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

Wednesday, December 24, 2008

We Wish U*Us A Merry Christmas, We Wish U*Us A Merry Christmas, We Wish U*Us A Merry Christmas, And A Happy New Year. . .

My traditional Christmas truce is hereby officially declared.

The dreaded Emerson Avenger will be back to the fray soon enough.

;-)

Thursday, December 18, 2008

Rev. James Ishmael Ford U*U Zen Master Gets Yet Another *Headshake Of Disappointment And Disapproval* From Reverend Doctor Eric Theodore Cartman III

It is too bad that U*U Zen Master Rev. James Ishmael Ford has selected the Reverend Sherlyn Chopra Hot Images to make a comment in his Rick Warren to Deliver Invocation at President Obama's Inauguration blog post. . .

Mr. Ford is an interesting figure, in some ways possibly correctly described as his religion's Monkey Mind. But his mindless and oh so recent posting of Reverend Sherlyn Chopra Hot Images' plagiarism and SPAM should not, and did not. . . eliminate him from this particular event.

Too bad, too bad...

Here's yet another *headshake of disappointment and disapproval* for U*U Reverend Master James Ishmael Ford, *courtesy* of *the* Reverend Doctor (but unfortunately for U*Us no Zen Master. . .)
Eric Theodore Cartman III.

Indeed here's a yet another U*U heads up for *the* "Monkey Mind" of the whole wide U*U World. . .

Rev. James Ishmael Ford unwittingly (dare I say *mindlessly*?) posted some Crazy-4-U*U *SPAM* to his ever so mindfully "moderated" aka censored U*U blog.

It looks to me (and everyone else who follows *that* link) like Ms. Sherlyn Chopra Hot Images, who *plagiarized* Rev. Danny Fisher's unique and *original* -

*headshake of disappointment and disapproval*

comment, has made something of a monkey out of *Mr.* Ford by submitting some "less than excellent" aka "less than wonderful" SPAM wonderful SPAM that his monkey minded *chosen fate* (or would that be "chosen faith" as in *blind* faith?) was to rather mindlessly and blindly approve and post to his Monkey Mind blog.

Can U say "Doh!" Rev. Ford?



Can U say *mindfulness* Zen Master Ford?

How about *mindlessness* Mr. Ford?

Or could it be a case of "divine providence" Rev. Ford?

It almost looks like *Mr.* Rick Warren is saying -

"U*U Zen Master Rev. James Ishael Ford is *this* mindless. . ."

in that "less than perfect" but technically excellent photograph that *Mr.* James Ishmael Ford so *mindfully* chose aka selected to illustrate his blog post.



Official Disclaimer: Any "errors, deviations, and flagrant misrepresentations" in this blog post are Rev. Dr. Eric Theodore Cartman III's alone. He, of course, has the excuse of being a "less than excellent" U*U minister. . . The upshot is that opinions expressed here probably do not, and certainly should not be assumed to represent the views of any organization to which he may belong.

Labels: , , ,

Wednesday, December 17, 2008

From "An Essay on Man" by *The* Reverend Doctor Eric Theodore Cartman III

Know then thyself, presume not God to scan,
The proper study of mankind is Man.
Placed on this isthmus of a middle state,
A being darkly wise and rudely great:
With too much knowledge for the Sceptic side,
With too much weakness for the Stoic's pride,
He hangs between, in doubt to act or rest;
In doubt to deem himself a God or Beast;
In doubt his mind or body to prefer;
Born but to die, and reas'ning but to err;
Alike in ignorance, his reason such,
Whether he thinks too little or too much;
Chaos of thought and passion, all confused;
Still by himself abused or disabused;
Created half to rise, and half to fall:
Great lord of all things, yet a prey to all;
Sole judge of truth, in endless error hurl'd;
The glory, jest, and riddle of the world!

These particular unique and original words and ideas of the Reverend Doctor Eric T. Cartman III bear repeating for Reverend Doctor Timothy W. Jensen's benefit. . .

