The Gentlemanly Art Of Spanking Peacebang?!! Check out the "beautifully put" link. . . ;-)

Yes, but although it's wrong to attack U*Us wholesale, it's not at all wrong for Robin Edgar to preach a firm and clear message about justice, God's omniscience, and other issues of ultimate meaning, and to use real life U*U injustices, U*U abuses and U*U hypocrisy as examples of how those values are NOT being practised in the U*U realm. If people wind up squirming on Sunday mornings because their personal religious commitments have not squared with the ideals of justice, love and peace taught by our liberal tradition, that's okay. That's not the same as being insulted. That's having your conscience pricked, and it should be happening for all of us all the time in our worship services. It should be happening from the moment we gather and light the chalice and make some communal expression of reconciliation that return us to the "moment of high resolve," as Howard Thurman so beautifully put it.

Are you squirming yet PeaceBang? ;-)

A Questionable Decision by the U*UFO. . . aka the Unitarian Universalist Fellowship of Ottawa

Questionable decision by U*UFO to "memory hole" The Emerson Avenger. . . ;-)

Allah prochaine,

The Dagger of Sweet Reason

PB2U*Us

P.S. Ottawa is an easy target of opportunity for picketing, or other forms of protest activity, on any given Sunday that I choose to do so. . . As a matter of fact I already have plenty of good reason to protest U*U injustices and U*U hypocrisy in Ottawa. Winterlude is coming up soon I believe. I quite enjoy skating all over U*U thin ice. . .

How does a picket sign slogan saying -

ARE YOU SNOWED BY U*U SNOWJOBS? strike U*UFOs?

Or how about -

JUST SAY NO TO U*U "MEMORY HOLES"

Or. . .

DO YOU BELIEVE IN U*UFOs?

I DON'T. . .

Or. . .

OTTAWA U*Us ARE SKATING ON THIN ICE

The Emerson Avenger Once Again Puts U*Us On The * About DIM Thinking Ministerial Fellowship Committee Complicity In Abusive U*U Clergy Misconduct. . .

I am once again going to put U*Us on the *. . .

Let's be democratic about this and hold a little straw poll vote.

As I have said before, my formal letter of grievance of February 14th, 1996, that UUA President John Buehrens arbitrarily dismissed as unworthy of any investigation but none-the-less forwarded to the UUA's Ministerial Fellowship Committee shared my concerns about Rev. Ray Drennan's clearly derogatory and openly hostile labeling of Creation Day as a "manipulative and secretive" cult, his quite literally "in your face" sneering assertion that my claimed revelatory experience was nothing but a "psychotic experience" and his angry insistence that I seek immediate psychiatric treatment, and his sneeringly derisive dismissal of my religious beliefs as nothing but "silliness and fantasy". This letter of grievance not only aired my grievances in considerably more detail than the above condensed version but pointed out how Drennan's conduct clearly violated UU principles and purposes. The official response to this letter of grievance from the Ministerial Fellowship Committee's Executive under the directorship of Rev. Diane Miller was to dismiss my grievances by saying that Rev. Ray Drennan's behavior, as I very accurately described it in my lengthy letter of grievance, "seemed to us to be within the appropriate guidelines of ministerial leadership."


Here are links to the UUMA's Code of Professional Practice and Guideliness for the Unitarian Universalist Ministry.

The Code of Professional Practice
for the Unitarian Universalist ministry

The UUMA Guidelines for the conduct of ministry
aka GUIDELINES for the UNITARIAN UNIVERSALIST MINISTRY

I think that it is safe to assume that either the latter or both of these documents are the "appropriate guidelines of ministerial leadership" that Rev. Diane Miller was referring to.

So here are my two questions that I am asking you to answer in my straw poll -

1. Do you believe that Rev. Diane Miller and the UUA's Ministerial Fellowship Committee was in fact justified in saying that Rev. Ray Drennan's conduct, as described above and in much more detail in my letters of grievance, is in fact "within the appropriate guidelines of ministerial leadership". A simple YES or NO answer will suffice but you may qualify your answer if you wish.

2. If your answer to the above question is NO (as I trust it will be in most cases, assuming any U*Us bother to excercise their "right of conscience" that is. . .) please answer the simple multiple choice question -

A - Rev. Diane Miller and the MFC Executive are apparently ignorant of the content of the UUMA's Guidelines and Code of Professional Practice

B - Rev. Diane Miller and the MFC Executive are probably lying

C - Rev. Diane Miller and the MFC Executive are apparently delusional

D - Other (Please specify)

I look forward to seeing the results of this straw poll.

Allah prochaine,

The Dagger of Sweet Reason

aka The Emerson Avenger

aka Robin Edgar


Here is the full text of the first letter that I received from the Rev. Diane Miller and the UUA's Ministerial Fellowship Committee in response to my initial letter of grievance which is a bit too long and detailed to post here.

This text is from an OCR scan of the actual letter -

Unitarian Universalist Association of Congregations

25 Beacon Street, Boston, Massachusetts 02108 Ministerial Fellowship
Committee

(617) 742-2100 FAX (617) 367-3237

April 25, 1996

Mr. Robin Edgar
15 rue Lafleur Apt. 11
Verdun, Quebec,
CANADA, H4G 3C3

Dear Mr. Edgar:

Your letter to President John Buehrens, along with various attached documents, was referred to me. You requested that your complaint be conveyed to the correct authorities within the Association. I serve as Director of Ministry and as Executive Secretary of the Ministerial Fellowship Committee (MFC), the body charged with oversight of ministers.

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.

We hope that you will find ways to pursue your spiritual insights which you and others will find both satisfying and harmonious in the pluralist theological environment of these times.

Sincerely,

Diane Miller
MFC, Executive Secretary

copies:
The Rev. Ray Drennan
Krystyna Matula, President, Unitarian Church of Montreal
MFC Executive Committee


So, as you can see, the MFC (under Rev. Diane Miller's "oversight") "shared" my complaint with Rev. Ray Drennan, whatever that means, and then made no further investigation at all of my very serious grievances but chose instead to whitewash Rev. Drennan's clearly abusive misconduct by saying - "It seemed to us to be within the appropriate guidelines of ministerial leadership."

Here is my two page response to Rev. Diane Miller's initial dismissive letter -

Robin Edgar
15 Lafleur apt. 11
Verdun, Quebec
Canada, H4G 3C3

Rev. Diane Miller,
Director of Ministry
Unitarian Universalist Association

Friday May 10, 1996

Dear Rev. Miller,

This is to acknowledge receipt of your letter dated April 25,1996. In this letter you stated that you "did not see" that my formal complaint about Rev. Drennan's unprofessional and demeaning conduct towards me was "within the purview of the MFC" yet it is President John Buehrens who was personally responsible for delivering my complaint of unprofessional conduct to you. Why would President Buehrens refer my complaint to you, the Executive Secretary of the Ministerial Fellowship Committee, if it was not clearly within the range of authority and responsibility of the MFC to deal with such complaints? I must admit that I was somewhat skeptical that my serious complaint about Rev. Drennan's deplorable conduct would be responsibly dealt with by a committee whose name states that is devoted to ministerial "fellowship" given the common definition of the word "fellowship". It is quite regrettable that your response to my complaint would indicate that my skepticism was well founded.

Your statement that Rev. Ray Drennan's conduct "seemed to us to be within the appropriate guidelines of ministerial leadership" is rather disturbing. It gives every appearance of being an attempt to "whitewash" Rev. Drennan's unprofessional and demeaning conduct towards me and, quite frankly, it invites a sardonic and sarcastic response. In the interests of maintaining a civil relationship with you and in an effort to live up to the stated principles of our chosen faith I will, for the time being, resist the temptation to provide such a response. I will, however, say the following - the letter of complaint addressed to the Board of the Unitarian Church of Montreal dated Wednesday February 14, 1996, contains an accurate and unembellished description of Rev. Ray Drennan's comportment towards me. Those statements attributed to Rev. Drennan in the said letter that are contained within quotation marks are as close to word for word transcripts of what was said to me by Rev. Drennan as is humanly possible, and my descriptions of the manner and/or tone of voice in which these statements were made are totally reliable.

The statements attributed to Rev. Drennan are not fabrications nor are they in any way the products of a deluded "psychotic" mind as some people might have you believe. If Rev. Ray Drennan has denied making any of these statements he is, to put it succinctly, lying. If he does not deny making these statements then I do not see how his deplorable comportment towards me could be considered to be "within the appropriate guidelines of ministerial leadership."

There are several aspects of Rev. Drennan's unprofessional and demeaning conduct that are of considerable concern to me but the most important and potentially damaging to me are the following:

1. Rev. Drennan has described my religious activities as a "cult" and he has clearly qualified his use of this word by saying that he means "a manipulative and secretive religious group". Besides being false this allegation is potentially extremely damaging to my reputation, within and outside of the Unitarian Church of Montreal, and could make it next to impossible for me to engage in interfaith activities should it spread beyond our congregation. While it is true that this damaging allegation was made during a private meeting between myself and Rev. Drennan and there were no other witnesses to this it does not change the fact that I cannot allow Rev. Drennan, or anyone else, to make such false and damaging statements about me without demanding a retraction and an apology. It is also clear from Rev. Drennan's repeated assertion that he is the "first one being honest" with me, and the "only one being honest" with me, that this and a number of other false and damaging rumours about me are circulating within the Board and Executive of the Unitarian Church of Montreal. I would be the first to say that it is likely to be only a small minority of people who share, and apparently genuinely believe, these damaging rumours but they are in highly influential positions within our congregation. These deplorable rumours, and other hear say and innuendo about me, may have already played a role in the Board's refusal to allow Creation Day to be celebrated in Channing Hall for a second time in October of 1995. Surely it is not possible that it is actually "within the appropriate guidelines of ministerial leadership" for a Unitarian Universalist minister to make false and potentially extremely damaging allegations about a member of his or her congregation.

