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

Monday, January 08, 2007

Will UUA President William G. Sinkford aka Rev. Bill Sinkford Practice What He Preaches About "Waging Peace"?

The following is a copy of the text of an email that I just sent to UUA President William G. Sinkford reminding him that I need an R.S.V.P. to the invitation to begin waging peace with me that I sent him last week, A.S.A.H.P. I am hoping that he will take the first steps towards waging peace with me by responding appropriately to this email by the end of this week. i.e. Friday, January 12, 2007

Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2007 13:28:31 -0500 (EST)
From: "Robin Edgar" robinedgar59@yahoo.ca Add to Address Book
Subject: Re: An Invitation To Dedicate Yourself To Waging Peace With Me In 2007
To: "Bill Sinkford" bsinkford@uua.org, "William Sinkford" wsinkford@uua.org

Dear President Sinkford,

Although this invitation is a somewhat light hearted response to your Holiday Message for 2006 it is also a very serious invitation for you, and all other UUs, to live up to both the letter and the spirit of your words calling upon UUs to "commit ourselves to the spiritual practice of waging peace—in our hearts, at home, in our congregations and communities, and in our world." I have given you and the UUA several opportunities to do just that over the last several years but unfortunately both you and the UUA have missed those windows of opportunity to engage in genuinely waging peace with me by waging some genuine justice, equity and compassion in your human relations with me.

This invitation for you and all other UUs to dedicate yourself to waging peace with me, other victims of UU clergy misconduct, and victims of other UU injustices and abuses of various kinds is a bona fide invitation for you and all other UUs to genuinely stand on the side of love by standing on the side of justice, equity and compassion in human relations and other UU principles.

Please respond appropriately to the R.S.V.P. A.S.A.H.P.

We are already more than one week into the New Year and you and other UUs have shown no signs of being ready, willing or able to engage in waging peace with me. Au contraire, so far, there is only evidence that the UUA and UUs more generally would prefer to continue waging a war of words with me in 2007. I am calling upon you to set an example for UUs by making a sincere and realistic effort to live up to your words about waging peace. You cannot remain passive as you have been for several years now. It is time for you and all other UUs, to move from the futile to the effective, from the stagnant to the active, from the destructive to the creative way of life.

I would appreciate a response to my R.S.V.P. by the end of this week. I would like you to set a goal for peace to be well on its way to being restored by the implementation of some genuine restorative justice by the UUA GA in June.

Sincerely,

Robin Edgar



Robin Edgar wrote:

Dear President Sinkford,

You And All Other Unitarian Universalists aka UUs Are Cordially Invited To Dedicate Yourselves To Waging Peace With Me In 2007

Sincerely,

Robin Edgar


R.S.V.P.*












* Répondez s’il vous plaît

17 Comments:

Blogger Paul Evreux said...

Why should he act more courteous to you than to any other UU?

Monday, January 08, 2007 5:46:00 pm  
Blogger The Emerson Avenger said...

I am not sure what you mean by that Paul. I am not even asking President Sinkford to act more courteous to me than any U*U. For the record I am no longer a U*U as I have been permanently expelled from the Unitarian Church of Montreal for protesting against the anti-religious intolerance and bigotry of its fundamentalist atheist "Humanist" U*U minister Rev. Ray Drennan and "like-minded" Montreal Unitarians.

All that I am asking UUA President Bill Sinkford to do is to start practicing what he preaches about "Restoring Hope and Waging Peace" to say nothing of some of the other things that he preaches. The whole R.S.V.P. thing is to make it very clear to him that I expect a very clear official response from him to my semi-formal invitation to begin waging peace with me. President Sinkford can either clearly indicate that he accepts my invitation and start actually waging peace with me or he can decline my invitation and our unfortunate war of words will not only continue on unabated but most likely be escalated in 2007. I would much prefer genuine peace with genuine justice, equity and compassion in human relations but to each his own. . .

Monday, January 08, 2007 6:03:00 pm  
Blogger Colleen said...

