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
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: - 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: - 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 -

Thursday, June 26, 2008

Holy Moses! Yet Another LOL U*U Picture. . .

This particular LOL U*U picture was inspired by a recent post on Rev. Debra Haffner's 'Sexuality and Religion: What's the Connection?' blog titled - SO, Which Part of the Bible Are They Talking About?.

Rev. Haffner had asserted that, "the Bible is silent on birth control, silent on abortion, and silent on consensual same sex adult sexual relationships as we understand them today," so I had felt obliged to point out to her that the Bible was not in fact "silent" on such issues.
I did not bother to point out which parts of the Bible actually talk about these things but I did say -

"I know that liberal clergy like to jump through all kinds of hoops to rationalize "biblical morality" but surely it would show more integrity if liberal clergy simply forthrightly stated that they do not believe certain problematic passages of the Bible, or that they just plain disagree with what is said in them even if God actually said it."

I somewhat serendipitously stumbled upon the above image within hours of that comment which Rev. Haffner saw fit to post to her moderated blog and thought that it could be used to humorously "illustrate" the issue of questionable rationalizations and revisionist interpretations of problematic Biblical passages that liberal clergy and theologians are so inclined to engage in. So I popped it into ROFLBOT and added the pertinent LOL U*U text to it. Needless to say the text closely references the famous LOL Cat in the fridge saying,


Labels: , ,

Wednesday, June 25, 2008

Rev. Diane Miller And "Dirty Tactics" In UUA Presidential Elections

On her Ms. Kitty's Saloon and Road Show blog U*U minister Rev. Kit Ketchum has recently posted her musings about the UUA Presidential election which will decide whether Rev. Peter Morales or Rev. Laurel Hallman will become the next President of the UUA, assuming no other Presidential candidates enter the "race". I put in my two-cents worth and, somewhat surprisingly, Ms. Kitty has seen fit to post the two somewhat controversial comments that I submitted to that blog post. My second comment responds to Rev. Kit Ketchum's hope that the two U*U ministers currently running for President of the UUA will not "use dirty tactics to win the race". I was reminded of the fact that Rev. Diane Miller, the former Executive Secretary of the UUA's Ministerial Fellowship Committee who ran against Rev. Bill Sinkford in the 2001 UUA elections, had been something of a "sore loser" and had made public allegations of "falsehoods and deceit" in the UUA election "process" following her somewhat humiliating defeat by a considerable margin. I am cross-posting my comment here as well as reposting the content of my original post about Rev. Diane Miller's allegations on the Usenet groups alt.religion.unitarian-univ and soc.religion.unitarian-univ after I discovered her sermon titled 'Disappointment and Defeat' on the web site of

"My experience with UUA election campaigns is that they are quite civil, at least on the surface, though I may not be on the inside track with the rumor mill. I doubt that two ministers would use dirty tactics to win the race; at least, I hope not."

Who needs to be on the inside track of the rumor mill when you can read former UUA Presidential candidate Rev. Diane Miller's sermon alleging dirty tactics in the last UUA Presidential election? ;-)

"The hardest part of the campaign was not that people made a choice for the other candidate, Bill Sinkford, or that they judged me and I came up short. The remaining pain for me, and I do have some, is the extent to which there were falsehoods and deceit in the process. Call me an idealist, but in a denomination dedicated to Truth, it is damaging when what is being presented is not what is the reality. For me, personally, there were falsehoods spread beneath the surface, to which I was not able to respond directly."

OK, so this U*U sermon is no longer available to be read in full on the internet any more, but I long ago preserved the most pertinent part of it for U*U posteriority.

Here is what I posted to the Usenet groups alt.religion.unitarian-univ and soc.religion.unitarian-univ on March 29, 2002 -

Hi All,

In a sermon titled 'Disappointment and Defeat' Rev. Diane Miller
complains bitterly about how badly she lost the recent UUA
Presidential elections. In this sermon which is available online she
begins by saying the following -

Nobody wants to be a sore loser. But that's how it feels to lose an election -- sore. We say the person who loses an election was "beaten." The winner "beats" the loser. Campaigning is described as a "bruising" experience.

Nobody wants to be a sore loser, as in bitter, blaming, "stuck" in that identity of defeat, like the character Dickens captured in Great Expectations -- the jilted Miss Havisham with her mouldering wedding cake, bitter and vengeful. There must be a better way to handle disappointment.

Rev. Diane Miller then goes on to complain -

Church politics might seem like a gentle sport. But church history, indeed all of religious history, is full of bitter internecine dispute. Scripture is full of struggles for leadership and power. And it isn't all League of Women Voters impartiality. In the Beatitudes we are reminded: Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely . . . .
[Matthew 5:11] The hardest part of the campaign was not that people made a choice for the other candidate, Bill Sinkford, or that they judged me and I came up short. The remaining pain for me, and I do have some, is the extent to which there were falsehoods and deceit in the process. Call me an idealist, but in a denomination dedicated to Truth, it is damaging when what is being presented is not what is the reality. For me, personally, there were falsehoods spread beneath the surface, to which I was not able to respond directly. One of the disciplines of the soul for me is to accept that who I am and what has been said about who I am are now further apart from one another, and I will not be able to bring them back into alignment. I've been doing well at letting go of what I cannot and need not worry about. As an institution, we need to do better to encourage free and open discussion of issues, and move away from "identity politics" which reduced the campaign for many people to simplifying and prioritizing the issues of race and gender.

end quotes

Read it all here - (Ed. note - The sermon has been deleted)

Does anyone here have any idea what Rev. Diane Miller is referring to when she bitterly complains about damaging "falsehoods spread beneath the surface" and speaks of "deceit" in the UUA Presidential election process? It seems to me that if she is going to publicly complain about such things in her Sunday sermons to The First Religious Society Carlisle, Massachusetts that are posted on the internet for anyone to see that she should say exactly what these alleged "falsehoods" about her are and just what "deceit" may or may not have been involved in the UUA's electoral process so that her allegations can be responsibly looked into to determine whether or not they are true. It seems to me that Rev. Diane Miller is being rather free with the truth but far from responsible with it.


Robin Edgar

I am more than open to to people posting answers to those still unanswered questions but the main purpose of this post is simply to point out that Rev. Kit Ketchum's doubt that U*U ministers would use dirty tactics to win a UUA Presidential election may be wishful thinking.

