The Emerson Avenger

The Emerson Avenger is a "memory hole" free blog where censorship is scorned. This blog will "guard the right to know" about any injustices and abuses that corrupt Unitarian Universalism. Posters may speak and argue freely, according to conscience, about any injustices and abuses, or indeed hypocrisy, that they may know about so that the Avenger, in the form of justice and redress, may come surely and swiftly. . . "Slowly, slowly the Avenger comes, but comes surely." - Ralph Waldo Emerson

My Photo
Name:
Location: Montreal, Quebec, Canada

In 1992 I underwent a profound revelatory experience of God which revealed that the total solar eclipse "Eye of God" is a "Sign in the Heavens" that symbolizes God's divine omniscience. You may read about what Rev. Ray Drennan of the Unitarian Church of Montreal contemptuously dismissed as my "psychotic experience" here: http://revelationisnotsealed.homestead.com - This revelatory religious experience inspired me to propose an inter-religious celebration of Creation that would take place whenever a total solar eclipse took place over our planet. You may read about what Rev. Ray Drennan and other leading members of the Unitarian Church of Montreal falsely and maliciously labeled as a "cult" here: http://creationday.homestead.com - I am now an excommunicated Unitarian whose "alternative spiritual practice" includes publicly exposing and denouncing Unitarian*Universalist injustices, abuses, and hypocrisy. The Emerson Avenger blog will serve that purpose for me and hopefully others will share their concerns here. Dee Miller's term DIM Thinking is used frequently and appropriately on this blog. You may read more about what DIM Thinking is here - http://www.takecourage.org/defining.htm

Tuesday, October 31, 2006

Did The CUC Collude With The UUA To Redirect Trust Funds Intended For Charitable Purposes Back To The UUA Coffers?

One little, two little, three little skeletons. . .

Four little, five little, six little skeletons. . .

Seven little, eight little, nine little skeletons. . .

Ten little U*U skeletons.

And then some. . .


From: Robin Edgar - view profile
Date: Sun, May 26 2002 7:50 pm
Email: robin_ed...@altavista.com (Robin Edgar)
Groups: alt.religion.unitarian-univ

On Saturday May 18th, 2002 the Ottawa Citizen newspaper ran a very misleading article about the UUA CUC split. The headline attributed the split to differences over gay rights. CUC Executive Director was Mary Bennett was extensively quoted in the article so it seems that much of the misinformation is due to her feeding the reporter a few red herrings.

http://www.canada.com/search/site/story.asp?id=88566851-23F8-437B-A4E...

In a letter to the editor seeking a correction Bill Van Iterson, President of First Unitarian Congregation of Ottawa, said -

The big step now being taken flows almost inevitably from many years of concern over the dominant U.S. perspective and viewpoint within the UUA and from the steady growth of the CUC as an organization over the past 20 years. Finally, in the last few years some complex financial matters (including the weak loonie) have brought the issue to a head.

Those "complex financial matters" deserve a closer look. Here is my letter to the editor which may or may not be published by the Ottawa Citizen -


Letters to the Editor,
News Tips,
Bob Harvey,
Ottawa Citizen


I realize that this is rather long for a letter to the editor. Feel free to edit it or even suggest changes. Feel free to consider running it as an Op/Ed piece too. In any event please responsibly look into what I am saying and run some kind of follow up piece soon that corrects the misleading misinformation/propaganda provided to you by CUC Executive Director and "spin doctor" Mary Bennett


re. - Canadian, U.S. Unitarians split over gay rights Americans not ready to accommodate Canadian church's liberal principles, Saturday, May 18, 2002


The Ottawa Citizen might do well to do some competent investigative journalism about the split between the Canadian Unitarian Council and the Unitarian Universalist Association rather than happily swallowing the red herrings fed to it by CUC Executive Director Mary Bennett hook, line, and sinker. (If I may mix metaphors...) This "divorce" is not quite as "friendly" as Ms. Bennett would have the Canadian public believe and it has little to do with gay rights or Canadian Unitarians being more "liberal" than American ones. A free and responsible search for the truth behind this Unitarian "divorce" will reveal that money, and even the apparent "laundering" thereof, is very much at its root.

The poor exchange rate of the Canadian dollar was a major factor in this "divorce" since it affected how much Canadian Unitarians paid the UUA for various services; however, another form of "exchange" of money is sadly even more telling. I refer those who might be interested in the seeking truth behind this Unitarian "divorce" to Rev. Charles Eddis' 'draft sermon' titled CANADIAN UNITARIAN INDEPENDENCE: LOSS, RISK, AND OPPORTUNITY. It may be conveniently found on the web site of the Ottawa Unitarian Congregation.

See - http://www.uuottawa.com/cuc_eddis0.htm

This "sermon" shamelessly reveals that the UUA employed the CUC to divert funds from restricted trusts that were clearly meant to be used for charitable purposes outside of the USA back to the coffers of the UUA no doubt so that this money could be "put to better use".

The most pertinent passages from Rev. Charles Eddis' sermon are -

Then in 1983 another fund appeared, the Liberal Religious Charitable Society. Because of restrictions in the bequest, the UUA could only spend this money outside of the United States. Accord number four was then worked out. The CUC agreed to pay all the money it raised, less $4,000, to the UUA. The UUA, in return, would give the CUC the same amount out of the restricted funds of the Liberal Religious Charitable Society.

The net result, give or take $4,000, was that for every dollar the CUC raised in Canada, the UUA got two,- and the CUC kept for its own use all the money it raised. This was sufficient for the CUC to hire its first executive director, a full-time position, to add to its administrator, then Thelma Peters.

This double dipping, as Bert Christensen, one-time CUC President and later UUA Board member called it, was, as Bob Hope's theme song went, "swell while it lasted." In 1987 the party ended. The Veatch Fund stopped giving annual matching grants. Instead, it gave the UUA U.S. $20 million outright to complement its annual fund raising. In addition, the UUA broke the trust of the Liberal Religious Charitable Society, so that it could spend its income in the United States if it wanted to. The UUA income outside its own fund raising remained as before. The free ride in the UUA for the Canadian congregations, however, was over. The UUA wanted CUC payment for services rendered to Canadian congregations.

end quote

Had the UUA been unable to break this charitable trust via questionable legal manouvres it is likely that the CUC would still be "married" to the UUA today. As the title of Rev. Eddis' sermon suggests, the much vaunted "independence" of the CUC from the UUA is in reality more of an unwanted and un-asked-for "loss" and "risk" than an actively sought after "opportunity". Rev. Charles Eddis' bold assertions that UUism is an "ethical religion" (in CUC pamphlets) is belied by his "sermon" which shamelessly reveals what a British Unitarian justifiably refers to as, "A fairly extraordinary and shameless example of manipulation of trusts there!" This apparent manipulation of restricted UUA charitable trusts seems quite unethical at best however I wonder if it might not even be illegal under Canadian laws and/or US laws regulating charities and/or religions. Yes, the Canadian Unitarian Council's collusive "party" of financial "double dipping" that unethically diverted funds from restricted UUA trusts away from the foreign charitable purposes that they were originally intended for back to the coffers of the UUA may have been "swell while it lasted" but it was also remarkably shameful while it lasted.

It is true that the Unitarian "church" has its roots in the Christian tradition, but it has evidently betrayed its Christian roots. In fact Unitarianism has largely betrayed its monotheistic roots. Many Canadian Unitarians are agnostics and quite a few are even dogmatic fundamentalist atheists. It is sad but true that rather too many Canadian Unitarians, including some Unitarian clergy, are intolerant and abusive anti-religious bigots who belittle and malign God believing people in general and Christians in particular. Rev. Ray Drennan of the Unitarian "Church" of Montreal even offensively attacked the state funeral of former Canadian Prime Minister Pierre Elliot Trudeau. In a highly opinionated editorial in the Montreal
Gazette appropriately titled 'Wrong Message' (October 9, 2000) Rev. Drennan expressed his "uneasiness", his "irritation", and "even an anger" that it was a Roman Catholic rite. He even went so far as to label this Roman Catholic state funeral as a "sham" that "made a mockery" of Pierre Trudeau's own ideals and implied that it was a "meaningless" ritual. The Canadian Unitarian "church" is not only
divorced from the UUA it has effectively divorced itself from God. This is a far greater loss, a far greater risk, and the farthest thing from an opportunity.

Sincerely,


Robin Edgar


Another pertinent older post from Google Groups:

From: Robin Edgar - view profile
Date: Sat, Dec 21 2002 11:58 am
Email: robin_ed...@altavista.com (Robin Edgar)
Groups: alt.religion.unitarian-univ


Hi Greg,

I see you have started a whole new thread on the "Church of Fraud" concept. Could it be because you prefer that people don't see the fact that I shot down all the previous objections to my use of this picket sign slogan in flames in the original ARUU - What's It All About thread?

As I have already shown my use of the word "fraud" is hardly "vague". I can assure you that many passers-by of my local UU church who see my "CHURCH" OF FRAUD? picket sign slogan "love" it precisely because it applies to any number of other hypocritical churches that don't practice what they preach not just the Unitarian Church of Montreal... What most of them may not know is that it is pretty much "fraud" for the Unitarian Church of Montreal to call itself a "church" at all. This is the ultimate meaning of this picket sign slogan which obviously references the phrase "Church of God" although it refers to other UU "fraud" as well.

>However, at least two of these alternate-meaning sites preserved a modicum of precision by using adjectives, as in "spiritual fraud" or "doctrinal fraud".

Picket sign slogans are rarely noted for their "precision" but most of my picket sign slogans are in fact quite precise. The Unitarian Church of Montreal is guilty of "fraud" not only by purporting to be a "church" when it clearly is not a "church" in the "precise" sense of the word "church"... Above and beyond this the Unitarian Church of Montreal engages in "fraud" by purporting to uphold various ideals and principles that it flagrantly disregards and wantonly violates on an ongoing basis.

>There were several who, along with Robin, do not, such as one site claiming that the Roman Catholic Church is a fraud because it is not Christian.