Hey Robin,
I haven't posted here before (I want to keep our relationship civil and focused on topics not related to your quest, primarily). But I have a question for you.

What kinds of concrete steps would you want the UU church to work towards? Would you want them to aim, as a final goal, towards including you back into their fold? And if so, what would that look like?

I only ask because I was excommunicated from a religious body (because I disagreed with their central propositions). For me to regain a relationship with them, I'd need to confess Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior, something I'm not willing to do.

What would it take for you to regain a relationship with them? Have they told you?

Best,
ck

Monday, January 08, 2007 9:21:00 pm  
Blogger The Emerson Avenger said...

Hi Colleen,

Sorry to be slow to respond. I have been busy. . . I will respond soon though.

Best Regards,

Robin

Thursday, January 11, 2007 12:02:00 am  
Blogger The Emerson Avenger said...

:Hey Robin, I haven't posted here before (I want to keep our relationship civil and focused on topics not related to your quest, primarily). But I have a question for you.

That's fine Colleen and there is nothing at all preventing our relationship from remaining civil on this blog or anywhere else. The degree of civility and respect that I extend towards U*Us is largely if not entirely dependent on the degree of civility and respect that they extend towards me. If there is a fair bit of incivility on this blog it is due in no small measure to the lack of civility and respect extended towards me by uncivil and disrespectful U*Us posting here.

:What kinds of concrete steps would you want the UU church to work towards? Would you want them to aim, as a final goal, towards including you back into their fold? And if so, what would that look like?

Well these days I am really debating to what degree I even want to be associated with what I have found to be a seriously flawed and stunningly hypocritical religious community. Just as a matter of principle however I do expect the Unitarian Church of Montreal to acknowledge the various injustices and abuses that it is responsible for including the unjust punitive expulsions that it has subjected me to for protesting against the injustices, abuses and hypocrisy that it is clearly responsible for perpetrating and perpetuating. Likewise the UUA and its department of Ministry, i.e. the aptly named Ministerial Fellowship Committee, must acknowledge the legitimacy and seriousness of my initial clergy misconduct complaint against Rev. Ray Drennan for his injurious and untrue insulting and defamatory personal attack on me. The UUA must acknowledge that the Ministerial Fellowship Committee not only failed to hold Rev. Ray Drennan in any way accountable for his anti-religious intolerance and bigotry but effectively endorsed it by pretending that it was "within the appropriate guidelines of ministerial leadership."

:I only ask because I was excommunicated from a religious body (because I disagreed with their central propositions).

Well, most ironically I was "excommunicated" from the Unitarian Church of Montreal because I agreed with the "central propositions" of U*Uism and other claimed ideals of U*Uism and demanded that they make a reasonable effort to practice what they quite evidently insincerely preach.

:For me to regain a relationship with them, I'd need to confess Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior, something I'm not willing to do.

Understood.

:What would it take for you to regain a relationship with them?

It would take Montreal Unitarians and U*Us more generally making a serious effort to actually practice what they preach rather than wantonly disregarding and repeatedly flouting the "covenants" expressed in the Seven Principles and other U*U policies and ideals etc.

:Have they told you?

Well the fact of the matter is that my expulsion from the Unitarian Church of Montreal was permanent and unappealable and they did not formally state any conditions that would allow me to regain my membership in their stunningly hypocritical "church". Actually I think that it is more up to me to tell Montreal Unitarians, and U*Us more generally, what it would take for them to regain a relationship with me. . . and I believe that I have been doing so for over a decade now. When I was falsely arrested on trumped up criminal charges in December 2000, in a deeply cynical misguided effort by hypocritical Montreal Unitarians to undermine and suppress my constitutionally guaranteed right to peaceful public protest, Rev. Charles Eddis, the minister emeritus of the Unitarian Church of Montreal, asserted that if I wanted to regain membership in the Unitarian Church of Montreal that I would have to stop my protest activities. I expect that he was just trying to exercise some damage control spin though. In any case that is just not going to happen. My protest against U*U injustices, abuses and hypocrisy is entirely legitimate and it will continue until Montreal Unitarians and the greater U*U religious community responsibly acknowledge the injustices and abuses that I have been subjected to by Montreal Unitarians and other U*Us including the UUA administration in Boston. If Montreal Unitarians and Unitarian Universalists more generally want what they call "Right Relations" with me they are going to have to do the right thing and admit to the various injustices and abuses that they have subjected me to for over a decade now and implement some genuine restorative justice.