2. Rev. Drennan has described my revelatory religious experience as "your psychotic experience" which, besides completely denying the validity and truthfulness of my revelatory experience, clearly implies that I am suffering from a severe form of mental illness. I suggest that you look up the definition of the word "psychotic" or "psychoses" in a good dictionary or encyclopedia of psychology before you decide that Rev. Drennan's clearly hostile labelling of my revelatory experience as "your psychotic experience" is "within the appropriate guidelines of ministerial leadership." It is clear to me that Rev. Drennan fancies himself to be qualified to make such a diagnosis but I would not insult amateurs of any variety by describing his repeated misguided attempts to psychoanalyze me as "amateurish". I will say that these attempts were unprofessional in the extreme, not only in terms of Rev. Drennan's role as a minister in the Unitarian Universalist church, but also in terms of someone who apparently has formal training in the domain of family therapy.

The potentially damaging nature of Rev. Drennan's allegation that I am suffering from psychoses compelled me to seek out a qualified psychiatrist who could determine whether or not this was in fact the case. I saw Dr. Levitan of the Queen Elizabeth hospital outpatient clinic on two occasions during which I provided him with a detailed description of my revelatory religious experience as well as most of the claims that arose from it. He found that "no traces of psychoses are evident" and referred to me as "obviously sane" during our first meeting and asked me if I wanted him to send a letter thanking Rev. Drennan for sending a "perfectly sane person" to see him at the conclusion of our second meeting. Dr. Levitan saw absolutely no reason for me to see him for any further analysis or therapy and it was abundantly clear that he was not particularly impressed with Rev. Drennan's skills in the domain of psychiatry.

As a final note I will say that while I most certainly appreciate Dr. Levitan's confidence in my overall sanity I am not sure that I would even refer to myself as being "perfectly sane"; however, I would say to you, as I said to him, that I am as sane as anyone who has had a direct revelatory experience of God can be expected to be under the circumstances and I have good reason to believe that I am considerably more sane and rational than a number of those people who claimed profound revelatory religious experiences in the past.

3. Rev. Drennan scoffingly referred to the claims arising from my revelatory religious experience as "silliness and fantasy" before I could even begin to explain the exposition which illustrates, and thus serves to validate, most of my claims. He also made several other sarcastic and derisive comments about my revelatory religious experience and the claims with arose from it throughout our meeting of Thursday November 9, 1995, as well as on other occasions. I will spare you any further details (most of which are already contained in my letter of February 14) but I will ask you if it is genuinely "within the appropriate guidelines of ministerial leadership" for a Unitarian Universalist minister to openly mock, ridicule, and deride the deeply held personal religious beliefs of a member of his or her congregation regardless of the minister’s privately held opinion of their validity? I would hope that this is not the case, yet this is what your letter would indicate if taken at face value.

I will cite a few other examples of how Rev. Ray Drennan's conduct towards me can, in my own opinion, hardly be considered to be "within the appropriate guidelines of ministerial leadership" however the foregoing three points should be enough to persuade you to reconsider your response to my formal complaint about what I have very good reason to consider to be extremely unprofessional, demeaning, and abusive comportment towards me by Rev. Ray Drennan. I will add that your response gives the impression that Unitarian Universalist ministers are not subject to the guidelines of stated Unitarian Universalist principles. I have already pointed out how Rev. Ray Drennan's comportment towards me makes a complete mockery of most of the "Seven Principles" which Unitarian Universalists covenant to affirm and promote" but I would like to remind you of a little red pamphlet titled "What do Unitarian Universalists believe?". This pamphlet begins by stating, "We believe in freedom of religious expression. All individuals should be encouraged to develop their own personal theology, and to present openly their religious opinions without fear of censure or reprisal." It should be obvious that Rev. Ray Drennan's harshly critical and vehemently disapproving, to say nothing of demeaning, response to my effort to openly present my personal theology to him, a personal theology which is based on direct personal experience of God synthesized with considerable meditation, deliberation, and research, clearly constitutes severe and unjustified censure of my religious opinion.

This little pamphlet then goes on to say that, "We believe in the toleration of religious ideas. All religions, in every age and culture, possess not only an intrinsic merit, but also potential value for those who have learned the art of listening." Rev. Ray Drennan's behaviour is demonstrably intolerant of the religious ideas that I presented to him in spite of the fact that virtually all these religious ideas have clear precedents in the religions of this and other ages and in our own and other cultures as the exposition of pictures which I showed him clearly demonstrates. Rev. Ray Drennan's labelling of my religious ideas as "silliness and fantasy" before I had even begun to explain them to him and his repeated interruption of my presentation with negative, derisive, and mocking comments would tend to indicate that he has not yet learned the art of listening and it is quite evident that be had absolutely no interest in recognizing either the intrinsic merit or the potential value of the religious ideas that I presented to him.

This small pamphlet goes on to say, "We believe in the never-ending search for Truth. (Please note the capital T) If the mind and heart are truly free and open, the revelations which appear to the human spirit are infinitely numerous, eternally fruitful, and wondrously exciting." Rev. Ray Drennan's negative and demeaning comportment towards me clearly indicates that neither his mind nor his heart is truly free and open to the revelation which appeared to my spirit and his commitment to the "never-ending search for Truth " is called into question by his attitude towards the truths that I have tried to present to him. It is true that he is not the only Unitarian Universalist minister who has failed-in this regard but he is the only one who has launched a personal attack on me and has openly mocked and ridiculed my claim of a revelatory religious experience.

I could go on to point out to you a number of other ways in which Rev. Ray Drennan's unprofessional and demeaning comportment towards me violates the stated beliefs, principles, and ideals of the Unitarian Universalist Association, and I will do so in future if I should find it necessary; however, it should now be within your capacity to clearly perceive how Rev. Drennan's deplorable conduct is damaging not only towards me but to the ability of the Unitarian Universalist Association to credibly present itself as a religious community which believes in freedom of religious expression and which, in Rev. Drennan's words, "honours diversity of theology".

To bring you up to date with my case you should be aware that on Sunday, April 21, 1996 I brought this regrettable matter to the attention of our congregation as a whole during the "Sharing Joys and Concerns" segment of the Sunday service. I can assure you that it was not a "joy" by any means to have to stand up in front of the congregation and be obliged to inform them about Rev. Ray Drennan's deplorable conduct towards me. I handed out a two-page letter to concerned members of the congregation after this and subsequent services. (I am enclosing a copy of this letter for your perusal.) You should also be aware that I warned the Board of our church that I would take such a step if Rev. Ray Drennan refused to volunteer a formal apology to me. A copy of my letter addressed to President Krystyna Matula, which was read during April's Board meeting, is also enclosed. Perhaps the Board thought that I was bluffing and that I would not have the nerve to bring such damaging allegations about myself to the attention of the congregation as a whole because, needless to say, Rev. Drennan did not apologize nor has he offered any form of apology to date. This obstinate refusal on the part of Rev. Drennan to apologize to me in any way, shape, or form, for his demeaning and damaging comportment towards me is quite disturbing, and may be seen as unprofessional behaviour in itself.

One former Board member, who is involved in human rights issues offered to act as a mediator between me and Rev. Drennan in this matter. I readily accepted this person's offer however Rev. Drennan turned it down. No further progress has been made in this matter since my announcement to the congregation on April 21 and I have had no further communication with Rev. Ray Drennan or the Board.

I expect Rev. Ray Drennan to either confirm the truthfulness of my grievances about his comportment towards me or formally deny them. If Rev. Drennan confirms that my grievances about his comportment towards me are, to use his own terminology, "true enough" then I must insist that he formally retract his demeaning and damaging statements about me and deliver a formal apology to me and that he must do this before the congregation of the Unitarian Church of Montreal during an upcoming Sunday service at which I am present. I must also insist that he provide me with a written copy of his retraction and apology for my personal records. This is the first and most essential step that he must take if he wishes to move towards reconciliation and healing in this regrettable affair.

Should Rev. Drennan choose to deny the essential truthfulness of my description of his comportment towards me, something that would be highly inadvisable, then I will have to take steps to pursue this matter further; steps that ultimately will not reflect well on him or on the Unitarian Universalist religious community in general should it continue to fail to respond to my serious grievances about Rev. Ray Drennan's unprofessional and demeaning comportment towards me in a manner that may clearly be seen to live up to both the letter and the spirit of clearly stated Unitarian Universalist principles. This is, after all, "a matter of principle" in every sense of the word and I must inform you that because I know that I am right and, more particularly, because I know that I have been wronged, I will not let this matter rest until I have made every effort to ensure that justice is done and peace is restored.

Sincerely,

Robin Edgar


Here is Diane Miller's self-described "wise" response -

Unitarian Universalist Association of Congregations

25 Beacon Street, Boston, Massachusetts 02108
Ministerial Fellowship Committee

(617) 742-2100 FAX (617) 367-3237

May 20, 1996

Mr. Robin Edgar
15 Lafleur Apt. 11
Verdun, Quebec
CANADA, H4G 3C3


Dear Mr. Edgar,

I regret to learn that you have chosen to escalate the strife between you and the Minister and the Board of your church by voicing your complaint during a worship service and handing out a two page letter to the worshipers on more than one occasion.

You clearly feel wronged. That is unfortunate. However, taking comments made in a private conversation and publicizing your demand for an apology, you have made very serious public charges against the Reverend Mr. Drennan. 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.

I am glad to hear that you were evaluated as "perfectly sane" by a psychiatrist. I am also glad you have had the profound experience of revelation and a direct experience of God. I am further glad to know you have thought so deeply about the principles of Unitarian faith.

These facts do not, however, justify your demands. The CUC, the UUA, and the Montreal congregation have no obligation to support, promote, study or approve of your religious perceptions in the course of their institutional work or as individuals.

I cannot think of any example of a mystic, a prophet, or a religious leader who evidenced intractable anger at not being understood, as you seem to be doing. I would hope that a direct experience of God might direct your energy away from this dispute toward profound concerns.

Your letter confirms to me the wisdom of the MFC's decision to close your complaint.


