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

Friday, November 14, 2008

Would Atheist Supremacist Richard Dawkins Make A Good Unitarian Universalist?

In a blog post titled 'Richard Dawkins discusses the free and responsible search for truth and meaning', on what I consider to be one of the best Unitarian*Universalist blogs in the whole wide U*U World, Chalicefire, one of the most upstanding Unitarian*Universalists I know, David Markham, has suggested that "New Atheist" aka Atheist Supremacist Richard Dawkins would make a "good Unitarian*Universalist" and has even asked, "Should we invite him to join our church?" David has also asked, "How might he respond to our invitation?" As far as that second question goes, I can only suggest that a Unitarian*Universalist "church", perhaps Pullman Memorial Universalist Church in Albion, New York, which David Markham belongs to, or the greater U*U "church" as represented by the UUA, could enter into a free and responsible search for the truth and meaning of just how Richard Dawkins might respond to such an invitation by sending him an R.S.V.P. invitation to join them and seeing just how he responds to it. . .

It would appear that David Markham has made his assertion that Richard Dawkins would "make a good Unitarian*Universalist", and has asked these questions, on the basis of viewing this YouTube video of this T5M profile of Richard Dawkins where Richard Dawkins comes across as quite reasonable and thoughtful even though he clearly says, "I am hostile to religion. . ." within the first 15 seconds of this "profile". David Markham might have been well advised to entered into a free and responsible search for the truth and meaning behind Richard Dawkins' "confession" that he is "hostile to religion" before suggesting that he would make a good Unitarian*Universalist and asking if he should be invited to join the Unitarian*Universalist "religious community." Had he done so he would quickly discover that Richard Dawkins comes across as considerably less reasonable and thoughtful in other interviews and other well-documented public statements, including those expressed in his Atheist Supremacist "Bible" 'The God Delusion' whose title alone is offensive to believers let alone its content. . .

Rev. James Ishmael Ford aka Monkey Mind responded to David Markham's questions this way -

"I don't think Dr Dawkins approves of us. It is my impression he thinks we enable bad thinking and from that worse behaviors...

Personally I think he would be an ornament in our congregation. Would be a delight."

I responded to Monkey Mind's apparent lack of mindfulness this way -

James,

Or perhaps I should say Rev. James Ishmael Ford aka Monkey Mind. May I not so respectfully suggest that Unitarian*Universalist congregations throughout the U*U World already have rather too many Richard Dawkins Mini*Mes as "ornaments" if not *officiants*? Your express "delight" at the thought of having Atheist Supremacist Spokesperson Richard Dawkins as a hypothetical member of your U*U "church" is quite telling I think. . .

Seemingly soon to be former conservative "Christo-Pagan" Unitarian*Universalist Joel Monka responded with these words -

I think his open contempt for believers would make him a very bad UU, and I for one would not welcome him into my congregation. His saying that raising a child Catholic does more harm than sexually molesting them is at least 50% worse than I've heard from any UU.

I responded to both Joel Monka's comment and David Markham's blog post with these words -

I think Richard Dawkins' open contempt for believers would make him a very good Atheist Supremacist "Humanist" U*U and, in my own special way, I have already said so on The Emerson Avenger blog. ;-) Having said that, I thoroughly agree with Joel that Unitarian*Universalism really does not need any more condescending, insensitive, obnoxious, arrogant and willfully ignorant, intolerant and even outright hostile and abusive Atheist Supremacist amongst its ranks than it already has. . . The truly sad thing is that, as I have already stated, Richard Dawkins could be considered by many U*Us to "make a good Unitarian Universalist", even those U*Us who are quite familiar with his arrogant militant brand of Atheist Supremacism that he calls "New Atheism". Worse than that, I would not put it past the UUA and its Ministerial Fellowship Committee to ordain Richard Dawkins as a Unitarian*Universalist minister if he sought to become one. After all they have already ordained other fundamentalist atheist "Humanists" who are every bit as condescending, insensitive, obnoxious, arrogant, willfully ignorant, and intolerant as Richard Dawkins has proved himself to be in numerous public statements. In fact the UUA and its very aptly named Ministerial Fellowship Committee have already deemed that egregious anti-religious intolerance and bigotry on the part of one fundamentalist atheist "Humanist" U*U minister is "within the appropriate guidelines of ministerial leadership."

