A Child Of Dogmatic Atheists Speaks Out Against Emotional Abuse
Well look what The Emerson Avenger just found over on The Daily Kos blog. . .
I was raised as an atheist UU
My mother was a dogmatic atheist -- had the same scornful attitude as some of the posters on this thread -- but at Sunday School and later at a Unitarian camp the possibility of my actually having a choice as to what I believed was offered -- thank the Gods!
Some people are born with a spiritual bent. I don't want to talk about why because I don't want to get into an argument, but it happens. To ridicule a child for it, same as to ridicule a child for anything, is emotional abuse and does emotional damage. I am speaking from personal experience. Are any of you sniffing, contemptuous atheists parents? Take note.
As for evolution and a belief in something divine -- the idea that they are mutually exclusive is baffling to me, really.
I was raised as an atheist UU
My mother was a dogmatic atheist -- had the same scornful attitude as some of the posters on this thread -- but at Sunday School and later at a Unitarian camp the possibility of my actually having a choice as to what I believed was offered -- thank the Gods!
Some people are born with a spiritual bent. I don't want to talk about why because I don't want to get into an argument, but it happens. To ridicule a child for it, same as to ridicule a child for anything, is emotional abuse and does emotional damage. I am speaking from personal experience. Are any of you sniffing, contemptuous atheists parents? Take note.
As for evolution and a belief in something divine -- the idea that they are mutually exclusive is baffling to me, really.
Comments
Awesome! Another [former?] UU who has only good things to say about us!
You accuse me DIM thinking for reading what she said, instead of accepting your spin.
If anything, it appears that UU's gave her an escape from a dogmatic atheist.
I am not displaying any denial of other UU injustices, I was trying to stay on topic.
I am entirely interested in the truth, but you evade my questions.
Indeed she did but that doesn't change anything about the other things that she said indrax. . .
:You accuse me DIM thinking for reading what she said, instead of accepting your spin.
There is no spin involved in what I said indrax. It is all very clear from what she actually wrote. You are trying to put a more positive spin on things by pointing only to the fact that she was thankful that U*U Sunday school and U*U camp gave her a greater choice than offered to her by her dogmatic fundamentalist atheist U*U mother.
:If anything, it appears that UU's gave her an escape from a dogmatic atheist.
Not "if anything" indrax. Her mother was obviously a U*U of the dogmatic fundamentalist atheist variety that loves to ridicule religion and spirituality. Her post was more about the "emotional abuse" that she suffered as a result of her U*U mother's ridicule of her "spiritual bent" than the fact that she had a certain amount of "escape" from her mother's emotional abuse in U*U Sunday school and camp.
:I am not displaying any denial of other UU injustices, I was trying to stay on topic.
Wrong indrax. The topic was and still is - "A Child Of Dogmatic Atheists Speaks Out Against Emotional Abuse". You did display glaringly obvious DIM Thinking Denial, Ignorance and Minimization of that topic by totally "evading" that topic by zeroing in on the fact that the victim of that emotional abuse also stated that she did gain some measure of escape from that emotional abuse in U*U Sunday school and U*U camp. Your response to that topic was "Awesome! Another [former?] UU who has only good things to say about us!" Anyone with a modicum of intelligence and conscience knows perfectly well that it is an outright *lie* for you to pretend that this woman had "only good things to say about" U*Us and, unless you are a complete idiot or a conscienceless sociopath, you know very well that it was a DIM Thinking lie. . .
:I am entirely interested in the truth, but you evade my questions.
Wrong. You and your fellow DIM Thinking U*Us are quite demonstrably not interested in the truth. I have "evaded" very few of your questions. If I "evaded" any of your questions it was largely because I was fed up with your DIM Thinking behaviour that was, and still, is far more interested in (unsuccessfully) attempting to discredit me than in dealing with the very well documented truth of U*U injustices, abuses and hypocrisy.
You have had the answer to most of your questions available to you for more than a year now. You just did a great job of once again clearly and publicly demonstrating how you and other like-minded DIM Thinking U*Us try to evade unpleasant truths about U*Uism when you are confronted by them. . .
