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

Thursday, January 31, 2008

Peter Morales for UUA President aka President of a Tiny Fringe Religion. . .

According to the introductory blurb on the Home Page of his Peter Morales for UUA President web site, Unitarian*Universalist minister and candidate for the position of the next President of the Unitarian*Universalist Association of Congregations Peter Morales, Unitarian*Universalism is "a tiny fringe religion."

The exact words of Rev. Peter Morales are,

"I am running because I believe that we Unitarian Universalists are called to be far more than a tiny fringe religion."

Regardless of whether or not Unitarian*Universalists are called to be far more than a tiny fringe religion Unitarian*Universalism currently is "a tiny fringe religion" and that is what Unitarian*Universalism will remain if Unitarian*Universalists do not make some significant changes in the ways that they "do religion". . . I am convinced that until such a time as God believing people are genuinely welcome in most if not all U*U "Welcoming Congregations", and as long as U*Us continue to abjectly fail and even obstinately refuse to actually practice what they so hypocritically preach, Unitarian*Universalism will not experience any significant growth in America and U*Uism may even become an even tinier fringe religion than it currently is. . .

Labels: , , , , , , ,

14 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Why does God waste a prophet on a tiny fringe religion? If Unitarian Universalism is so unimportant, shouldn't a prophet be preaching to a different group of people?

Friday, February 01, 2008 9:12:00 am  
Blogger Robin Edgar said...

Well when it comes to the actual revelation of God that I am claiming I do try to make it available to all people regardless of their religious background. As far as protesting against U*U injustices, abuses and hypocrisy goes, to say nothing of taking the occasional stab at U*U stupidity, that certainly falls within the traditional role of a prophet. Why did God waste prophets on Judaism which was, and still is, a rather small religion compared to other world religions?

In any case I have never claimed that God has charged me to expose and denounce U*U injustices, abuses and hypocrisy. I am doing that largely on my own prerogative. You see, like Peter Morales, I happen to believe that if U*Us actually began practicing what they currently so hypocritically, and even outright fraudulently, preach Unitarian*Universalism could potentially become quite a bit more than the tiny fringe religion that it currently is.

I would like to remind everyone that pseudonymous and anonymous comments risk being relegated to the U*U Hole, especially if I consider them to be little more than obnoxious trolling. I am getting tired of wasting time rebutting asinine comments made by anonymous and pseudonymous posters. I have responded to this anonymous comment because it asks some legitimate questions in a fairly civil manner but even quite legitimate comments may be disregarded if they are posted anonymously or pseudonymously. Considering some of the stupid and offensive things that people post here under the cover of anonymity and pseudonymity I think that it is quite reasonable for me to require that people provide their real names when posting here.

Friday, February 01, 2008 2:03:00 pm  
Anonymous Normand Charlebois said...

I do not question people's right to remove whichever comments they wish from their own blogs.

I think you are underestimating the size and influence of the Jewish faith at the time of the old testement.

All that said, is it possible that you should be spending more time on your prophecy and less time denouncing the UUs?

Even a Catholic can admit that no religion practices exactly as it preaches, after all, so your time might be more efficiently spent doing as God asked.

Friday, February 01, 2008 3:00:00 pm  
Blogger Robin Edgar said...

:I do not question people's right to remove whichever comments they wish from their own blogs.

I have not removed a single comment that has been posted to my blog but some egregious trolling and comment spamming by the indrax troll aka James Andrix caused me to create the U*U Hole where I reserve the right to move comments that constitute trolling and spamming etc. When I do feel justified in relegating a comment to the U*U Hole I always notify readers that I have done so and provide a link to the U*U Hole.

:I think you are underestimating the size and influence of the Jewish faith at the time of the old testement.

I was note talking about the influence of the Jewish faith. I was talking about its size only and I am confident that it has always been comparatively small compared to the size of other world religions.

:All that said, is it possible that you should be spending more time on your prophecy and less time denouncing the UUs?

Of course that is possible, however I feel that I can do both reasonabkly well and that exposing and denouncing U*U injustices, abuses and hypocrisy is part and parcel of a prophetic role in any case. Old Testament Jewish prophets, and indeed subsequent Christian prophets, spent a fair bit of their time denouncing the injustices, abuses and hypocrisy occurring within their own faith did they not?

:Even a Catholic can admit that no religion practices exactly as it preaches, after all, so your time might be more efficiently spent doing as God asked.

