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

Friday, December 08, 2006

The Complicit Silence Of UUA President Bill Sinkford aka Rev. William G. Sinkford

Well it has been almost a full month since I sent the email below, dated November 9th, 2006, to UUA President Bill Sinkford. In spite of two follow-up reminders that were cc'd to his personal assistant Julie Shaw and UUA Executive Vice-President Kathleen 'Kay' Montgomery I have not had the slightest response from Rev. William G* Sinkford or any other representative from the UUA. This is typical of the DIM Thinking stonewalling and institutional denial that I have encountered from the UUA and its Department of Ministry since I first filed my initial grievances about Rev. Ray Drennan's intolerant and abusive clergy misconduct in February of 1996. As far as I am concerned, in that UUA President Sinkford is quite evidently not part of the solution to the injustices and abuses that I have brought to his attention over the years, he is a major part of the problem. It is also abundantly clear to most people of intelligence and conscience that Rev. William Sinkford is a shameless hypocrite when one contrasts his words about other injustices and abuses with how he has so negligently and complicitly responded to the internal U*U injustices and abuses that I have called upon him to respond to in a manner that actually lives up to U*U "covenants" to affirm and promote justice, equity and compassion in human relations.


Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2006 18:45:24 -0500 (EST)
From: "Robin Edgar" Add to Address Book
Subject: Fwd: Re: Justice Delayed and Denied by you and the UUA
To: wsinkford@uua.org, bsinkford@uua.org
CC: kmontgom@uua.org, jshaw@uua.org
Woden's Day November 22nd, 2006

Dear President Sinkford,

Today marks the seventh anniversary of the unjust, inequitable and far from compassionate decision of the congregation of the Unitarian Church of Montreal to permanently expel me for tarnishing the image of the Unitarian Church of Montreal by publicly protesting against the anti-religious intolerance and bigotry of Rev. Ray Drennan, Frank Greene, and other Montreal U*Us; as well as the negligent and hypocritical response of Montreal U*Us and indeed Boston to my serious grievances.

I have yet to receive so much as a confirmation of receipt for the email communications that I am forwarding to you again here. I expect an appropriate response to these email communications by the end of the week.

If I receive no response from you I will consider that you are a knowing and willful participant in the kind of complicit institutional stonewalling and denial that the UUA has engaged in since I first filed my grievances against Rev. Ray Drennan in February of 1996. If I receive no response by the end of the week I will strongly criticize you and the UUA on The Emerson Avenger blog and other internet forums and take steps to ensure that hundreds and even thousands of your fellow U*Us are confronted by that strong and public criticism of you.

Here are some quotes about complict silence that you and other UUA officials would do very well to reflect on -

The cruelest lies are often told in silence.

Robert Louis Stevenson (1850 - 1894)


Oppression can only survive through silence.

Carmen de Monteflores


In the end, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends.

Martin Luther King Jr. (1929 - 1968)

Not that I have any reason to consider you to be a friend these days Bill. . .


Sincerely,

Robin Edgar


Note: forwarded message attached.

Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2006 13:22:40 -0500 (EST)
From: "Robin Edgar"
Subject: Re: Justice Delayed and Denied by you and the UUA
To: wsinkford@uua.org, bsinkford@uua.org
CC: kmontgom@uua.org, jshaw@uua.org

Dear President Sinkford,

The email copied below was sent to you one week ago.

I would appreciate an acknowledgement of receipt ASAP and a timely full response to this email by the end of next week.

Thank you,

Robin Edgar


Robin Edgar wrote:

November 9, 2006


Dear President Sinkford,

Today marks the 11th anniversary of Rev. Ray Drennan's insulting and defamatory attack on me of Thursday November 9th, 1995. On that day Rev. Ray Drennan of the Unitarian Church of Montreal mocked and ridiculed my monotheistic religious beliefs as being nothing but “silliness and fantasy.” He then went on to contemptuously dismiss my revelatory religious experience of God that informed those religious beliefs as “your psychotic experience.” As if these insulting and injurious words were not enough Rev. Drennan also falsely, and I believe quite maliciously, labeled Creation Day as “your cult”. When I challenged Rev. Drennan to qualify what he meant by the word “cult” he responded by saying, “I mean a manipulative and secretive religious group.” Even after I objected to his deeply insulting and damaging allegation Rev. Ray Drennan repeated this injurious and untrue slur at least twice to my face.