Actually the Unitarian Church of Montreal, to say nothing of any number of other "Unitarian" "churches" is a "fraud" because its not Unitarian in the precise sense of the word either... Actually, one of the atheist members of this alleged Unitarian "church" already pointed this out in a letter to the "church" newsletter when there was discussion about replacing the word "church" with something else that was less fraudulent... In the end the congregation voted to maintain this "pious fraud" of Unitarian Church of Montreal. About the only word in its name that is not a fraud is Montreal...

>However, the best adjective I found was "pious". Apparently a "pious fraud" (see the first citation above) was a fraudulent (forged) manuscript or other object created by monks in the Dark Ages, with full connivance of their superiors, to sell to raise money for the monastery.

Well the "manuscripts" that are created by UUs in these "Dark Ages" of UUism may not be "forged" but they are still "fraudulent" in that they purport to adhere to certain principles and ideals and enforce certain policies and bylaws that UUs continuously disregard and violate, with the full connivance of their superiors... In that the fine, but quite evidently empty and insincere, words in these UU "manuscripts" are fully intended to attract members to UU "churches" and thus "raise money" for the UU "religious community" they are quite fraudulent even in the "precise" sense of the word.

>The bottom line is that if, as Robin would have it, the UU Church is a Church of Fraud, then this status should cement it strongly and centrally into the Christian tradition, not single it out as an object of disdain. Actually, I believe exactly the converse to be true (No fraud, therefore not in Christian mainstream).

Why am I not surprised that Greg uses my "CHURCH" OF FRAUD picket sign to take a swipe at Christianity as a whole while denying any fraud on the part of UUs? I have already pointed out the various ways in which the Unitarian Church of Montreal and indeed the greater UU "religious community" engage in "fraud" in the broader sense of the word. I have also pointed out that the slogan "CHURCH" OF FRAUD is indeed applicable in other ways to many other churches.

>However, my main point is that most instances where people talk about "fraud" with respect to a church, they mean actual fraud, like wire fraud or other scams, not "spiritual fraud" or "doctrinal fraud", and therefore Robin should desist, unless he has evidence of actual, criminal fraud (or even "pious" fraud).

Sorry Greg most people fully understand and appreciate (in every sense of the word...) the broader meaning of my "CHURCH" OF FRAUD picket sign. I am confident that few passers-by of the Unitarian Church of Montreal think for a second that my picket sign slogan refers to actual financial fraud. They know perfectly well that I am saying that the words of UU "covenants", principles, and other propaganda and publicity are so devoid of truthfulness and sincerity that they are effectively "fraud". I am sure that if they knew more of the gory details that most would agree that it is "fraud" for the Unitarian Church of Montreal to even call itself a "church"...

>P.S. I looked for a case in which a UU church actually did commit fraud, but the only instance I found was this one, in which the UU Church of Milford, NH, was helping to free a person accused of Visa (as in immigration, not credit cards) Fraud.

UUs are pretty good at covering up their errors and keeping them out of the public eye. You can be pretty sure that there have been instances of actual financial fraud committed by individual UU churches. It is not out of the question that the UUA as an organization has engaged in fraudulent financial practices too.

Here are a few paragraphs from a "sermon" of Rev. Charles Eddis -

Then in 1983 another fund appeared, the Liberal Religious Charitable Society. Because of restrictions in the bequest, the UUA could only spend this money outside of the United States. Accord number four was then worked out. The CUC agreed to pay all the money it raised, less $4,000, to the UUA. The UUA, in return, would give the CUC the same amount out of the restricted funds of the Liberal Religious
Charitable Society.

The net result, give or take $4,000, was that for every dollar the CUC raised in Canada, the UUA got two,- and the CUC kept for its own use all the money it raised. This was sufficient for the CUC to hire its first executive director, a full-time position, to add to its administrator, then Thelma Peters.

This double dipping, as Bert Christensen, one-time CUC President and later UUA Board member called it, was, as Bob Hope's theme song went, "swell while it lasted." In 1987 the party ended. The Veatch Fund stopped giving annual matching grants. Instead, it gave the UUA U.S. $20 million outright to complement its annual fund raising. In addition, the UUA broke the trust of the Liberal Religious Charitable Society, so that it could spend its income in the United States if it wanted to. The UUA income outside its own fund raising remained as before. The free ride in the UUA for the Canadian congregations, however, was over. The UUA wanted CUC payment for services rendered to Canadian congregations.

end quote

The financial arrangements described here are highly questionable. It could be suggested that this cynical manipulation of the Liberal Religious Charitable Society is a form of "fraud".

Another pertinent post by Robin Edgar aka The Emerson Avenger on Google Groups -

23 From: Robin Edgar - view profile
Date: Sat, Mar 16 2002 6:54 pm
Email: robin_ed...@altavista.com (Robin Edgar)
Groups: soc.religion.unitarian-univ

Irrelevant stuff sniffed

> At this point, it's hard for me to tell if it's made any noticeable
> difference. But, then again, I'm not as active with all aspects of our
> congregation as I could be. My understanding is that this is just one of
> those things that made sense, that CUC had come of age, and it just made
> sense for Canadian congregations to organize under that umbrella, rather
> than the U.S. one.

> Here's something that's posted on our church's website:

> CUC Coming of Age
> http://www.uuottawa.com/cuc_eddis0.htm

> Sue


Hi Sue,

My understanding is that the recent CUC "independence" from the UUA results from the fact that UUA finally brushed off the CUC because it no longer depended on the CUC to "launder" money from UUA trusts that were clearly intended for charitable purposes outside of the USA by redirecting these funds back to the coffers of the UUA for other purposes... This understanding is based on a rational assessment of the financial information that is quite shamelessly provided in Rev. Charles Eddis' "working paper" CANADIAN UNITARIAN INDEPENDENCE: LOSS, RISK, AND OPPORTUNITY that you have provided a link to.

Please note that the sub-heading of Rev. Charles Eddis' 'draft sermon' begins with the words "LOSS" and "RISK" before proceeding to "OPPORTUNITY"... This is a classic example of trying to making a silk purse out of a sow's ear. The CUC was not really seeking its new found "independence" from the UUA. The UUA simply decided to divest itself of its financial ties to the Canadian Unitarian Council because it no longer needed the CUC to unethically redirect funds from charitable trusts back to its coffers since it had managed to "break" the original terms of those trusts through questionable legal shenanigans. This is abundantly clear from the not so subtle subtext of Rev. Charles Eddis 'sermon'. I find it very disturbing that Charles Eddis
so shamelessly talks about how the Canadian Unitarian Council colluded with the Unitarian Universalist Association to effectively "launder" the money from these charitable trusts that had clear restrictions on how the money was to be used so that the Unitarian Universalist Association could use these laundered funds for other purposes.

The most pertinent passages from Charles Eddis' sermon are -

Then in 1983 another fund appeared, the Liberal Religious Charitable Society. Because of restrictions in the bequest, the UUA could only spend this money outside of the United States. Accord number four was then worked out. The CUC agreed to pay all the money it raised, less $4,000, to the UUA. The UUA, in return, would give the CUC the same amount out of the restricted funds of the Liberal Religious Charitable Society.

The net result, give or take $4,000, was that for every dollar the CUC raised in Canada, the UUA got two,- and the CUC kept for its own use all the money it raised. This was sufficient for the CUC to hire its first executive director, a full-time position, to add to its administrator, then Thelma Peters.

This double dipping, as Bert Christensen, one-time CUC President and later UUA Board member called it, was, as Bob Hope’s theme song went, "swell while it lasted." In 1987 the party ended. The Veatch Fund stopped giving annual matching grants. Instead, it gave the UUA U.S. $20 million outright to complement its annual fund raising. In addition, the UUA broke the trust of the Liberal Religious Charitable Society, so that it could spend its income in the United States if it wanted to. The UUA income outside its own fund raising remained as before. The free ride in the UUA for the Canadian congregations, however, was over. The UUA wanted CUC payment for services rendered to Canadian congregations.

end quote

As you can now probably see quite clearly the much vaunted new "independence" of the CUC from the UUA is in reality more of an unwanted and un-asked-for "loss" and "risk" than an actively sought after "opportunity". I'm afraid that it really does not say very much about Rev. Charles Eddis' bold assertion that UUism is an "ethical religion" in CUC pamphlets to see him so shamelessly talking about what one outside observer quite justifiably refers to as, "A fairly extraordinary and shameless example of manipulation of trusts there!" This obvious manipulation of restricted UUA charitable trusts is certainly quite unethical at best but I even wonder if it might not be quite illegal under Canadian laws and/or US laws regulating charities and/or religions. Yes, this CUC collusive "party" of financial "double dipping" that unethically diverted funds from restricted UUA trusts away from the charitable purposes that they were originally intended for back to the UUA may have been "swell while it lasted" but it was also remarkably shameful while it lasted in my opinion.

Regards,

Robin Edgar
--
soc.religion.unitarian-univ is a moderated newsgroup. Please mail messages to
u...@iecc.com, and see http://sruu.iecc.com for the FAQ and posting policy.

More about one of the primary real reasons that the UUA and CUC split, i.e. money. . . may be read in this address to the Unitarian Universalist Historical Society made by Rev. Charles Eddis, minister emeritus of the Unitarian Church of Montreal and a "founding father" of the Canadian Unitarian Council aka CUC aka CU*UC, during the UUA GA at Quebec City in 2002 -

Two years later, the UUA expressed its dissatisfaction with the seventh Accord. At the May 1997 annual meetings in Thunder Bay, Ontario, UUA President John Buehrens, stating that Canada was costing too much, informally offered three officials of the CUC one million dollars for the Canadians to go on their own. [25] After negotiations, in 1998 this Accord it was dissolved by mutual agreement of the CUC and the UUA. Wrote Kim Turner, CUC President from 1999 to 2001,

At the beginning, we had a hard time convincing the UUA that in fact we did not have an agenda to separate - and that we needed the congregations to tell us what they wanted.