I have delivered the basic revelation that I received to thousands of people, in fact tens of thousands of people and even hundreds of thousands of people have been exposed to the core revelation that I am claiming. The degree of public apathy, indifference and disinterest to the core claim that the total solar eclipse "Eye of God" is a bona fide "Sign in the Heavens" that is intended to symbolize God's divine omniscience is very high. Tens of thousands of people have demonstrated via their indifference, disinterest and apathy that they either do not believe what I am claiming as revelation, or simply do not care about what I am claiming as revelation.

Friday, February 01, 2008 5:25:00 pm  
Anonymous NC said...

:When I do feel justified in relegating a comment to the U*U Hole I always notify readers that I have done so and provide a link to the U*U Hole.

Again, the comments are on your blog. Surely you may do what you wish with them.

As for the rest, lots of people have claimed apathy to your protests as well, but your protests are not God's work, your prophecy is. Do not let apathy or distraction deter you from that.

Friday, February 01, 2008 6:57:00 pm  
Blogger Robin Edgar said...

I do not think that you are in a position to determine what is, or is not, "God's work" Normand. My ongoing protest against U*U injustices, abuses and hypocrisy, including the anti-religious intolerance and bigotry that makes a good number of U*U "Welcoming Congregations" anything but genuinely welcoming to all kinds of God believing people, including GBLT believers I might add. . . is very much within the prophetic tradition. I agree that it is on a somewhat different level of prophecy than revealing that the total solar eclipse "Eye of God" is a bona fide "Sign in the Heavens" that is intended to remind human beings of God's divine omniscience but it is none-the-less prophetic work that is trying to get a currently rather Godless "religion" to return to dealing seriously with God.

Saturday, February 02, 2008 3:20:00 pm  
Anonymous NC said...

You did say that you were doing the protesting on your own prerogative and that you had never said God told you to do it.

If God has told you to spread your prophecy, and not told you to protest the Unitarians, then it seems God's opinion of what you should be doing is quite clear.

I would not presume to judge what God's work is and isn't and I caution you not to do so yourself. If God has given you a mission to spread a prophecy and you have decided on your own prerogative to protest a church, are you not the one who is deciding what God's work is and is not?

I know that if God gave me a mission, I would do as God told me to rather than deciding that spending my time on something else was more important.

Imagine how many people would know about your revelation if you were to spend your Sunday mornings preaching it in the streets instead of this protest of a religion that you yourself say is not important. I myself would stop and listen to such a thing, rather than merely driving past you.

Saturday, February 02, 2008 10:42:00 pm  
Blogger James Andrix said...

I wondered how long it would take you to enforce your supposed policy. Too much cognitive dissonance?

Robin, I'll say again that your policy on anonymity is a bad one. I've seen two main arguments against anonymous comments.
The first seems to stem from some idea of holding people responsible for what they say, which ultimately translates to a belief that people should be able to be punished for what they say. Obviously this is counter to notions of free speech.
The other argument against anonymity is that anonymous posters shouldn't be trusted, that they lack courage and that courage is required for credibility.
This amounts to a blanket ad hominem attack.

Let the words and arguments be judged for what they are.

I'll add here that back in the day, I did not use anonymity to violate your ban other than what you have accounted for. In fact I don't think I've ever posted here fully anonymously.

I have not removed a single comment that has been posted to my blog

Well now that is either a lie or a major misrepresentation. You have outright censored a post I have made. Or did I miss where you put it?

Sunday, February 03, 2008 3:45:00 pm  
Anonymous NC said...

Don't be ridiculous, Indrix. People should be allow to remove whatever comments they wish from their own blogs.

It's just foolishness to say that it is censorship to remove comments. Telling someone gauche to leave your party does not kill their right to speak, it only prevents them from saying their annoying words at your house and annoying your other guests. Americans are quite foolish about such things and fail to understand their own first amendment this way.

Every person is not your congress. Every person does not have to respect your freedom to be rude. Mr. Edgar clearly enjoys debate, so he is free to argue when he likes, but he is quite correct to remove posts that displease him. If you do not understand this, I am happy to come and stay in your house and be rude to you since you apparently don't think you have the power to ask me to leave.

That said, your point about anonymous commenters does basically make sense if people are disrespectful to those with whom they disagree. But I trust Mr. Edgar to be responsible for my name. He's a servent of God after all and as such I am sure he is above mistreating people this way.

Sunday, February 03, 2008 7:11:00 pm  
Blogger Robin Edgar said...