When U*U ministers can preach from their wayward pulpit that God is "a non-existent being" and that belief in God "seems primitive" or publish Op/Ed pieces expressing their "uneasiness", "irritation" and even "anger" that the state funeral of a former Canadian Prime Minister is a Roman Catholic ceremony where, God forbid. . . an Ave Maria is sung and some living Roman Catholic former Prime Ministers dare to take communion during this solemn religious ritual and even write off most of the rituals of *all* world religions as "meaningless" then Richard Dawkins could certainly be a U*U minister. Heck, if a prominent U*U minister and candidate for President of the UUA can write off Judaism, Christianity, Islam and unspecified other world religions as "obsolete religions, created for another time" that are only good for contributing to "the darkness" of "injustice, prejudice, ignorance" in his "stump speech" announcing his candidacy, a hypothetical U*U Rev. Richard Dawkins could even run for President of the UUA and apparently have a reasonable expectation of actually being elected as the figurehead of Unitarian*Universalism. . . Am I wrong? Did I miss something?

OK This is kind of funny. I was going to say "figurehead of the U*U Ship of Fools" but, in deference to David Markham's commendable civility, simply said Unitarian*Universalism. Then, as I was about to submit this comment noticed that the word verification code is "mates". . . How ironic.

Update Friday November 14, 2008, 11:30pm

David Markham has, as usual, very thoughtfully responded to my comment.

Here is my point-by-point response to his comment -

:Thanks for your comments. I didn't know that the athiest and humanist members of the church are so arrogant and disresectful of religious tradition and faith.

Not all of them are David, and I am usually careful to distinguish between the reasonably tolerant and respectful U*U atheists aka Humanists and the subset of Humanist U*Us who most certainly are not only arrogant and disrespectful but, at times, outright contemptuous, hostile, and bigoted towards "believers". That is why I usually describe this subset of atheists as "fundamentalist atheists" and (more recently) "Atheist Supremacists", or enclose the word Humanist within quotations marks indicating that I do not believe true Humanists should be "hostile towards religion" and contemptuous of the religious impulse in their fellow human beings.

:It should go without saying that one of our UU values is the "acceptance of one another and encouragement to spiritual growth in congregations."

Needless to say I agree with that in principle David, but the sad reality of the U*U "religious community" is that U*Us happily allow intolerant, contemptuous, and outright hostile and abusive Atheist Supremacist "Humanist" U*U "ornaments" and even *officiants* to make a total mockery of that U*U principle on an ongoing basis.

:I am aware of Richard Dawkins and have skimmed his book on the God Delusion which got mixed reviews but it seems as if you have much more knowledge than I do.

Indeed I do. I have been keeping an eye on Richard Dawkins and other "like-minded" Atheist Supremacists, such as P. Z. Myers and Christopher Hitchens et al, since I first became aware of the "New Atheist" movement. Richard Dawkins has a long track record of anti-religious "foot-in-mouth disease". Just Google - "Robin Edgar" and "Richard Dawkins" - to see what I have had to say about him over the last several years.

:The line I draw in terms of tolerance is the respect for our values. I don't think it is as important what you believe as how you love.

I can assure you that many of Richard Dawkins' "expressed attitudes" about religion and God believing people completely disregard and violate the Seven Principles of Unitarian*Universalism and other claimed U*U ideals. He shows precious little love for "believers" who he often contemptuously refers to as "faith-heads" in his anti-religious rhetoric. Of course, not being a member of the Unitarian*Universalist "religious community", at least not yet. . . Richard Dawkins cannot be expected to respect, even less or "honor and uphold", the Seven Principles and other ideals of Unitarian*Universalism. The same cannot be said about the disrespectful, contemptuous, intolerant, and outright hostile and abusive Atheist Supremacist "Humanist" U*Us who are far from pretty "ornaments", if not ordained U*U officiants, in too many Unitarian*Universalist "churches". It is bad enough that such Atheist Supremacist U*U "Humanists" are far from accepting of Christians or other God believing people in *their* far from welcoming "Welcoming Congregations", and even actively discourage the spiritual growth of bona fide Unitarian and/or Universalist "faith-heads" in *their* U*U "churches", but what is worse is that the UUA, individual U*U congregations and so many individual U*Us allow this anti-religious intolerance to continue and do little or nothing to prevent it and stop it.