You try to spin the mother's harsh treatment as some kind of failing of UUism, but that is her issue, she was harsh in spite of her Unitarianism, not because of it. It is likely that her exposure Unitarianism served to mellow her, and it unquestionably made growing up easier for her daughter.
This is a win for us any way you slice it.
Whatever her mother's faults, we should celebrate that she chose to raise her daughter Unitarian.
I never claimed that her mother was a denomination indrax. . .
:Everything she said about UUs was positive and exactly what we should strive for.
Wrong. Her mother was clearly a U*U and she had nothing positive to say about her mother. The post was about a mother who was a dogmatic atheist U*U who ridiculed the "spiritual bent" of her daughter indrax. Even the daughter's more positive comments about U*U Sunday school and U*U camp were not about the whole *denomination* but, at best. . . a few U*U churches and a U*U camp or two that she attended. Most likely she is talking about just one U*U "church" and one U*U camp. A *denomination* this does not make.
:That IS Awesome. You try to spin the mother's harsh treatment as some kind of failing of UUism,
More DIM Thinking indrax. . . I presented the post as yet more evidence of how dogmatic atheists within the U*U religious community make life miserable for God believing people, in this instance her own daughter just for starters. . . Be assured that if this dogmatic atheist felt free to ridicule her daughter's "spiritual bent" that she had few qualms about ridiculing other people's religious beliefs and spirituality. How many people do you suppose this dogmatic atheist U*U mother might have driven away from her U*U "church" during the time she was a member of it indrax?
:but that is her issue, she was harsh in spite of her Unitarianism, not because of it.
So? Does that change the fact that she was "harsh" indrax? I think not. If has was harsh to her own daughter chances are pretty good that she was harsh to other people and made her U*U congregation rather less than welcoming to God believing people. Did I ever claim that Rev. Ray Drennan or any other intolerant and abusive dogmatic atheist U*U was "harsh" *because* of their Unitarianism indrax? I think not. You are grasping at straws as usual. . . I have said all along that such "harsh" emotionally abusive dogmatic atheism makes a total mockery of U*U principles and ideals. N'est-ce pas indrax?
:It is likely that her exposure Unitarianism served to mellow her,
Not from what her daughter said indrax. Pure DIM Thinking wishful thinking speculation here indrax. I know dogmatic atheist "Humanist" U*Us just like this mother of a U*U who have been members of the Unitarian Church of Montreal for decades and who most certainly have not mellowed over the years. Indeed some seem even crankier in their old age. . . not that they were spring chickens to begin with indrax. My picket sign slogan that says -
A "CHURCH" THAT IS OLDER BUT NOT WISER
hints at that indrax
Did Unitarianism ever serve to mellow Rev. Ray Drennan, Frank Greene, John Inder, or any other "harsh" Unitarians that I have the misfortune to know indrax? I sure haven't seen any evidence of that. . .
:and it unquestionably made growing up easier for her daughter.
I am not disputing that indrax even though I could raise a few doubts about just how much easier it really was for her daughter when she was in her mother's company. . .
:This is a win for us any way you slice it.
If it was a win for U*Us any way you slice I would not have posted it here indrax. . . You are quite evidently in deep deep denial about the failings of the U*U religious community, but I have known this for quite some time now indrax. You have just provided one more reason why I have very good reason to believe that are quite averse to facing the real truth about the very real U*U injustices, U*U abuses and U*U hypocrisy that I am exposing and denouncing here. That denial made it impossible for you to be a true ally or indeed a real friend.
:Whatever her mother's faults, we should celebrate that she chose to raise her daughter Unitarian.
But that's not the issue here indrax. . . The issue is that her mother had serious faults that clearly constituted emotional abuse for her own daughter and almost certainly constituted emotional abuse to other religious people if and when she ridiculed their "spiritual bent". Don't even try to pretend that such ridicule of other people's religious beliefs and practices does not occur quite regularly in U*U "churches", including so-called U*U "Welcoming Congregations". . .