I filed a formal complaint about Rev. Ray Drennan's intolerant, injurious and abusive allegations about my religious beliefs and practices on February 14th of 1996. Copies of this initial letter of grievance were provided to all of the Board members of the Unitarian Church of Montreal and to the Presidents of both the UUA and the CUC. UUA President John Buehrens pretended that there was nothing worthy of investigation, but he none-the-less forwarded my complaint to Rev. Diane Miller who was director of the Ministerial Fellowship Committee at the time. Rev. Diane Miller responded to my serious grievances that were reported at length and in considerable detail in my initial letter of grievance by asserting that Rev. Ray Drennan's insulting and defamatory personal attack on me “seemed to us (i.e. the Executive of the Ministerial Fellowship Committee) to be within the appropriate guidelines of ministerial leadership.” When I objected to this highly questionable MFC decision that not only condoned, but effectively endorsed, Rev. Ray Drennan's intolerant and abusive unbecoming conduct in a follow-up letter, Rev. Diane Miller responded by saying, “In my opinion, and that of the Ministerial Fellowship Committee, his comments as quoted by you do not warrant the description of "extremely unprofessional and demeaning" responses.” Rev. Miller then quite arbitrarily closed the complaint file.

You have been aware of my serious grievances for several years now. As far as I am concerned, both you and the UUA under your leadership have done virtually nothing to ensure that my serious grievances arising from Rev. Ray Drennan's intolerant and abusive unbecoming conduct as a U*U minister are finally responded to in a manner that actually lives up to the purported principles, ideals, and pertinent policies and guidelines of the U*U religious community. On the contrary it seems that, ever since I first filed my complaint against Rev. Ray Drennan, the UUA and its Department of Ministry have chosen to respond in ways that make a complete mockery of the claimed principles, ideals, policies and by-laws of the U*U religious community. It is totally unacceptable that I should have to continue to live under the demeaning and oppressive shadow of Rev. Ray Drennan's intolerant slurs and slanderous allegations about me, to say nothing of all of the subsequent injustices and abuses that U*Us have subjected me to, because the UUA and it Department of Ministry quite evidently lack the moral and ethical integrity to responsibly implement any genuine restorative justice and proper accountability in accordance with clearly stated UUA principles and MFC guidelines and policies.

For more than a decade I have endured the humiliation of being falsely labeled as “psychotic” or otherwise delusional and mentally ill, not only by Rev. Ray Drennan, but by too many other like-minded U*Us as well. My monotheistic religious beliefs have been repeatedly mocked and ridiculed by U*Us since Rev. Ray Drennan contemptuously dismissed them as “silliness and fantasy” and both the Unitarian Church of Montreal and the UUA's Department of Ministry effectively endorsed his insulting and demeaning words. I might add that I have seen plenty of evidence of anti-religious “Humanist” U*Us mocking and ridiculing the religious beliefs of other God believing people on an ongoing basis. The well-documented failure, and even the obstinate refusal, of both the Unitarian Church of Montreal and the UUA's Ministerial Fellowship Committee to hold Rev. Ray Drennan in any way accountable for his injurious and untrue allegations about me, including his obviously intolerant, false, and outright malicious labeling of Creation Day as a “cult” of the “manipulative and secretive” variety has served to encourage other intolerant U*Us to cast aspersions on me and maliciously describe Creation Day as a “cult”. No less than three leading members of the Unitarian Church of Montreal have labeled Creation Day as a “cult” to my face and I have been reliably informed that others have done so behind my back.

Enough is enough. I demand genuine justice, equity and accountability in this matter, not only in terms of Rev. Ray Drennan's very clearly expressed anti-religious intolerance and bigotry towards me and other people, but in terms of the obviously negligent and effectively complicit condoning of Rev. Ray Drennan's insulting and defamatory unbecoming conduct by the UUA and it's Department of Ministry. I demand that you take steps to ensure that my original grievances against Rev. Ray Drennan are reopened and reexamined by the UUA and that I am able to present additional evidence that supports my complaint against Rev. Drennan that has come to light since I filed it in 1996. I demand that Rev. Ray Drennan must face full accountability, not only for his intolerant and abusive unbecoming conduct that was described in my initial letter of grievance, but also for the additional harm that I and indeed other people, including the members of the Unitarian Church of Montreal, have suffered as a direct or indirect result of his refusal to accept any responsibility for his unacceptable words and actions. Rev. Ray Drennan's role in the unjust, inequitable and uncompassionate punitive measures that were taken against me by the Unitarian Church of Montreal must also be properly examined. I demand that the UUA undertake a very thorough and complete investigation of how my serious grievances against Rev. Ray Drennan were (mis)handled by the UUA and its Ministerial Fellowship Committee in the past. Ultimately I expect the UUA, under your leadership, to provide genuine and substantial restorative justice in this matter and deliver a formal apology to me that is closely modeled on the formal apology that the UUA offered to victims of clergy sexual misconduct in 2000. As far as I am concerned