ROTFLMU*UO! OK I had reasonably assumed that "sore loser" Rev. Diane Miller's 'Disappointment and Defeat' sermon of November 4, 2001, which alleges that certain "dirty tactics" were used against her in the 2001 UUA elections, was no longer available on the The First Religious Society Carlisle web site simply because it was quite old and had been deleted since Rev. Diane Miller is no longer the minister of that Unitarian*Universalist congregation, but a little bit of digging tells another story. . . I backspaced to -

and discovered the parent directory of the sermons that are preserved on the web site. Selected sermons from the period 2001 to 2003 are still hosted and available to be read here -

It would seem that Rev. Diane Miller's rather problematic sermon has actually been relegated to the burgeoning "memory hole" of the U*U World thanks to its controversial content alleging "falsehoods and deceit" in the UUA election process. It turns out that all of the other old sermons from 2001-2003 that were originally posted to the web site of The First Religious Society Carlisle are still available to be read with one notable exception of course. . .

Can U*Us say "whitewash"?

Labels: , , , , ,

Tuesday, June 24, 2008

Unitarian*Universalism On Beliefnet The Same Old Same Old. . .

All of the following material was gleaned from comparatively recent posts to the Unitarian*Universalist sections of Beliefnet. It looks like not much has changed since I was permanently banned from Beliefnet for posting similar criticism of obvious problems within the Unitarian*Universalist religious community. Anyway I am glad to see that there are other people who are exposing and denouncing the same U*U injustices, abuses and hypocrisy that I was exposing and denouncing years ago. . . It is quite gratifying, and even vindicating, to see U*Us validate what I have been saying for well over a decade.

I'm having a little problem recently with my UU church (I have been a member for 4 months so far)...I feel they are, as a whole, too humanist/secular. Which is fine, I respect that, but it gets kind of annoying to me...I really need something more spirituality based.

I'm a member of a small UU congregation that is having trouble growing and thereby never has enough money. . . Where I live there's a limited number of atheists/agnostics/humanists who will go to church and I suggested that making our 'presence' more religious could attract naturalists, mystics, and liberal theists into the building. When I said religious two of the Board members almost fainted expounding on their way down that they refused to be Christian. I tried to explain that being religious was different than being Christian but to no avail. I'm on the Sunday Services Committee and have written and presented many services. Over the past year several rather intolerant atheists/agnostics/humanists have told me that if I continue to use Bible verses and God in my presentations that they'll quit. I responded by referring to the third principle, again to no avail.

Personally, I think we're not just shooting ourselves in our collective feet but blowing away those appendages entirely.

Thank you for sharing your experience on presenting Channing. Last summer I presented a service where I abstracted the Channing, Emerson, and Parker sermons and was told at the end that it was nice but that "we" don't need this stuff. When I said that it's good to know the teachings of the religion that you belong to I was told "we're UUs, we don't need to know anything". I must say they're doing a good job of that.

Last month the chairperson of the Sunday Services Committee that I'm on, who is also a ministry student at Meadville Lombard, wrote a newsletter article that included the statement "Sunday worship service must provide for whoever may come through the church doors with whatever joy or burden they carry.” Several of the intolerant atheist/agnostic/humanist members of the congregation complained that the statement restricted their ability to “express” themselves regardless of what the community is looking for in a service. I told them that when I participated in a service I felt responsible to serve the community and at this moment they considered me a fool.

At the last Board meeting the President related a comment that the congregation does not appear to like poor people and said that she/he liked poor people but not a lot at the same time. I should have walked out of the meeting but didn't, so now I've violated what C.S Lewis referred to as our "moral conscience".

Quote: Is there hope or are we barking up the wrong tree?

I can give you only a "I'd like to think there's hope, but after nearly 30 years of association with Unitarian Universalism, I'd have to express it as 'Well,....ummm...maybe.' The denomination as a whole after all these years is still predominantly white, highly educated and relatively affluent overall. While I can't speak with any authority about this, in each of the two UU churches I've belonged to, the majority of the members were atheists, agnostics and humanists as well as being generally the most affluent members, providing the majority of the church's income. . . We're kidding ourselves if we think that doesn't still mean, even with our UU Principles supposedly guiding our actions, that the majority calls the shots as to what will or will not be presented in services.

I really don't think that much of anything will shake the UU hierarchy from its cushy-comfy position. I'd like to be wrong but after so long with the denomination, I've heard lots of lip service and heard of a few congregations who seem to me to be striving toward what the UU Principles are about...but not very many.

I'm tired of it all and am preparing to go back to being a solitary Unitarian again. UU's on the whole are smugly self-satisfied and far more intolerant of diverse beliefs than they wish to think they are. I've had enough.

My perception of my church is that it's primarily a social club. Services are very generic-UU ordinarily. At first, I attributed that to the fact that the worship committee was burnt out on planning varied service themes since they'd done so for a year until we got an interim minister recently. However, considering the criticisms of his sermons that I've overheard, I think the problem is that a good many members don't want anything especially challenging or substantive.

As for diversity of beliefs being reflected in service content, there really isn't much. The church does sponsor a Pagan group that holds rituals and various holiday celebrations, but all of these are entirely separate from regular services. To all intents and purposes, it might as well meet elsewhere as there's no overlap whatsoever with more usual church activities and events that I've noted in my year's membership. . . Diversity? Yeah, riiiight. And unfortunately, the only other UU group nearby is a just-launched fellowship an hour's drive from my home. . . I'm considering my options and will most likely go back to being a solitary Unitarian.

It's still going on. Turn over in UU churches is so high there's no "institutional knowledge". . . As to diversity of beliefs, with no institutional knowledge on UU history, teachings, and practices congregations reflect beliefs of the most recent membership (i.e., the new folk to replace the members we lost last year). Gosh help you if you joined UU awhile ago as a liberal mystic and the new members are intolerant atheists, agnostics, and humanists.

I think the "UNITY" is the most important part. It's great to be 'diverse', but are we all one, are we all together? The unity is what is most important.

Very well stated. Recently I've been "whacked' for not being a strict humanist and for believing in something beyond humankind. I relate to what Albert Einstein wrote:

"Then there are the fanatical atheists whose intolerance is of the same kind as the intolerance of the religious fanatics...They are creatures who - in their grudge against the traditional 'opium for the people' - cannot bear the music of the spheres."

I feel a bit disunited from my congregation and may soon pursue other spiritual options. Hence the importance of unity.

This is truly sad, Jamlawken, but unfortunately, happens more often in UU churches than I like to think. That "majority rules" in some churches not just in congregational governance but also in how congregants treat each other is most unfortunate, IMO.