Sex, Lies & U*U Rape - Egregious Sexual Abuse In The U*U Religious Community: Including, But Not Limited To. . . The Rev. Mack Mitchell Rape Case

Peacebang aka Rev. Victoria Weinstein recently got up on a very high horse and stridently pointed the finger at Roman Catholics over the issue of sexual abuse, and "community denial" thereof. . . on her 'Violating the Privacy of the Mind And the Body' thread of her Peacebang blog. There was not the slightest mention of U*U sexual abuse, aka U*U clergy sexual misconduct, committed by Unitarian*Universalist clergy in her original post that strongly criticized Catholics. When I pointed out to Rev. Victoria Weinstein of First Church Parish Norwell Massachusetts, aka Vicky: She-Wolf of the U*Us. . . that there were actually much worse cases of clergy sexual misconduct and sexual abuse than the Roman Catholic priest's alleged "fondling" of Mark Foley that she was stridently pointing the finger at within the U*U community itself, she promptly "memory holed" my problematic comment posts to her Peacebang blog and quite disingenuously asserted that the "topic" of her thread was how Roman Catholic theology contributed to sexual abuse by Roman Catholic clergy, and that any free and open discussion of any U*U clergy sexual misconduct was strictly verbotten on that thread of her blog. . .

Various other threads right here on The Emerson Avenger blog reveal what ensued. . . To make a not so long story short. I discovered that a parishioner in Rev. Victoria Weinstein's congregation of First Unitarian Parish Church in Norwell, Massachusetts, had recently been convicted of raping his neighbor's daughter and his own daughter. It appeared that Rev. Victoria Weinstein, in an act of deep psychological denial and misguided psychological projection. . . had seen fit to deal with that case of egregious sexual abuse that occurred within her own Unitarian*Universalist religious community by stridently pointing the finger at Roman Catholic sexual abuse issues. . . specifically the recent Mark Foley Revelations that he had allegedly been fondled by a Catholic priest as a youth.

I brought up the fact that the rape of two young Tibetan foreign exchange students by Unitarian*Universalist minister Rev. Mack Mitchell, just down the road in the First Parish Unitarian*Universalist Church of Framingham Massachusetts provided a much closer parallel to the serious sexual abuse situation that Rev. Victoria Weinstein was dealing with in her own Unitarian*Universalist parish in Norwell. Rev. Weinstein's parishioner was in his 60s when he allegedly raped his neighbors daughter and his own daughter, both of whom were prepubescent children at the time of the rapes. Her parishioner has been found guilty and convicted of two counts of rape with force of minors, and he is currently incarcerated in the Massachusetts Correctional Institute although he is appealing his convictions. Unitarian*Universalist minister Rev. Mack Mitchell was in his 50s when he, at the very least. . . statutorially raped, and allegedly sexually tortured, two young Tibetan women who he had lured from Tibet to his Unitarian*Universalist parish in Framingham, Massachusetts by promising them that he would treat them like his very own daughters. . .

Rev. Mack Mitchell was convicted of rape and served time in Massachusetts Correctional Institute aka MCI. One of his Tibetan victims spoke out about her ordeal on the Oprah Winfrey show about a year ago.

Herewith some pertinent quotes from the Oprah Show web site -

Kim was a Tibetan refugee living in southern India when Mack Mitchell, a (Unitarian*Universalist) minister who had befriended her sister, came to visit her family. The minister offered to take Kim to America and enroll her in school. "He promised my parents he'd keep me safe and treat me like his own daughters," she says.

Just a week after she arrived in America to live at the minister's house, Kim says, he started sexually abusing and torturing her. This continued for six years. "When I started to realize what was happening to me, I asked him to stop. I was crying and begging him," Kim says. "He told me that if I told anyone, I would go to prison. Later, he started to tell me that my family in India would go to prison, that no one would ever believe me, and no one would ever marry me. … My life was hell in this place here, night after night."

Makes you wonder how Rev. Mack Mitchell treated his own daughters, assuming he actually had daughters, doesn't it?

My browsing of various online forums that speak about the Rev. Mack Mitchell rape case indicate that there was a certain amount of DIM Thinking Denial, Ignorance and Minimization of Rev. Mack Mitchell's egregious clergy sexual abuse of his two Tibetan guests when they reported that they had been raped by him.

This thread will evolve over time. . .

Nazi Unit-Aryans? Was The Post-WWII German Unitarian Community Subverted By Convicted Nazi War Criminals As Alleged By German Anti-Fascist Groups?

This is a question that I have posed to U*Us since I first heard about alleged Nazi infiltration and subversion of the German Unitarian religious community when a German Unitarian visiting Montreal complained about how Nazi (his word) U*U "Humanists" were making it difficult for him to introduce a more spiritual approach to Unitarian worship in the German Unitarian religious community. So far. . . I have not received any even remotely satisfactory answers to my questions and U*Us have much preferred to cover-up and deny, via Unitarian church censorship and suppression by "memory holing" these disturbing allegations made by German anti-racist and anti-fascist groups that the post WWII German Unitarian religious community served as a camouflage front group for White Supremacist Nazi ideologues, some of whome were SS officers and convicted war criminals.

For now I am just posting some archived material. It appears that all of the threads relating to the subject of alleged Nazi ideologues allegedly subverting the German Unitarian religious community on Beliefnet have been completely purged by U*U "memory hole" operators who set themselves up as U*U "hosts" on Beliefnet. . . Fortunately I have everything archived somewhere and DIM Thinking U*U "memory hole" operators were not able to "memory hole" posts that were made elsewhere on the internet such as in the alt-uu section of Google groups. . .

From: Robin Edgar - view profile
Date: Thurs, Jan 30 2003 1:40 pm
Email: robin_ed...@altavista.com (Robin Edgar)
Groups: alt.religion.unitarian-univ

Did Nazi ideologues, some of whom were "incriminated" "internees" following WWII, subvert the German Unitarian religious community from the late 1940's up to the late 1980's? Were there Nazi Unitarians even during in the 1930's?

This post that I made in another UU forum updates the German Unit-Aryans issue -

> Dietrich Bonhoeffer and other evangelical leaders were ultimately killed by
> Hitler for their unwillingness to rubber stamp his attacks on the
Jews.

> Tip

Dare I raise the issue of apparently "sound" and well documented allegations made by German anti-fascist groups that the German Unitarian community was subverted by Nazi ideologues following WWII?

I raised this issue some months ago on ICUU-L and my posts about these allegations were promptly censored and suppressed. It soon became obvious that it was "verboten" to discuss these allegations on ICUU-L which, needless to say, did nothing to inspire confidence in me that these disturbing allegations are largely spurious...

It would seem that my persistent raising of this disturbing issue in ICUU-L and other UUA lists, which led to being banned for weeks and even months, actually resulted in the Deutsche Unitarier Religionsgemeinschaft issuing a statement on their web site as I suggested they should do in some of my posts. I just found it minutes ago after running a Google search on German Unitarian Nazi.

http://www.unitarier.de/statement.html

Ironically if one reads this statement it admits that Nazis whose "degree of being incriminated was superior to a certain level" did in fact join the Deutsche Unitarier Religionsgemeinschaft following their release from Allied internment camps and it also makes it clear that some of them later left the DUR in the 1970's and 1980's and "founded divergent associations" as is alleged by the anti-fascist activists...

It is not mentioned in this dubious denial that at least one of these "divergent associations" chose to continue to call themselves Unitarians. The German word for Unitarian is "Unitarier". The German word for Aryan is Arier, thus Unitarier could readily be read by Nazi ideologues as "United Aryans". quite convenient if you did want to form a camouflage neo-Nazi group.

The DUR statement, which looks like a typical "non-denial denial" to me, says that "Among those who came then to the D.U. for instance, the internees again were a minority." This in no way means that this minority of "incriminated" Nazis did not have influential leadership positions within the DUR (as alleged by German anti-fascist groups in fact they claim that the DUR was initially founded by Nazi ideologues in the late forties or early fifties) nor does it in any way follow that the majority of non-internee German "Unitarier" did not share the Nazi ideology of the actual incriminated internees and were not effectively their "followers".

This non-denial denial concludes by saying "Today, this aspect (of the 1930ies and 1940ies) within our 125 years old history is passed." I find this interesting because it actually suggests that there were Nazi Unit-Aryans (as it were) prior to WWII. It ignores the fact that post WWII "this aspect" actually extended from the late 1940's or early 1950's right up until the late 1980's if not later. If "this aspect" of the DUR has in fact ended it only ended quite recently. Personally I believe that "this aspect" of the German Unitarian religious community should be responsibly looked into by UUs today and international Unitarians should take steps to ensutre that any Nazi influence within the DUR is in fact a thing of the past even if only the comparatively recent past.

For more information about these allegations run a Google search using pertinent key words. There is minimal English language information available but German language anti-fascist sites can be reasonably accurately translated using Altavista's Babel Fish translator or similar online translation programs. A search on Unitarier and Nazi will find most of the German language web sites.

Reply from gkshenaut removed to avoid censorship due to copyright issues etc.

Click here to read the full thread on this subject on Google Groups.

Robin Edgar wrote (30 Jan 2003 10:40:15 -0800):

Reply

3 From: Robin Edgar - view profile
Date: Fri, Jan 31 2003 12:16 am
Email: robin_ed...@altavista.com (Robin Edgar)
Groups: alt.religion.unitarian-univ

Your point is well taken however my point remains very valid. I expect most Germans fully understand the meaning of the Latin root "Unit" and "Arier" is the German word for Aryan. The fact of the matter is that the German anti-fascist groups refer to alleged Nazi Unitarians as "Unit-Arier" on some of their web sites. Run a Google search on the term unit-arier and you will see what I mean.

BTW I am not making these allegations I am only reporting allegations that already exist on the internet and which were first brought to my attention by a German Unitarian. I am not in a position to verify these disturbing allegations but I must say that these appear to be quite well researched and at least founded on some core verifiable truths. The denials of the Deutsche Unitarier Religionsgemeinschaft are not very convincing. The attempts by the ICUU and UUA to censor and suppress my sharing of my concerns about these allegations about Nazi Unit-Aryans on ICUU-L and other UUA lists such as antiracist-l tend to indicate that there may be rather more truth to these disturbing allegations about post-WWII subversion of the German Unitarian community by Nazi ideologues than UU leaders would care to
admit.

Reply deleted to avoid censorship arising from copyright issues etc.