Sincerely,

Diane Miller
Executive Secretary to the MFC
and Director of Ministry

copies:

Revs. Marjorie Skwire and Gene Pickett, MFC
The Rev. Ray Drennan, Minister
Ms. Krystyna Matula, Board President


I never responded to this final official brush off by Rev. Diane Miller and the Ministerial Fellowship Committee preferring to try to obtain justice at the congregational level. I think that these three letters should provide more than enough "context" for you all to be able to make an informed decision about the self-described "wisdom" of Rev. Diane Miller's and the MFC Executive's response to my totally legitimate and very serious grievances about Rev. Ray Drennan's abusive clergy misconduct.

Please excercise your "right of conscience" by submitting your "votes" and any related comments.

An Ironic U*U Joke. . . Courtesy of the U*UFO aka the Unitarian*Universalist Fellowship of Ottawa and The Emerson Avenger. . .

Here is a somewhat reworked version of the online form letter that the U*U Unitarian*Universalist Fellowship of Ottawa is encouraging Canadian U*Us to send to Google on its own heavily censored and "moderated" indeed U*U "memory holed" blog. . . Read it and weep U*Us. . . and then start to sweep cynical U*U censorship and suppression of legitimate criticism and dissent out of your outrageously hypocritical "religious community" -

Tell U*Us "Don't Be Evil!"

U*Us: Stop participating in U*Uism's Propaganda

Robin Edgar, his supporters, and U*U watchers worldwide are outraged by the Unitarian*Universalist Fellowship of Ottawa's recent decision to join hands with the U*U government in its propaganda efforts. The U*UFO has custom built a web blog platform that blocks access to unbiased information about Robin Edgar, human rights and other topics sensitive to Boston. In doing so, U*UFO isn't just helping the U*U authorities by censoring "sensitive topics," it is enabling the U*U religion's propaganda by "memory holing" blog posts that expose Boston's repressive policies. For example, searching on "Robin Edgar" will only bring results portraying him as "aggressive" or won't even bring him up at all. . .

Under U*Uism's totalitarian regime, the internet is a critical tool for U*U citizens and Robin Edgar to improve their religious situation. The U*UFO has become an active partner in the U*U government's efforts to repress their own citizens along with Robin Edgar, theists, Christianity practitioners, and anyone else standing up to U*U authorities and demanding human rights and self-determination.

Please speak out against U*UFO's actions by sending the letter below and forwarding the new U*U logo (brought to you by SB*ID) to your friends and family.

I am outraged at the Unitarian*Universalist Fellowship of Ottawa's hypocritical decision to join hands with the Unitarian Church of Montreal in its propaganda efforts. U*UFO decisions to "memory hole" or otherwise censor and suppress Robin Edgar is more than just censorship. It's active participation in the Unitarian Church of Montreal's, and the CUC's and UUA's efforts to repress and undermine Robin Edgar, democracy advocates, people of faith, and anyone working for freedom and human rights.

By censoring Robin Edgar on critical topics such as U*U abusive clergy misconduct, U*U anti-religious intolerance and bigotry, and U*U censorship you are promoting Unitarian*Universalism's aka U*Uism's wildly distorted version of history and truth. This is indefensible.

Under Unitarian*Universalism's aka U*Uism's totalitarian regime, the internet is a critical tool for people seeking justice. Your decision to help the Unitarian*Universalist aka U*U religion thwart this effort renders your propaganda claiming to be opposed to censorship by church or state an ironic joke.

Please re-read your "Seven Principles" religious principles, and this fraudulent U*U propaganda, and then do the right thing by ending your partnership with the Unitarian Church of Montreal, and the totalitarian CUC and the UUA governments, in their ongoing censorship and suppression of Robin Edgar and other dissenting Unitarians.

Outrageously Hypocritical Ottawa U*Us "Memory Hole" The Emerson Avenger. . .

Last night the post below was posted to this brand-spanking new thread on the Unitarian Universalist Fellowship of Ottawa's blog. Some Ottawa U*U decided to ignore my warning about not "memory holing" this post and has no implemented screening of any new posts the the Unitarian Universalist Fellowship of Ottawa's blog. All this in spite of the fact that the sub-title of the UUFO blog clearly states -

we encourage free discussion and exploration of divergent views and opinions

Ya right. . .

Once again sincerely ignorant and conscientiously stupid U*Us go out of their way to publicly demonstrate that they are pathetically unready, obstinately unwilling, and chronically unable to actually practice what they so insincerely preach. The U*U censorship and suppression of my legitimately critical post to their U*U blog proves that they have little or no moral authority to be protesting against Google's enabling of Chinese government censorship. I wouldn't be surprised if a good number of hypocritical U*Us would very much welcome some Google censorship and suppression of The Emerson Avenger's posts to the internet. . . N'est-ce pas U*Us?

Herewith the post that was "memory holed" by Ottawa U*Us who refuse to walk what they talk -

Don't even think about "memory holing" this post. . .

Questionable decision by U*Us to "tailor" their U*U nUUs to fall in line with totalitarian U*U policy. This means that any dissenting voices will be eliminated from U*U sponsored email lists and UU World nU*Us stories etc. U*U "news" will conform to U*U government policy, and going against its own fine Seven Principles and outrageously hypocritical claims to be opposed to censorship by church or state. . .

U*Uism has custom built a "moderator" aka "memory hole" operator "platform" that blocks access to unbiased information about Robin Edgar, human rights and other topics sensitive to Boston. In doing so, U*Us aren't just helping the U*U authorities by censoring "sensitive topics," they are enabling the U*U government's propaganda by returning blog posts tailored to U*Uism's repressive policies. For example, searching on "Robin Edgar" will only bring results portraying him as an "aggressive" and "disruptive" "psychotic" "cult" leader. . .

Please take the time to fill out a letter of protest or petition to U*Uism's corporate heads expressing your concern over this travesty!

This Blog's For U*Us. . .

Sorry. . . I just couldn't resist that one! ;-)

The Disruptive Behaviour Policy Of Bigoted Atheist Unitarian Minister Rev. Ray Drennan

An historic Unitarian Church of Montreal church document aka record now open to scrutiny to all U*Us, Canadian or otherwise. . . U*U world-wide. Herewith the complete text of Robin Edgar's formal complaint against the disruptive and aggressive and highly inappropriate behaviour of the intolerant and abusive fundamentalist atheist bigot Rev. Ray Drennan presented to the negligent, biased, complicit, and indeed quite "Stalinistic". . . Disruptive Behaviour Committee of the alleged Unitarian Church of Montreal as chaired by John Pike former President of the alleged Unitarian Church of Montreal.

Robin Edgar
15 Lafleur apt. 11
Verdun, Quebec
Canada, H4G 3C3
Disruptive Behaviour Committee
c/o John Pike, Vice-President
of the Board of Management
Unitarian Church of Montreal Wodensday, January 1, 1997


Dear Mr. Pike,


I read in the NUUS Letter of January 1997, that the church has put in place a Disruptive Behaviour Committee. While the policy, specific role, and scope of authority of this committee is not completely defined in your notice I believe that Rev. Ray Drennan has behaved in a clearly disruptive manner towards me on a number of occasions now and I am requesting a meeting with the Disruptive Behaviour Committee so that I might share my very serious concerns about Rev. Drennan's disruptive behaviour. It is my hope that via frank and open discussion of my grievances regarding Rev. Drennan's disruptive behaviour it will be possible to achieve a settlement of my regrettable dispute with him. I believe that through a process of open dialogue it should be possible to settle this dispute in a manner that may be clearly seen to genuinely affirm and promote the stated principles and purposes of our religious community including affirmation of justice, equity and compassion in human relations.


As a Board member you are familiar with the nature and details of my grievances regarding Rev. Drennan's disruptive behaviour. I have written a number of letters addressed to the Board of Management of this church which clearly express my discomfort with Rev. Drennan's highly unprofessional, demeaning and abusive behaviour towards me. As you most probably are aware I have also distributed two letters addressed to the members of our congregation in which I have made known to them my serious grievances arising from Rev. Drennan's disruptive behaviour towards me. These two letters come as a direct result of Rev. Ray Drennan's obstinate refusal to retract the demeaning statements and damaging allegations that he has made about me and the failure of the Board of Management of this church and other Unitarian Universalist authorities to responsibly deal with this evidently serious problem in a manner that firmly and forthrightly made it absolutely clear to Rev. Ray Drennan that his disruptive behaviour towards me clearly violated the integrity of the stated principles and purposes of our religious community and that it certainly warranted a formal retraction of his demeaning statements and damaging allegations about me as well as a sincere and formal written apology to be made to me during a service.


Rather than repeating in this letter all the deplorable details of Rev. Ray Drennan's disruptive behaviour towards me I am submitting to the Disruptive Behaviour Committee copies of my correspondence with the Board of Management and embers of the congregation of


(Page 1 of 4)


this church. As I stated in my letter of November 20th, 1996, which was addressed to my fellow members of the Unitarian Church of Montreal, I am making available to this church a complete record of all written correspondence resulting from my serious grievances about Rev. Ray Drennan's disruptive behaviour towards me and the Disruptive Behaviour Committee should have free access to this material if it requires additional information about my complaint. It should be obvious to any reasonably intelligent and sensitive human being that Rev. Ray Drennan's behaviour towards me clearly demonstrates considerable intolerance of my religious opinions and that his demeaning statements and damaging allegations about me serve to directly threaten and intimidate my own freedom of belief as well as my expression of my religious opinions and to indirectly threaten and intimidate the freedom of belief and religious opinions of other people within our own religious community and in the world at large. His hostile and demeaning behaviour towards me during our
meeting of Thursday November 9th, 1995, including, but by no means limited to, his description of my religious beliefs as "silliness and fantasy" and my revelatory experience of God as "your psychotic experience," along with his hostile labelling of my religious activities, including Creation Day, as "your cult" and more specifically as "a manipulative and secretive religious group" obviously intimidates and threatens my own emotional well-being and may well serve to intimidate or threaten the emotional well-being of others who are close to me or who have celebrated Creation Day in the past. It should be obvious that Rev. Drennan's disruptive behaviour towards me is diametrically opposed to this church's desire to provide "a safe atmosphere where tolerance can exist."


