humanists, and you were an agressive theist, that would make it sensitive. Regardless of potential reason for rejection, if you were known for pushing your agenda in ways that made people uncomfortable, that could also make the issue 'sensitive'.

The church as a whole was never given an opportunity to make that decision right?
Well, the church as a whole elects the board specifically to make these kinds of common decisions. The congregation picks people they trust to know the will of the congregation.

I would have been a lot less upset if the process had been genuinely open and democratic rather than totally secretive and highly manipulative. Right?

Really? You think so? I 'm not so sure. You seem to complain at every turn. You always find fault in the process of every decision against you. I would expect that if the board heard you out and decided against you, you would have concluded that it was a show-trial, the board were militant athiests, then you might have decided to visit the minister...
77 to 3.
Of course, if you ever took the time to paint yourself with any human features, such as acknowledgement of your own fallibility, then I might be prone to imagine another scenario.

My initial complaint that predated my complaint against Drennan was about this cyncal manipulation of the democratic process that favored the fundamentalist atheist opposition to Creation Day who had their say but denied me not only my say but my listen. . .

Then you take that to the congregation.
Why did you go to Drennan anyway?

How often does *it* happen in a totally secretive and clearly manipulative misuse and abuse of the democratic process Indrax? If you or anyone else presented a viable project to your church Board and they denied you any say in the matter by holding the debate and voting in a totally secretive "in camera" segment of the meeting wouldn't you have good reason to be just a little bit upset, especially if you knew that your opponents cynically ontrolled this anti-democratic manipulation?

I have to say, you throw around too many strong adjectives and adverbs (repeatedly) and it screws your credibility. Nothing ever just happens, it happens totally unjustly in conniving. If you can't make an argument without framing it inside emotional manipulation, then don't make that argument.
You have no proof of their motives saying 'your opponents cynically ontrolled this anti-democratic manipulation' doesn't make it so. It is presumptive logic.
It is also largely beside the point. Yes, there is politics in churches. Yes, sometimes a tiny cabal manipulates a larger group. But just because you got edged out procedurally does NOT mean that the democratic process failed. Unless there's something in the constitution or bylaws about it, you don't have the right to be heard by the board on anything.

:You might have something if there was a 'political ploy' and if the congregation was in support of you, but I'm not seeing either of those.

Because you are apparently willfully blind Indrax.

No, you have NOT shown evidence of a 'politcal ploy'. It might be there, but again, because you refuse to provide context, I don't know. There are many reasons the board may have acted as it did. We have to rule them out, and I have virtually no information.
Congregation support is even more tenuous. Is the UCM full of fundamentalist atheists or not? if so, you might be able to pull the hypocrite card, but you can't pull the anti-democratic card. If not, then vice-versa, but you can't have it both ways.
My bet is that the congregation didn't like it either.

Open your eyes and smell the rotten Bridgehead coffee if you will pardon the mixed metaphor. . .

What you were looking for is 'Wake up...'.

The director of Religious Education submitted a petition in favor of Creation Day
Petition as in 'signed by some number of congregants'? how many?

Not on intolerant fundamentalist atheist bigots it doesn't. . .
No, it does. see, they like cofee hour. they don't like being bothered at cofee hour. (as you of all people should be aware;-) They can't expell a dozen people unjustly.

Yes there is in U*U "justice". Indeed some of the "jury" were the perpetrators. . .
That doesn't matter. Nothing in that paragraph counters the fact that 77 out of 80 unitarians decided that your behavior in their church was too disruptive. Nothing you have said counters the fact that they had witnessed your behavior themselves. They saw, they decided. Even calling it a 'trial' is meaningless. Your only possible defense would have been an apology.

They could have seen how seriously flawed the process was and objected to it but they did not do so.
What process? how was it flawed? how would any of that made one lick of difference to the fact that they thought your picket signs were disruptive. They didn't decide to throw you out in that meeting Robin, They decided to throw you out when they passed you on the sidewalk.

Nothing that happened in the meeting mattered.

Now that is a very good example of U*U BS Indrax.

It's what you show me Robin. Show me something more. How did you contribute to the congregation?

:Virtually all you interactions with the wider UU community are accompanied by demands to take your side in this dispute.

I am only demanding that U*Us live up to their claimed principles of justice, equity and compassion in human relations.