We talk a good talk, but sometimes I wonder just how many UU's take our Principles seriously, particularly the one about encouraging and supporting each other in our individual searches for truth. The UUA emphasizes that the Principles are simply guidelines and not a creed. I'm not so sure but what that works to our detriment too many times, seeming to permit disregarding any or all of the Principles as desired or convenient.

It appears that UUA may not be maintaining balance. UU membership has been limited because one group is always being served at the expense of others. My congregation has a definite humanist viewpoint which has driven away naturalists, mystics, and theists.

"I read somewhere that something like 49% of UUs are humanists...So how common is humanism/atheism within the UU church as you all have experienced it?"

The humanist percentage may be from from the UUA web site ( The congregations I've been associated with are very humanist, which is OK except that the humanists I've known tend to be a bit intolerant of non-humanists.

In my experience humanists tend to be inwardly rather than outwardly focused which gives the UU congregations I've belonged to more of a "club" feel and less of a "church" feel (i.e., serving the greater community with a vision).

I recently realized that my large metropolitan church is humanist. However our minister is somewhere between humanism and theism; he mentions God sometimes in his sermons and prayers.

I am not a Christian nor a theist. I have not decided what I really believe or am. I may never. However I choose to personify the unseen energy, life force as Goddess, female divinity, because I need to.

My church is very intellectual. It's dominant culture and power base is 51% humanist which is very entrenched and resistent to innovation and some change. There is little will to do experiment. This makes me very sad.

Resistance to change and entrenched traditions are unfortunately, IMO, hallmarks of too many UU church groups.

It didn't take me long to discover that my recent former church was extremely resistant to newcomers' ideas for change. . . . I know that I definitely will be much more wary of joining another UU church too soon and will give myself probably several months of determining if it's a good fit before I become a member, if I ever again do so.

Our UU church is addressing this currently. We're in a shift from the "old guard" humanists who founded our congregation to younger families with children who are more open to spirituality. The pastor does his best to accommodate both and has cautioned us that we may be humanist, agnostic, or atheist, but "anti-theist" can cross the line into uncivil behavior.

I believe that we UU's on the whole are much too nonchalant about living our Principles, and that's a substantial contributing factor in the lack of spirituality in our denomination, IMO. I've overheard members of my church referring to them as "organic mulch," to say it more nicely. I'm tempted to ask somewhat testily, "So, what is this for you then? Just Sunday social club?"

Well Rev. Diane Miller Did Say That The UUA Was A Business. . .

This is too funny!

The number one result in the 'Business Results' section of a search for the word "hypocrisy" on the web site is none other than -

This brings to mind the post on the YRUU Institutional Memory Project blog in which Duncan Metcalfe reports that Rev. Diane Miller, the former Executive Secretary of the UUA's Ministerial Fellowship Committee and a sore-loser in the 2000 UUA Presidential election, once told him and several other YRUU Youth that,


*All caps text courtesy of Duncan Metcalfe

Labels: , , , , , , ,

Sunday, June 22, 2008

Unitarian*Universalist U*Us Can Keep Their Bad Faith. . .

On his 'Keep the Faith' blog, hosted by the Houston Chronicle newspaper, the Rev. Dr. Matt Tittle, who is currently the minister of Bay Area Unitarian*Universalist Church in Houston, Texas, just blogged about the UUA national marketing campaign Time Magazine advertisement that carries the following "in your face" slogan -


and then goes on to say -

Is this any way to talk about religion? Maybe you yearn for an open-minded spiritual community where people respect each other's beliefs and worship together as one faith. Where no one's idea of God is better than another's.

Rev. Matt Tittle's blog post is little more than uncritically flogging this highly misleading if not outright false and fraudulent UUA advertisement to his blog readership. He just regurgitates the content of the Time Magazine advertisement and says, "Perhaps you've seen it?"

Here is the comment that I just submitted to Rev. Matt Tittle's "moderated", if not "heavily moderated". . . 'Keep The Faith' blog.

I've seen it alright. The only problem is that it is highly misleading, if not outright false and fraudulent, advertising on the part of the UUA. There are no shortage of U*U "churches", especially "Humanist" dominated "churches" where U*Us quite regularly express considerable disrespect, if not outright contempt. . . for other people's religious beliefs and practices. Anti-Christian, and more broadly anti-religious, intolerance and bigotry is found throughout the U*U World and many God believing people have been put off U*Uism as a result of witnessing it or hearing about it from other people who have experienced it. In all too many U*U "churches" the fundamentalist atheist "Humanist" "idea of God" is considered to be better than any other. . .

end quote

Chances are very good that this critical comment which yet again exposes and denounces the anti-religious intolerance and bigotry of many "Humanist" U*Us will never see the light of day to shed more light on the ongoing Atheist Supremacist "bad attitude" towards Christianity and religion in general that may be found throughout the so-called U*U World. No doubt Rev. Matt Tittle will "protect" his readership from what he and other U*Us would no doubt characterize as a "malicious comment". . .

When the Unitarian*Universalist Association of Congregations aka the UUA knowingly and willfully publishes highly misleading advertising that portrays Unitarian*Universalism as an "open-minded spiritual community where people respect each other's beliefs" knowing full well that many Unitarian*Universalists, including U*U clergy. . . display considerable disrespect, outright contempt, and even what may be properly characterized as hate for other people's religious beliefs and practices, I think that I can quite justifiably accuse the UUA of acting in considerable bad faith by fraudulently publishing this kind of false advertising about the "tiny, declining, fringe religion" known as Unitarian*Universalism aka U*Uism.

Labels: , , ,

A Pod's Eye View Of A "Humanist" U*U "Church". . .

As a result of trying to find some old Beliefnet posts by a certain obnoxious U*U denizen of Beliefnet (not that there aren't several other obnoxious U*Us that were, or still are, posting on Beliefnet) I came across comparatively recent evidence of the anti-Christian, or more broadly anti-religious, intolerance of fundamentalist atheist "Humanist" U*Us who may also be justifiably described as Atheist Supremacists. In a post titled 'Feeling Hostility' dated October 14, 2007 a Beliefnet member going by the handle pod had this to say about his "local UU church" -

I am not UU but have often considered becoming one. I have sometimes attended my local UU church. Frequently, the sermons involve disparaging remarks about other "denominations" (anything Christian).

A few months ago, the minister sermonized in support of the recent "militant atheist" books like Dawkins and Sam Harris. Most of the congregation laughed along with the minister's jokes about Christianity. When the minister embraced atheism, the congregation applauded.

Now I am not a Christian, but I am a theist. I felt a generalized hostility against any form of theism from the pulpit. It stopped me from attending, though I still contemplate becoming a Unitarian.