I expect you to stand up and speak out against the kind of anti-religious intolerance and bigotry that I and too many other God believing people have been subjected to, not only by Rev. Ray Drennan but by no shortage of other like-minded fundamentalist atheist “Humanist” U*Us who delight in casting aspersions on theistic religions and believers. I expect you to acknowledge that the anti-Christian and more broadly anti-religious intolerance that militant atheist “Humanist” U*Us regularly engage in makes too many U*U congregations anything but welcoming congregations to God believing people. I have asked you to do this in the past but you have disregarded my requests. I will no longer allow you or the UUA to turn a blind eye to what you once rightly described as my “obviously deep concerns.”


Sincerely,


Robin Edgar

Labels: , , , , , ,

5 Comments:

Blogger indrax said...

What is this additional evidence?

Why should Sinkford believe you? You are a habitual and unapologetic liar.

You have repeatedly said things that you knew weren't true, with intent that they be believed.

You said you answered my question a year ago, you did not.
You said you were not evasive, but you avoided giving a direct answer for at least 9 months.

Saturday, December 09, 2006 11:47:00 am  
Blogger The Emerson Avenger said...

:What is this additional evidence?

No additional evidence is necessary but obviously there is additional evidence that supports my complaint that

:Why should Sinkford believe you?

Because I my testimony is highly credible indrax and a lot of evidence supports it.

:You are a habitual and unapologetic liar.

You are a total idiot indrax. I am hardly a habitual liar and I am obviously not going to apologize for something that I am not guilty of. So far there are only a very small handful of alleged "lies" that you and only you have characterized as "lies". Not a single person, U*U or otherwise, has supported your all but totally spurious and definitely quite ridiculous allegations that even that small handful of so-called "lies" actually constitute lies, let alone that I am a "habitual and unapologetic liar." Even if the few "lies" that you spuriously accuse me of could be properly and reasonably characterized as actual lies they would be small and inconsequential "lies" in comparison to a whole lot of very real and quite serious U*U lies that I can very readily prove as being actual lies.

You are in deep Denial of the thruth and are engaging in obstinate willful Ignorance of very obvious and very well documented truths. You once again prove that I was right in suspecting that you were far more interested in trying to discredit me than anything else.

:You have repeatedly said things that you knew weren't true, with intent that they be believed.

Wrong. Anyone who bothers to read our exchanges can see that I was telling the truth. I just was telling you what you ostensibly wanted to hear.

:You said you answered my question a year ago, you did not.

Yes I did. You just didn't like the answer because I chose not to provide the "full sentences" because they added virtually nothing to what you already knew was said by Drennan.

:You said you were not evasive, but you avoided giving a direct answer for at least 9 months.

I gave you a very direct answer that the "snippets" of what Rev. Drennan said that you had listed were more than adequate to answer your ridiculous question "what was said?" when you had just listed the most pertinent parts of "what was said." We have been over this before and I will definitely not argue with an idiot, particularly a n obsessive and persistent idiot, in this thread.

Saturday, December 09, 2006 5:20:00 pm  
Blogger The Emerson Avenger said...

Needless to say I meant to say -

I just was *not* telling you what you ostensibly wanted to hear.

I also meant to say- No additional evidence is necessary but obviously there is additional evidence that supports my complaint that has cropped up since the initial complaint was filed in February of 1996 including, but by no means limited to. . . Rev. Ray Drennan's sorry excuse for an "apology".

Do you really think that Drennan would offer an apology for saying things that he never actually said indrax? If you do you are just as alone in that delusional belief as you are in your ridiculous belief that I am "a habitual and unapologetic liar."

Saturday, December 09, 2006 5:30:00 pm  
Blogger indrax said...

You are a total idiot indrax.

Of course.

No one is backing or rebuking either one of us on this Robin, Where are your supporters?
It doesn't matter what people think, it only matters what is true. Both of us believe in a reality independent of belief, right?
I don't care if other people believe you're a liar. The only person I'm really trying to convince is you.