Rev. James Ishmael Ford's rather less than perfectly *mindful* comment declaring that it would be a "delight" if Richard Dawkins deigned to become a member of his U*U "church" serves very well to prove my point that the anti-religious intolerance and bigotry of Atheist Supremacist "Humanist" U*Us is not only tolerated by some U*U clergy and individual U*U "churches" but is apparently even welcomed by them. . . As a direct result of too many "good Unitarian*Universalists" doing nothing or next to nothing to responsibly address the evil of anti-religious intolerance and bigotry in U*U "churches" I have often reminded U*Us of the saying "all that is needed for the triumph of evil is for good people to do nothing." I well remember the lame response of now retired Ottawa U*U minister Rev. Brian Kopke to my challenging him about his and two other U*U ministers' failure, or indeed refusal. . . to act upon the serious grievances about "fundamentalist atheist" Montreal U*U minister Rev. Ray Drennan's anti-religious intolerance and bigotry that I delivered to them when they conducted his first "peer review". This seemingly "moderate" atheist U*U minister sheepishly tried to cover his ass by saying, "Nobody did anything." You know what? He was right. . . Not only did the UUA, it's very aptly named Ministerial *Fellowship* Committee, and the Board and congregation of the Unitarian Church of Montreal do *nothing* to redress my legitimate grievances about Rev. Ray Drennan's intolerant, hostile, and I have good reason to believe malicious, labeling me as "psychotic" (or at least my revelatory religious experience as "your psychotic experience"), my monotheistic religious beliefs as nothing but "silliness and fantasy", and Creation Day as "your cult", but they even tried to intimidate me into dropping my serious grievances by threatening me with various sanctions, such as expulsion from the "church", if I did not stop sharing what UUA President Bill Sinkford once described as my "obviously deep concerns" with the congregants of the Unitarian Church of Montreal or the public.

:The way you describe your experience of these atheists is unloving and that turns me off.

It is not entirely clear here if you mean my description is unloving or if the intolerant and abusive "disruptive behaviour" of Rev. Ray Drennan and other like-minded "fundamentalist atheist" "Humanist" U*Us is unloving. If you mean the former I will happily concede that I do not feel obliged to be loving when people I do not know very well to begin with treat me and other people in a far from loving manner. Allow me to have some fun with what Ovid once said about love -

If U*Us want to be loved, be lovable. . .

I feel that it is necessary to point out that it is not just the anti-religious Atheist Supremacist "Humanist" U*Us whose obviously intolerant and abusive behavior is unloving. The sad fact of the matter is that it was, and still is. . . *unloving* for my fellow Unitarian*Universalists in the Unitarian Church of Montreal, the UUA and its Ministerial Fellowship Committee, and many other individual U*Us including disinterested U*U ministers like Rev. Brian Kopke et al to Deny, Ignore, and Minimize the unethical behaviour of Rev. Ray Drennan and other intolerant Atheist Supremacist U*Us. And *that* turns me off. . . In fact I am very seriously turned off by current UUA President Rev. William G. Sinkford's outrageously hypocritical religious rhetoric about U*Us "standing on the side of love" in light of the well-documented unloving manner that he and so many other U*Us have ignored, disregarded, and unjustly arbitrarily rejected my serious grievances about the intolerant, hostile, and abusive Atheist Supremacists who "ornament" the Unitarian Church of Montreal and too many other U*U "churches". What was it that Bertrand Russell once said?

The opposite of love is not hate, it's indifference. . .

Most ironically Rev. James Ishmael Ford who, like too many other far from genuinely *mindful* U*U ministers, has proven to be remarkably indifferent to my serious grievances, and may well be similarly indifferent to the much more widespread problem of intolerant Atheist Supremacists "ornamenting" U*U churches if his expressed "delight" at the thought of Richard Dawkins joining his "church" is any indication. . . has pointed out how Richard Dawkins believes that "moderate" believers aka "faith heads" enable bad thinking and from that worse behaviors of religious fundamentalists. The last time I checked, he and other similarly indifferent *do nothing* "good Unitarian*Universalists" have in fact enabled the bad thinking, and indeed worse behaviors, of the intolerant "hostile towards religion" fundamentalist atheist faction of Humanist U*Us. And U*Us wonder why, as you just put it, Unitarian*Universalism is dying; or, as apparent Atheist Supremacist U*U minister Rev. Peter Morales has put it, U*Uism is a "tiny, declining, fringe religion."

Monday, November 10, 2008

Rev. Tim Jensen aka The Eclectic Cleric Has Taken Up Too Much Space

Here. . .