:I wondered how long it would take you to enforce your supposed policy. Too much cognitive dissonance?

ROTFLMU*UO. If anyone is guilty of an overabundance of cognitive dissonance it is U*Us James, Montreal Unitarians and otherwise. . . I dare say that you are likely to be "projecting" here James considering just how much cognitive dissonance you suffer from yourself.

:Robin, I'll say again that your policy on anonymity is a bad one. I've seen two main arguments against anonymous comments.
The first seems to stem from some idea of holding people responsible for what they say, which ultimately translates to a belief that people should be able to be punished for what they say. Obviously this is counter to notions of free speech.

I disagree that being able to hold people responsible for what they say is counter to the basic principle of free speech indrax, and I am confident that Western society is very much on my side on that principle. It should be obvious that this "war of words" has everything to do with being able to hold people responsible for the harmful and damaging things that they say. N'est-ce pas?

:The other argument against anonymity is that anonymous posters shouldn't be trusted, that they lack courage and that courage is required for credibility.
This amounts to a blanket ad hominem attack.

Wrong again as usual idrax. It should be obvious from what I have said that I am rightly accusing *some* people of hiding behind the cover of anonymity or pseudonymity to say things that they almost certainly would not say if their words could be attributed to them by name. Such behaviour most certainly is cowardly. We just had a recent example of such cowardly behaviour in this thread. I have clearly stated that other anonymous posts are quite civil and reasonable. So I have not in fact made any blanket ad hominem attack on ALL anonymous posters. The fact remains that many people do hide behind the cover of anonymity and pseudonymity to say things that they would think twice about saying if they were identifiable.

:Let the words and arguments be judged for what they are.

That is what I am doing James but I think that I could reduce the amount of offensive BS being posted by some anonymous and pseudonymous commenters here if I require people to identify themselves by their real names. I really do have better things to do with my time than repeatedly rebutt ignorant, stupid and offensive comments made by anmonymous posters.

:I'll add here that back in the day, I did not use anonymity to violate your ban other than what you have accounted for.

Huh? What "ban" indrax? I have simply said that I reserve the right to move anonymous and/or pseudonymous comments to the U*U Hole. I have not even exercised that right all that much. That being said, I wouild have to agree that you now seem quite happy to attach your real name to your numerous wild*ass statements that people other than myself consider to be "ridiculous" and even "crazy".

:In fact I don't think I've ever posted here fully anonymously.

That may be so James, but indrax is certainly a pseudonym and you did make plenty of wild*ass statements here under that pseudonym before deciding to "come out" as James Andrix. To be honest I really did not expect anyone to want to take credit for being the indrax troll but to each his own. . .

::I have not removed a single comment that has been posted to my blog

:Well now that is either a lie or a major misrepresentation. You have outright censored a post I have made. Or did I miss where you put it?

Actually it is not a lie. It is not even a "major misrepresentation", although it is somewhat misleading. It is an entirely truthful statement James. In fact I made it that statement because I was hoping that you would once again falsely accuse me of lying, but I see that you have hedged your bets a bit. No doubt because I have already amply demonstrated that many of the "lies" that you have falsely accused me of are not lies at all.

The fact of the matter is that that particular comment has not been removed from this blog for the simple reason that it was submitted to this blog during the comparatively brief period that I had the comment moderation feature on while I was trying to figure out how to deal with your egregious comment spamming. So that one single comment has simply been in "moderation" all this time. If you are wondering why it is still in "moderation" it is because I simply did not notice that it had been submitted before turning off the "moderation" function. I am pretty sure that I can only remove it from "moderation" by turning on the comment "moderation function" again. Something that I am somewhat loathe to do.

In fact, if I had known that it was not necessary to have the comment "moderation" function turned on in order to be able to deal with your comment SPAM campaign I never would have turned it on in the first place. So that one single comment, which is pretty much redundant since I am sure that you have repeated most of what was said in it several times over, to say nothing of reposting the content of the comment here, is simply in limbo James. AFAIAC it can stay there since it really is quite redundant at this point in time but, if you absolutely insist, I suppose that I could briefly turn the comment moderation function back on again only to allow that redundant comment to be posted. Depending on what it says and where it shows uop I might decide to dump it in the U*U Hole though. If you want me to go through that meaningless exercise let me know.

Monday, February 04, 2008 9:48:00 am  
Blogger Robin Edgar said...

:Don't be ridiculous, Indrix.