I don't pretend that, I never have. Better acceptance is something UU's work on all the time. Looking at our failings is implicit in that.
The issue IS that her mother had serious faults. But she is a person. She happens to be UU.
Your guess about how she treated other people is at least as much conjecture as my guess about UUism mellowing her. People are often much more blunt with their family than they are with strangers or even friends.
You so frequently grab onto some violation commited by some UU, but you ignore that this is an issue that we constantly work on. More imortantly it is an issue that we get right a lot of the time.
This woman's story is an example of one of our successes.
That is Awesome.
:I don't pretend that, I never have.
Great! Then may I accept that as a tacit admission that ridicule of other people's religious beliefs and practices does in fact occur quite regularly in U*U "churches", including so-called U*U "Welcoming Congregations"? Please answer this direct question.
:Better acceptance is something UU's work on all the time.
U*Us coulda fooled me indrax. . . There is zero evidence of that in my particular case. I don't see the Unitarian Church of Montreal working on better acceptance of yours truly in spite of repeated demands that they do so. I don't see UUA President Bill Sinkford doing anything to work on "better acceptance" of yours truly. I see lots of evidence that U*Us are still very unaccepting of all kinds of people in so-called U*U "Welcoming Congregations". If U*Us were genuinely working on better acceptance of people I wouldn't be standing in front of the Unitarian Church of Montreal with picket signs on any given Sunday would I indrax?
:Looking at our failings is implicit in that.
But you and a whole bunch of U*Us refuse to even acknowledge U*U failings. Your response to this thread is just one example of that obvious fact. Have the Board and congregation of the Unitarian Church of Montreal responsibly looked at their failings towards me? Absolutely not. Has the UUA and it's negligent and complicit Ministerial Fellowship Committee looked at their failings towards me? I don't think so indrax. . . If they did they would have to acknowledge very serious failings in their human relations with me. I am still waiting for U*Us to acknowledge their very serious failings in their relationships with me. I've been waiting for over a decade now indrax. You call that "looking at our failings"? U*U failings are written all over my picket sign slogans and all over the internet but show me where U*Us have responded to those glaringly obvious failings in a way that even remotely lives up to U*U principles and ideals. More often than not DIM Thinking U*Us have fallen all over themselves to Deny, Ignore and Minimize their failings while flagrantly disregarding and wantonly violating the purported principles and purposes of U*Uism and other claimed ideals of U*Uism.
:The issue IS that her mother had serious faults. But she is a person. She happens to be UU.
More DIM Thinking indrax. You might as well say, "The issue IS that Rev. Ray Drennan has serious faults. But he is a person. He happens to be UU." or even "The issue IS that UUA President Bill Sinkford has serious faults. But he is a person. He happens to be UU."
:Your guess about how she treated other people is at least as much conjecture as my guess about UUism mellowing her. People are often much more blunt with their family than they are with strangers or even friends.
That may be so but my conjecture has more foundation in fact than yours indrax. My "conjecture" is based on years of observation of abusive dogmatic atheists.
:You so frequently grab onto some violation commited by some UU, but you ignore that this is an issue that we constantly work on.
No it's not indrax. If U*Us were working on *this* issue it would have been openly acknowledged and responsibly dealt with by now and not just in case. . . I challenge you to point me to a few web pages that provide evidence that U*Us are constantly working on the issue of the intolerance and abusiveness of anti-religious dogmatic atheist U*Us. I have repeatedly asked UUA President Bill Sinkford to address this issue and he has repeatedly turned deaf ears and blind eyes to my demands.
:More imortantly it is an issue that we get right a lot of the time.
Ya right. Show me your evidence indrax. . .
:This woman's story is an example of one of our successes.
You are in total denial indrax it is so obvious that it's not funny.
:That is Awesome.
Your DIM Thinking denial most certainly is Awesome indrax. . .
Heh, you're funny, but I will answer your question.