Some people just don't know when to quit when they are already miles behind. . .

Rev. Tim Jensen had previously taken up too much space here in saying -

"Calling Jefferson (or for that matter, Lincoln) racist because their expressed attitudes about race don’t match up to contemporary understandings is simply wrong-headed."

Labels: , , , ,

One Nation, Under God? Or One Nation, Under U*U "Theocracy"? U*Us Decide. . .

In yet another hilarious example of Unitarian*Universalist self-parody the Advocacy & Witness Staff Group of the Unitarian*Universalist Association of Congregations aka the UUAWO has posted the following announcement titled 'One Nation, Under God' to their 'Inspired Faith, Effective Action' weblog aka blog -

The staff of the Washington Office, Kat, Lisa, Grace, Alex, Alida, and I, met each other at 10:30 this morning in front of the White House for our weekly theological reflection. We all agreed that the White House looked different this morning. It looked more approachable.

We opened with words from Barack Obama’s Springfield speech when he announced his candidacy. A speech which ended with: “Together, starting today, let us finish the work that needs to be done, and usher in a new birth of freedom on this earth.”

We shared what Sen. Obama’s victory meant for us personally, our communities, our nation, and the world. We were all emotional. Alida shared a snippet she had heard a man say on NPR, “Martin walked so Obama could run so our children could fly.”

We all agreed that progressives, especially spiritual progressives, have much work to do. We committed to working in coalition, to having patience, to being welcoming.

We then took the time to dream. We envisioned what our perfect union would look like. We articulated a vision that included excellence in education, access to health care, marriage equality, just immigration reform, reduction in our military expenditures, an end to the Iraq war, a green economy, no border walls, protection of women’s right to choose, and much more.

Knowing that this future will not be handed to us, we each took responsibility for helping build such a future. With this commitment in the forefront of our minds, we closed our theological reflection by reciting the pledge of allegiance while standing directly in front of the White House on Pennsylvania Ave. All of us recited it loudly and proudly as dozens of tourists milled about us.

"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands: one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.”

end quote

Here is the comment that I just submitted in response to this wonderful satire. The UUAWO assures me that my comment "will be visible after approval". . .

Does the UUAWO's "weekly theological reflection" have anything to do with the study of God Adam? If not perhaps you can henceforth refer to it as your "weekly philosophical reflection" or indeed "weekly political reflection".

"We opened with words from Barack Obama’s Springfield speech when he announced his candidacy. A speech which ended with: “Together, starting today, let us finish the work that needs to be done, and usher in a new birth of freedom on this earth.”"

Well opening your "weekly theological reflection" with words from a Barack Obama speech isn't exactly going to help him to play down his apparently unwanted "messiah" image is it?

"we closed our *theological reflection* by reciting the pledge of allegiance while standing directly in front of the White House on Pennsylvania Ave. All of us recited it loudly and proudly as dozens of tourists milled about us."

That must have been a sight to see. Did you capture it on video perchance? And to think that U*Us accuse Republicans of wanting to impose a theocratic state. . .

Labels: , , ,

Rev. Christine Robinson And "Less-Than-Perfect Tolerance" On The Part Of Her Fellow U*Us. . .

In a blog post titled 'That Was The Week That Was' on her iminister blog Unitarian*Universalist minister Rev. Christine Robinson speaks up about how members of what The Oregonian newspaper once deigned to call the "Church of the Far Left" can be, and are, guilty of what she rather too gently (and I believe euphemistically) terms "less-than-perfect tolerance" of Republicans and other political conservatives. She is speaking specifically about her personal observations and experience in her own Unitarian*Universalist congregation, the First Unitarian Church of Albuquerque, New Mexico, where she is the senior Minister, but anti-Republican and broader anti-conservative intolerance, and even outright bigotry, can be and is found pretty much everywhere in the ever so "liberal" U*U religious community. In fact anti-Republican intolerance may even be more prevalent and entrenched than the anti-religious intolerance and bigotry that degrades the Unitarian*Universalist religious community. I am all for U*U ministers playing "good cop" and diplomatically speaking up about various U*U injustices, abuses, and hypocrisies, and wish that more would actually do it, but I am not convinced that Rev. Christine Robinson's ever so gentle approach is likely to be effective. So I felt it necessary to post the following somewhat "bad cop" comment to her blog post -

"I was mostly aware of conservatives or Republicans leaving after being subjected to less-than-perfect tolerance on the part of their fellow UU's, or just weary of being a minority,"

So just what counts as "less-than-perfect tolerance" on the part of your fellow Unitarian*Universalists Rev. Robinson? Something like this considerably "less-than-tolerant" blog post by your fellow U*U and professional colleague Rev. Cynthia P. Cain? "Less-than-perfect tolerance" that I saw fit to reproduce verbatim in my TEA blog as a fine example of U*U anti-Republican intolerance, if not outright anti-Republican bigotry?