Anyone who bothers to read our exchanges can see that I was telling the truth. I just was [not] telling you what you ostensibly wanted to hear.
What did I ostensibly want to hear? I didn't accuse you of lying in answer to my question, I accused you of lying about the fact that you didn't answer my question for months.

[1]Yes I did. [2]You just didn't like the answer because I chose not to provide the "full sentences" ...

Well since my question:
I note that most of these are not sentences, and lack context. What was said?

Was clearly asking for full sentences, and your second sentence admits you did not provide them, you obviously didn't answer my question, which means your first sentence was a lie.

I gave you a very direct answer that the "snippets" of what Rev. Drennan said that you had listed were more than adequate ...

This is another, distinct lie. You never made ANY direct response to my questions of December 16, 2005. Leaving aside your more creative evasions of other, later requests, you met this request with only silence.

But even beyond that, you are trying to claim that you answered my question by saying that it was already answered. But that would be a lie because you have said that you understood that I was asking for more than the snippets, so it would be illogical to think that the snippets were an answer.

You have also tried to say that you answered the question by saying you didn't need to answer it, which is not an answer but an evasion.

to answer your ridiculous question "what was said?"

Again you take my words out of context in order to hide their obvious meaning. That is extremely deceptive Robin, and you've done it repeatedly.



I can't find Ray Drennan's letter of apology anywhere on the internet.
But this portion:
"I am sorry that you heard my words as offensive. They were not intended to be offensive but rather to simply and clearly express my position."

Is the kind of apology I would expect of someone whose words are being taken out of context, misinterpreted, or misheard altogether.

Again though, I haven't seen this 'evidence' so I don't know. Would you accuse me of DIM thinking for wanting to see it?

Saturday, December 09, 2006 8:50:00 pm  
Blogger The Emerson Avenger said...

:It doesn't matter what people think, it only matters what is true. Both of us believe in a reality independent of belief, right?

Correct.

:I don't care if other people believe you're a liar. The only person I'm really trying to convince is you.

Well you are out of luck because I have not actually "lied" in the sense of knowingly and willfully telling a falsehood in order to deceive people.

::Anyone who bothers to read our exchanges can see that I was telling the truth. I just was [not] telling you what you ostensibly wanted to hear.

:What did I ostensibly want to hear?

You ostensibly wanted to hear "full sentences".

:I didn't accuse you of lying in answer to my question, I accused you of lying about the fact that you didn't answer my question for months.

I actually answered to your question in January indrax and effectively provided the "full sentences" that you requested albeit in the form of a couple of analogy that I drew about "what was said".

::[1]Yes I did. [2]You just didn't like the answer because I chose not to provide the "full sentences" ...

:Well since my question:
I note that most of these are not sentences, and lack context. What was said?

:Was clearly asking for full sentences, and your second sentence admits you did not provide them, you obviously didn't answer my question, which means your first sentence was a lie.

Wrong it is not a lie. I provided an answer to your question which was "What was said?" but deliberately did not provide "full sentences" because [1] It was arrogant DIM Thinking on your part to ask "What was said?" when you knew perfectly well the most essential parts of what was said and [2] The "full sentences" were only two words ("You mean") longer than the "snippets" that you already had quoted and which clearly provided the essential truth and meaning of what was said. You in fact were very disingenuous and deceptive, and effectively a liar yourself, by pretending that the "snippets" that you quoted lacked context when you had removed them from the abundant context that they were in in numerous internet posts. That is precisely why when I answered to your question I provided appropriate Google searches for each quoted "snippet" that put them back into the abundant context that you had deliberately removed them from in order to pretend that they lacked context.

::I gave you a very direct answer that the "snippets" of what Rev. Drennan said that you had listed were more than adequate ...

:This is another, distinct lie. You never made ANY direct response to my questions of December 16, 2005.

Actually you are lying when you make that claim indrax. What I said above is absolutely true and verifiable. Just because I did not answer in the same thread that the question was originally posed in does not mean that I did not provide an answer to it. You reminded me about the question in later threads and I provided answers in those threads and you know it. In fact I have now answered to that question several times over in different threads because you keep repetatively bringing it up. It was quite adequately answered to as early as January of this year.

:Leaving aside your more creative evasions of other, later requests, you met this request with only silence.

You are being deceptive and disingenuous here again indrax. You know perfectly well that I repeatedly answered to your original question in other threads. If anyone is engaging in "creative evasions" it is you.

:But even beyond that, you are trying to claim that you answered my question by saying that it was already answered.