I hope that answers your question to your satisfaction. If not feel free to ask a few more questions.

Best Regards,

Robin Edgar

Thursday, January 11, 2007 5:08:00 pm  
Anonymous ck said...

It does, Robin. Normally when I think of excommunication, it is a contingent kind of thing. The church says, "You have violated x, y and z and unless you can demonstrate repentance, or perform restitution, or show you believe thus and such, you can't come back."

So I was expecting that the Montreal Church would have had some kind of expectations from *you* (along with your very clear expectations from *them*).

It sounds like, that not being the case, it is up to you to decide whether, as you say, you want to be associated with the church--and pursue getting back in covenant with them. And if not, and you're not getting the satisfaction you'd like, then it would be your decision if there is another (UU or not) church you would rather become part of.

All that to say, thanks, your answer helped me understand.

Thursday, January 11, 2007 5:26:00 pm  
Blogger The Emerson Avenger said...

:It does, Robin.

Great!

:Normally when I think of excommunication, it is a contingent kind of thing. The church says, "You have violated x, y and z and unless you can demonstrate repentance, or perform restitution, or show you believe thus and such, you can't come back."

OK well I am using the term "excommunication" a bit losely as you may imagine but it I do so because my permanent expulsion from the Unitarian Church of Montreal had everything to do with communication. . . The Unitarian Church of Montreal alleged that I had violated x, y and z, to use your terms, and held a kangaroo court show trial disguised as a special congregational meeting to permanently expell me for having violated x, y and z. I was given a comparatively short time, during that meeting, to present a defence against the x, y and z "charges" that I was presumed to be guilty of. The whole process was all very carefully orchestrated and biased in favor of the "church". My ability to successfully defend myself against the three "charges" that were brought against me by the Unitarian Church of Montreal was compromised by a variety of factors not the least of them being the presumption of guilt. My defence may be read here.

No provision was made for an appeal of the results of this "Stalinistic" show trial nor were any conditions set that would allow me to regain my membership if I demonstrated any "repentance", or performed any "restitution" etc. Needless to say I believe that it is up to the Unitarian Church of Montreal, the UUA, and its Ministerial Fellowship Committee to demonstrate repentance and perform restitution in this little war of words we are still engaged in after a decade's worth of institutional stonewalling and denial.

:So I was expecting that the Montreal Church would have had some kind of expectations from *you* (along with your very clear expectations from *them*).

Well the *expectations* of the Unitarian Church of Montreal were that I would end my "alternative spiritual practice" of protesting in front of their "church" on any given Sunday and refrain from any other "image tarnishing" protest
activities. Evidently their expectations were a little too great. . . Again, no provision was made for any appeal of the "verdict" of Montreal Unitarians and, to the best of my knowledge, with the exception of Rev. Charles Eddis' questionable quote in the Montreal Mirror news article, there are no conditions that have ever been set by the Unitarian Church of Montreal that would allow for my permanent expulsion to be overturned.

:It sounds like, that not being the case, it is up to you to decide whether, as you say, you want to be associated with the church--and pursue getting back in covenant with them.

That is correct, but regardless of whether or not I want to get "back in covenant" with them, the Unitarian Church of Montreal and the greater U*U religious community have to responsibly deal with the various injustices and abuses that I have been subjected to by U*Us that clearly and unequivocally constitute egregious violations of the various "covenants" expressed in the Seven Principles of the U*U religious community and other proclaimed ideals of U*Uism. This conflict has everything to to with U*Us flagrantly disregarding and outright violating U*U "covenants" in their rather inhuman human relations with me. Montreal Unitarians, the UUA and MFC, and U*Us more generally have to acknowledge that they broke the purported "covenants" of U*Uism in there far from right relations with me and must provide some genuine restorative justice if they ever want to be back in covenant with me and enjoy the benefits of right relations with me.