It's Indrax aka James Andrix and being ridiculous is unfortunately one of his specialties. In fact indrax has been known for making what one blogger calls "wild-ass statements" for some time now.

:People should be allow to remove whatever comments they wish from their own blogs.

Well not if the blog specifically claims to be - a "memory hole" free blog where censorship is scorned. I do however reserve the right to move offensive or otherwise objectionable comments to the U*U Hole that James Andrix inspired me to create to deal with his repetative comment SPAM. . .

:Every person does not have to respect your freedom to be rude.

Which is precisely why I am standing in front of the Unitarian Church of Montreal with picket sign slogans that say -

CULT IS A FOUR LETTER WORD

and

"CHURCH" OF THE "PSYCHOTIC" REACTION

to say nothing of these blasts from the past -

UNE "EGLISE" QUI N'EST PAS TRES CATHOLIQUE

and

A "CHURCH" THAT DESERVES A TRUDEAU SALUTE

:Mr. Edgar clearly enjoys debate, so he is free to argue when he likes, but he is quite correct to remove posts that displease him.

I have not actually removed a single post that has ever been successfully submitted to this "memory hole" (but not U*U Hole. . .) free blog. There is only one lonely redundant post from indrax that is in TEA blog limbo because it was submitted during the comparatively brief period of time during which I felt it necessary to trun on the comment moderation function and was not noticed until after I had turned off the comment moderation function.

:If you do not understand this, I am happy to come and stay in your house and be rude to you since you apparently don't think you have the power to ask me to leave.

Well, as you can see from reading this blog, I am quite happy to allow obnoxious U*Us to be rude to me here but they usually end up regretting it when I respond to their rudeness in kind. . .

:But I trust Mr. Edgar to be responsible for my name. He's a servent of God after all and as such I am sure he is above mistreating people this way.

Well I am not above being rude to people who are rude. I seem to recall that Jesus and other Bibklical prophets were not particularly polite to those they were prophessying against. . . Actually Normand it is you and only you who is responsible for your name. The very reason that I am making it clear to people that I expect them to identify themselves when posting here is to diminish the amount of offensive posts that I have to deal with here. I will add that I reserve the right to "out" anonymous and pseudonymous bloggers who post offensive or otherwise objectionable comments here if and when I should discover their real identities.

Monday, February 04, 2008 10:14:00 am  
Blogger Robin Edgar said...

:You did say that you were doing the protesting on your own prerogative and that you had never said God told you to do it.

Indeed I did but that does not mean that my protest against the anti-religious intolerance and bigotry of U*Us and other U*U injustices, abuses and hypocrisy does not serve a prophetic role. It most certainly is "prophetic" in the broader sense of the word. In fact God did not "tell" me to do any specific thing, although it was made quite clear to me that God did want me to speak about my revelatory experience and the messages that it revealed. I would like to think that I have a certain amount of freedom to stand up for myself and other people who have been harmed by intolerant and/or abusive U*Us.

:If God has told you to spread your prophecy, and not told you to protest the Unitarians, then it seems God's opinion of what you should be doing is quite clear.

Actually it is not clear at all. I have in fact spread what was revealed to me to tens of thousands of people, if not hundreds of thousands of people, with little or no positive and supportive response from the public. I have never received any clear message from God that God disapproves of my protest against the Godlessness of the U*Us and other U*U injustices, abuses and hypocrisy. Since God certainly did approve of other various other prophets railing against the Godlessness of people I can't imagine that God strongly disapproves of my peaceful public protest against U*U Godlessness etc.

:I would not presume to judge what God's work is and isn't and I caution you not to do so yourself.

Well, when it gets right down to it, God's work is God's to do. . . If God wants human beings to perform various tasks on God's behalf perhaps God should provide clear instructions as to exactly what God wants to be done and provide the requisite support that is needed to successfully accomplish those tasks.

:If God has given you a mission to spread a prophecy and you have decided on your own prerogative to protest a church, are you not the one who is deciding what God's work is and is not?

I have spread the prophecy with little or no response from thousands of people. I believe that protesting against the fact that U*Us have said and done things that seriously harm my ability to successfully spread the prophecy is part and parcel of trying to spread it. . . I am clearly trying to defend the prophecy against slanderous U*U lies about it.

:I know that if God gave me a mission, I would do as God told me to rather than deciding that spending my time on something else was more important.

Why don't you wait until God gives you a mission before being so sure about how you would undertake that mission. As far as I am concerned there are some very good reasons to be doing what I am doing and I have not heard God tell me to stop what I am doing.