In defence of Creation Day I will say that it is a perfectly legitimate inter-faith celebration of Creation and is completely in line with the stated principles and purposes of our religious community and responds directly to several Unitarian Universalist policy statements even though it was conceived before these policy statements became known to me. There is nothing secretive about Creation Day nor is there anything manipulative about Creation Day. The participants are encouraged to present their opinions about the Creation and humanity's role in it from the standpoint of both their religious and scientific knowledge. Creation Day has been celebrated on two occasions and respected members of the Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Bahai, Native American, Zoroastrian, Pagan and Unitarian religious communities have participated in one or both of these celebrations. I believe that these people would be shocked and angered that Rev. Ray Drennan has implied that Creation Day is the initiative of "a manipulative and secretive" "cult" I have so far not informed them of Rev. Ray Drennan's behaviour in the hope that he would retract his allegations and apologize for them and thus minimize the potential damage to our religious community caused by his false allegations about me. I must inform you that I feel that I have very little choice but to inform these people, and other potential participants in future celebrations of Creation Day, of Rev. Drennan's damaging allegations about me and Creation Day before inviting them to participate in future celebrations.


(page 2 of 4)


Rev. Ray Drennan's disruptive behaviour towards me, to say nothing of the failure of the Board of Management and other Unitarian Universalist authorities to responsibly deal with my very serious grievances arising from his disruptive behaviour has most certainly resulted in a diminishment of the appeal of the Unitarian Church of Montreal and the Unitarian Universalist religious community to me. I also have very good reason to believe that Rev. Ray Drennan's evidently disruptive behaviour towards me has already resulted in a diminishment of the appeal of our church, as well as the greater Unitarian Universalist religious community, in a number of other people, both potential and existing members of this church, and that it will almost certainly lead to a much further diminishment of the appeal of our liberal religious community when his clearly unprofessional, hostile and abusive behaviour towards me inevitably becomes more widely known to the greater Unitarian Universalist religious community and to the general public.


Just to provide a clear example of how Rev. Drennan's disruptive behaviour has resulted in a diminishment of the appeal of the Unitarian Church of Montreal and the Unitarian Universalist religious community to other people, one which is quite separate from my more serious grievances, you may recall the occasion that Rev. Drennan cut short my presentation of a ritual that I had devised during a Sunday service which was devoted to new rituals. This clearly disruptive behaviour caused immediate discomfort in those members of the congregation who were genuinely interested in my ritual, some of whom were repeating my hand movements while seated. When I returned to my seat right after Rev. Drennan had cut short my presentation one of the senior members of our congregation expressed his regret by saying, "That was ill-advised." After the service a close friend of one of our members, one who seemed to be a potential member of our church, approached me and expressed her disappointment at Rev. Drennan's behaviour and did so in a way that reflected poorly on our church as a whole. She said to me, "So this is what passes for religious tolerance in this church," or words to that effect. I have not seen much of her in this church since then and she certainly has not chosen to become a member of this church.


I believe that other people faced with such shoddy treatment would have responded by leaving our religious community in complete disgust. Fortunately I believe that it is much better for me to remain within our religious community and to continue to take steps to eventually see to it that this serious violation of the stated rinciples and purposes of the Unitarian Universalist religion is responsibly
addressed by our religious community and hopefully is never repeated again. I feel a very strong sense of responsibility towards my fellow Unitarian Universalists to see to it that their sincere religious beliefs, whatever they may be, are not mocked and ridiculed by their peers and, more particularly, by UU clergy. While I know of few instances in which UU theists have mocked the beliefs of UU atheists I am familiar with several instances in which narrow-minded UU atheists have either willfully insulted UU theists or expressed disdain for their beliefs. I must vigourously protest such behaviour and I fully intend to discourage it.


(page 3 of 4)


It should be abundantly clear to you and to the other members of the Disruptive Behaviour Committee that not only the interests of the Unitarian Church of Montreal but also those of the greater Unitarian Universalist religious community have been seriously compromised by Rev. Ray Drennan's disruptive behaviour towards me. His obstinate and ongoing refusal to recognize the unprofessional, demeaning and abusive nature of his behaviour, to formally retract his harsh words and damaging allegations about me, and to sincerely apologize for the serious harm that his quite evidently disruptive behaviour has inflicted upon me, and has indirectly inflicted on others, only serves to aggravate this very serious problem.


Although I am not seeking Rev. Ray Drennan's expulsion from our religious community, nor am I requesting that he be fired or resign as minister of this church, I must insist that he admit to having behaved in an unprofessional, hostile, and abusive manner towards me during our meeting of November 9th, 1995 and on other occasions. I naturally expect Rev. Ray Drennan to formally, and in writing, retract the demeaning statements and damaging allegations that he has seen fit to make about me and to apologize to me for his obviously disruptive behaviour towards me. Since Rev. Drennan has refused to apologize to me for more than a year now I also expect him to offer a full explanation to me for his disruptive behaviour towards me. I am
particularly interested in knowing why he felt he could label my revelatory religious experience as "your psychotic experience" and why he saw fit to refer to my religious activities, including Creation Day, as "your cult" and qualified this seriously damaging allegation about me by saying that he meant a "cult" in the sense of "a manipulative and secretive religious group."


A serious problem exists. The failure of the Board of Management of this church and of other Unitarian Universalist authorities to deal with it in a responsible manner has not only discounted my own clearly expressed discomfort but has indirectly resulted in the discomfort of other members of our church. Rev. Ray Drennan's disruptive behaviour towards me has resulted in a diminishment of the appeal of our church, as well as of the greater Unitarian Universalist religious community, to myself and to others and will ultimately lead to a more widespread, and I believe more profound, diminishment in the appeal of the Unitarian Universalist religious community if it is not met firmly and forthrightly by concerned members of our religious community in the immediate future. I find it extremely regrettable that this serious dispute was not settled in a just, equitable, and compassionate manner much earlier and I truly hope that the Disruptive Behaviour Committee will be able to facilitate a settlement of this dispute that clearly lives up to the stated principles and purposes of our religious community.


Sincerely,


Robin Edgar


(page 4 of 4)

My Point By Point Rebuttal Of Anonymous U*U's Complicit DIM Thinking & Sincere Ignorance

Herewith my point by point rebuttal of the complicit DIM Thinking disinformation that was posted by anonymous U*U in an effort to whitewash Montreal Unitarians and discredit me in this thread below.

:The withdrawal of Mr. Edgar’s membership from the Unitarian Church of Montreal was not motivated by his religious beliefs,

Perhaps not overtly and directly however my expulsions from the Unitarian Church of Montreal most certainly came about as a direct result of my perfectly legitimate grievances, and subsequent peaceful public protests, arising from the intolerant and abusive attacks on my religious beliefs and practices by Rev. Ray Drennan and other intolerant and outright bigoted fundamentalist atheist "Humanist" U*Us. . .

Anonymous U*U sure picked the wrong thread to try to make such a disingenuous assertion because the pictures clearly show my protest against Rev. Ray Drennan's intolerant and offensive public attack on the Roman Catholic state funeral of former Canadian Prime Minister Pierre Elliot Trudeau in his ironically headlined 'Wrong Message' opinion editorial. This was a very well documented and undeniable example of Rev. Ray Drennan's offensive and insulting anti-religious intolerance and bigotry that caused no less than fifty Montrealers to write letters to the editors of the Montreal Gazette strongly condemning Rev. Ray Drennan's offensive anti-Catholic bigotry and broader anti-religious intolerance as expressed in his opinionated 'Wrong Message'.

:but by his disruptive and aggressive behavior towards the members of this congregation.

What "disruptive and aggressive behavior towards the members of this congregation" may I ask? I was first expelled by the Unitarian Church of Montreal's "Stalinistic" Disruptive Behavior Committee for a full six months in 1997 for doing nothing more than calmly and peacefully distributing an important letter of grievance to the members of the Board of the Unitarian Church of Montreal by placing it in the mail boxes in the office of the Unitarian Church of Montreal. This fact is abundantly evident from the letter that informed me of my first six month expulsion. Anonymous U*U and other U*Us can read it here and weep. . . Perhaps Anonymous U*U can explain how placing letters into church Board members' letter boxes in the church office constitutes "disruptive and aggressive behavior towards the members of (the Unitarian Church of Montreal)."

What genuinely was disruptive and aggressive behavior was the intolerant, angry, hostile, and outright bigoted and abusive malicious labeling of Creation as "your cult" by Rev. Ray Drennan to say nothing of similarly intolerant and malicious labeling of Creation Day as a "cult" by at least two "Humanist" Presidents of the Board of the Unitarian Church of Montreal, specifically Frank Greene and John Inder. Likewise the hostile and contemptuous dismissal of my revelatory religious experience as "your psychotic experience" by Rev. Ray Drennan and his angry insistence that I was in dire and immediate need of "professional help" is far more appropriately desccribed as "disruptive and aggressive behavior" than anything I have said or done to the members of the Unitarian Church of Montreal in my letters of grievance or my subsequent public protest activity which has been peaceful and legal since day one. I on the other hand have been repeatedly insulted by some Montreal Unitarians as they pass by my picket signs in their obstinately sincere ignorance which they mistake as strength. . .

I have had threats made against me by some Montreal Unitarians, indeed just last week I was in the Montreal court-house to deal with recent threats made against my personal safety by a "disruptive and aggressive" Montreal Unitarian. I have actually been physically assaulted by some "disruptive and aggressive" members of the Unitarian Church of Montreal, including one or two Board members as I have reported in the past. When I wrote a letter complaining about the first instance of assault and threats made by Pierre Binette it was ignored by the Board of the Unitarian Church of Montreal. John Inder who the letter was addressed to did absolutely nothing to deal with Pierre Binette's very real "disruptive and aggessive behaviour" towards me because he and other leaders of the Unitarian Church of Montreal almost certainly approved of it. In fact Pierre Binette was a Unitarian Church of Montreal Board member when the attack occurred in the spring of 1998 very soon after I began peacefully protesting outside the church.

Oh! Last but not least I have had my picket signs stolen by a certain "disruptive and aggressive" Queen's Counsel lawyer by the name of Kenneth Howard QC, as reported elsewhere on the interconnected web of the world-wide web in the past. More recently, as reported on the UU World web site and in the West End Chronicle, most of my picket signs were seized and destroyed by a couple of pumped-up overly aggressive Montreal police officers as a result of police during "coffee hour" considered to be "inappropriate behaviour" let alone inappropriate harassment by Montreal Unitarians. . .