Enough of U*USPEAK. How about ditching the PC euphemisms and engaging in the kind of "straight talk" that Senator John McCain is reputed to engage in from time to time?


Update Monday November 10, 2008, 2:00 pm-ish

I felt I that should clarify and expand upon why I was less than perfectly impressed with Rev. Christine Robinson's blog post that spoke about anti-Republican, or more broadly anti-conservative, intolerance in her U*U congregation. So I have just posted the following follow-up comment to her blog. I have made one slight revision to this version of it to underline my point -

It should be obvious, but perhaps it needs to be specifically pointed out here, that when you say that "conservatives or Republicans" have left your congregation "after being subjected to *less-than-perfect* tolerance on the part of their fellow UU's" you are effectively suggesting that they are what former UUA President Rev. Dr. John Buehrens would call "overly sensitive souls" who just can't deal with relatively minor, if not absolutely minimal, intolerance of their political orientation as it were. By clearly playing down the level of intolerance that these people have been subjected to in your church you come across as being somewhat condescending and patronizing, and even effectively condoning that intolerance. That impression is reinforced by your rationalizing the loss of your Republican and conservative members by asserting that "moderate Republicans had become Democrats, or at least voted that way."

There is no question that you are minimizing the amount and/or degree of anti-Republican or broader anti-conservative intolerance that exists within your congregation, to say nothing of other U*U congregations that are rather less than welcoming to Republicans and other political conservatives. You are also suggesting that the members who left your congregation were not "moderate Republicans". If Republicans and conservative members felt compelled to leave your congregation as a result of anti-conservative intolerance you could at least give them credit for putting up with, and even forgiving, a fair bit of such intolerance before deciding that enough was enough. . . I might add that the same principle applies to those many people who have been subjected to what you might call "less than perfect" welcoming of their Christian or otherwise theistic religious orientation in U*U "Welcoming Congregations" and have felt compelled to seek more tolerant, accepting and welcoming religious community elsewhere, or have simply given up hope of finding a genuinely liberal* religious community as a result of their "less-than-perfect" experience with the denomination that pretends to be the most liberal religion of them all.


* see definition 7

Update 2 Monday November 1o, 2008, 6:30 pm-ish

Rev. Christine Robinson responded to my above comments within half an hour of my posting the second one. She said -

For somebody who knows nothing about the congregation, Robin, you are certainly sure of your prescriptions and your attributions. How liberal are you being, in the classic sense of the word?

I only just noticed her defensive response minutes ago and responded with this follow-up comment -

I don't think I need to know more about your congregation than you have already written here to be able to reasonably make the comments that I have made here Rev. Robinson. Perhaps you can clarify things by letting people know what exactly constitutes "less than perfect tolerance" in your congregation though. I think that I am being quite liberal in the classic sense of the word in firmly and forthrightly speaking out against anti-Republican, and more broadly anti-conservative, as well as anti-Christian and more broadly anti-religious, intolerance in the U*U World much of which cannot be reasonably described as only "less than perfect tolerance" as my own situation and Rev. Cynthia P. Cain's vitriolic blog post handily proves.

Labels: , , , ,

Was Famous Unitarian Thomas Jefferson a White Supremacist?

Just asking. . .

Labels: , , , , ,

Saturday, November 08, 2008

A Permanent Bias Against God In Unitarian*Universalist "Churches". . .

New U*U blogger 'Boston Unitarian' whose blog motto is -

"A truer and nobler life."

has posted a section of Chapter lll of Henry Ware's 'Formation of the Christian Character'.

He highlights this phrase in the concluding sentence -

"For you are engaging in a great work, the giving your heart a permanent bias toward God, and it ought not to be interrupted."

and then goes on to say -

"It is language that is, no doubt, difficult for many liberal religionists to listen to these days but I find it deeply true."