How do other theists out there deal with disparaging remarks from clergy regarding theism? The secular/humanist/atheist culture of my local church seemed pretty entrenched.

end quote

So it seems that nothing has changed in the U*U World in spite of the fact that I first exposed and denounced this kind of anti-religious intolerance that makes a total mockery of U*U principles over a decade ago and have yet to shut up about it.

In typical U*U fashion, the first U*U that chimes in suggests that pod should try looking for another U*U "church" or join the online "Church of the Larger Fellowship". DotNotInOz says-

Sounds as though this simply isn't a UU church that will meet your needs. The makeup of one UU church can be dramatically different from that of another.

If there is another church or fellowship within a reasonable distance, I'd suggest trying it. If not, you may find that the online UU Church of the Larger Fellowship, serving those who for whatever reason haven't a UU church or fellowship they can attend, is a good alternative.

end quote

No kidding DotNotInOZ. Not only will this "Humanist" dominated not meet the needs of pod, talk about U*U understatement of U*U intolerance and bigotry. . . but it will not meet the needs of any Christian-oriented or otherwise theistic person unless they are masochists who need to be disparaged and insulted by a U*U minister and U*U congregation on any given Sunday. . . As usual DotNotInOz effectively parrots the U*U mantra, "If you don't like it, why don't you leave?" There is not the slightest suggestion as to how pod might take steps to correct the situation that he or she described.

Thankfully the next commenter wiljoro says -

I'm thinking that you would do that congregation a favor by letting them know how it made you feel to hear their laughter.

I've known far too many who have walked away from UU Congregations because they too have felt uncomfortable with these kinds of disparaging remarks.

That behavior is not consistent with the UU Principles and Purposes.

end quote

So wiljoro correctly notes that the intolerant behavior that pod described is "not consistent with the UU Principles and Purposes", as I have been saying for over a decade now. . . and goes on to suggest that pod would be doing that congregation "a favor" by pointing out its anti-religious intolerance. I take note of the fact that wiljoro goes on to speak about having known "too many" other people who have "walked away from UU Congregations because they too have felt uncomfortable with these kinds of disparaging remarks." Once again what I have been saying for well over a decade is publicly validated by another U*U who speaks from first-hand experience and knowledge. I am convinced that one of the main reasons that Unitarian*Universalism is a "tiny, declining, fringe religion", as UUA Presidential candidate Rev. Peter Morales so aptly describes it, is because many Christian-oriented or otherwise God believing people are treated as second-class citizens, if not outright pariahs, in many U*U "Welcoming Congregations". This is by no means the first time that I have seen similar posts on Beliefnet. This type of post has been a regular occurrence in Beliefnet discussion forums for as long as Beliefnet has been in existence, or at least since I first became aware of Beliefnet years ago.

To her credit DotNotInOz comes back and says, "I agree that it's not the least bit in accord with UU Principles, etc." and goes on to relate how a U*U lay "service leader" "rather acidly" disparaged her own suggestions for positive change in her own U*U congregation. Indeed she quite rationally and reasonably says -

"So, I'm not so sure that a visitor's appearing to criticize/correct how a church operates will be the least bit welcome. A private chat with the minister would be the route I'd try if I were determined to make an issue of it, but I doubt that I would in this situation since the minister appears to have initiated much of the laughter."

So I guess her immediate suggestion that pod just "move on" or "walk away" was due mainly to her rational assessment of the utter futility of pod trying to convince these hypocritical "Humanist" U*Us to change their intolerant behavior that does in fact flagrantly disregard and outright violate several of the U*U Principles that this "Humanist" dominated U*U congregation "covenants" to "affirm and promote". . .

Labels: , ,

Saturday, June 21, 2008

Rev. Patrick "Ogre" McLaughlin On Internet Etiquette. . .

U*U ministerial candidate Patrick McLaughlin, who covets the honorific Reverend before his name, has just given me a dressing down about " internet etiquette" and even "common etiquette" on his Sparks In The Dark blog. I have posted my response to his rather hypocritical "sermon" on his blog but, since this prospective member of the "Fellowship of the Wing*" is likely to "memory hole" my point-by-point rebuttal of his two-faced accusations against me I am reproducing my response to the Reverend Ogre's U*U "rant" here. I did not bother to embed links to supporting evidence in the original comment on Rev. Ogre's "Snark In The Dark" blog since I expect it to be promptly "memory-holed" by the prospective Reverend Patrick McLaughlin but I will probably add some links to this post later -

:Robin, you make a practice of making every topic of discussion about you, your tale of woe, and your beef with one church and a few UUs.

Wrong Patrick. I only post comments on blog posts whose subject matter is pertinent to the U*U injustices, abuses and hypocrisy that I am exposing and denouncing. And it's not just about "one church and a few UUs". Try at least several U*U "churches" and a whole lot of U*Us who make a total mockery of U*U Principles and ideals.

:Every opportunity you get, with few exceptions, you sneer, defame, mock, and insult.

Defame? I think not. I am very careful to be very truthful and accurate in my criticism of U*U injustices, abuses and hypocrisy. As far as sneering, mocking and insults go, as long as U*Us allow intolerant and abusive U*U clergy (to say nothing of lay U*Us) to sneer at, defame, mock, and insult other people I will be returning the favor. When U*Us clean up their act I will become rather more civil but, as long as the UUA and individual U*U "churches" all but officially endorse the insulting and defamatory language of U*U ministers, and allow all kinds of other insulting and abusive behavior to take place in the UNSAFE SECT known as the U*U World, I will be returning sneer for sneer and insult for insult. U*Us have repeatedly broken their empty "covenants" so I do not feel bound to them.

:Have at it--just don't do it on my blog. It's not a "public" place and I've gotten tired of it and don't care to have it here.

ROTFLMU*UO! *EVERY* blog, unless it is password protected or something, is a "public place" Patrick and if you haven't figured that out yet you are a complete idiot. I seem to recall some UUA administrators decrying how U*U youth did not understand just how public their blogs were, but obviously U*U adults are just as oblivious to that fact as U*U youth.

:Particularly not after your display of egregiously bad internet manners.

ROTFLMU*UO! My "egregiously bad internet manners" are a direct response to the egregiously bad internet manners of U*U bloggers such as Peacebang aka Rev. Victoria Weinstein for example. . . I can't help but notice that you direct people to her blog where, once upon a time they could read about her sodomy fantasy involving a US senator anally impaled on the Statue of Liberty's torch, to say nothing of other sneering, defamation, mockery, and insulting of other people. N'est-ce pas Patrick?