:His inappropriate behaviour has continued for more than ten years.

Since when is calmly and peacefully distributing letters of grievance to "church" members after "church" services are over considered to be "inappropriate behaviour" to say nothing of alleged "disruptive and aggressive behaviour"?! Please be so kind as to explain how calmly and peacefully protesting against well known UU injustices, abuses and outrageous hypocrisy in front of the so-called Unitarian Church of Montreal in any way constitutes "inappropriate behaviour" to say nothing of alleged "disruptive and aggressive behaviour". Do tell Anonymous U*U. . . I am all ears. As no doubt are other human beings who have a modicum of conscience, genuinely care about Truth, genuinely desire justice and equity in human relations, to say nothing having a nose for the stink of outrageous U*U hypocrisy. . .

In fact the abject failure and obstinate refusal of the Unitarian Church of Montreal, the Canadian Unitarian Council aka CUC, the Unitarian Universalist Association aka the UUA and its aptly named Ministerial Fellowship Committee to respond to my legitimate grievances and subsequent public protest by genuinely practicing justice, equity and compassion in human relations with me is far more justifiably described as "inappropriate behaviour" to say nothing of "disruptive and aggressive behaviour" in terms of the clearly disruptive affect of UU injustices and abuses on my religious life and the clearly and unequivocally aggressive manner that Montreal Unitarians have misused and abused church bylaws, and even worse have attempted to misuse and abuse the Canadian Criminal Code and Montreal municipal bylaws to censor and suppress my peaceful public protest by criminalizing my legitimate dissent.

:Seven years ago he was brought before a Disruptive Behavior Committee, where over the next three years attempts were made to have him moderate his unacceptable behaviours.

What "unacceptable behaviors" oh so sincerely ignorant DIM Thinking anonymous U*U? When I was first "brought before" the Unitarian Church of Montreal's "Stalinistic" Disruptive Behavior Committee early in 1997 all that I was "guilty" of doing was calmly and peacefully distributing letters of grievance to members of the Unitarian Church of Montreal during coffee hour after church services were over. That's it. That's all. It is all very well documented. There is even a tape recording of my first and indeed only meeting with the Unitarian Church of Montreal's biased, misguided, and incompetent Disruptive Behaviour Committee that clearly reveals this fact. What it also reveals, unless it has been destroyed by Montreal Unitarians seeking to hide damaging evidence that could potentially be used against them. . . is that when I became aware of the fact that the Unitarian Church of Montreal had set up a so-called Disruptive Behavior Committee to try to suppress my ability to communicate effectively with church members by distributing letters of grievance to them after church services, I made a point of filing a formal complaint against Rev. Ray Drennan which made it abundantly obvious that his own "disruptive and aggressive behaviour" towards me, as described in detail in my previous letters of grievance that were callously dismissed and willfully ignmored by the UCM's Board etc., was far more justifiably described as "Disruptive Behaviour", according to the Disruptive Behaviour Policy's clear description of what constituted Disruptive Behavior, than anything that I was doing at the time.

:He would agree to proposed solutions and then go on as before.

There were no viable proposed solutions. Period. This is a highly misleading half-truth if not outright lie that has been told before by members of the Disruptive Behavior Committee whose only concern was to prevent me from distributing letters of grievance to church members in order to suppress my efforts towards seeking redress for Rev. Ray Drennan's intolerant and abusive clergy misconduct. In fact I proposed perfectly viable solutions to the conflict that the Board and Disruptive Behaviour Committee, to say nothing of the congregation as a whole. . . callously dismissed and willfully ignored, and merrily went on as before and as they and indeed anonymous U*U and other DIM Thinking U*Us are going on today. . . in sincere ignorance and deep denial of readily verifiable, and now very well documented, objective reality. I did have some completely fruitless and futile discussions with John Inder who was vice-President at the time but he was heavily biased in favor of Rev. Ray Drennan and had no interest in responsibly redressing my legitimate grievances. He failed to set up a church committee that I proposed that would have responsibly investigated my grievances against Rev. Ray Drennan and then taken appropriate action to responsibly redress them. All this is well documented.

:He was repeatedly warned that failure to comply with what he had agreed to do would result in serious consequences.

Excuse me but I did in fact comply with most if not all of those things that I had agreed to do. The Unitarian Church of Montreal as represented by their Board and Disruptive Behaviour Committee failed or refused to live up to their side of any agreements that I made with them, because they had not the slightest interest in responsibly redressing my grievances. I might add that the church was repeatedly warned that failure to comply with my perfectly reasonable demands for a responsible investigation of my grievances followed by appropriate redress would result in the serious consequences of a public protest that would expose and denounce their injustices, abuses and hypocrisy. The Unitarian Church of Montreal, to say nothing of the greater U*U religious community. . . is still enduring the serious consequences of my ongoing justified "image tarnishing" public protest as well as my ongoing justified internet U*U Jihad. N'est-ce pas oh so sincerely ignorant, to say nothing of conscientiously stupid. . . anonymous U*U?

:Over this period, he was suspended from participation in Church life for six months.

Ostensibly for delivering an important letter of grievance to the Board that informed them of a significant change in the situation (i.e. Rev. Ray Drennan's sorry excuse for an "apology") that could have resulted in a genuinely just, equitable and compassionate resolution of the conflict if they had responsibly acted on it. They chose to ignore it. I was actually suspended from "participation in Church life for six months" several months after delivering this letter to the Board when, after warning the Board that I would distribute a version of the same letter to the congregation as a whole if they refused to act on my letter of grievance, I distributed the letter to church members as they left the church. I did so while standing off of church property in full compliance with the coerced agreement that I had made with the "Stalinistic" Disruptive Behaviour Committee, even though that agreement, which was quite "aggressively" coerced under the threat of expulsion. . . was in clear violation of purported U*U principles and ideals, especially those purporting to be in favor of truth, justice, equity and freedom of speech while being opposed to censorship by church or state. . . About fifteen to twenty minutes after starting to distribute letters to church members as they left the Unitarian Church of Montreal following Sunday services I was approached by John Inder who personally handed me the letter informing me of the six month suspension of my membership, ostensibly for delivering an unwanted letter of grievance to the Board months earlier. This was neither the first time, nor indeed the last time. . . that Montreal Unitarians, and indeed UUA official U*Us, knowingly and willfully disregarded their own stated bylaws and policies in order to deny me justice, equity and compassion.

:Unfortunately, upon his return his behaviour worsened , and he was suspended for an additional year.

There was no "worsened" behaviour on my part. I returned to church and acted quite normally as I always had but I made it very clear that the church leaders had to responsibly redress my grievances arising from Rev. Ray Drennan's intolerant and abusive clergy misconduct that were now seriously aggravated by the Unitarian Church of Montreal's unjust, unequitable and uncompassionate negligent and punitive responses to my legitimate grievances. When after a few months it became abundantly clear that the church leadership would do absolutely nothing to responsibly redress my serious grievances and the congregation as a whole abjectly failed to put any pressure on the leadership I began the peaceful public protest that I had repeatedly warned Montreal Unitarians that I would commence if they refused to provide genuine justice, equity and compassion in their rather inhuman relations with me. . .

:Again when he returned, his inappropriate behavior continued.

Totally false. There was no second return to the church. Soon after I began protesting the Board arbitrarily suspended my membership for a year even though the actual church bylaws called for congregational meeting to be held. They did not want to call a congregational meeting at that time because they were by no means assured of obtaining the necessary number of votes to permanently expell me. They needed time to build up resentment within the congregation. . . hence the arbitrary extended expulsion that bent, if not broke, the church's own bylaws.

: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.

Correct in terms of basic facts but this short and sweet version leaves out plenty of facts that would show just what a sham of democracy and justice, and just how close to a Stalinistic show trial or kangaroo court, this special congregational meeting actually was. The whole process was very carefully stacked against me. I was considered to be guilty until proven innocent and only had limited time to present my defence. I was cut off just before responding to the third and most serious charge which would have exposed the hypocrisy of the whole procedure which BTW was presided over by Frank Greene, one of the fundie atheist bigots who had maliciously labeled Creation Day as a "cult" behind my back and had "joked" about a possible link between Creation Day and the notorious Solar Temple cult soon after the first suicide-murders made the news in the fall of 1994 as I was organizing the first celebration of Creation Day. . . The third and final charge was that I was guilty of publicly tarnishing the image of the Unitarian Church of Montreal by displaying picket signs that had the "abhorrent" words "cult" and "Solar Temple" emblazoned on them. Needless to say my defence to that stunningly hypocritical charge was that I was only protesting against the false and maliciious use of these "abhorrent" words by Rev. Ray Drennan and Frank Greene to slander Creation Day. Guess who decided that my time was up and that I could not "speak and argue freely, according to conscience" in my defence any more. . .

:This decade long process, during which sincere attempts were made by the congregation to negotiate a solution,

Please forgive my bluntness but this is just pure unadulterated bullshit aka U*U BS. No sincere attempts were made by Rev. Ray Drennan or the Board and congregation of the Unitarian Church of Montreal to negotiate a genuinely just, genuinely equitable and genuinely compassionate "solution" to my very serious and totally legitimate grievances that were only aggravated by the callously indifferent arbitrary dismissal of them by all concerned parties in the earliest stages of this conflict. Again this is all very well documented by leters of grievance that I submitted to the Board of the Unitarian Church of Montreal, the UUA and CUC, the UUA's Ministerial Fellowship Committee, the so-called Disruptive Behaviour Committee of the Unitarian Church of Montreal, and even UUA Trustees. Rev. Ray Drennan refused to retract or apologize for over a year. When I caught him lying to the Board by denying having said what he actually said he promptly presented an insincere and all but completely inadequate purely expedient sorry excuse for an apology that was a thinly veiled insult in its own right. . . Rev. Drennan never faced the slightest accountability for his genuinely "disruptive and aggressive" "inappropriate" behaviour but I was initially expelled for six months for doing nothing more than delivering a letter of grievance to the Board of the Unitarian Church of Montreal informing them of Rev. Drennan's insincere, inadequate and insulting alleged "apology" and demanding that they ensure that he provided an comprehensive apology that clearly acknowledged the wrongfulness and harmfulness of his "disruptive and aggressive" "inappropriate" behaviour and retracted his insulting and slandereous words. Had there been any sincere attempts to resolve the conflict it would have been resolved years ago and if sincere attempts are made now to resolve it it can be resolved with justice and equity in the coming days, weeks and months if stunningly hypocritical Unitarians stop lying and denying and start being truthful and repentant.