We have faults, yes. Now you, being without sin, will cast stones.
There is zero evidence of that in my particular case.
Well, there is one thing unique about your particular case. You.
It is a simple fact that Unitarians focus hard on acceptance and tolerance, and get it right a lot of the time. We are, even in practice, one of the most accepting relgions in the world.
Shawn Anthony thought we were too accepting. We are so tolerant that WE get ridiculed by others.
Over two hundred thousand people are members of UUA congregations.
They are theists and atheists and polytheists and just seekers, and every one of those categories has several subcategories. And there are dozens of nonreligious subgroups. If we were not incredibly accepting, we would dissolve tomorrow. Our existence as different people coming together out of choice proves exceptional acceptance.
You want more evidence? The very post you cited IS evidence that a dogmatic atheist and her spiritual daughter found a common home in a UU church. And that IS Awesome.
But you are so blinded by the rejection of you, that you can't even pay attention to our successes. I can forgive that blindness, but it's up to you to see.
Yes, you continue to face rejection from virtually every UU that knows you. How is it that in a group of people so large and so diverse, who profess a love of diversity and justice, and who work hard for that diversity and just in so many areas, how is it that YOU they decide to cast aside?
What was it your father said?
And here I am still helping you.
:Heh, you're funny, but I will answer your question.
We have faults, yes. Now you, being without sin, will cast stones.
Sorry indrax but I have never claimed to be without sin and U*Us starting casting very nasty stones at me long before I decided to retaliate. . .
::There is zero evidence of that in my particular case.
:Well, there is one thing unique about your particular case. You.
That's it blame the victim when all the documentary evidence makes it perfectly clear that the Unitarian Church of Montreal and the UUA and its Ministerial Fellowship Committee responded to my grievances about Rev. Ray Drennan's verbal stone throwing in a grossly negligent and effectively complicit manner.
:It is a simple fact that Unitarians focus hard on acceptance and tolerance, and get it right a lot of the time.
Sure they do that's why there are so many people complaining about the anti-religious and anti-Christian intolerance of U*Us indrax. Believe me I am by no means alone in that. . .
:We are, even in practice, one of the most accepting relgions in the world.
Don't count on it indrax. Don't believe your own U*U propaganda. Why are U*U congregations almost exclusively white if U*Us are so accepting of everyone indrax? Why do GBLT people, who U*Us pretend to be so accepting of in their so-called "Welcoming Congregations", get fed up and leave the U*U "church" indrax? Why have no less than three Christian oriented U*U seminarians or ministers decided to leave the fold of U*Uism recently indrax? I'll give you one thing though indrax. U*Us are indeed very tolerant and accepting of intolerant and abusive fundamentalist atheist bigots like the mother in question, Rev. Ray Drennan, a good handful of other Montreal U*Us, and plenty of other like-minded U*Us scattered throughout the U*U World.
:Shawn Anthony thought we were too accepting.
Well Shawn Anthony apparently had a bit of a problem with pagan oriented U*Us which was why he thought U*Us were too accepting. Hey I think U*Us are too accepting of fundamentalist atheist bigots. Does that mean that U*Us are as tolerant and accepting as you claim? Absolutely not indrax.
:We are so tolerant that WE get ridiculed by others.
Well I hate to burst your bubble indrax but U*Us get ridiculed for a variety of things not just because U*Us are too tolerant and accepting. I have seen plenty of criticism of U*Us for being intolerant and unaccepting.
:Over two hundred thousand people are members of UUA congregations.
They are theists and atheists and polytheists and just seekers, and every one of those categories has several subcategories. And there are dozens of nonreligious subgroups. If we were not incredibly accepting, we would dissolve tomorrow. Our existence as different people coming together out of choice proves exceptional acceptance.
You really do believe U*U propaganda don't you indrax?
:You want more evidence? The very post you cited IS evidence that a dogmatic atheist and her spiritual daughter found a common home in a UU church. And that IS Awesome.
