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 -

Tuesday, December 16, 2008

How Do U*Us Decide When To Throw A Fit?

Yet another Unitarian*Universalist "sermon" by U*U minister Rev. Dr. Marilyn Sewell has been shamelessly plagiarized by the ever so Reverend Doctor Eric Theodore Cartman III in order to teach hypocritical U*Us a "lesson". . .

How Do U*Us Decide When To Throw A Fit?

A ferocious conversation about fit-throwing, aka picket-sign tossing, is taking place all over the U*U World just now. It appears that there are two schools of thought at the moment regarding the action of Peter Kohl, the so-called self-titled (not to mention self-appointed) "Citizens' Police Officer" who threw a fit, and ALSO threw a bunch of The Emerson Avenger's picket signs onto de Maisonneuve Boulevard during his U*U "police action". Some people are saying that the act was wrong, that traditional "Humanist" hostility towards a theist shows disrespect, and even that this U*U disapproves of the theist (as most U*Us apparently do, of this theist). Far more U*Us, however, seem elated by the defiant act -- in fact, so-called self-titled (not to mention self-appointed) "Citizens' Police Officer" Peter Kohl has become something of a folk hero to many U*Us. In the N.D.G. section of Montreal, Montreal Unitarian U*Us are taking off their principles and purposes and putting them on long poles, and waving them high in the air, demanding that Robin Edgar immediately withdraw from their "church". (See Montreal Mirror, 30/12/1999)

I must say that it was pretty amazing to see repeated U*U Tube videos of someone throwing a fit at The Emerson Avenger, sincerely ignorant and conscientiously stupid. . . and The Emerson Avenger chuckling, and then, whoops, here comes another one, again just barely missing a U*U World record for picket-sign tossing. Robin made light of it, saying "This is how U*U democracy works." Well, actually, no -- being in a democracy doesn't give a person permission to fling picket signs into the street, to say nothing of at a protester. The act, no doubt, was disrespectful. But was it brave and appropriate -- or rash and foolish?

I grew up in South Park, in a society in which politeness was paramount -- rules were followed. It was "Yes, Ma'am" and "Yes, Sir." It was speaking softly but carrying a big stick, it was moving gently in the U*U World. And yet often, out of the mouths of these good and gentle U*Us, who would stretch and strain never to offend, came horrendous remarks and acts of bigotry. The rules about theist and atheist were clear: "Faith-heads" were fine so long as they "stayed in their place." When they did not, when they dared to violate the rules, violence erupted.

Well, who makes the rules, and for what purpose? And when should rules be broken?

I am of two minds of this. I am all for rules of decorum. I prefer polite behavior. Let me tell U*Us, that a woman can open the door for me any time. And I like to visit the Unitarian Church of Montreal, where U*U children were saying "Unitarians Affirm Inherent Worth And Dignity" to me when I was 42. I believe that these rules of behavior, to say nothing of these ones. . . are there for a reason, and generally that reason is so that society can remain civilized, and people will remain respectful of one another.

On the other hand, sometimes rules and traditions need to be broken, and their very breaking shines a light on something that is awry in the society. Martin Luther King, Jr., taught his followers to practice civil disobedience, and so they sat in restaurants and at drugstore counters that were "White Only." Rosa Parks did not follow the rules of the city bus line. The Berrigan brothers poured blood on draft records during the Vietnam War. Every year demonstrators go to the School of the Americas in Georgia, where the U.S. trains foreign soldiers to terrorize their own citizens, and these demonstrators break the rules -- they step over the government "line" and are arrested, and many have been jailed, some for as long as six months -- nuns and priests and ministers, among them.

Every person must discern for himself or herself when it's right and appropriate to break the rules. One rule of thumb would be your motive, of course -- are you breaking the rule for your own benefit, or to grandstand -- or because you believe a statement must be made that cannot better be made another way.

I myself -- well, I'm a good boy and always have been. I follow the Golden Rule. That's why I was elected "Class Clown" in my senior year in high school. And then I became a police officer, and U*Us know how they are about rules. Now I'm a minister, and we all are aware of the rule-bound-ness of religion. Except there's one rule in religion that's bigger than all the others -- it's called the Rule of Love. So when we face a dilemma, we can ask, "What is the most loving thing to do?" Sometimes it's fasting. Sometimes it's not eating British salt. Sometimes it's speaking the truth to power, even though that's going to get U*Us in a mess of trouble.

Sometimes it's applying a virtual "shoe" to hypocritical U*U butts.

* If the shoe fits wear it. . .


Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home