:I don't give a damn, as it turns out, who knows who "ogre" is.

How about gooddogmasit then Patrick? Do you care if anyone knows your Beliefnet handle? I seem to recall gooddogmasit doing a fair bit of sneering, defaming, mocking, and insulting on Beliefnet. . .

:It wasn't adopted as a cloak for anonymity.

No of course not. . . Neither was gooddogmasit was it?

:But your choosing to address me by name makes the point that you've performed that intrusion of going to find out who I am, so that you can out me.

Brilliant deduction Patrick aka gooddogmasit. . .

:Turns out I don't care. But your use of the name makes the point that you don't care to play within common etiquette.

Correct. I do not care to play within common etiquette when U*U bloggers choose not to play within common etiquette themselves. . . Why should I be bound to "common etiquette" when you and other bloggers, to say nothing of U*U clergy and U*Us more generally. . . repeatedly make a total mockery of "common etiquette" with their online, off-line, private and public, sneers, defamations, mockery, and insults?

:Tolerance is a reciprocal thing, and you've violated mine.

Because you and other U*Us have previously violated my tolerance "Ogre" aka gooddogmasit. . .

:So from here on, comments off topic--and particularly those that are rude and derogatory to UUs in general will simply be deleted.

And reproduced on The Emerson Avenger blog. . .

:Consider it the consequences of your misbehavior.

Consider my "rude and derogatory" but highly truthful and justified comments to you and other UUs to be the consequences of *your* misbehavior "Ogre". . .

:No doubt this makes me part of the vast conspiracy. Ah well.

I don't believe that I have ever used the term "conspiracy" with reference to U*Us Patrick aka Ogre aka gooddogmasit. From what I can see, a good number of U*Us do a pretty good job of being obnoxious asses all by themselves on an ongoing individual basis. . . No "conspiracy" required.

* As in left-wing aka "the Church of the Far Left"

Labels: , , , ,

Friday, June 20, 2008

This Honk's For U*U Reverend Gary Kowalski

U*U minister Reverend Gary Kowalski, who currently serves as minister to the First Unitarian*Universalist Society of Burlington, Vermont, asked people to "honk" if they love the Constitution today. So I submitted this Honk to his "moderated" aka censored Revolutionary Spirits blog. Of course the particular Constitution that I am referring to in that honk is the Canadian Constitution aka the Canadian Charter Of Rights and Freedoms that Montreal Unitarians seem to enjoy trampling all over in their deeply misguided and outrageously hypocritical attempts to restrict or outright suppress my civil rights and freedoms. . . Of course I believe that the Constitution of the United States of America is a pretty lovable constitution too. Perhaps I should take this opportunity to wish a somewhat belated birthday to the Magna Carta while I am at it.

Labels: , , , ,

U*U Media Whoring And Ersatz Civil Disobedience

Over on his Sparks In The Dark blog the pseudonymous U*U blogger who goes by the handle Ogre in the U*U "blogosphere", who I have some reason to believe is likely to be U*U ministerial hopeful Patrick McLaughlin, criticizes California civil servants for what he perceives as fake civil disobedience which he characterizes as "moral cowardice". Since I am not impressed with the ersatz "civil disobedience" of UUA President Bill Sinkford and other U*U ministers who commit minor crimes to get themselves arrested for the resulting media attention I fed Ogre's words right back to have with the following comment that I left on his blog -


Robin Edgar said...

Allow me to light a candle under hypocritical U*U asses and point out that the proverbial "bottom line" of some U*U "civil disobedience" is that UUA President Bill Sinkford and various other U*U ministers aren't committing real civil disobedience when they willfully block the entrances of buildings during protests in order to get themselves arrested on trespassing charges for the resulting photo-op and media attention.

They're not acting based on their moral beliefs because I am sure that most of them agree with laws against trespassing and would most probably use trespass laws themselves if protesters blocked the entrance of 25 Beacon Street or a Unitarian*Universalist "church". They're simply engaged in a gratuitous act that's most analogous to a media-whoring. They're not acting in a moral and consistent way, and they're almost certainly not willing to face the consequences of engaging in real civil disobedience by willfully breaking criminal laws that they are morally opposed to. Thin, thin stuff here and here, to say nothing of other instances of ersatz U*U "civil disobedience" butt enough to light a candle under some hypocritical U*U asses. . .

Update 20.06.2008 7:50pm EDT 4:50pm PDT

I had "reasonable grounds" to believe that "Ogre" would "memory hole" my comment that pointed out that outgoing UUA President Rev. Bill Sinkford and other U*U ministers were every bit as guilty of engaging in ersatz "civil disobedience" as the California civil servants that "Ogre" is accusing of "moral cowardice". So I checked back on his Spark's In The Dark blog immediately after reproducing my comment here. Sure enough he had already relegated my comment to the burgeoning "memory hole" of the U*U Word. Here is the follow-up comment that I left for this U*U "Ogre". I expect that it will be promptly "memory holed" too. . .

Robin Edgar said...

No problem Patrick. I expected you to "memory hole" my comment exposing U*U ersatz "civil disobedience" which is precisely why I checked back here soon after reproducing it on my blog.

Have a nice day,

Robin Edgar aka The Emerson Avenger

Labels: , , , ,

Thursday, June 19, 2008

A Cat*Ass*Trophy For CUC Executive Director Mary Bennett

I had not intended to post this particular LOL U*Us pic any time soon butt. . . what with yet another Unitarian*Universalist deciding to kick up some dust and become an exUnitarian*Universalist aka an XU*U as a result of what U*Us are so wont to call "perceived injustices" (even though they may well be very real injustices and abuses) I have decided that this LOL U*U Cat graphic is appropriately thematic in more ways than one. . .

Update Sunday June 22, 2008 10:00pm

I decided to create a new and improved version of this U*U LOLCat photo that is specifically dedicated to all those ex-U*Us whose chosen fate was to kick up the proverbial dust and walk away from their once chosen faith as a result of various forms of intolerance, mistreatment, and even abuse by their fellow U*Us. I suppose that ex-U*Us who chose to leave the "tiny, declining, fringe religion" known as U*Uism for other reasons may get a chuckle or two out of this U*U cat*ass*trophy as well.

Labels: , ,

Elvis Never Entered the Building. . . LOL U*Us

This LOL U*U pic is postU*Umously dedicated to X-U*U Dr. Rieux even though I created it several days before he decided to kick up some virtual dust and leave the U*U World behind him for good. . .