:ended when it became that he had no intention of ceasing his disruptive and aggressive behaviours.

There were no "disruptive and aggressive behaviours" on my part unless you consider distributing letters of grievance, and subsequently publicly protesting when they were repeatedly dismissed and ignored, to be "disruptive and aggressive behaviours". . . I do not, nor would most reasonable people. It is Rev. Ray Drennan and indeed the leaders and some of the regular members of the Unitarian Church of Montreal who are much more appropriately described as engaging in "inappropriate" and "disruptive and aggressive" behaviours. . . In spite of attempts by Montreal Unitarians to cynically misuse and abuse the Canadian Criminal Code in order to use the State to impose Unitarian Church censorship and suppression of peaceful public protest I am innocent of any "disruptive and aggressive behaviours" but Queen's Counsel fool for a lawyer Kenneth Howard QC, who was very much responsible for that misuse and abuse of Canadian Criminal law was subjected to non-judicial treatment for the criminal acts of theft and assault and, as recently as last week. . . another Montreal Unitarian was subjected to non-judicial treatment for his threats against my personal safety that he made in September. The record will show that Montreal Unitarians are far more guilty of engaging in "disruptive and aggressive behaviours" towards me than the reverse. God is my witness to that fact, as are no shortage of documents that are open to scrutiny by Unitarians and indeed the general public. . .

:It should be noted that Reverend Ray Drennan did apologise, in person, on more than one occasion.

Wrong. Reverend Ray Drennan wrote an insincere and inadequate purely expedient so-called "apology" that was a thinly veiled insult in itself because it not only did not retract his "disruptive and aggressive" "inappropriate" words but actually tacitly repeated them in his "sorry excuse for an apology" itself. Virtually no one even knew about this alleged apology until I started calling Board members about it. Most expressed surprise which is not surprising considering that one of the members of the original Disruptive Behaviour Committee bluntly told me that Rev. Ray Drennan would "never apologize" to me during my first and only meeting with the DBC. Unfortunately it was during that fateful meeting that I was told that Rev. Ray Drennan had denied saying the "disruptive and aggressive" (to say nothing of bigoted, slanderous and abusive) words that he had in fact said to me. It was as a result of my directly challenging of these lies that Rev. Drennan promptly presented his sorry excuse for an apology after refusing to offer one previously. After I rightly rejected his insulting alleged apology I gave Rev. Drennan the opportunity to present an adequate formal apology that at least had some semblance of sincerity, clearly and unequivocally acknowledged the wrongfulness and harmfulness of his "disruptive and aggressive" behaviour and retracted his slanderous and abusive words. Rev. Drennan absolutely refused to provide an acceptable apology, muttering "it's the only one you're gonna get. . ." and the Unitarian Church of Montreal obstinately refused to responsibly discipline Rev. Drennan for refusing to provide an acceptable apology that retracted his intolerant and abusive words. All of this is very well documented and much of the documentation is already scattered all over the internet. . .

:However, this did not meet with Mr Edgar’s satisfaction.

Correct. Rev. Ray Drennan's sorry excuse for an apology would not meet the satisfaction of any human being who had been as deeply insulted and slandered as I had been and who had a modicum of conscience and self-esteem. When I received Rev. Ray Drennan's alleged apology it was glaringly obvious to me that it was not only grossly inadequate and insincere but that it was even a thinly veiled insult itself. I showed Rev. Drennan's sorry excuse for an apology to several friends and family members who were aware of the situation and asked them if they thought that I should accept it. All but one said that I should not accept it, precisely because of the aforementioned problems with it. The one person who thought I should accept it probably would not have accepted it herself if she was the target of similar insults and slander. My brother responded by saying that I should "rub his nose in it" the way some people rub the pet's nose in their own piss if they piss on something. . . I did not do that immediately and the various records that may be scrutinized by those people genuinely interested in truth and justice will show that I was very patient with Rev. Ray Drennan, the Unitarian Church of Montreal, and the other parties involved in this now quite ludicrously drawn-out conflict.

:Mr. Edgar has redressed his grievances to whomever he has saw fit, be it the UAA, CUC, etc.,

I "addressed" my grievances to those parties that should have ensured that my serious grievances were responsibly *redressed* but abjectly failed, and even obstinately refused. . . to do so. I am still waiting for something even remotely resembling genuine redress in the form of what stunningly hypocritical U*Us call "restorative justice". . .

:and his complaint to the Quebec Human Rights Commission in 2002 was summarily dismissed as being without merit.

Wrong. This is untrue. As I have already explained elsewhere, the Unitarian Church of Montreal spread misinformation about what actually occurred. The Quebec Human Rights Commission did not "dismiss" my complaint as being "without merit." They just refused to bring my complaints to a human rights tribunal without providing any explanation as to why they refused to do so. The Quebec Human Rights Commission has a poor track record when it comes to dealing with any kind of religious discrimination and harassment and they are particularly disinterested in dealing with religious discrimination and harassment that occurs within a religious community. They repeatedly blew me off in the past which explains the rather late date for their final refusal to responsibly act upon my complaint. The Quebec Human Rights Commission just might come to regret their negligent response to my own and other people's legitimate complaints down the road a bit. . . In fact, as a direct result of these repeated misleading U*U claims that the Quebec Human Rights Commission "dismissed" my complaint as "being without merit" I am going to demand that the QHRC first formally informs the Unitarian Church of Montreal that this is not true and demands that the Unitarian Church of Montreal must widely circulate a correction of these false claims that are intended to discredit my legitimate grievances. I will also demand that the Quebec Human Rights Commission must review their highly questionable decision in light of the harm that it has done to me by giving U*Us an excuse to pretend that I was not the victim of religious discrimination and harassment as a result of Rev. Ray Drennnan's and other U*Us "disruptive and aggressive" words and actions, as well as a result of the punitive expulsions that Montreal Unitarians subjected me to in their misguided efforts to deny me genuine restorative justice and redress for the insults and injuries inflicted on me by Rev. Ray Drennan and other intolerant and abusive Unitarian U*Us.

:Mr Edgar continues to picket the church in the futile belief that the Church will act.

Mr. Edgar continues to picket the church in the knowledge that most of the thus enlightened Montreal public will get the message and whole-heartedly agree that the Unitarian Church of Montreal is a decade older but far from wiser "aging and dwindling" fortress of corpse-cold Unitarian complicit silence, sincere ignorance, conscientious stupidity, and outrageous hypocrisy. Mr. Edgar reminds conscientiously stupid U*Us that it is a *public* protest that is primarily intended for the eyes of the Montreal public, to say nothing of the eyes of all kinds of good people of intelligence and conscience on the interconnected web of the world-wide web aka the internet. . .

:Reverend Drennan is no longer the minister as he left to follow his own life’s journey; and the church has simply moved on.

Ya right. A good chunk of the corpse-cold Unitarian Church of Montreal has simply moved on to the afterlife that no doubt was the surprise of their life. . . Of course Rev. Ray Drennan's "early retirement" had absolutely nothing to do with the fact that he made a pariah of himself and his Totalitarian Church of Montreal via his own well documented "disruptive and aggressive behaviour" that insulted the intelligence of thousands of good Montrealers of conscience.

Well I haven't moved on. Nor do I intend to any time soon. . . I really quite enjoy my "alternative spiritual practice" of publicly protesting against U*U injustices, abuses and hypocrisy and I will continue to picket the Unitarian Church of Montreal until it actually does "move" on my totally legitimate, and now very seriously aggravated. . . serious grievances which have yet to be redressed with the slightest justice, equity or compassion by the Unitarian Church of Montreal, or any other Unitarian*Universalist U*Us who are in positions of influence and responsibility such as UUA President Bill Sinkford for instance. . . The complicitly negligent and irresponsible Rev. Brian Kopke of the First Unitarian Congregation of Ottawa summed it up all very nicely when, in response to my accusation that he and two other Canadian Unitarian ministers did absolutely nothing to responsibly deal with my grievances when they did the first "peer review" of Rev. Ray Drennan, quite truthfully and accurately and indeed sheepishly replied, "Nobody did anything."

The Fraudulently Hypocritical Mission Statement of the alleged Unitarian Church of Montreal. . .

I have said it before, but it bears repeating. . . that Unitarian Universalists aka UUs (now aka U*Us. . .) are very good at "affirming" and "promoting" the purported Seven Principles of UUism and other loudly and publicly proclaimed UU ideals, "statements of conscience" and indeed "mission statements" etc. etc. but do a rather poor job of actually practicing them. . . especially when it comes to internal U*U injustices, abuses, and hypocrisy etc. It is not for nothing that I have chalked the following slogan onto the sidewalk in front of the Unitarian Church of Montreal on more than a few given Sundays -

A "CHURCH" THAT REFUSES TO WALK WHAT IT TALKS

or indeed rather more recently, since becoming hilariously aware of CUC Executive Director Mary Bennett's not so "Intelligent Design" and *reVision* of the now quite ubiquitous UU acronym for what is now known, at least up here in Soviet Canuckistan aka The True North Strong And Free. . . as U*Uism.

Only in Canada U*Us say? Pity. . .

U*Us REFUSE TO WALK WHAT THEY TALK

Here is the stunningly hypocritical "mission statement" of the Unitarian Church of Montreal that was created years after I was permanently expelled for publicly "tarnishing" the undeserved public "image" of this alleged Unitarian "church" by peacefully publicly protesting against its own very well documented injustices, abuses and outrageous hypocrisy. . .