:And if not, and you're not getting the satisfaction you'd like, then it would be your decision if there is another (UU or not) church you would rather become part of.

Correct. And my decision for the time being is to insist that the Unitarian Church of Montreal must do what is necessary to get back in covenant with me, establish right relations with me, and become a genuinely welcoming congregation towards me and other people who are less than welcome at this so-called "Welcoming Congration".

:All that to say, thanks, your answer helped me understand.

You're welcome Colleen. Hopefully this further response has clarified things even more. BTW My joke about Shawn being "feminized" by you was simply an oblique referrence to the fact that he had thanked you for pushing him towards clarity. That's all. I meant "feminized" in the sense of being influenced by a woman. Sometimes my dry humour can be a bit *too* obscure. ;-)

Thursday, January 11, 2007 6:08:00 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

If there is a fair bit of incivility on this blog it is due in no small measure to the lack of civility and respect extended towards me by uncivil and disrespectful U*Us posting here.

Where does a circle begin?

Thursday, January 11, 2007 6:27:00 pm  
Blogger The Emerson Avenger said...

I am confident that most people of intelligence and conscience can figure that out for themselves but the circle clearly goes back at least as far as Rev. Ray Drennan's uncivil and disrespectful (to say the very least) insulting and defamatory attacks on me. I will remind you that Rev. Ray Drennan's injurious and untrue allegations about me and his insulting and defamatory language was not only condoned but effectively endorsed by the Unitarian Church of Montreal and the UUA's Ministerial Fellowship Committee which had the utter gall to assert that Rev. Ray Drennan's anit-religigious intolerance and bigotry "seemed to us to be within the appropriate guidelines of ministerial leadership."

Thursday, January 11, 2007 6:38:00 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Your confidence in your ASSumptions is completely misguided.

Thursday, January 11, 2007 6:43:00 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'd wager that a significant number of people would place it at your refusal to accept an apology and subsequent irrational crusade.

Thursday, January 11, 2007 6:45:00 pm  
Blogger The Emerson Avenger said...

Absolutely not. My confidence is very firmly based in the objective reality of how the vast majority of non-U*U people respond to my public protest activities, my online protest activities, and otherwise sharing my concerns about U*U injustices, abuses and hypocrisy with non-U*U people.

Thursday, January 11, 2007 6:47:00 pm  
Blogger The Emerson Avenger said...

Nobody in their right mind would accept the sorry excuse for an apology that Rev. Ray Drennan offered under the duress of having been caught lying to Board members of the Unitarian Church of Montreal. Most people of intelligence and conscience understand very well that nobody is obliged to accept an "apology" that is purely expedient, inadequate, insincere, or indeed all three as was the case with Rev. Ray Drennan's sorry excuse for an apology.

There is nothing at all "irrational" about my rejection of Rev. Ray Drennan's sorry excuse for an apology or my subsequent highly justified crusade against U*U injustices, abuses and hypocrisy.

Thursday, January 11, 2007 6:54:00 pm  
Blogger The Emerson Avenger said...

I would like to remind everyone that I expect people to properly identify themselves if they want to post here. Anonymous posts can be and will be relegated to the U*U Hole at my discretion. If you have something to say have the guts and personal integrity to put your name to it.

Thursday, January 11, 2007 6:59:00 pm  
Anonymous The Anti-Hypocrite said...

I'm glad to see you support censorship.

-The Ant-hypocrite

Friday, January 12, 2007 3:10:00 am  
Blogger The Emerson Avenger said...

Perhaps the aptly named Ant-hypocrite would care to explain how moving SPAM posts or cowardly anonymous rants to a place where they can be read by anyone who cares to do so constitutes "censorship".

Monday, January 15, 2007 5:52:00 pm  
Blogger Robin Edgar said...

It would appear that the Ant-Hypocrite is at a loss for words. . .

Sunday, February 04, 2007 4:36:00 pm  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home