Labels: , , , , ,

Monday, June 16, 2008


As I mentioned earlier, a new U*U blogger going by the handle Emotional Wench thought that it might be fun to create some U*U graphics inspired by the LOL cats aka LOL kittens meme. I tried my hand at it earlier today. Here are a few of the resulting "artworks". . .


Click on the pics to view the full size versions.


Sunday, June 15, 2008

Poking Big Brother In The Eye. . .

U*U blogger MassMarrier down in Boston Massachusetts thinks that Big Brother Needs a Poke in the Eye.

I am only too happy to oblige.

Here is the comment that I just submitted to MassMarrier's "moderated" aka censored U*U blog. It will be interesting to see if he sees fit to actually post it for the benefit of those who have eyes to see. . .

Here's a poke in the eye for "Big Brother". . .

Just a little reminder that "Our Father In Heaven"* is watching him. . .

*please excuse my use of traditional patriarchal religious language here but it works well here.

Labels: , ,

Tuesday, June 10, 2008

LOL U*Us! Some Butt Kicking U*U Truth In Advertising. . .

A new U*U blogger going by the handle Emotional Wench has started a new U*U blog which presents her computer generated U*U artwork that takes a cU*Ue from the LOL Cats craze. I think that the example presented above quite nicely complements the "offensive" U*U "corporate identity" acronym dreamed up by CUC Executive Director Mary Bennett several years ago. It also brings to mind the UUA's rather questionable handling of my formal complaint about the offensive "sodomy fantasy" of Rev. Victoria Weinstein aka Peacebang and other insulting and defamatory unbecoming conduct of this rather *too* "manic" U*U "pastor" serving a historic U*U "church".

Here is the comment that I just submitted to the LOL UUs blog post that displays this particular LOL U*U artwork.

Robin Edgar said...

Come to think of it. . . The UUA's Department of Congregational Services under the rather questionable leadership of Rev. Dr. Tracey Robinson-Harris and the very aptly named Ministerial Fellowship Committee under Rev. Beth Miller's aptly described "oversight" quite evidently did allow a rather obnoxious U*U minister to publicly air her "sodomy fantasy" involving a certain US state senator anally impaled on the Statue of Liberty's torch. . .

June 10, 2008 1:42 PM

Labels: , , ,

Is Rev. Diane Rollert A Liar?

More to the point. . .

Did the Unitarian*Universalist aka U*U minister Rev. Diane Rollert, currently the not so settled minister of the Unitarian Church of Montreal, commit the crime of perjury by telling various falsehoods, and even some outright lies, during her sworn testimony as a prosecution witness in criminal court? Of course the only way to determine beyond a reasonable doubt whether or not Rev. Diane Rollert actually did commit perjury would be to have her charged with perjury, tried in criminal court, and obtain a conviction. Or she could just plead guilty I suppose. . . I will be seriously considering having Rev. Rollert charged with perjury, to say nothing of malicious prosecution, but knowing that accusations of perjury charges are rarely acted upon by prosecutors let alone brought to trial, I will present the facts here and allow the "Court Of Public Opinion" judge whether or not Rev. Diane Rollert is guilty of telling falsehoods and even some outright lies while under solemn oath to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, in a court of law.

In my well informed first-hand opinion Rev. Diane Rollert made a variety of misleading and outright false statements to the police, the prosecutor, and Québec Court during her deeply misguided effort to seek a restraining order against me on her highly questionable claims that she has "reasonable grounds" to believe that I will commit a "serious personal injury offence" against her. Not all of these misleading statements and falsehoods can be properly considered to be outright lies however since she may have genuinely believed what she was saying. That does not of course change the fact that such testimony was false aka untrue. For the purposes of my accusation that Rev. Diane Rollert committed perjury by lying while under oath to tell the truth in criminal court I will stick to her sworn testimony that can be best interpreted and understood as being outright lies and which may be quite readily proven to be lies. In this particular blog post I will not deal with the other less readily proveable falsehoods and lies that Rev. Diane Rollert told in Québec Court during her sworn testimony as a prosecution witness against me.

During my cross-examination of Rev. Diane Rollert I asked her if she had any irrational fears or phobias of any kind. She responded by outright denying having any kind of phobia or irrational fears etc. She even claimed to be perfectly normal "like everybody else" or words to that effect. I then produced her sermon titled 'No Atheist In The Foxhole' which was delivered at the Unitarian Church of Montreal on Sunday, October 21, 2007. In this sermon Rev. Diane Rollert speaks about her fear of flying. I asked Rev. Rollert to read some selected paragraphs from her sermon. Here are the pertinent words -

No atheist in the foxhole? The thought got me going. Now there’s something to think about as a Unitarian Universalist. No atheist in the trenches? No atheist on an airplane about to crash? For many years, flying would always bring out all my near-death fears. I’d look around at my fellow passengers and wonder if I should get to know them just in case we found ourselves on the brink of death. I’d grip the arms of my seat so tightly during take-off and landing that my knuckles would turn white.

Years ago, on a particularly bumpy flight, (you know, one of those flights when the plane keeps dropping thousands of feet unexpectedly) I found myself sitting next to a crying child. I could barely keep myself from shaking apart. So, I began to sing the one prayer I knew: Spirit of Life come unto me. Spirit of Life, the hymn I’d been singing with Unitarian Universalist congregations for years. Magically, we both calmed. I imagined the Spirit of Life, the Divine Mystery, present with us, and the spirit of my whole religious community singing in unison, holding us close as we bumped through the skies.

end quote

When confronted by her Sunday sermon that very clearly spoke about her intense fear of flying that can properly be considered to be an irrational fear of flying, a deep personal insecurity about flying, and even an outright flying phobia (i.e. aerophobia aka aviatophobia aka aviophobia aka pteromerhanophobia) Rev. Diane Rollert tried to deny suffering from any flying phobia or irrational fear of flying by claiming that her 'No Atheist In The Foxhole' sermon spoke only about one particularly turbulent flight that would have caused intense fear in anybody. That clearly false statement, to say nothing of her outright denial of having any irrational fears or phobias, can best be interpreted as being an outright lie and a rather foolish one at that in that her sermon very clearly states, "For many years, flying would always bring out all my near-death fears." Please note the "for many years" part. . . Please note also that Rev. Diane Rollert goes on to say, "I’d grip the arms of my seat so tightly during take-off and landing that my knuckles would turn white." That is clearly a general statement that obiously refers to more than one single flight, indeed it can be reasonably argued that it refers to most if not all of the flights that Rev. Rollert took over a period of "many years", most of which would have been perfectly normal take-offs and landings. Rev. Diane Rollert's 'No Atheist In The Foxhole' sermon quite evidently speaks about what most people would agree is an irrational fear of flying, if not a severe flying phobia, that spans "many years" and an indeterminate number of take-offs and landings.