"What was said?" most certainly was answered years ago indrax. "What was said" is *all over the internet* and on my picket signs. Nobody needs "full sentences" to know "what was said", but I have none-theless provided the "full sentences" even though they are only two non-essential words longer than the "snippets" that I told you many times over truthfully and accurately stated "what was said".

:But that would be a lie because you have said that you understood that I was asking for more than the snippets, so it would be illogical to think that the snippets were an answer.

No it would not indrax. My initial answer was that the "snippets" more than adequately represented "what was said." That was my point all along and I have now said this many times over.

:You have also tried to say that you answered the question by saying you didn't need to answer it, which is not an answer but an evasion.

Wrong. I have answered it many times over. I did not *need* to answer it because "what was said" is glaringly obvious to everyone but DIM Thinking indrax. Nobody other than you ever demanded "full sentences" throughout this whole decade long conflict other than you indrax. "Full sentences" are absolutely not required to know "what was said" and I have stated this many times as well.

::to answer your ridiculous question "what was said?"

:Again you take my words out of context in order to hide their obvious meaning. That is extremely deceptive Robin, and you've done it repeatedly.

Wrong indrax. It was ridiculous for you to ask "What was said?", even within the context of asking for "full sentences" when providing "full sentences", no matter how full they might be, would in no way change the fact that Rev. Ray Drennan had labeled Creation Day as "your cult" and my revelatory religious experience as "your psychotic experience" as you already knew when you foolishly asked, "What was said?"

:I can't find Ray Drennan's letter of apology anywhere on the internet.

Neither can I. I guess it's not there any more at least in terms of searchable sites. It might be available in the archives of a few U*U listserves though.

:But this portion: "I am sorry that you heard my words as offensive. They were not intended to be offensive but rather to simply and clearly express my position."

:Is the kind of apology I would expect of someone whose words are being taken out of context, misinterpreted, or misheard altogether.

Wrong indrax. You are once again being incredibly disingenuous. You know perfectly well that that is not the case because you have read the letter that prompted that sorry excuse for an apology and you have read the letter that rejects it and demands an apology that acknowledges the wrongfulness and harmfulness of "what was said" by Rev. Ray Drennan. You know very well that it is the inadequate, insincere, weasel worded expedient apology of someone who is trying to pretend that his words were not actually offensive and/or "not intended to be offensive."

Rev. Drennan does not say that I misheard his words. He in no way denies having said what I very truthfully and very accurately accused him of saying in my letters of grievance. After all his sorry excuse for an apology came as a direct result of my strongly challenging him about his alleged denial to UCM Board members of having said the "offensive religious terminology" that he actually did say to me.

It should be obvious that what Rev. Ray Drennan is doing is trying to pretend that the words that he did in fact say were not actually offensive. He is trying to pretend that I only "heard" his "injurious and untrue" malicious labeling of Creation Day as "your cult" as offensive and that I only "heard" his "insulting and defamatory" contemptuous dismissal of my revelatory religious experience as "your psychotic experience" as being offensive. He is insultingly pretending that I only "heard" his belittling and maligning of my religious bbeliefs as nothing but "silliness and fantasy" as being offensive. That part of Rev. Ray Drennan's sorry excuse for an apology is in fact a tacit repetition of the original
a deep insults in that he clearly states that his words "were not intended to be offensive but rather to simply and clearly express my position." He is not only failing and indeed refusing to formally retract his "insulting and defamatory language" but he is clearly implying if not outright stating that he stands by his original "position" that Creation Day is a "cult", my religious experience was a "psychotic experience" and my religiious beliefs that were informed by that experience are nothing but "silliness and fantasy". You know that already indrax because you have read my letters. They have been available to you and anyone else to read for months now.

It is incredibly disingenuous DIM Thinking for you to pretend that Rev. Ray Drennan's sorry excuse for an apology -

"Is the kind of apology I would expect of someone whose words are being taken out of context, misinterpreted, or misheard altogether."

when you have abundant evidence available to you that makes it very clear to most people of intelligence and conscience that this is by no means the case.

:Again though, I haven't seen this 'evidence' so I don't know. Would you accuse me of DIM thinking for wanting to see it?

No I would not accuse you of DIM Thinking for wanting to see more of Rev. Ray Drennan's sorry excuse for an aopology but I just did accuse you of DIM Thinking for knowingly and willfully trying to spread misinformation and disinformation about the most essential part of his alleged "apology" that you quoted here. If you want to respond to what I just posted here do so on your own special thread. There will be no further dialogue with you on this thread.

Sunday, December 24, 2006 3:08:00 am  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home