The daughter said she was "raised UU" indrax. I expect that she had little choice in the matter in her early childhood. What the evidence does prove is that U*Us are just a bit too accepting of intolerant and abusive dogmatic atheists as I have been saying for well over a decade now indrax.
:But you are so blinded by the rejection of you,
Not just me indrax, hundreds and thousands and maybe even hundreds of thousands of other people have been effectively rejected by U*Us over the last few decades.
:that you can't even pay attention to our successes.
Nope. When there are U*U successes I will happily acknowledge them but this is not a U*U success by any means.
:I can forgive that blindness, but it's up to you to see.
Actually you and a whole lot of other U*Us are the ones who are blind and who need to see a thing or two indrax.
:Yes, you continue to face rejection from virtually every UU that knows you. How is it that in a group of people so large and so diverse, who profess a love of diversity and justice, and who work hard for that diversity and just in so many areas, how is it that YOU they decide to cast aside?
Back to DIM Thinking victim blaming mode again eh indrax? That's an easy enough question to answer indrax, just read the ridiculous charges they brought against me. You have my defence against them on your rather incoherent blog so you know why Montreal Unitarians "excommunicated" me. They were pissed off by my public protest. Pure and simple indrax. Everything is very well documented. You saw the letter from John Inder that clearly showed that the first six month expulsion was for doing nothing more than submitting a letter of grievance to the Board of the Unitarian Church of Montreal. Allow me to quote the most pertinent part of it -
The letter of October 6, 1997, distributed to the entire board of management, and your phone calls to several people regarding your grievance with Rev. Drennan have resulted in a six month suspension of your permission to attend the church - effective immediately.
Expelled for six months for doing nothing more than delivering an important letter of grievance to the UCM's Board that was just a bit too hot for them to handle. . .
Your DIM Thinking victim blaming Denial and Ignorance is screaming off the page here indrax. You are clearly suggesting that I bear the responsibility for U*Us throwing me out when the documentation makes it abundantly evident to anyone with a modicum of intelligence and conscience that U*Us threw me out because I would not allow them to get away with endorsing Rev. Ray Drennan's intolerance and bigotry.
:What was it your father said?
My father said "to stop kicking people in the balls." What about it indrax? If people kick me in the balls and obstinately refuse to make amends don't I have the right to kick back?
:And here I am still helping you.
No you're not helping me indrax. If you really believe that you are in any way helping me you are quite delusional. You haven't been any help for months. If you were ever any help at all. . . More than anything else you are wasting my time by posting spurious attempts to discredit me that I feel obliged to rebutt. Don't you think I meant it when I said "With friends like indrax who needs enemies?"
There are a lot of reasons you claim victimhood, and there are a few that definitely related to your behavior.
You are not a victim of being banned from blogs, they were victims of your lashing out.
You are not a victim of being kicked out of the UCM, you convinced them to do it.
You say 'when there are' UU successes you will acknowledge them. Do you think we are not accepting at all? Do you think we are 200,000 hypocrites? The daughter was thankful for us, accept that.
Listen to your father. Whatever his faults, he was right on that.
More very obvious DIM Thinking indrax. If you don't know what I am a victim of you are a complete idiot.
:There are a lot of reasons you claim victimhood,
Indeed there are lots of highly justified reasons that U*Us have oh so generously provided to me over the years.
:and there are a few that definitely related to your behavior.
You mean writing letters and publicly protesting indrax? Both of these activities are perfectly legitimate responses to U*U injustices, abuses and hypocrisy.
:You are not a victim of being banned from blogs, they were victims of your lashing out.
Wrong. I posted perfectly legitimate criticism and dissent, almost always on topic to what was posted in the threads or follow-up comments. The bloggers who banned were no more victims of me "lashing out" than the U*U bloggers who wisely chose not to ban me or otherwise censor me indrax. . . In fact CC and Joel Monka banned me not because of anything I posted to their blog but simply because I "outed" a stunningly hypocritical verbally abusive U*U minister for who she really is.
:You are not a victim of being kicked out of the UCM, you convinced them to do it.