Later in her 'No Atheist In The Foxhole' sermon (as it was delivered in Montreal. . .) Rev. Rollert says, "It is absolutely true that I was unsure as any Unitarian Universalist seeker about my own theology, that I did not start praying to God until I found myself in a foxhole, on a flight. I was one big chicken, sure that I was about to die– no matter what anyone may have told me bout the statistical unlikelihood. And I prayed really, really hard. . ." Also, "I prayed feverishly during those few moments of takeoff and landing." And, "Like a child’s well-worn security blanket, I started to carry 23rd Psalm with me everywhere I went, not just on airplanes." Clearly Rev. Diane Rollert is not talking about just one single "particularly bumpy flight" here. Indeed Rev. Rollert is quite obviously talking about take-offs and landings that preceded that "particularly bumpy flight" during which she would "grip the arms of (her) seat so tightly during take-off and landing that (her) knuckles would turn white." It is equally obvious that Rev. Rollert then goes on to speak about how she "prayed feverishly during those few moments of takeoff and landing" on flights that followed her "atheist on a plane" epiphany. . .

Yes, in case any U*Us are wondering, that is indeed a 'Snakes On A Plane' reference given one of the common meanings of the word 'snake'. . . Speaking of a "deceitful" and even "treacherous" person, to say nothing of an "insidious enemy". . . It seems that, although she quite obviously does suffer from an intense irrational fear of flying, Rev. Diane Rollert has very little fear of lying. . . and that includes lying (or being knowingly and willfully misleading and deceptive in various other ways) while under a solemn oath to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth in a court of law.

Interestingly enough there is an older version of Rev. Diane Rollert's 'Atheist On A Plane' sermon available elsewhere on the internet. I was aware of this earlier version of her sermon at the time that I cross-examined aka questioned Rev. Diane Rollert* about her apparent flying phobia but I had not read it in full since I assumed that it was virtually identical to the Montreal sermon. I only read this earlier version in full the night before presenting my defence against Rev. Rollert's dubious allegations about me. In doing so I discovered some interesting differences between the two versions of this sermon that serve as evidence of Rev. Diane Rollert's apparent willingness to twist the truth or attempt to hide the truth. . . Do U*Us dare to compare?

First Parish Concord version:

No atheist on an airplane about to crash? Even before September 11th, flying has always brought out all my near-death fears, fears I have passed on to my daughter. Several years ago on a particularly bumpy flight, she began to cry and it was all I could do to keep myself from shaking apart.

I was one big chicken, sure that I was about to die, no matter what my husband calmly told me about the statistical likelihood. And I prayed really, really hard.

end quote

So. . . Rev. Diane Rollert's irrational fear of flying aka aviophobia aka aerophobia that *always* brought out her "near-death" fears (i.e not just on one "particularly bumpy flight" as she falsely, indeed quite deceitfully, claimed in her perjurious sworn testimony in Québec Court) was so intense, so outwardly obvious, and even so infectious and contagious. . . that she managed to infect her own daughter with it. Indeed the ever so anonymous "crying child" that, according to her Montreal sermon, Rev. Diane Rollert just "found" herself sitting next to on that "particularly bumpy flight" was none other than her very own daughter who she had no doubt already afflicted with her own "near-death fears" of flying. I dare say that I have some "reasonable grounds" to "fear" that Rev. Diane Rollert's daughter was most almost certainly crying because her mother was yet again overtly displaying her own intense "near-death fears" of flying. Most ironically, in that section 810.2 of the Canadian Criminal Code makes it clear that a "serious personal injury offence", as defined in section 752, can include conduct "inflicting or likely to inflict severe psychological damage on another person" it would seem that Rev. Diane Rollert's daughter may well have had some "reasonable grounds" to seek a restraining order against her own mother some years ago.

I really can't imagine why Rev. Diane Rollert wouldn't want the congregation of the Unitarian Church of Montreal to know that her deep-seated irrational fear of flying aka aviophobia was so intense and so contagious that she managed to bequeath it upon her very own daughter. . .

That being said, I now leave it up to the proverbial "Court of Public Opinion" as to whether or not Rev. Diane Rollert committed perjury when she testified under oath that a.) she did not suffer from any irrational fears and phobias whatsoever and that b.) her sermon titled 'No Atheist In The Foxhole' was about just one "particularly bumpy flight" that would have caused anybody to fear for their life. I would appreciate it if the "judge and jury" of the general public would submit their verdict by commenting below.

*scroll down to page 10 to read Rev. Diane Rollert's 'Blessed Are Those Who Question' sermon.

Labels: , , , ,

Thursday, June 05, 2008

Montreal Unitarian*Universalist U*Us Are Full Of Shit. . .

It is always gratifying to receive validation for my ongoing protest against U*U injustices, abuses and hypocrisy in front of the Unitarian Church of Montreal from members of the Montreal public. A couple of Sundays ago, as I was protesting, a passer-by stopped and informed me that she had stopped attending the Unitarian Church of Montreal about three months previously. When I asked her why she had stopped going to the Unitarian Church of Montreal her blunt response was, "Because they're full of shit." I thought this was quite funny since about five minutes earlier I had told another person leaving the Unitarian Church that Rev. Ray Drennan and other intolerant and abusive Montreal Unitarians were "full of shit" when they falsely and maliciously labeled Creation Day as a "cult". When I asked this young woman why Montreal Unitarians were "full of shit" she made it clear that it was because they did not practice what they preach. When I asked her about what had happened to convince her of this she responded that she had been subjected to bigotry and that when she complained about the bigotry her complaint was not only dismissed out of hand but that she was treated as "a troublemaker" and a "bitch" for having complained about the bigotry. I told her that I had been subjected to similar treatment for complaining about anti-religious intolerance and bigotry on the part of Rev. Ray Drennan and other leading members of the Unitarian Church of Montreal.

In that this young woman was what Unitarians would call a "person of color" I assumed that the bigotry that she had been subjected to was discrimination and harassment based on her race but she did not specify this at the time and I was quite aware that she might well have been subjected to other forms of bigotry including anti-religious bigotry. She asked me if I knew "Brian" and I responded by asking, "Which one?" She said that "Brian", the choir director, was "the biggest bigot" that she had ever met. She did not provide details of his alleged bigotry but it was clear that she had complained about Brian's bigotry and had not received a satisfactory response to her complaint from the Unitarian Church of Montreal. Au contraire, like me, she had been treated as a "troublemaker" and ostracized by Montreal Unitarians for complaining about the bigotry that she had been subjected to. I empathized and told her that my protest was as a result of very similar mistreatment by Montreal Unitarians aka Montreal U*Us.