Reply

5 From: Robin Edgar - view profile
Date: Fri, Jan 31 2003 5:24 pm
Email: robin_ed...@altavista.com (Robin Edgar)
Groups: alt.religion.unitarian-univ

The whole point is that these alleged Nazi Unitarians were prominent and influential members of the post-WWII German Unitarian community from about 1950 to the late 1980's if not well into the 1990's. Most if not all of those German Unitarians named in these allegations are now dead. Ironically the rather dubious official DUR denials actually indicate that there may well have been Nazi German Unitarians even in the 1930's and during WWII.

My German is limited but I took two semesters worth of German courses in college so with the BabelFish translator informed by my basic knowledge of German I can get a pretty firm grasp on the German language allegations. They are not flattering and they look pretty well researchedc and documented and quite plausible. At one point in my sharing of my concerns about these allegations on ICUU-L one German Unitarian said that the allegations about Nazi German were "absolutely not true". I followed up by asking if the specific allegations about individual named German Unitarian leaders who were alleged to be former SS members etc. were "absolutely not true". There was no response at all to my pointed questions and then the "moderator" of
the list moved to suppress the whole subject by calling for an end to any and all discussion of these allegations. This is all well-documented. You can join ICUU-L and download the whole list archives. Run a search on appropriate key words and phrases within the file and you will see not only the specific allegations but how UUs responded to censor and suppress them when I shared my legitimate concerns about them on ICUU-L...

This thread will evolve over time. . .

What With It Being Hallowe'en And All. . . It Seems Like As Good A Time As Any To Drag Some Rickety Old Skeletons Out Of The Closet Of U*Us World-Wide

Tonight will be dedicated to dealing with a few skeletons that are still at least partially closeted in the U*U World, due in no small measure to DIM Thinking U*U community denial and even active U*U community institutional cover-up and denial.

Monday, October 30, 2006

Happy Birthday To The Emerson Avenger! Who Is One Year Older And Wiser Today!

Well the first posts to The Emerson Avenger blog were made in late October last year with the first blog posts being made on October 30th, 2005. I guess that means that that Transcendentalist Super Hero known through out the U*U World and some of the real world as The Emerson Avenger can officially celebrate his first birthday today. Anyone wishing to wish The Emerson Avenger a happy first birthday is welcome to do so in this thread which is reserved for that purpose. Anything other than birthday greetings posted to this thread will be treated as SPAM and ignored or forgiven but not deleted. . .

Update: I just noticed that my blogger profile indicates that I have made 364 post to The Emerson Avenger blog in the year that it has been up. I guess I will have to add one more just to make is a post a day. I also notice that my profile views is presently at 1227. A week or so ago it was under 1000 but well into the 900s. That means that there has been some traffic here in the last week or so and I haven't even done all that much to drive traffic here. In fact, statistically speaking, it would seem that in the last week or so there has been the equivalent of 25% of the previous year's traffic here and I have done little to promote The Emerson Avenger blog. . .

Sunday, October 29, 2006

A U*U Intelligence Test Courtesy Of U*U Super Hero Ultrasonic U*U

Ulrasonic U*U said:


It is impossible to maintain the integrity of a church of "intellectuals" when there is no test of intelligence required for membership.

No kidding. . .

I think that is why Canadian religion writer Tom Harpur recently described U*Us as being " a group of do-gooder, would-be intellectuals". . . Of course the U*U *would*be* intellectuals took these words as a ringing endorsement of U*Uism and posted Tom Harpur's words to their web sites.

Doh!

ROTFLMU*UO

Saturday, October 28, 2006

Meanwhile Over On The U*U Debate Section Of Beliefnet GodKnowsWho Deigns To Argue With An U*U

GodKnowsWho 10/10/2006 9:24 PM

23 out of 25

The fact of the matter is that U*Us aren't half as tolerant as they claim to be. There is a lot of intolerance of various kinds within U*Uism. In my experience liberal North American Roman Catholics are quite a bit more tolerant than a good number of the U*Us I know. Most liberal Christian denominations are every bit as tolerant as U*Uism. One thing that is unique to U*Uism however is the outright anti-religious intolerance and bigotry of the fundamentalist atheist faction of "Humanist" U*Us. How many other religious groups do you know of where God believing people, including bona fide Unitarians. . . are quite regularly subjected to disdain, contempt, hostility and outright abuse by militant atheists?

Snip post responded to point by point below -

GodKnowsWho 10/28/2006 11:48 PM
25 out of 25

:You are comparing apples to oranges: general Catholics, general Christians, compared to a "faction" of humanist UUs.

Wrong Kim. I specifically said "liberal" Catholics and "liberal" Christians who are a "faction" of general Catholics and general Christians.

Thanks however for acknowledging here that anti-religious militant fundamentalist atheist "Humanists" are in fact a "faction" within the U*U religious community.

:That's not fair.

See above. Yes it is.

:Each of those other groups has "factions" that are just as intolerant as any of our "factions",

That is a fact Kim! Bravo!

I am in no way denying the fact that other religious groups have intolerant and abusive "factions", that is precisely why I spoke about "liberal" Christians and Catholics. But thanks once again for effectively acknowledging that the U*U religious community has "factions" that are just as intolerant of those of other religious groups. I dare say I know some U*U Taliban ayatollahs as it were. I definitely know some Stalinistic fundamentalist atheist "Humanist" U*Us who, besides hating God believing people aren't too "Welcoming" towards Republicans either. . .

:and a faction of humanist UUs is a faction of a faction because we are not all humanists.I am perfectly aware of that Kim that is why I almost always specifically refer to fundamentalist atheist "Humanist" U*Us in order to distinguish the intolerant militant disciples of Dawkins from the more "liberal" and tolerant U*U Humanists who are ready, willing and able to get along quite nicely with their God believing neighbours.

:You are getting carried away with your own hatred and bigotry.

Wrong. I am very careful to target the intolerant and abusive "fundie" atheist bigots. I do not paint with too broad a brush. I am not a bigot and I don't even "hate" the "fundie" atheists bigots. I just have a bit of a problem with their discrimination and harassment of God believing people. Especially when it happens in a U*U "church" on any given Sunday, as you well know happens here and there in the U*U World.

:You have "clevered" yourself into a corner and can't get out.... good luck.

Wrong Kim. See above. I am not in any corner at all.

You on the other hand just "dumbed" yourself down into a U*U hole. But speaking of U*Us having "clevered" themselves into a corner, or perhaps I should say having dug a hole for themselves. . . you might want to check out this oh so U*U PDF file.

Allah prochaine Kim. . .

Philistine U*U Propagandist Promotes Pathologically Puerile Purple Puppet Pathetically Propagandizing Purported Principles & Purposes on U*UTube?! :-)

Oh say can U*Us see. . .

The Pawn's Pathetic Hypocrisy?

Puerile Philistine Propaganda for the U*U eh. . .


P.S. to certain U*U Philistines:

Yes, I know about the alliteration in the title;

I'm sorry.


P.P.S. PHILISTINE, n. One whose mind is the creature of its environment, following the fashion in thought, feeling and sentiment.

Ambrose Bierce (1842 - 1914), The Devil's Dictionary

The Silence Of The U*Us. . .

Oppression can only survive through silence.

Carmen de Monteflores


To sin by silence when they should protest makes cowards of men.

Abraham Lincoln (1809 - 1865)


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

Martin Luther King, Jr.


A leader must be constantly aware of the power of his words. . .
and his silences.

Simon MacDonald


Too often the strong silent man is silent
because he does not know what to say,
and is reputed strong only because
he has remained silent.

Winston Churchill


Silence is the most perfect expression of scorn.

George Bernard Shaw (1856 - 1950)


cold silence has a tendency
to atrophy any sense of compassion,
between supposed lovers,
between supposed brothers.
And I know the pieces fit.

Maynard James Keenan, in the song "Schism", by Tool


Loss of empathy might well be
the most enduring and deep-cutting scar of all,
the silent blade of an unseen enemy,
tearing at our hearts and stealing more than our strength.

R. A. Salvatore, Drizzt Do'Urden in "The Silent Blade"


The cruelest lies are often told in silence.

Robert Louis Stevenson (1850 - 1894)


The silent bear no witness against themselves.

Aldous Huxley (1894 - 1963)


You have not converted a man because you have silenced him.

John Viscount Morley


Whatever is silenced will clamour to be heard, though silently.

Margaret Atwood, The Handmaid's Tale


The attempt to silence a man
is the greatest honor you can bestow on him.
It means that you recognize his superiority to yourself.

Joseph Sobran

Go Ahead. . . Make My Day U*Us. . . Go And Get The Proverbial "Other Side Of The Story"

Every now and then a U*U claims to want to know the proverbial "other side of the story". They usually limit it to Rev. Ray Drennan's side of the story, which in many ways is a rather small (albeit very significant) part of the proverbial "Big Picture". U*Us like to focus in on Rev. Ray Drennan when they find that they can't realistically pin the blame for this ludicrious war of words on the victim, after desperately trying to do so of course. . . When U*Us realize that I have valid serious grievances that arise from what Chalicechick recently referred to as Rev. Ray Drennan's "paranoid accusations" against me, they try to use him as a convenient scapegoat for all of the collusive sins and all of the complicit silence of the U*Us that have blamed the victim of these "paranoid accusations" for over a decade now. This too is most certainly U*U DIM Thinking that seeks to Deny, Ignore and Minimize the role of dozens and even hundreds, if not a few thousand. . . other U*Us in the conflict that was provoked by Rev. Drennan's "paranoid accusations" that Creation Day is a "cult" and that my revelatory religious experience was a "psychotic experience".

It should be obvious to U*Us of intelligence and conscience, to say nothing of other people of intelligence and conscience. . . that Rev. Ray Drennan did not single handedly throw me out of the Unitarian Church of Montreal for complaining about his "injurious and untrue" "insulting and defamatory" "paranoid accusations" about me that arose from his fundamentalist atheists anti-religious intolerance and bigotry. Dozens of U*Us aided him and abetted him in this classic act of DIM Thinking U*U "community denial" that makes the Unitarian Church of Montreal the "poster church" for U*U "community denial"; at least until an even worse example comes to light which hopefully won't happen. Who knows though? There may well be a U*U church that is an even worse example of DIM Thinking U*U "community denial" somewhere out there in the U*U World. Maybe even a small handful of them.