We, Unitarians of Montreal, provide a sacred space where we embrace diversity and seek truth. We cultivate moral integrity and foster a spirit of caring, creativity and celebration of life. We nurture spiritual search and practice, affirm the democratic process in human affairs, and visibly promote social justice, sustainability, and kinship with all life in our neighborhood, nation and global community

Adopted at the AGM on June 4, 2001

Guess which alienated life form was most probably very much in "the neighborhood" of the Unitarian Church of Montreal displaying picket signs that protested against these very same Montreal Unitarians making a complete mockery of these fine words, but quite evidently insincere, even outright fraudulent and outrageously hypocritical words, via their other very well documented words and actions. . .

Allah prochaine,

The Dagger of Sweet Reason

PB2U*Us

Another Warning Shot Across The Bows of the U*U Ship of Fools as captained by UUA President Bill Sinkford. . .

Without Prejudice?

It is 11:20ish a.m. Monday January 23, 2006. I just got off the phone after a brief conversation with Julie Shaw, the new assistant to UUA President Rev. William G. Sinkford aka Bill Sinkford. My phone call was to inquire about some emails that I had sent to President Sinkford in the last month or so that had specifically requested that he enter into dialogue with me about what he once described as my "obviously deep concerns". . . I have not yet heard from President Bill Sinkford nor have I even received so much as an acknowledgement of receipt of the emails that I sent to him, even though I specifically requested an acknowledgement of receipt in those emails.

Julie Shaw was polite and professional and told me that, although she was very new to the job as UUA President Bill Sinkford's personal assistant, she had "processed" those emails to the best of her ability to do so. That indicates to me that UUA President Rev. William G. Sinkford almost certainly was aware of the emails that I had sent to his attention recently but willfully chose not to respond to them, even in terms of the minimal official acknowledgement of receipt that was requested in them.

I made it very clear to Julie Shaw that I expect UUA President Bill Sinkford to speak with me in person on the phone by the end of this week, and politely warned her that if he fails or refuses to to so that he will be open to more strong public criticism from yours truly. This recent Emerson Avenger post was but one warning shot across the bow of the U*U Ship of Fools that resulted from UUA President Sinkford's sincere ignorance of my earlier and friendlier email hailings. . .

Rev. David O. Rankin's little red tract titled 'What Do UUs Believe' is one of my favorite UU tracts. I strongly agree with the purported UU principles and ideals that are expressed in that UU tract even though, most regrettably, the well documented behavior of many of the UUs that I know, including that of UUA President Bill Sinkford, clearly and unequivocally makes a total mockery of many if not most of Rev. David O. Rankin's fine words and causes me, and no doubt other human beings. . . to seriously question whether UUs genuinely believe in these publicly professed principles and ideals. The 9th principle expressed in that UU tract expressly states -

9. We believe in the necessity of the democratic process. Records are open to scrutiny, elections are open to members, and ideas are open to criticism - so that people might govern themselves.

In accordance with that official UU principle I am making the UU "records" of the recent emails that I sent to UUA President William G. Sinkford open to scrutiny to all UUs, and anyone else who cares to read them. . . by posting them here and now to the Emerson Avenger blog. UUA President Bill Sinkford and any and all other UUs are most welcome to scrutinize these records, to say nothing of other UU "records" that the Emerson Avenger has previously posted to the internet, and then govern themselves accordingly. . .


Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2006 16:14:13 -0500 (EST)
From: "Robin Edgar"
Subject: I need to speak with you ASAP. It is quite urgent.
To: wsinkford@uua.org, bsinkford@uua.org
CC: jshaw@uua.org

To: Rev. William G. Sinkford
President
Unitarian Universalist Association
25 Beacon Street, Boston MA USA


From: Robin Edgar
Montreal, Quebec,
Canada, World
Tel.: (514) 996-3937 January 10, 2006


Dear President Sinkford,

As you know from my previous email communication with you I had intended to write you a follow up email or two soon afterwards. A variety of factors, including your failure, or even your refusal, to acknowledge receipt of that email with a return email, caused me to hold off writing to you again in December 2005 or earlier this month.

I need to speak with you to sound you out about a few important matters, including one that goes well beyond the state of conflict that presently exists between me and Unitarian Universalist religious community due to its well documented failure, and even refusal, to practice genuine justice, equity and compassion in its human relations with me and indeed other human beings.

A personal meeting would be even better if at all possible. I want to propose some things to you in terms of resolving the conflict and also contributing very significantly to the Unitarian Universalist religious community but I feel that it is very important to be able to speak with you personally before committing anything to writing. I believe that speaking with you personally is in the best interest of everyone concerned and that includes not only you, the UUA, its Ministerial Fellowship Committee and the Unitarian Church of Montreal, but also the greater Unitarian Universalist religious community and many human beings who are outside of the UU religious community.

Please call me at (514) 996-3937 as soon as is *humanly* possible or provide me with some phone numbers where I may call you and times when it would be most convenient to do so.

I believe that it is in the best interests of the Unitarian Universalist religious community that you and other Unitarian Universalists return again towards me with a reasonable level of respect if not some genuine love and that you and other UUs enter into dialogue with me as soon as possible in order to promote genuine justice and thus genuine peace within the UU World but also in the rest of the world.

Sincerely,

Robin Edgar


Text of previous email copied below -

Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2005 15:50:12 -0500 (EST)
From: "Robin Edgar"
Subject: An Important Update About My "Obviously Deep Concerns"
To: wsinkford@uua.org
CC: bsinkford@uua.org

From: Robin Edgar

Tuesday December 6, 2005


Dear President Sinkford,

The following letter (copied below) was distributed to people entering and leaving the Unitarian Church of Montreal on Sunday December 4th, 2005. It will continue to be distributed for several more Sundays during my "alternative spiritual practice" of protesting against Unitarian Universalist injustices, abuses and hypocrisy in front of the Unitarian Church of Montreal as I have been doing since the spring of 1998. The "annotated" version that you see copied below has been posted to various pertinent internet forums, including the UU Debate section of Beliefnet and it will be posted to others in the coming days and weeks. Although it is not directly addressed to you personally I expect you to clearly and unequivocally demonstrate and express your personal concern about the "obviously deep concerns" that I have expressed in this communication. These concerns are pretty much the same concerns that I brought to your attention soon after your election as President of the Unitarian Universalist Association. One additional concern that is not addressed in the letter is the culture of censorship that currently pervades and degrades the UU World and I expect you to address that issue as well in the near future.

Quite evidently and quite regrettably the UUA, its Ministerial Feelowship Committee and the Unitarian Church of Montreal failed or refused to live up to the second principle of UUism which calls for justice, equity, and compassion in human relations. It goes without saying that this failure, or indeed refusal, of the Unitarian Church of Montreal and the greater Unitarian Universalist religious community to provie genuine justice in this matter clearly disregarded, and indeed violated, the first principle of UUIism which affirms the inherent worth and dignity of every person, the third principle of UUism which calls for acceptance of one another and encouragement to spiritual growth in UU congregations, and the sixth principle of UUism which calls upon UUs to affirm and promote the goal of world community with peace, liberty, and justice for all. I would like to believe that "all" includes one Robin Edgar and I expect you to speak appropriate words and take responsible concrete actions to ensure that that goal is soon realized for me and indeed others, at least within the UU World.

You will be receiving one or two formal requests for your personal intervention in this long drawn out conflict soon however I want you to be aware of this recent more generally distributed communication before I send you any further letters.

I will ask you to acknowledge receipt of this communication in an email. I do not expect or require a detailed response. It is probably best if you wait until you receive my forthcoming communications before responding in any detail. If you should wish to speak to me personally you may call me at (514) 996-3937

Sincerely,

Robin Edgar



Here is the "annotated" internet version of my letter of December 4, 2005 -


From Robin Edgar

Sunday December 4, 2005

To whom it may concern,

Today marks the 5th anniversary of my false arrest in December 2000 on trumped up criminal charges brought against me by Montreal Unitarians. After a few of criminal court dates I was acquitted of these unwarranted criminal charges that were intended to completely censor and suppress my legitimate public protest. I am protesting against the failure and refusal of the Unitarian Universalist religious community to responsibly redress my own and other UUs' legitimate grievances about abusive clergy misconduct. I am also protesting against the antireligious prejudice and intolerance that deplorably pervades and degrades UUism. The abusive clergy misconduct that I was subjected to arose directly from the antireligious intolerance, indeed the outright bigotry and hostility, of a self-professed "Humanist" Unitarian Universalist minister. I have seen too much evidence of similar antireligious prejudice and hostility towards God believing people within contemporary UUism. Such antireligious prejudice and intolerance, even hostility and bigotry, betrays UUism's monotheistic heritage and makes some UU congregations far from "Welcoming" (and at times even less than "Safe") for God believing people in general and Christians in particular. These UU injustices and abuses make a complete mockery of the claimed principles and purposes of UUism, and other UU ideals and must be responsibly redressed by all UUs, including current UUA and CUC leadership.

My clergy misconduct complaints did not involve sexual misconduct however I am also concerned about the UUA's and MFC's past failure to responsibly redress complaints arising from sexual misconduct by UU ministers. The UUA's "official apology" to victims of clergy sexual misconduct admits that the UUA has "largely failed" the victims of clergy sexual misconduct. In May 2000 I protested the failure of both the UUA and its Ministerial Fellowship Committee to responsibly address clergy misconduct, sexual or otherwise, in front of the UUA's offices at 25 Beacon Street. I also protested at UUA and CUC AGMs. I am protesting on behalf of all the victims of abusive clergy misconduct committed by UU ministers and all other people who have suffered either insult or injury (or both) as a result of antireligious intolerance as well as other injustices and abuses committed by hypocritical UUs who willfully disregard and violate claimed UU principles and purposes. I have been protesting in front of the Unitarian Church of Montreal on most Sundays since May 1998 because these remarkably hypocritical UUs have rejected or willfully ignored all of my letters of grievance and my subsequent public protests. Montreal UUs have repeatedly unjustly punished me for refusing to “accept" their unjust, inequitable and uncompassionate rejection of my grievances arising from their well documented injustices and abuses. I have been repeatedly verbally attacked by Montreal UUs and I have been threatened and physically assaulted on occasion as well. Montreal Unitarians attempted to criminalize my public protest and have repeatedly called the police even though my protest is legal. In doing so Montreal UUs have made a total mockery of their purported principles and purposes, and other claimed ideals.