No, you are demanding that they take your side. You are trying to make the decision for them.
But mostly, you miss the point, it's not that you shouldn't talk about this, it's that virtually all you interactions with the wider UU community are about this. Talk about other things, build relationships. Show your humanness. Demonstrate altruism and humility.

I offer plenty of value to the U*U community but 99% of U*Us chose to ignore, reject or even unjustly and abusively attack the valuable things that I have to offer the UU community.
What? what?! What has been offered, what has been rejected? Besides the priviledge of taking your side?

I'm not talking about the UCM, I'm talking about getting support from other UU's to influence the UCM, and show that you CAN integrate in the UU community.

"not discrimination"

Well, how does the QHRC define descrimination? I really really don't understand what you're trying to have them do here. From my perspective, if the QHRC assumed any jurisdiction over a church or a clergy-parishoner relationship, it would indicate that something is seriously wrong with Canada.
I mean are you going for some kind of hate speech angle, or what? what's the law that you're dealing with?

Just fine Indrax. . .
HAHA! 'Just fine'??? I mean, no progress... at all??

I have a few aces up my sleeve that I haven't played yet. . . I have kept a fair number of things in reserve that I can bring into play at a time of my choosing.

What motive do you have to wait?

I am quite prepared to continue this war of words for another decade or two. . .
I am not. This is going to move faster than that.

:In fact, the majority of his post was directed at you, not me, not 'the audience'.

Read it again Indrax. . .


No, you read it again. out of 12 paragraphs, 7 and half were directed at you.

you know perfectly well that I wrote back to Anonymous U*U.

Did you really? Did you try to communicate with that other person?

Wrong. He or she is very clearly intolerant of Creation Day itself.
Where do you get that from? quote!

Yes as a matter of I would "expect" U*Us to support or, at minimum, refrain from unjustly undermining and attacking. . . Creation Day
well, wait, what is the minimum?
This is important, because I think that even after you go back, the church will not want to support creation day. it is important that you be open about how you will resond. More to the point, it is important that you respond graciously.

I am not going to "take out" the word "anti-democratically" when one of the U*U injustices and abuses that I am protesting against is in fact anti-democratic behaviour perpetrated by U*Us.

One of the problems I have with some christian evangelists is an inability or unwillingness to engage in hypotheticals. It is a refusal of reason.

Does a church have a right to 'ban' perfectly legitimate religious inititives that have significant support from the congregation and have a precedent of having been approved and successfully observed in the past?

U*Us actually do have a moral and ethical obligation to respond to contemporary claims of revelation and prophecy in a manner that is genuinely responsible.

Well, which UU's? Is there supposed to be a committee or something? Do you think it's approriate for any UU organization to declare that any particular revelation is untrue? I don't.
Also, do you have any idea how many communications people get from God that are at least as credible as yours? We would be swamped. Seriously, what DO you expect?

On the other hand, I think alot of UU's have looked at what you have to say and come to their own conclusions about it's validity. That's really the most you have a right to ask of anyone. I suspect the majority have found value in your message.

That means responsibly investigating contemporary prophecy and revelation in an effort to determine its "truth and meaning" and then respond to it in an appropriate manner.

Investigating how? There's no evidence involved in your case, so investigating is essentially listening to what you have to say. The unitarian group that was most closely involved with your revelation doesn't seem to have been terribly impressed.

See, I get the vibe that it IS hammering, because when a UU church decides not to back you, you decide that they are not responding responsibly, and I think this attitude carries over to every individual UU.

Wednesday, September 20, 2006 2:50:00 am  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Robin got his ass kicked in this debate. Like always. All of your responses to the anon were completely defensive and angry. Which means they must have been right if you feel the need to defend yourself with anger and hate.
P.S. This is a different anon

Monday, September 25, 2006 11:04:00 pm  
Blogger The Emerson Avenger said...

Anyone who bothers to read "this debate" will see that Anonymous U*U got his U*U kicked in this debate. Like always. . .

My responses to Anonymous U*U were mostly matter of fact rebuttals of his U*U BS that clearly pointed how his facts were wrong and/or how he was spreading misinformation and disinformation. They were not "completely defensive and angry" as you allege but, even if they were, that would in no way mean that Anonymous U*U must have been right. People often react in anger and defensiveness to very real injustices and abuses. Your ridiculous assertion that if a person is "defensive and angry" their opponent must be "right" is a fine example of the deep denial and willful ignorance of DIM Thinking.

Tuesday, September 26, 2006 2:38:00 am  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home