:Imagine how many people would know about your revelation if you were to spend your Sunday mornings preaching it in the streets instead of this protest of a religion that you yourself say is not important.

Actually it is UUA Presidential hopeful Peter Morales who said that U*Uism is a "tiny fringe religion". I happen to agree of course, but that does not mean that U*Uism could not become an "important" religion if it responded in responsibilty to the revelation that I am claiming rather than making a total mockery of pretty much all of its claimed principles and ideals and thoroughly betraying its monotheistic heritage. I seem to recall that God goes out of Its way to call the Godless back to the fold. . . Who is to say that God does not want ewe-ewes to return to the fold?

:I myself would stop and listen to such a thing, rather than merely driving past you.

Well such a thing is available to be read on the internet if you bother to look for it and, quite frankly, I think that "preaching it in the streets" like some off-the-wall evangelical Christian preacher is neither an appropriate nor effective method of spreading this particular revelation of God. There are other more appropriate and more effective ways of sharing it but until it receives some positive and supportive response from the public there is only so much that one man can do. In that thousands and thousands of people have been presented with the core elements of this significant revelation of God and have mostly disregarded it, ignored it, or outright rejected it I am not sure how much more of my life I am prepared to waste spreading it to people who obviously do not care very much about it.

Monday, February 04, 2008 11:01:00 am  
Anonymous NC said...

: I am not sure how much more of my life I am prepared to waste spreading it to people who obviously do not care very much about it.


Take courage, friend. I do believe all prophets experience this, and I do not think the work is easy. At the same time, it is what God asked of you and few people recieve this honor. And, as others have observed, other prophets have been fed to lions and ordered to sacrifice their children. By comparision, being ignored is rather pleasant.

God seems rather resistent to telling people what not to do (the Godless rarely hear from him, after all,) so it does not surprise me that he does not tell you not to spend your time on the church rather than what he asked of you. I would not be so quick to decide that his silence is consent, but in the end it is you who will have to defend the amount of time you spent on each task to God, not me.

Again, it appears to me that God told you what he wanted you to do, and you are rationalizing doing something else by saying that you're sure God would want you to do the very thing you want to do anyway. For the sake of your soul, I hope that your guesses about God's preferences are correct.

I did as you asked and tried to find the prophecy on the internet. In my search, I found This article

I now feel I understand your situation more fully. The last paragraph of this article actually very much echoes my own thinking about your situation, except that it leaves me wondering if Satan himself has beguiled you into this quest against a church to prevent you from completing God's mission.

Don't be fooled. You know what God wants you to do. You are being tested now. Do ask God asked you, even if it is more difficult than protesting the church.

Monday, February 04, 2008 3:07:00 pm  
Blogger James Andrix said...

nc:
Sorry, I was unclear again. I didn't mean that robin shouldn't be able to delete posts, or that that is a first amendment violation. Just as I can kick you out of my house for disagreeing or for any reason, I can delete you from my blog for any reason. This certainly means that we do not have a right to free-speech-in-other-peoples-homes. (or blogs)

But that freedom can be granted. I can decide that I am not going to kick people out or delete their posts just because they disagree. That is almost always my choice, because I value free discourse in my blogs. I want people to voice themselves, and I certainly wouldn't want any of my posters to feel fearful.

Robin's anonymity policy is intended to create consequences for speech. (arbitrary and unknown consequences.) It stops people from freely posting their thoughts, by design.

He has a right to this policy, but for this blog, it is a bad policy.


Upon further reflection, I notice another aspect to his opposition to anonymity.
He does not believe that anonymous/pseudonymous people should criticize named individuals, to the point that he believes it justifies outing the pseudonymous, even for posts off of his blog.
This creates a double standard for the content that can come from an anonymous, anywhere.

It should be obvious that this "war of words" has everything to do with being able to hold people responsible for the harmful and damaging things that they say. N'est-ce pas?

That is an interesting take on it.


:This amounts to a blanket ad hominem attack.

Wrong again as usual idrax.


Again I was not clear. I meant that these are the general arguments I see against anonymity, not that these are your arguments.

but I see that you have hedged your bets a bit.

Heh, I think we're both very good at constructing sentences that are technically true when the words are defined just so.

Given your statements and this blog's description, I think it's reasonable for someone coming here to expect posts to be where people posted them, and not 'moved' or mysteriously missing for months.

I would not consider it a meaningless exercise.

Saturday, February 09, 2008 10:31:00 pm  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home