Here is the comment that I just submitted to Boston Unitarian's "moderated" aka censored blog. I do not have high expectations that he will actually post it and I have even lower expectations that he will deign to provide an answer to my questions -

So why is it that there seems to be a permanent bias against God, and against God believing people, in so many Unitarian*Universalist congregations? Why is it that neither God, nor God believing people, are all that welcome in so many U*U "Welcoming Congregations"?

end quote

Just to be clear, I am not suggesting that Unitarian*Universalists, or any other "liberal religionists", should adopt a "a permanent bias toward God" in their hearts and minds. There are lots of good reasons for people to be disappointed in God and to question God. I am only once again reminding Unitarian*Universalists that the rather too permanent bias *against* God and God believing people, that is manifested in so many ways in too many U*U "churches", is a serious problem that needs to be responsibly addressed by the UUA, the CUC, and individual Unitarian*Universalist congregations if Unitarian*Universalism is ever to move beyond being the "tiny, declining, fringe religion" that it currently is. . . Unitarian*Universalism does not have a snowball's chance in Hell of ever becoming "the religion of our time", as UUA presidential candidate Rev. Peter Morales rather dubiously aspires to "grow" U*Uism, unless and until this permanent bias against God and God believing people is formally acknowledged by U*Us and responsibly discarded by the U*U "religious community".


Update Sunday November 9, 2008 6:00pm-ish

Well 'Boston Unitarian' has pleasantly surprised me by not only posting my comment to his blog post titled 'A Permanent Bias Towards God' but has even provided a response to it.

Here is how he responded to my sharing my concerns as it were:

Thank you for your comment. While I agree that it can seem a "bias against God" exists in Unitarian Universalism, I think it is often more apparent than real. People are searching for a deeper meaning and they want to do it together.

This blog does not seek to fight those battles but only to lift up in a positive way, a life and a path that has been deeply enriching for me. If it proves to be so for others...well that would be wonderful. God Bless

Here is the follow-up comment (with some typos corrected and a pertinent link or two added) that I just submitted in response to the above comment. I have invited 'Boston Unitarian' to respond to this comment by commenting here if he finds my sharing of my concerns too hot to handle on his own blog:

Thank you for posting my critical comment and providing a response to it Boston Unitarian. As my linked blog post states, I had thought that you might not do either of those two things. Please allow me to respectfully respond to your response.

:While I agree that it can seem a "bias against God" exists in Unitarian Universalism, I think it is often more apparent than real.

From what I have have personally experienced, and from what I have repeatedly observed and borne witness to over the years, too many U*Us, including too many U*U clergy, have a very real and not just "apparent" bias against God and God believing people. This is particularly true of the intolerant Atheist Supremacist subset of "Humanist" U*Us. I am not suggesting that Unitarian*Universalism has a permanent bias against God and against God believing people but rather that too many individual Unitarian*Universalists have such a bias. Perhaps I should have said 'within' where I said 'in' to make this clearer.

The fact remains however that the very real and rather too permanent bias against God, Christians, and theists more generally, in the "expressed attitudes" of some "Humanist" U*Us effectively makes a good number of U*U churches far from genuinely welcoming to God believing people.

:People are searching for a deeper meaning and they want to do it together.

As long as "Humanist" U*U ministers can preach Sunday sermons proclaiming that God is a "non-existent being" and that belief in God "seems primitive", or otherwise express disdain and contempt for believers in public or even "private" statements, with not the slightest concern being expressed by UUA leaders, other U*U clergy, and individual U*U lay people, God believing people will choose to do their searching for a deeper meaning in some other "faith". . .

:This blog does not seek to fight those battles but only to lift up in a positive way, a life and a path that has been deeply enriching for me.

If you and other U*Us choose not to "fight those battles" on this blog or in the greater U*U religious community I expect that U*Uism will remain a "tiny, declining, fringe religion"* and that it will never even come close to becoming "the religion of our time." I am sure you know the saying,

"All it takes for evil to triumph is for good people to do nothing."

*Somebody* has to fight those battles or Unitarian*Universalism will continue to decline.

If you find this comment too hot to handle here perhaps you can answer it on The Emerson Avenger blog where I will cross-post it.

Regards,

Robin Edgar


* as UUA Presidential candidate Rev. Peter Morales so succinctly put it in his "stump speech" which most ironically contained the kind of anti-religious bias that Christians, Jews, Muslims and other God believing people will find to be intolerant and offensive.