Rev. Ray Drennan's anti-religious intolerance and bigotry was rubber stamped by the UUA and the Ministerial Fellowship Committee under the directorships of both Rev. Diane Miller and Rev. David Hubner. Rev. Diane Miller, the Executive Director of the Ministerial Fellowship Committee even had the DIM Thinking unmitigated gall to state in writing that the Executive of the Ministerial Fellowship Committtee had found that Rev. Ray Drennan's intolerant, verbally and psychologically abusive, clergy misconduct, that effectively labeled me as "psychotic" and Creation Day as a "cult", "seemed to us (please note the use of the word "us". . .) to be within the appropriate guidelines of ministerial leadership." Hundreds of other U*U are aware of my grievances but prefer to spend their time and energy trying to discredit and deny my legitimate grievances in more DIM Thinking U*U "community denial", rather than spend the same or similar amount of time and energy (to say nothing of a little bit more. . .) living up to their claimed principles and ideals working towards a resolution of this ludicrous conflict that embodies the purported principles and purpose of U*Uism. Where might we be today if U*Us who have known about this conflict for several years now, to say nothing of those who have become aware of it more recently, had spent the same amount of time and energy that they have spent trying to undermine my ability to seek genuine justice, equity and compassion from U*Us on demanding that Montreal Unitarians and the Ministerial Fellowship Committee explain their actions, or indeed lack thereof. . . and demanding that U*Us finally
provide some real justice and accountability in this matter?

Over on the moribund U*U Debate section of Beliefnet allpoints23, who may be the same allpoints who posted some DIM Thinking commentary here recently used the old saw -

"I wan to hear the Reverend Ray's side of the story."

Here is my response to that question:

GodKnowsWho
10/28/2006 11:53 AM 11 out of 11

So do I. . .

I want to see if he is still lying about what he said. So why don't you go get his side of the story and post it here allpoints. I want to read it myself and point out any dissimulation and lies. You do realize that he offered a lame expedient apology about a year and a half after he attacked me don't you? He would now be rather hard pressed to deny having said what he actually said after having lamely apologized for it.

But this is by no means just about Rev. Ray Drennan allpoints. It is about the hundreds and even the thousands of other intolerant and abusive U*Us who are scattered throughout the U*U World and who turn many U*U congregations into distinctly "Unwelcoming Congregations" to Christians and conservatives, non-Christian theists like me and others, and plenty of other good people of intelligence and conscience. This conflict continues because the Board and congregation of the Unitarian Church of Montreal not only did nothing to responsibly redress my grievances but punished me for airing them by expelling me from the "church". The UUA's Department of Ministry effectively rubber stamped Rev. Ray Drennan's egregious anti-religious intolerance and bigotry by pretending that it was "within the guidelines of ministerial leadership" for Rev. Drennan to maliciously label Creation Day as "your cult" and to contemptuously dismiss my highly rational monotheistic beliefs about God as being nothing but "silliness and fantasy" arising from a "psychotic experience". . .

Hundreds of DIM Thinking U*Us are implicated in this matter either because they actively were similarly intolerant and abusive and/or participated in the victim blaming punitive measures that I was subjected to for complaining about Rev. Ray Drennan's, and a few other Montreal U*Us egregious anti-religious intolerance that arose out of their fundamentalist atheist "Humanist" beliefs. How many people do you know who want to go to a "church" where they may be confronted by obnoxious intolerant fundie atheist bigots who contemptuously dismiss their monotheistic religious beliefs allpoints? How many Christian oriented believers want to go to U*U "churches" where Christianity is repeatedly mocked? How many conservatives want to go to a "church" where they are treated as idiots and pariahs by leftist extremists or even the congregation as a whole allpoints? Sure there are a few good U*U churches here or there where this happens rarely. At least I would hope there are a few. . . But you and other U*Us know what I am talking about so don't be surprised if people choose not to attend U*U Unwelcoming Congegations on any given Sunday.

If you want to contact Drennan Google - Drennan and Bouctouche - and then take it from there. You will find him hiding out in the backwoods of New Brunswick to avoid facing accountability for his "paranoid accusations" and other abusive clergy misconduct. While you are at it why don't you contact the Unitarian Church of Montreal and ask their side of the story so we can discuss it here. Ditto for the UUA's Ministerial Fellowship Committee. email them. Ask what happened. Ask why they did nothing to hold Drennan accountable. Ask why I was thrown out of the church for writing letters and later for peacefully protesting against U*U injustices and abuses. Ask them to back any claims they make with documentary evidence like I do. . . I expect that you won't get very far allpoints because they screwed up badly and they know it. . .

Everybody Matters? My U*U Everybody Matters. . .

More U*U false advertising. . .

Everybody Matters My U*U. . .

Thursday, October 26, 2006

More On DIM Thinking For U*Us To Consider. . .

The acronym DIM Thinking is copyright of clergy sexual misconduct crusader Dee Miller. DIM Thinking is an insidious synthesis of Denial, Ignorance and Minimization that Dee Miller defines as: "the conscious or unconscious collaboration of two or more individuals to protect those engaged in unethical practices." Dee Miller's web site about DIM Thinking complicity and collusion in clergy misconduct may be viewed here. Dee Miller agrees with my assessment that the term DIM Thinking has a much broader application than just clergy sexual abuse cases, as should be clear from her own broad definition provided above. . . and that it is perfectly justifiable for The Emerson Avenger to use it to describe the deep Denial, obstinate willful Ignorance and cynical Minimization that Montreal Unitarians, the UUA's Ministerial Fellowship Committee, and many other DIM Thinking U*Us engage in, in their negligent and complicit response to non-sexual clergy misconduct as well, such as the verbally and psychologically abusive clergy misconduct of Rev. Ray Drennan.

Some of the most important truths needed by truth-telling survivors are:

1) ABUSE IS A COMMUNITY PROBLEM.

This means that every adult in a specific community or institution has an obligation to help maintain safety. If persons of rank (e.g. parents in families, administrators in schools, clergy in churches) are not doing their jobs, the lower ranking adults (e.g. other relatives, teachers, parents and laity) must speak out.


2) SECRECY AND FEAR ARE THE PROTECTORS OF THE PERPETRATORS.

When others consistently support survivors by speaking out and standing firm against abuse, we will see change.


3) WHILE IT IS NOT POLITICALLY CORRECT TO “BLAME THE VICTIM,” A LOT OF FOLKS DO.

It shows up in attitudes and actions, as well as words.


4) JUSTICE IS SELDOM ACHIEVED, either in or out of the courts, in 1995.

We have a long way to go before we can add this to our list of realistic expectations.


5) ROLE-REVERSAL THINKING IS STILL THE NORM.

It treats the perpetrator as the victim and the victim as the perpetrator.


6) THE MEDIA GIVES US JUST THE HEADLINES.

The world remains largely ignorant of the hidden suffering victims endure.
Most of that suffering is brought on by people afraid of the truth.

Monday, October 23, 2006

The Emerson Avenger Hereby Re*butts More U*U DIM Thinking Courtesy Of ChaliceChick

Herewith The Emerson Avenger's point-by-point rebuttal of ChaliceChick's recent comment that accused him of doing the UUA a "big favor" by "outing" Peacebang as Rev. Victoria Weinstein of the First Unitarian Parish of Norwell Massachusetts. I am posting my response as a new thread because I want to be able to make any necessary additions, changes or corrections etc.

:You know, Peacebang had been really vocal about airing criticisms of the UUA.

Really? Coulda fooled me CC. . . Rev. Victoria Weinstein has only has 11 posts that even mention the UUA at all on her Peacebang blog and not all of them are airing criticisms of the UUA. In fact if I run a search on Unitarian Universalist Association on her blog I only get a grand total of three search results. . .

One post airs her criticisms of the way that UUA staff represent themselves as "the UUA". A legitimate complaint but one that is pretty much "old news" and is regularly aired openly and vocally by plenty of other U*Us, clergy and otherwise, who do not feel any need to hide behind the cloak of anonymity. . .

One post is about the old principles of the UUA and is not particularly critical of the UUA, although I do note with some satisfaction that it does mention that Rev. Weinstein is "writing a paper about how Unitarian Universalist narcissism and individualism (exemplified in our egotistical interpretation of our first principle) lead us to shallow forms of worship" to say nothing of DIM Thinking in response to diverse injustices and abuses with the U*U religious community. . . Unfortunately Rev. Victoria Weinstein has clearly demonstrated via her words and actions (or lack thereof. . .) that she is unready, unwilling and apparently even unable to live up to these older UUA principles that she claims to love.

One of the three posts is however far more critical of the AUC than the UUA. . .

:I wonder if she will feel as comfortable doing so now that you've "outed" her.

Well instead of wondering if Peacebang aka Rev. Victoria Weinstein will feel as comfortable about purportedly being "really vocal about airing criticisms of the UUA" now that I have allegedly "outed" her why don't you enter into a genuinely free and responsible search for a truthful and meaningful answer to that question by asking her to answer it herself?

:Probably not. I doubt there would ever be direct repercussions,

Probably not. . . I doubt the UUA would ever accuse Rev. Victoria Weinstein of slander or libel, or threaten to sue her or to even call in the "civil authorities" aka the police, in an effort to impose U*U church censorship by proxy of the state. . . With any luck no U*U will see fit to threaten her with bodily assault or actually assault her.

:but it's probably easier to be fully honest about problems in an organization you're part of when you're anonymous.

Oh you mean like how Anonymous U*U has been oh so fully honest about problems in an organization that he, she or it is part of? Have I been any less vocal and honest about serious problems in the UUA? And just how fully honest has Rev. Victoria Weinstein been about UUA (mis)handling of serious problems like U*U clergy misconduct including, but by no means limited to. . . sexual abuse and even rape committed by abusive U*U ministers on her Peacebang blog?

:My guess is she won't be as direct about problems any more.

Why guess CC? Why not ask or just wait and see?

:If I were at the UUA, I'd send you a thank-you card for that little stunt.

What "little stunt" is that CC? My alleged "outing" of Rev. Victoria's Secret?

:You've done them a big favor by silencing someone who was critical of them.