This Monday evening, as I was protesting in front of the Unitarian Church of Montreal when it held its annual general meeting, this young woman passed by the UCM once again and said hello as she passed. I asked her if she minded if I blogged about the bigotry and related mistreatment that she had been subjected to by Montreal Unitarians on The Emerson Avenger blog and she gave me her assent. I asked her more questions about what had happened and it quickly became clear that the bigotry that she had been subjected to was indeed of the racist variety. According to her testimony Brian Brice, the direct of the Unitarian Church of Montreal's Carmina Choir had repeatedly humiliated her, sometimes in front of the whole choir. She did not want to go into too much detail about his racist comments but she did mention that on one occasion he had said, "You know how you blacks are."

This young woman said that when she had complained about Brian Brice's behaviour to Frank (presumably Frank Greene) that he had pretended that he could not do anything because he did not know if Brian Brice had said what she accused him of saying. This is typical of how Montreal Unitarians, and U*Us more generally, respond to complaints about misconduct of various kinds. They get all politically correct and pretend that their hands are tied because they don't really know what happened and then they very quickly turn on the person complaining about the misconduct and treat them like a "troublemaker". . . I told this young woman that I would make a point of protesting this Saturday evening when the Carmina Choir holds its annual public concert and that the word 'bigotry' would appear prominently one one of my picket signs. I might add that this is but one of the ways that Montreal Unitarian*Universalist U*Us, to say nothing of Unitarian*Universalist U*Us rather more generally, are "full of shit" and that I will be addressing the various other ways that U*Us are "full of shit" in future Emerson Avenger blog posts.

Oh. . . I almost forgot to mention that during my second conversation with her last Monday evening this young woman made it very clear that, quite apart from the racist bigotry that she had been subjected to by Brian Brice, she had been made to feel far from welcome at this alleged "Welcoming Congregation" by the cold-shoulder that most of its members had shown her. She said that in the whole time that she had attended the Unitarian Church of Montreal only a small handful of members had taken the time to speak with her and that most of them ignored her. This sounds typical not only of the Unitarian Church of Montreal but rather too many other "corpse-cold" Unitarian churches.

This reminds me of a "joke" that some members of the Lakeshore Unitarian Universalist Congregation had made up about the Unitarian Church of Montreal years ago that was no doubt based on their own similar experiences of stand-offish "corpse-cold" Montreal Unitarians who had given them the corpse-cold Unitarian shoulder when they had visited this alleged "Welcoming Congregation" from time to time. The sardonic "joke" is that, "The green mugs are (there) to tell them (i.e. Montreal Unitarians) who *not* to talk to. . ." Needless to say, the Unitarian Church of Montreal requests that newcomers and visitors use special green mugs during the coffee hour that follows Sunday services so that church members may identify who the newcomers and visitors are. Obviously the idea is that Montreal Unitarians will make a point of being extra welcoming to newcomers and visitors but, equally obviously. . . that was not the actual experience of West Island Unitarian*Universalists who visited the Unitarian Church of Montreal on occasion.

I might add that this young woman described Montreal Unitarians as "snobs" several times during our conversation on Monday and that this "name-calling" was clearly based on her own personal experience of a condescending and snobbish attitude on the part of many of the Montreal Unitarians she encountered while attending the Unitarian Church of Montreal. Not only was this young woman subjected to racist comments and related discrimination and harassment that were tolerated, and at least tacitly condoned, by Montreal Unitarians, but she was subjected to the all too typical elitism and classism that Unitarian*Universalists are all too famous for throughout the so-called U*U World. Need I point out that this all took place on Rev. Diane Rollert's watch?

Labels: , , , , ,

Wednesday, June 04, 2008

Rev. Raymond Drennan Is Full Of Shit. . .

OK this is a little bit strange. If you run a Google search on Rev. Raymond Drennan the current top level search result is a link to the web site of the "Acadian country inn" cum "spiritual retreat centre" that Rev. Ray Drennan and his wife Ann Vickers own and operate in the town of Bouctouche, New Brunswick - l'Auberge le Vieux Presbytère de Bouctouche. The text of the English language result of that Google search currently says -

Unitarians strive to create a sacred space of respectful engagement where each is enriched by dialogue with another. Unitarians seek to gather (like the ...

Usually such a text would be part of the web page that the Google search found and links to but those words simply do not appear at all on the web page that provides a brief bio of Rev. Ray Drennan aka Rev. Raymond Drennan. Even the Google cache of an earlier version of that web page does not show those words. In fact, if my memory serves me well, and I am pretty sure it does. . . the web page is pretty much the same as it has been since I first laid eyes on it well over a year ago.

As someone who knows a little bit about web site design I realized that the phrase that the Google search result displays was probably written in the meta-tags section which is part of the source code of a web page but is not actually visible one the web page itself. Sure enough, an examination of the source code for the web page in question reveals the following sentences -

Unitarians strive to create a sacred space of respectful engagement where each is enriched by dialogue with another. Unitarians seek to gather (like the Tao) within an empty fulness of infinite possibility."

Based on my own personal experience and first-hand knowledge of Rev. Raymond Drennan, to say nothing of other intolerant, abusive, or just plain hypocritical Unitarian*Universalists. . . I can say with considerable authority that Rev. Ray Drennan is just plain full of shit when he claims that Unitarians aka Unitarian*Universalists aka U*Us strive to create a sacred space of respectful engagement where each (person) is enriched by dialogue with another. Not only has Rev. Drennan abjectly failed and obstinately refused to do so in his rather inhuman human relations with me, but there is ample evidence available that he has been extremely disrespectful of the proverbial sacred space of other people, not the least of them being the family and friends of former Canadian Prime Minister Pierre Elliot Trudeau. . . As far as the second serving of meaningless U*U drivel goes it would be rather more truthful to say that Rev. Raymond Drennan, and many like-minded Unitarian*Universalist U*Us, seek to spread empty bullshit with infinite implausibility.

Let's have another look at Rev. Ray Drennan's remarkably empty U*U BS, this time with embedded links to appropriate Google searches. . .

Unitarians strive to create a sacred space of respectful engagement where each is enriched by dialogue with another. Unitarians seek to gather (like the Tao) within an empty fulness of infinite possibility."

Labels: , ,