Labels: ,

Friday, November 07, 2008

Does Rev. Victoria Weinstein aka Peacebang Suffer From Unbecoming Conduct Disorder?

Over on his Transparent Eye blog, journalist and UU World magazine contributor Rick Heller has written a post titled 'Those who Enjoy the Pain of Others' and sub-titled 'A peek at the sadistic brain'. His post is about a new study published in the journal Biological Psychology which used fMRI scans to compare brain activity in eight unusually aggressive 16-to-18 year-old males to those of eight normal adolescent males while they watched videos of people getting hurt. He reports that, "While both groups showed activity in the brain’s pain centers, the brains of aggressive males, those with conduct disorder, also showed activity in the brain’s pleasure centers, suggesting that they may have been enjoying what they were seeing. Normal males showed no such activity."

Here is the full text of the comment that I just successfully submitted in response to Rick Heller's blog post. I am embedding some pertinent links in it that were not in the original comment as posted. Hopefully Rick Heller will show some journalistic integrity and decide not "memory hole" my not unreasonable suggestion that the arguably sadistic "vindictive fantasies" that Rev. Victoria Weinstein quite regularly posts to her Peacebang blog are an indication that the self-professed "manic mind" of this self-described "Christian" U*U "pastor" may be suffering from "Unbecoming Conduct Disorder". . .

Conduct Disorder eh?

How about Unbecoming Conduct Disorder?

Maybe the UUA’s Ministerial Fellowship Committee should do one of those fMRI brain scans on Rev. Victoria Weinstein when she is dreaming up one of her unusually aggressive vindictive fantasies that she quite regularly posts to her Peacebang blog. . .

Comment by The Emerson Avengah — November 7, 2008 @ 5:00 pm

Labels: ,

Thursday, November 06, 2008

Purple U*U. . . Yet Again Denouncing Unitarian*Universalist Anti-religious And/Or Anti-Republican Bigotry

Here is the comment that I just successfully submitted to a blog post titled 'Purple America' on Rev. Christine Robinson's unmoderated (but sometimes censored after the fact aka "memory holed") iminister blog. It will be interesting to see if she has the personal integrity not to "memory hole" this critical comment. In light of the code of silence of U*U ministers I will not be all that surprised if Rev. Christine Robinson does "memory hole" my legitimate criticism of the UUA and its very aptly named Ministerial Fellowship Committee. OTOH I will be pleasantly surprised if Rev. Robinson sees fit to allow my comment to remain in place and be read by others -
Robin Edgar said...

Wow! If only the UUA and it's ever so aptly named Ministerial Fellowship Committee could show half as much integrity when a U*U minister writes an op-ed piece or blog post full of, bigoted, anti-Christian (or otherwise anti-religious) or anti-Republican anger. . .


After writing the above I decided to submit the following follow-up query. . .
Robin Edgar said...

Dare I ask when the U*U World will be vindicated for allowing intolerant and abusive U*U ministers to engage in anti-religious or anti-Republican bigotry with complete impunity?


Avenger's note: I have added three links to Google searches on Anti-Christian Unitarian*Universalists, Anti-religious Unitarian*Universalists and Anti-Republican Unitarian*Universalists that were not in my comment submitted to Rev. Robinson's blog post.

Labels: , ,

Monday, November 03, 2008

UUA President Bill Sinkford Capitalized On The Knoxville Tennessee Shootings For The UUA's National Marketing Campaign

I have previously suggested that UUA President Bill Sinkford, to say nothing of U*Us more generally, cynically capitalized on the tragic shooting of Knoxville U*Us at the Tennessee Valley Unitarian Universalist Church for the purposes of expanding and enhancing the UUA's national marketing campaign. U*Us don't need to take my word for it any more. U*Us can pretty well take President Bill Sinkford's word for it now, as published on the UU World magazine's web site. . .


Sinkford said that the media attention following the shootings, which exposed many people to Unitarian Universalism for the first time, had been a revelation. “We . . . . came to believe that, properly staffed, we could make earned media, rather than paid media, the center of our [marketing] effort,” Sinkford said. “We are hoping in this coming year to pay for fewer, if any, print ads, but to work for and get far more press coverage, both print and broadcast, about who we are and what we stand for.”

end quote


I look forward to seeing what President Sinkford and the UUA will dream up to create more "earned media" for Unitarian*Universalism.

Labels: , , ,