ROTFLMU*UO CC

Why do you ass*ume that I am guilty of "silencing" Peacebang ChaliceChick? It is Rev. Victoria Weinstein's prerogative to decide whether or not my "outing" of Peacebang will actually result in "silencing" her. I am in no way guilty of "silencing" Peacebang aka Rev. Victoria Weinstein. Rev. Victoria Weinstein is in fact far more guilty of "silencing" someone who had been (and still is. . .) "really vocal about airing criticisms of the UUA" (to say nothing of other U*U organizations. . .) as the incontrovertible evidence of the numerous posts from The Emerson Avenger to her Peacebang blog that she has deleted aka "memory holed". N'est-ce pas?

I dare say that Peacebang has repeatedly done a big favor to the UUA, the UUA's Ministerial Fellowship Committee, the Unitarian Church of Montreal, Rev. Ray Drennan, Rev. Diane Miller, and the ongoing "community denial" of the U*U religious community more generally with her DIM Thinking participation in U*U church censorship and suppression, and institutional cover-up and denial of my legitimate grievances. I expect that Rev. Victoria Weinstein just might have a tidy little stack of thank-you cards from all of those grateful U*Us stashed away somewhere. . . Heck Peacebang even "memory holed" one of her own demeaning and abusive comments about me in this old thread in an U*U covering attempt to cover-up and deny her remarkably DIM Thinking insinuation that yours truly is a "hostile crazy". . .

My Irony?

Oh dear me. . . how ironic.

Anonymous said...

Yep, I will say that Southerners seem to have an impressive ability to "not discuss" things. It's at the root of much of my family's dysfuncton...which of course, we don't discuss.


Peacebang said...

Comment moderation has been enabled. All comments must be approved by the blog author.


The Emerson Avenger said...

Yep, I will say that the U*Us I know seem to have an impressive ability to "not discuss" things. It's at the root of much of U*Uism's dysfunction. . . which of course, U*Us don't discuss.

"Yep, this certainly is extremely painful"

"I noticed that this is a fairly serious dysfunctional problem"

Now how about that KISS Peacebang?


But I don't expect Peacebang aka 'Miss U*U Community Denial 2006' to approve that comment. . . So I am posting it here instead.

Sunday, October 22, 2006

Breaking News. . . A DIM Thinking U*U Complains To Dee Miller About The Emerson Avenger's Use Of The Term DIM Thinking

OK In brief - Earlier tonight I received an email from Dee Miller, the anti clergy sexual abuse crusader who coined the the term DIM Thinking. It was just a brief note stating that she held copyright in the term DIM thinking and asking me too credit her and provide a link to her web site when I made use of it.

Here is my response to Dee Miller's email -

Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2006 21:51:19 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Robin Edgar"
Subject: Re: DIM thinking
To: xxxxxxdee@cox.net

Hi Dee,

Thank you for contacting me about my use of your DIM Thinking acronym.

I have given you credit for it as this Google search should demonstrate -

http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Robin+Edgar%22+%22Dee+Miller%22+DIM+Thinking&hl=en&lr=&rls=GGLR,GGLR:2006-03,GGLR:en&filter=0

http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&rls=GGLR,GGLR:2006-03,GGLR:en&q=%22Robin%20Edgar%22%20%22Dee%20Miller%22%20DIM%20Thinking&sa=N&tab=wg

In that I use it quite frequently, and I believe quite appropriately. . . giving credit to you every single time that I make use of it would be a real chore. Imagine if copyright holders of various other short acronyms, to say nothing of brand names etc. required you to give full credit every time you use their acronyms or phrases. It just is not practical.

I will add your website to those posts that I have made where it is possible to do so. I usually link to the appropriate page in any case which provides adequate credit I would hope.

I have actually considered contacting you in the past because Unitarian Universalists have accused me of misusing your DIM Thinking acronym because the case of abusive clergy misconduct that I am dealing with does not involve sexual misconduct. From my perspective the dynamic of DIM Thinking Denial, Ignorance and Minimization has a much broader application than just those cases of clergy misconduct that involve sexual misconduct and expect you will agree with me on that. I would ask that you read some of the posts that I have made in which I describe the obvious Denial, remarkably obstinate willful Ignorance and clear Minimization of Unitarian Universalists in their response to my grievances arising from the anti-religious intolerance and bigotry of a fundamentalist atheist "Humanist" U*U Minister who macked and ridiculed my monotheistic religious beliefs and labeled a revelatory religious experience that I was trying to explain to him as "your psychotic experience". He also maliciously labeled an interreligious celebration of Creation that I had successfully organized as "your cult". Classic witch hunt tactics don't you think?

I would appreciate it if you would grant me general permission to use your DIM Thinking acronym where appropriate. I would also appreciate it if you would review my use of it and write a note acknowleding that I am using it appropriately and that Unitarian Universalists are in fact behaving in a way that can appropriately be described as DIM Thinking in their ongoing Denial, Ignorance and Minimization of not only my legitimate grievances but their obvious complicity and collusion in Rev. Ray Drennan's anti-religious intolerance and bigotry.

Best Regards,

Robin Edgar


Dee Miller's prompt response to my email was to write back to me saying -

Thanks. That's fine -- I didn't find it on the page I was sent to, by someone who was upset by your use of it.


So, as I had suspected might be the case. . . "someone" had sent Dee Miller an email complaining about my use of her term DIM Thinking. No doubt they hoped that Dee Miller would demand that I stop using her term which describes an insidious synthesis of Denial, Ignorance and Minimization that is effectively a form of complicity and collusion in abusive clergy misconduct, sexual or otherwise. . . Indeed, as I pointed out the term DIM Thinking has a much broader application than just clergy sexual misconduct. So it looks like that "someone", to say nothing of a fair number of other DIM Thinking U*Us. . . is going to be rather disappointed to learn that Dee Miller has no problem whatsoever with me using her acronym DIM Thinking to describe the deep Denial (including "institutional denial", "community denial", and other forms of denial) of U*Us, the obstinate willful Ignorance of U*Us, and U*U Minimization of not only my original serious grievances arising from Rev. Ray Drennan's demeaning and abusive clergy misconduct but also the subsequent complicity and collusion of U*Us in this matter.

See - http://www.takecourage.org

http://www.takecourage.org/disorder.htm

http://www.advocateweb.org/hope/howlittle.asp

http://www.advocateweb.org/HOPE/spiritualhealing.asp

The Emerson Avenger's Point-By-Point Response To Peacebang's Theological Reflection About Sexual Abuse

From - Violating the Privacy of the Mind And the Body

:This just makes me ill. It's like a primer on Pathologically Not Getting It:

:http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/20/washington/20priest.html?th&emc=th

Well what about this Peacebang? Doesn't this just make you ill?

http://www.townonline.com/norwell/localRegional/view.bg?articleid=584268&format=text

:Oh yeah, they swam nude and the priest fondled him when he was 12 years old but it wasn't "rape or penetration or anything like that," so "let bygones be bygones."

Oh yeah, they had a sleep over and the parishioner had intercourse with her when she was 11 years old and that was in fact "rape or penetration or anything like that", so let's not "let bygones be bygones" Peacebang.

:"Remember the good times we had" and get over it already. And the neighbor, what a BRILLIANT insight: "He couldn't have done this because he was so quiet." Let's make her our new poster girl for community denial.

Well quite frankly I think that Peacebang aka Rev. Victoria Weinstein and Rev. Diane Miller, to say nothing of Krystina Matula, Elizabeth Champion Speyer and a few other DIM Thinking female U*Us that I have the misfortune to know make pretty good poster girls for U*U "community denial"; however, I can't help but wonder if Peacebang would care to make Richard Buell's nephew a poster boy for "community denial" in light of this BRILLIANT insight that he expressed on his blog a while back. . .

upsetting

Apparently my uncle has been charged with the raping of a child. Richard Buell of Norwell Mass. that's not like him and I don't believe that crap for a second. He is the nicest guy in the world and would never do that to his own kids! God. Not to mention his kids are drugies so they are probably lying for money or something.

Assholes. *sigh*

:It goes on and on and on. Generation after generation.

Indeed it does Peacebang, as does U*U "community denial" about various U*U injustices and abuses, and not just sexual abuse by any means, that goes on and on and on. Generation after generation. . .

:This is why we have to have rules and laws that legislate morality -- because so many men still don't get that you don't treat children in a sexualized way, period.

Well I hate to say so Peacebang but a whole lot of women treat children in a sexualized way too. . . Just who goes out and buys young girls the clothing, make-up and various other accoutrements that "sexualize" them if not their mothers? Just who writes for and edits the mainstream media that "sexualizes" young girls? Do tell oh U*U fashion maven. . . BTW U*Us have various rules and laws that "legislate" morality within the U*U religious community but they flagrantly disregard them, cynically manipulate them, and even knowlingly and willfully outright violate them. U*U rules and laws are utterly meaningless and worse than useless if U*Us are not ready, willing, and able to responsibly and effectively enforce their own purported rules and laws in a genuinely moral and ethical manner. In my experience U*Us much prefer to cynically bend justice than genuinely "bend toward justice" as they so hypocritically claim to do. . .

:You don't fondle, you don't rape, you don't penetrate, you don't exploit them for your pleasure. Why is this so hard to understand?

Well perhaps your parishioner Richard Buell might be able to enlighten you somewhat on why it was apparently so hard for him to understand. . . Maybe you can penetrate his mind when you visit him a pastoral visit in the Massachusetts Correctional Institute. Convicted rapist and former U*U minister Mack Mitchell may be able to shed some light on that issue for you too Peacebang, if you can find him. . . I expect that a number of other U*U clergy or lay people who have fondled, and possibly even penetrated and raped, children could enlighten you as well but the UUA's Ministerial Fellowship Committee seems to be remarkably skilled at keeping their identities "confidential" and out of the public eye. I dare say that the UUA might well be able to teach "other denominations" a few tricks about how to cover-up and deny U*U clergy sexual misconduct. Maybe you should ask your colleague Rev. Deborah Pope-Lance to debrief you about U*U clergy sexual misconduct, and how the UUA's Ministerial Fellowship Committee and the U*U religious community as a whole has "largely failed" to responsibly address it in a genuinely just, equitable and compassionate manner.