No indrax. The Board and a few other influential members of the Unitarian Church of Montreal very carefully orchestrated that fiasco. All I did was stand in front of that so-called "church" with perfectly appropriate picket sign slogans. The whole process of the kangaroo court disguised as a special congregational meeting that permanently expelled me from the UCM was in fact a highly manipulated and manipulative process that was a travesty of justice. The process was badly flawed and heavily biased in favor of the "church" leadership.
:You say 'when there are' UU successes you will acknowledge them.
That's right.
:Do you think we are not accepting at all?
Are you dumb enough to think I said that or anything remotely close to that indrax?
:Do you think we are 200,000 hypocrites?
Well youn are however many thousand hypocrites who know about my situation and choose to do absolutely nothing to ensure that genuine justice, equity and compassion prevails in this matter. No doubt there are thousands or even tens of thousands more U*Us who are hypocrites for other reasons. . .
:The daughter was thankful for us, accept that.
I never rejected that indrax. I never in any way denied what she said about U*U Sunday school or U*U camp. Heck I posted her words verbatim didn't I? I didn't hide anything she said but you ignored most of what she said and latched onto the only positive thing and DIM Thinkingly pretended that she had "only good things to say" about U*Us. NOT!
:Listen to your father. Whatever his faults, he was right on that.
No he was not. I know exactly why he said that and it actually has a lot to do with his own faults but that's another story. If U*Us kick me in the balls by telling malicious lies about me and obstinately refuse to heal the pain and fix the damage they have caused, or even acknowledge that pain and damage, then U*Us can damn well expect to get a good swift kick in the balls in the form of me telling some very unpleasant truths about U*Us. If U*Us dish it out they better be pepared to take it indrax. Indeed I have said that anyone who engages in a war of words with me had better be prepared to lose it. . . I am confident that U*Us are well on their way to badly losing this war of words that they started and foolishly chose not to seek peace with me. . .
That's right.
:Do you think we are not accepting at all?
Are you dumb enough to think I said that or anything remotely close to that indrax?
Then what successes have you acknowledged?
you ignored most of what she said and latched onto the only positive thing and DIM Thinkingly pretended that she had "only good things to say" about U*Us. NOT!
The last word was right, that is NOT what I said. I said 'us' as in the religion, the people as a whole. Not that she had nothing bad to say about any individual who is a UU.
That would be silly, by that standard, a person could claim that YOU have bad things to say about ANY given religion, but I don't think that would be fair.
This is a win for us.
:Listen to your father. Whatever his faults, he was right on that.
No he was not. I know exactly why he said that and it actually has a lot to do with his own faults but that's another story.
Of course... he was criticizing you, so it must be about his own faults... Do we see a pattern?
I was using the future tense indrax. You are using the past tense. . .
:This is a win for us.
Only in the deep Denial of your DIM Thinking mind indrax.
:::Listen to your father. Whatever his faults, he was right on that.
::No he was not. I know exactly why he said that and it actually has a lot to do with his own faults but that's another story.
:Of course... he was criticizing you, so it must be about his own faults...
No indrax it's not a question of "must". It's a question of my knowing exactly why he said what he said and knowing that it has everything to do with his own faults. I accept all kinds of criticism that is valid but invalid criticism is rejected. In any case, as I said, if U*Us go out of their way to *figuratively speaking* kick me in the balls, and obstinately refuse to acknowledge any wrongdoing, they had better be prepared for some retaliation. I have said it before but it bears repeating. Anyone who starts a war of words with me had better be prepared to lose it. . .
:Do we see a pattern?
Oh I am very confident that zillions* of people see a very clear pattern in the behaviour of DIM Thinking U*Us in this conflict indrax. A pattern of injustices, abuses and hypocrisy. A pattern of institutional stonewalling cover-up and denial. A pattern of repeatedly making a total mockery of the purported principles and purposes and other ideals of U*Uism throughout this conflict for over a decade now. . .
Then I will hold you to it.