An Example Of Moral Support For The Emerson Avenger From "Joe Public"

There is nothing special to report about today's protest in front of the Unitarian Church of Montreal, with the possible exception of noting that police presence has been all but non-existent for several weeks now. Perhaps Montreal Unitarians finally figured out that giving a whole new meaning to the term "police harassment", by repeatedly calling in complaints to the Montreal police force about my perfectly legal peaceful public protest activities, isn't really doing them any good. I can't imagine that the Montreal public is very impressed with a Unitarian "church" that has a police car or two, and occasionally even three. . . parked in front of it Sunday after Sunday. Likewise, I expect that the Montreal police force are just a bit fed up with being repeatedly harassed by Montreal Unitarians calling in what are effectively false alarms. Clearly Montreal Unitarians would much rather attempt to misuse the Montreal police force than actually make an effort to begin "waging peace" with me by entering into responsible dialogue with me in an effort to negotiate a settlement to this conflict that genuinely lives up to U*U principles that call for justice, equity and compassion in human relations. . . It seems that there was an intense effort by the Unitarian Church of Montreal to have the police force intervene again early in the "church" year when Rev. Diane Rollert became its new settled minister, but it quite evidently proved to be yet another completely futile effort by Montreal Unitarians to impose church censorship by misusing the "secular authorities" of the state as a proxy. These repeated complaints to the police in an effort to bring an end to my protest only further expose the outrageous hypocrisy of the Unitarian*Universalist religious community aka "church" that quite fraudulently pretends in its evidently obsolete "church" propaganda to be "opposed to censorship by church, state or any other institution."

The following is a recent messaging exchange between myself and a member of a social bookmarking blog system that I am on. I have already said that I have received plenty of moral support from people on this social blogging system but this is perhaps the most lengthy and detailed exchange that I have had with anyone. I asked permission to publish our exchange and received it so I am making it available as an example of the kind of moral support that I often receive from non-U*Us who are aware of my ongoing protest against U*U injustices, abuses and hypocrisy.


Jimmy

Jan 12, 7:30pm Hi!

I thoroughly enjoyed reading your letters to the church. It's always a pleasure to read someone who expresses themselves so well - both in substance and argument.

Happy New Year to you, too, my friend! :)


RobinEdgar

12:19am Which ones did you read? The most recent email strings perhaps?


Jimmy

11:00am I had previously read all the correspondence threads at The Emerson Avenger; now I've just read your latest emails there to Miller & Sinkford that you sent this week, so I guess I'm up to date. :-)


RobinEdgar

3:04pm The most recent letters between me and Rev. Dr. Tracey Robinson-Harris really show up U*U institutional stonewalling and denial quite nicely. Did you see that email string?


Jimmy

5:14pm I had seen that email string but read it again in its entirety; glad I did, too, since I had missed the excerpts that you included close to the bottom about her insulting remarks about Senator Napoli... And "stonewalling" hardly begins to explain their failure to respond to any of the points you have raised (repeatedly, and with excellent descriptive language well beyond what is necessary to rule out any misunderstandings of their meanings - such that your points would confuse someone of normal intelligence, or could be misconstrued by any adult reader)... All in all, the responses you have gotten are basically a non-response, or a "so sue us" one.

I wish you the best in your future correspondence with them and hope they properly and adequately respond eventually. One thing appears certain from the string: you could not improve on your attempt at communication...I read you "loudly and clearly" as they certainly did, also. I'd say their responses are clearly guided my "legal advise" in one form or another, as their responses appear to be carefully and artfully crafted to be very general and broad...definitely containing none of the specificity in them that you have sought.


RobinEdgar

Jan 13, 6:40pm

Thanks for that response Jimmy. It pretty well confirms my own assessment of the situation. Would you have any objection if I posted our exchange to The Emerson Avenger blog as an example of intelligent public response? I keep telling U*Us that the vast majority of "people of intelligence and conscience" are sympathetic to, and supportive of, my criticism and protest but they prefer to disbelieve me. If I could publish our exchange as an example of someone of obvious intelligence and conscience providing moral support it might convince a few U*Us that they are not winning this war of words.

Best Regards,

Robin Edgar


Jimmy

7:05am Sure, Robin, you may use our exchange. It did contain one typographical error that I just caught while rereading it, where I said "my" instead of "by" in the phrase that begins"...are clearly guided...". Feel free to make that correction for me.

BTW, I related to my sister last evening the insulting language that was used against Senator Napoli by Rev. Weinstein, and her very *convenient* omission in "her published attacked on Catholics...when one of her own parishioners was just convicted of raping a neighbour's daughter and his own daughter." She, like I, was appalled by such overt hypocrisy.

All The Best,

Jimmy


RobinEdgar

3:33pm Thanks Jimmy,

Your permission to publish our exchange is much appreciated. I don't know if it will actually persuade any Unitarian*Universalists aka U*Us in positions of responsibility that they are making serious mistakes in failing, indeed refusing. . . to deal with this kind of insulting and defamatory unbecoming conduct by U*U clergy because they have proven to be quite conscienceless and obstinately stubborn people over the years, but it will at least serve as a good example of how "Joe Public" with a conscience perceives the situation.

Best Regards,

Robin Edgar