:Why is this still considered a grey area for so many men, and even priests, who should be more deeply in touch with the inherent dignity and privacy of the developing child than the average guy?

Well shouldn't U*U guys and gals be even more deeply in touch with the inherent (worth and) dignity and privacy of the developing child than the average guy Peacebang? Yet some U*U guys, even U*U ministers, fondle, rape, penetrate, and exploit children for their pleasure.

:We blame a lot of Catholic sexual abuse on the hierarchical structure of the Church.

Um. . . Could you please explain just how "we" blame a lot of Catholic sexual abuse on the hierarchical structure of the Church? And just what do U*Us blame a lot of U*U sexual abuse on? The allegedly non-hierarchical structure of the U*U Church perhaps? Please do share your insights about what you blame U*U sexual abuse on.

:There's good reason for that blame, but I am beginning to think that this is more than an ecclesiological corruption.

Well "ecclesiological corruption" does not necessarily explain U*U sexual abuse or indeed other forms of clergy misconduct but I and others can most certainly blame U*U "ecclesiological corruption" for the ongoing failure of the UUA, its Ministerial Fellowship Committee and the greater U*U religious community to responsibly acknowledge and properly redress not only sexual abuse by U*U clergy but also other non-sexual forms of clergy misconduct that may be every bit as damaging to both the victims and the community as some forms of sexual misconduct.

:I am beginning to see a correlation between violating a child's private inner life in the form of catechisms and doctrines that permit no freedom to privately discern important existential truths, and the tacit institutional permission to similiarly violate the privacy of the child's body. I'm not trying to be a theologian here, just an angry woman who would like children to be able to come of age unmolested by adults.

Well Peacebang, aka Rev. Victoria Weinstein of First Unitarian Parish Norwell, Massachusetts, it seems to The Emerson Avenger that you have ample material for dealing with that issue within your own parish. Why get up on your self-righteous soap-box, and loudly and publicly waggle your U*U finger at the Catholic community because a Catholic priest massaged and possibly fondled a young boy, when within your very own U*U "church" you have an elder lay person (as it were) who was not only very recently convicted of raping his neighbor's daughter but was also convicted of raping his own daughter? BTW May I ask just what "correlation" you might "see" that would serve to explain tacit, or indeed even explicit. . . "institutional permission" for U*Us, both clergy and otherwise, to violate the minds and the bodies of both children and adults?

:If it's part of the Catholic tradition to penetrate children's minds at a young age and demolish their privacy regarding theological reflection and decision-making, can it really be so shocking that penetration and violation of the privacy of their bodies is not far behind?

Well I think that it would be highly advisable to establish that it is indeed "part of the Catholic tradition to penetrate children's minds at a young age and demolish their privacy regarding theological reflection and decision-making" before making that kind of "correlation" and conjecture Peacebang. Have you done so somewhere? I have not really seen any evidence that you have. Could you possibly direct me to a web page where you have clearly demonstrated that it is in fact "part of the Catholic tradition to penetrate children's minds at a young age and demolish their privacy regarding theological reflection and decision-making"? While you are at it could you please formulate a similar conjecture that might help to explain why some U*Us, including U*U clergy, are guilty of "penetration and violation of the privacy" of the bodies and minds of both children and adults?

:We must protect children's freedom of religious imagination just as surely as we protect them from physical molesters and exploiters. They are two pieces of the same cloth.

Why must we protect only children Peacebang? Why should U*Us not similarly and equally protect adult's freedom of religious imagination just as surely as U*Us protect them from physical molesters and exploiters? Which by the way isn't very surely at all as far as I can see. . . In fact I can present compelling evidence that U*U "ecclesiological corruption" and U*U "institutional permission", to say nothing of U*U "community denial" quite regrettably does allow individual U*Us, including U*U clergy and lay leaders, individual U*U "churches", and thus by extension the greater U*U religious community as a whole to violate the minds and the bodies of both children and adults.

So When Will A Top Level UUA Official Admit That There Undoubtedly Was Arrogance And Stupidity From The Unitarians In The U*U World?

"We tried to do our best (in Iraq) but I think there is much room for criticism because, undoubtedly, there was arrogance and there was stupidity from the United States in Iraq," senior U.S. State Department official Alberto Fernandez told Al Jazeera speaking in Arabic in a broadcast heard on Sunday by Reuters."

Now if only the Unitarians would take the U*U "bull" by the horns and publicly admit that here is much room for criticism of U*Us because, undoubtedly, there was (and still is. . .) arrogance and there was (and still is. . .) stupidity from the Unitarians in Montreal and Boston. ;-)

Peacebang aka Rev. Victoria Weinstein Edges Out Rev. Diane Miller As The Emerson Avenger's New Poster Girl For U*U Community Denial

For in the same way U*Us judge others, U*Us will be judged, and with the measure U*Us use, it will be measured to U*Us. . .

:Avenger, I really and truly hope you write about UU sexual abuse and misconduct on your own blog.

Your wish is my command Peacebang. Not that I haven't written about U*U sexual abuse before.

:As I said, I will happily link to it.

I just saved you the trouble.

:I'm sure you have worthwhile insights,

I'll get around to that. I have worthwhile insights about U*U "community denial" but you "memory holed them".

:and I like to think my post on how Catholic theology might lead to priestly misconduct could lead us all -- starting with you if you choose to begin that thread -- to think about how Unitarian and Universalist theology can similarly -- although for different theological reasons -- lead to UU sexual misconduct.

I have other priorities at the moment, I am actually more concerned about U*Us turning a blind eye to various kinds of non-sexual misconduct, however I am certainly capable of getting around to doing that down the road a bit. . .

:I am not denying the reality of UU sexual misconduct.

One would hope not but you are denying the reality of other U*U injustices and abuses and trying to hide them from public view. . .

:It has been a terrible reality in our congregations as well as in the Catholic world.

No kidding. . . Guess which denomination has a better track record of responsibly dealing with it. Here's a clue. The article that you referred to, which makes it clear that the Roman Catholic Church will investigate the Foley allegations even though they are decades old. . . and the UUA's official "apology" to victims of sexual misconduct by U*U clergy in which Kathleen Montgomery, Executive Vice President of the Unitarian Universalist Association, expressly states -

Let me say this as simply and unequivocally as I know how: the Association has largely failed the people most hurt by sexual misconduct, the victims and survivors. ***Other denominations have done better.*** These brave and bruised people have, more often than not I suspect, been left lonely, confused, afraid, angry and betrayed. Un-ministered to.

:If I wasn't clear, let me try again: when you name people's names and link to your own articles of grievances against them, you're using this blog as a host for your own, or as I think of it as "free advertising" for your own cause.

That is just another lame excuse that seeks to rationalize and justify your DIM Thinking censorship and suppression of my own grievances AND the various other U*U injustices and abuses that I am exposing and denouncing. You are guilty of censorship pure and simple. U*U church censorship that serves to cover-up and deny a variety of U*U injustices and abuses.

:I don't allow this for anyone.

That is U*U BS. Anyone who posts anything else here that names people's names is alllowed to. It is only because I am exposing and denouncing internal U*U injustices and abuses and name those people who are directly or indirectly responsible for those injustices and abuses that you "memory hole" my posts.

:If someone came on this blog and turned most of my posts into an opportunity to link to something they were promoting, I would also say, "Knock it off. Don't parasite off my blog."

More U*U BS. I only comment on posts that are pertinent to the issues that I am dealing with and that is by no means most of your posts. . . I am saying "Knock it off. Don't censor and suppress my legitimate comments." And I mean it. . .

:If you had said, "Hey, don't throw stones, because UUs sure have their own history of sexual abuse," I would have seen that and said, "so true."

But that is not what I said. . . Nor would I say that. By all means throw stones but throw stones at U*U injustices and abuses before you go engage in U*U "community denial" by pointing the finger at Catholic injustices and abuses while Denying, Ignoring and Minimizing even worse U*U ones. . . Foley was fondled. A U*U lay person was just convicted of raping his neighbor's daughter and even his own daughter. And according to the email you just sent me it was in fact *your* parish in which this case occurred.

You said in it - "I don't post their names or discuss their trials and tribulations specifically, and I expect you not to, either."

No, of course not. . . you just rail away at Catholics who you indirectly name and shame because a Catholic priest massaged and fondled a young boy. You deliver this "tirade" directed at Catholics at precisely the same time that a member of your own U*U
congregation is convicted of raping not only his neighbor's daughter but even his own daughter. Then you have the unmitigated gall to say -

:Are you generating conversation or just promoting your own links? I think the latter.

Are you generating conversation about U*U sexual abuse or just engaging in U*U community denial of sexual abuse and indeed non-sexual clergy misconduct within the U*U community? I think the latter. . .

:I look forward to your thread on how Unitarian and/or Universalist theological tradition may or may have contributed to sexual violations past and present.

You might have a to wait a bit Victoria. . . I have other fish to fry at the moment. I will be creating a thread or two on how you and other DIM Thinking U*U clergy definitely have contributed to U*U "community denial" of sexual and/or non-sexual violations past and present.

:Someone should take up the thread, if not you.

I dare say you should as an act of contrition and penitence for your own ongoing participation in U*U "community denial" of clergy misconduct and other U*U injustices and abuses past and present. . .

:Maybe I will start it later if I have the time.

I suggest that you find the time very soon. I suggesrt that you devote as much time to exposing and denouncing internal U*U injustices abuses as you do to pointing the finger at Catholics and other denominations.

:For now, I have a Sunday service to prepare and I can't yield to the temptation.

Of course not. Plus you have to prepare for that very special meeting with my good friend Rev. Deborah Pope-Lance after that service. Please do say hello to Deborah for me Victoria. It was Deborah who very astutely described my ongoing protest against U*U injustices, abuses and outrageous hypocrisy in front of the Unitarian Church of Montreal, to say nothing of on the internet. . . as my "alternative spiritual practice" rather too many years ago.

:So readers, now that we've looked at the Catholic issue, in what ways might *liberal theology* be used as a foundation or justification for sexual misconduct and violation of the body?