During a private meeting with him, the purpose of which was to try to explain a profound revelatory experience that I had undergone in early 1992, former UCM minister Rev. Ray Drennan sarcastically mocked and ridiculed my religious beliefs by labeling them as "silliness and fantasy" amongst other derisive and insulting comments. Rev. Ray Drennan contemptuous dismissed my revelatory experience as "your psychotic experience" and angrily insisted that I was in immediate need of "professional help." As if these words were not insulting and damaging enough Rev. Drennan went on to label 'Creation Day' (an inter-religious celebration of Creation that was inspired by my revelatory experience) as "your cult." When I immediately challenged him to qualify what he meant by this damaging slur (which is the 21st century equivalent of labeling someone as a "witch" or "heretic") he replied, "I mean a manipulative and secretive religious group." Ironically, less than a month earlier, Rev. Ray Drennan and the Board of the Unitarian Church of Montreal had banned ‘Creation Day' from being celebrated in the "sanctuary" of the UCM during an "in camera" segment of the October Board meeting that was totally secretive cynical manipulation of the democratic process; even though ‘Creation Day' had been unanimously approved as an adult RE activity by the UCM's Religious Education committee. Rev. Drennan never retracted these demeaning and damaging allegations about me, nor did he ever issue an acceptable apology that clearly and unequivocally acknowledged the wrongfulness of his words and actions. Rev. Ray Drennan was never held accountable by the Unitarian Church of Montreal or the UUA's Ministerial Fellowship Committee. I on the other hand have been repeatedly punished and attacked by UUs for refusing to “accept” these UU injustices and abuses. The Ministerial Fellowship Committee complicitly "whitewashed" Rev. Ray Drennan by asserting that his demeaning and abusive misconduct, as I described it in more detailed letters of grievance, "seemed to us to be within the appropriate guidelines of ministerial leadership." When I wrote a letter protesting this ludicrous decision, Rev. Diane Miller responded by vaunting the "wisdom" of the MFC's decision to "close the file."

My grievances arising from the abusive clergy misconduct of Rev. Ray Drennan, and the subsequent negligent and unjustly punitive responses of the Unitarian Church of Montreal must finally be responded to by Unitarian Universalists in a manner that clearly lives up to both the letter and the spirit of UUism's Seven Principles, other UU ideals, and policies such as the Safe Congregations program. I also expect the UUA, the CUC, and the Unitarian Church of Montreal to hold all those who are most directly responsible for the negligent, incompetent, and complicit response to my serious grievances fully accountable for their reprehensible actions and indeed their clearly negligent inaction. Rev. Diane Miller and other members of the MFC's Executive who unjustly, inequitably, and uncompassionately rejected my serious grievances, who complicitly "whitewashed" Rev. Ray Drennan’s clergy misconduct, and who have "largely failed" the various victims of sexual misconduct and abuse by UU ministers must face accountability for their own deplorable failures. Justice must finally be done for me and for others and I expect it to be seen to be done by the Unitarian Universalist community as a whole. Sincerely,Robin Edgar email – robinedgar59@yahoo.caGoogle and Google Groups searches on pertinent names and key words such as - "abusive clergy misconduct" will find pertinent posts in various inter-net forums that provide considerable additional information about these UU injustices. See also the UU Debate section of http://www.beliefnet.com. My new blog that is dedicated to exposing UU injustices, abuses, and hypocrisy is found at - http://emersonavenger.blogspot.com


End of recent email communications to UUA President William Sinkford aka Bill Sinkford


Herewith an historic UU "record" of an email that I, Robin Edgar, received from UUA President William Sinkford in the spring of 2002 -

Once upon a time in the UU World. . . Not so long ago. . .

From: William Sinkford
To: 'robinedgar1@netscape.net'
Cc: David Hubner
Sent: Thu, 9 May 2002 09:36:02 -0400
Subject:


Robin, thank you for writing and sharing your obviously deep concerns. The appropriate person to review your complaints is Rev. David Hubner, head of our Department of Ministry. I've asked him to review the file on this matter and respond to you directly.

In faith,

Bill

-----Original Message-----
From: robinedgar1@netscape.net
To: wsinkford@uua.org
Sent: 5/2/02 6:03 PM

Robin Edgar
15 Lafleur apt. 11,
Verdun (Montreal) Quebec
Canada H4G 3C3

Rev. William Sinkford
President of the Unitarian Universalist Association
25 Beacon Street, Boston MA May 1, 2002

Dear Rev. Sinkford,

Today marks the second anniversary of my public protest in front of 25 Beacon Street in early May 2000. I was protesting against the failure of the UUA's Ministerial Fellowship Committee to responsibly redress my own and other UUs' legitimate grievances about abusive clergy misconduct. I was also protesting against the anti-religious intolerance and even outright bigotry that is quite pervasive within UUism since the clergy misconduct that I was subjected to arose directly from the religious intolerance, even anti-religious bigotry, of a UU minister. My case does not involve sexual misconduct however I am concerned about the MFC's past failure to responsibly redress other UUs' complaints about sexual misconduct by UU clergy. In fact, my protest was approved by members of UUs for Right Relations. Prior to picketing 25 Beacon Street I asked representatives from UUs for Right Relations if they felt that my public protest might be detrimental to their efforts and I was quite prepared to refrain from picketing 25 Beacon Street if they felt that this was the case. Their response, after discussion at a UUs for RR meeting, was that they had no objections to my public protest and felt that it might do some good . Some were already quite familiar with my ongoing protest in front of the Unitarian Church of Montreal most Sundays since late May 1998, and some even wished that I could stay in Boston for a few days longer to publicly protest at a UUA Trustees meeting that was being held later that week.

My protest was pointedly ignored and arbitrarily dismissed by most UUA administrators. I did get a better response from some UUs visiting 25 Beacon Street but the fact remains that most UUA administrators willfully ignored my protest and pretended that it had no legitimacy whatsoever. Only one UUA administrator bothered to enter into dialogue with me. I believe it was John Weston. We did have a civil conversation, and he did seem genuinely concerned, however when I called him and various other UUA staff after returning to Montreal, it became abundantly clear that they had been instructed by top level UUA officials not to speak to me.


I had intended to contact you after giving you a few months to settle in as the new President of the UUA and to ask you to ensure that my serious grievances, particularly my formal complaints about the abusive clergy misconduct by Rev. Ray Drennan of the Unitarian Church of Montreal that the UUA's Ministerial Fellowship Committee unjustly, inequitably, and uncompassionately rejected in the spring of 1996, are finally responded to by the UUA in a responsible manner that clearly lives up to both the letter and the spirit of the Seven Principles and other UUA policies, particularly the UUMA's Guidelines and Code of Professional Practice and indeed the new Safe Congregations program that you were closely involved with. Needless to say the tragic events of September 11th 2001 caused me to hold off for a while and to give you and the new UUA administration some more breathing space. In that I expect significant progress to be made in this matter by the UUA GA in June I feel that now is a good time to raise this matter, indeed it is rather overdue.

I regret that circumstances prevented me from contacting you earlier and giving you and the new UUA administration more time to deal with this matter before the UUA GA in June however you still have almost two months to make the significant progress that I seek. In my opinion this matter could be largely resolved within two months if the UUA, the MFC, and indeed the Unitarian Church of Montreal made a sincere effort to responsibly redress my serious grievances rather than willfully ignoring them, unjustly rejecting them, and even quite severely punishing me for refusing to accept the unjust, inequitable, and far from compassionate rejection of my legitimate grievances. I am now an "excommunicated" Unitarian as a result of this abuse.

Unless the Ministerial Fellowship Committee removed my original correspondence from Rev. Ray Drennan's file these letters should be available to you. You may not however have the significant amount of additional documentation that arose from the serious escalation of this situation due to the failure, indeed the willful refusal, of the MFC and the Unitarian Church of Montreal to responsibly redress my serious grievances which could have been largely redressed by a formal apology and retraction within the first year or two of this dispute. Due to the repeated punitive measures that I have been subjected to by UUs for refusing to accept their injustices and abuses, I now insist that Rev. Ray Drennan must be responsibly disciplined by both the UUA's Ministerial Fellowship Committee and the Unitarian Church of Montreal for his demeaning and abusive behavior towards me (to say nothing of others) and the further harm that he has caused to me and to others by obstinately refusing to accept any responsibility for his harmful words and actions. I also expect the UUA and the Unitarian Church of Montreal to formally acknowledge the additional injustices and abuses that I have been subjected to as a result of their past refusals to responsibly redress my serious grievances. I expect genuine restorative justice in this matter.

I am formally asking you to ensure that my serious grievances are finally responsibly investigated and redressed by the UUA according to the latest UUA procedures. I expect to be provided with a UUA advocate. I not only expect genuine restorative justice to be done I expect it to be seen to be done by the UU religious community as a whole. In fact the upcoming UUA GA in Quebec City presents an opportunity to do just that if this dispute can be largely resolved by then. I believe that it can be if the UUA responds in a timely manner that is entirely consistent with UU principles and purposes. I am prepared to enter into dialogue with you personally indeed I would like to do so. I am confident that via civil dialogue you will soon discover that I have much to contribute to UUism and not just in terms of exposing injustices, abuses, and hypocrisy within the UU community although I will not abandon that role.

I am very concerned by the anti-religious intolerance that quite evidently pervades contemporary UUism thus making some, even many, UU congregations far from Welcoming and even rather less than Safe for God believing people in general and Christians in particular. Besides sharing my concerns about serious problems within contemporary UUism, I have plenty of other positive contributions to make, some being of considerable significance and value to the religious community as a whole.

Sincerely,

Robin Edgar


End of 2002 email


The Emerson Avenger hereby burns a very Unitarian question mark into the conscience of UUA President Bill Sinkford. . .

In faith Bill?

As in "bad faith" perhaps?

Sincerely,

Robin Edgar