You are still ignoring the issue of your own and other U*Us' "community denial" of U*U injustices and abuses Victoria and not just those that involve sexual misconduct. . . To be honest you really disappoint me Peacebang. I expected a lot better from Rev. Victoria Weinstein than I have received from you. Your friend Jesus has some advice for you. . .

1 "Do not judge, or you too will be judged.

2 For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.

3 "Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your Catholic brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own U*U eye?

4 How can you say to your Catholic brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when all the time there is a plank in your own U*U eye?

5 You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own U*U eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your Catholic brother's eye.

Of course I should have heeded this advice myself. . .

6 "Do not give U*Us what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pig-headed U*Us. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and then turn and tear you to pieces.

Saturday, October 21, 2006

A U*U Lay Person Is Convicted Of Raping His Neighbor's Daughter As Well As His Own Daughter. . .

You are avoiding the issue Peacebang which, at least from my perspective, was as much about "community denial" including your own, as sexual abuse or other other forms of clergy misconduct. Interestingly enough however, when I ran a Google search on you to try and figure out just who you are in the U*U World, I found a very recent case of U*U sexual abuse that is very close to where you are presently located. . .

Herewith my "tirade" -

I have a much better idea Peacebang. Why don't you ask your colleague ;-) ;-) Rev. Victoria Weinstein to briefly identify some of the pastoral issues that have arisen within her congregation, i.e. The First Parish Church of Norwell, Massachusetts aka First Parish Unitarian Church of Norwell, as a result of the case of one of her own parishioners, a certain Richard Buell who would appear to be a lay person and a "pillar of the church" as it were. . . who was convicted in separate trials of rape of a child with force, and was sentenced to serve two consecutive terms of 10-12 years in prison.

According to this news report in the Norwell Mariner Richard Buell was convicted of raping a female family member, who is now 20, sometime between 1992 and 1996. The girl would have been between 6 and 10 years of age at the time of the incident. Buell was also convicted in a second trial of raping the daughter of a family acquaintance, who would have been 11 years old at the time, and is now 25. During the trial, the woman testified that in January of 1993, while she was spending the night at the Buells' home on Circuit Street, Buell entered her room and raped her in her sleep. Following his convictions, Buell was transferred to the Massachusetts Correctional Institute in Concord, Massachusetts. This is the very same correctional facility that convicted U*U rapist Rev. Mack Mitchell, formerly minister of the First Parish Church in Framingham Massachusetts, served his time for raping some young Tibetan exchange students that he had brought from Tibet to his U*U parish. Please forgiving me for violating the privacy of this U*U community. . .

Now they say you don't tug on Superman's cape

You don't spit into the wind

You don't pull the mask off an 'ole Lone Ranger

And you don't mess around with The Emerson Avenger. . .

A Primer On Peacebang And Other DIM Thinking U*Us Pathologically Not Getting It. . .

Here it comes. . . here it comes. . . here comes your 19th "neurotic reaction". . .

PeaceBang said...

I'm discussing theological connections between Catholic doctrine and Catholic child molestation here. That's the topic, that's what I stayed with.
However,I think it would be interesting for someone to respond with reflections on how Universalist theological tradition could contribute to UU clergy misconduct. There is certainly a worthy column there, but I'm not choosing to write it. If you do, feel free to link it here.

The trick to not getting your comments deleted is to make them directly and specifically relevant to the subject at hand (as in a conversation, not an off-topic tirade), don't attack individuals by name, and just acccept that all comments on this blog are subject to the editorial trashcan.

4:21 PM

PeaceBang said...

whoops! make that "UNITARIAN AND UNIVERSALIST theological tradition might contribute to abusive sexual relations."(The "Unitarian" got accidentally deleted!)

4:23 PM

The Emerson Avenger said...

Well this Unitarian has repeatedly been knowingly, willfully and permanently deleted by "memory-holing" U*Us who choose to participate in U*U church censorship and U*U community denial of U*U injustices, abuses, and hypocrisy. . .

:The trick to not getting your comments deleted is to make them directly and specifically relevant to the subject at hand (as in a conversation, not an off-topic tirade),

My comment was by no means "an off-topic tirade" as you allege in an effort to rationalize and justify your knowing and willful *censorship* of my very pertinent commentary on your post. In fact, characterizing my terse and pithy commentary as a "tirade" is not only patently ridiculous but stunningly hypocritical. Your own angry and even "vitriolic" post is far more characteristic of a bona fide "tirade" than what I posted as a comment to it. . . Part and parcel of your own self-selected "subject at hand" in your own "tirade" was the issue of "community denial", thus my comment about the "community denial" of U*Us in the face of clergy mnisconduct and other injustices and abuses, including your own Denial I'm afraid. . . was in fact "directly and specifically relevant to the subject at hand" as you yourself presented that "subject at hand". N'est-ce pas Peacebang?

:don't attack individuals by name,

You and other U*U clergy directly or indirectly "attack individuals by name" on an ongoing basis. In fact U*Us, perhaps especially U*U clergy, are past masters at indirectly attacking individuals without actually coming out and "directly and specifically" naming them. Right Peacebang? You are thus exercising a stunningly hypocritical double standard by admonishing me not to "attack individuals by name". Your own "tirade" effectively attacked "the priest" by name and "the neighbor" by name in that it contained a link to the New York Times article in which they were named. Just to make my point I am going to repost the comment that you "memory holed" and describe a certain unmentionable U*U minister and a certain unmentionable MFC Director with their names replaced by their titles. The post will of course link to other material in which they are named but even the link will contain their titles rather than their names. I look forward to seeing just what lame excuses you may offer to try to justify that U*U "memory holing" *censorship and *suppression* of that comment again. . . I expect that post to remain in place Peacebang. If you censor it again you will be held accountable by the dreaded Emerson Avenger. . . ;-) :and just acccept that all comments on this blog are subject to the editorial trashcan. Sorry Peacebang but what you euphemistically refer to as "the editorial trashcan" is more appropriately referred to as the U*U "memory hole". An Orwellian "memory hole" that you and other hypocritical U*Us happily operate in order to *censor* and *suppress* my own and other people's perfectly legitimate exposure, denouncement, and criticism of internal U*U injustices and abuses including, but by no means limited, to clergy misconduct committed by U*U ministers whether it be clergy sexual misconduct or otherwise. . . So I am sorry to have to report that I will definitely not accept that comments on the blog of any U*U minister, not just yours Peacebang, are subject to censorship and suppression by U*Us who choose to participate in U*U "community denial" of U*U injustices, U*U abuses, and U*U hypocrisy etc. I will remind you and every other U*U minister that U*Us very publicly (and quite evidently quite fraudulently. . .) profess to be great defenders of civil liberties and freedom of expression etc. and to be "opposed" to censorship. In fact U*Us officially proclaim that, "We jealously guard the right to know, to speak and to argue freely, according to conscience, within our own church and in society at large. We are opposed to censorship by church, state, or any other institution. We believe that truth emerges more clearly under conditions of freedom." I am only exercising my right, and indeed my responsibility. . . to speak and to argue freely, according to *my* conscience, "within our own church" (as it were) and in society at large, but you and rather too many other outrageously hypocritical U*Us, including other hypocritical U*U clergy. . . are quite evidently going out of your way to participate in flagrant "community denial" and perfectly obvious U*U church censorship of my own and other people's legitimate criticism, dissent and outstanding grievances. As a minister in the U*U religious community I expect you to set an example and make an effort to actually live up to U*U pronouncements made in U*U propaganda that (most unfortunately quite hypocritically and even quite fraudently) proclaim that U*Us are opposed to censorship. I expect all other U*U ministers to do likewise. Those U*U ministers who have actively participated in the DIM Thinking "cover-up and denial" of U*U "community denial" of my own and other people's legitimate criticism and dissent, and persist in U*U church censorship and suppression of my "right of conscience" will be named and shamed on The Emerson Avenger blog with directly and specifically relevant examples of their censorship and "community denial" provided as evidence wherever possible. I find it quite regrettable that, along with another female U*U minister, you have made yourself a not so new poster girl for U*U community denial. . .

5:55 PM

The Emerson Avenger said...

If at first you don't succeed. . .

Try, try again.

Let's make the female former MFC Director our new poster girl for U*U community denial. And let's make the unmentionable Unitarian Church our new poster church for U*U community denial. A decade of DIM Thinking denial, ignorance and minimization of obvious clergy misconduct, and various other U*U injustices and abuses, is a pretty shameful record of community denial. . .

6:12 PM

The Emerson Avenger said...

The above post meets your own stated criteria for what is acceptable to post on your blog Peacebang. It does not (directly) "attack individuals by name". It does however do exactly what you have done in your own post about "Catholic sexual abuse" and related "community denial". . . It replaces the names of the "individuals" who I choose to allegedly "attack" with other descriptors such as their titles and provides (indirect) links to web pages where these "individuals" are in fact named. It's a pretty pathetic roundabout way of "attacking" individuals but it is exactly how you and other hypocritical U*Us, including no shortage of unmentionable U*U ministers. . . choose to do it. I am thus choosing to comply with your cynical and hypocritical conditions for "not getting your comments deleted" in order to make a point. In future I expect to be able to name individuals, including you, who I have good reason to "attack" as you put it.

6:27 PM

Quite regrettably Peacebang chose to ignore all of the foregoing and promptly U*U "memory holed" all of the above comments. I thus nominate Peacebang aka U*U minister Rev. Victoria Weinstein, currently the U*U minister of The First Parish Unitarian Church of Norwell, Massachusetts, as the current poster girl for pathologically DIM Thinking U*U "community denial".

Wow! Yet more evidence that Google really IS on my side! My link to a Google search on - Unitarian "community denial" - was intended for future use but it is already usable right now since Google has already indexed and yes, Google cached. . . The Emerson Avenger posts that U*U minister Victoria Weinstein aka Peacebang so foolishly "memory holed" in her pathological desire to become an accessory after the fact in Rev. Ray Drennan's U*U clergy misconduct and a participant in the "community denial" that the Unitarian Church of Montreal, Rev. Diane Miller and other DIM Thinking UUA administrators', including former UUA President Rev. Dr. John Beuhrens. . . initiated over a decade ago.