Still by himself abused or disabused. . .

Well at least the ever so eclectic cleric gave Alexander Pope credit where credit was due aka "a little honest attribution".

Labels: , , , , ,

The Reverend Doctor Timothy W. Jensen Gets Lucky With The Reverend Doctor Eric T. Cartman III. . .

I do hope that U*Us won't mind too much if the Reverend Doctor Eric Theodore Cartman III plagiarizes this "less than polite" but probably not "less than excellent", or even "less than perfect", humourous
'Lions Even Bore Themselves' blog post, courtesy of the FUCK YOU, PENGUIN blog by way of a U*U heads up from ChaliceChick aka CC aka Suzyn What's*Her*Name posted to her sometimes "flaming" Chaliceblog for one of his lesson teaching "sermons" for U*Us. . . ;-)

I'm not really sure where this "Reverend Doctor" designation came from, but honestly, that is the biggest load of horseshit ever. Look at this dude, he looks like he's ready to put on airs of innocence and start a "pissing match" with a "skunk". I seriously wonder if the liar hasn't been resting on his laurels for the past few hundred years, and no one has actually tested one of these things. Like, some liar started a whisper campaign about how he was a real badass, and because the mantle makes him look bigger than he actually is, no one wanted to fuck with him.

WELL GUESS WHAT LIAR, TODAY IS YOUR UNLUCKY DAY.

I'm sorry, what? Oh, no, I was talking to him. Not you, we're buddies, right? Can I get you anything? No? Okay, well you let me know.

The Emerson Avengah hereby once again thanks Chalicechick aka CC for that particular U*U heads up.

Here is the "less than polite" thank you note that I left on her Flaming Chaliceblog -

Fuck You, Penguin?

Isn't that just a tad rude to penguins CC? Aren't U*Us supposed to respect the inherent worth and dignity of penguins? Doesn't "respect for the interdependent web of all existence" include lions? Heck, the UUA and MFC have already proven how much *they* respect the inherent worth and dignity of lyin' U*U clerics. . .

I hope you don't mind too much if the Reverend Doctor Eric Theodore Cartman III plagiarizes that humourous blog post for one of his "sermons". . . ;-)

Thanks for the heads up anyway CC!

Labels: , , ,

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. . .

A Boston Unitarian Says Politeness Is Dead. . .

The Emerson Avenger says -

Well said Boston Unitarian.

Politeness definitely is dead in the U*U World. Long live politeness in the U*U World, assuming that it is ever resurrected that is. . .

The Emerson Avengah aka The Reverend Doctor Eric Theodore Cartman III, ministerial candidate for "less than excellent ministry" at the South Park Unitarian*Universalist Fellowship will undoubtedly plagiarize Kathleen Burk's 'Old World, New World' for an upcoming Sunday sermon on politeness, or lack there of. . . in the U*U World.

"The concept of politeness, of a polite society, was increasingly important in Great Britain. . . The term polite had a more substantive meaning than today's use of it to mean manners or etiquette: it meant not using violence and the sword to deal with opposition, nor even sharp command or aggressive argument, but persuasion; it meant a lack of bigotry in religion or politics; it meant depending on reason and reflection... It was a means of uplifting society, of separating it from barbarity, of polishing rude manners."

Labels: , , , ,

Monday, December 15, 2008

Some Critical Thinking About *Religiously* Ignorant And Stagnant Unitarian*Universalists

The following comment has been submitted to the 'The Future is Now…or Why Children Are Not Special' post on U*U seminarian Kim Hampton's thought-provoking 'East Of Midnight' blog in response to this remarkably ignorant, if not sincerely ignorant. . . question posed by a presumed DIM Thinking Anonymous U*U going by the interesting handle of GKW*. . .

"Robin, has there ever been a criticism of the UUA or Unitarian Universalists that you didn’t immediately believe and assume to be correct? Do you ever approach other people’s complaints with any critical thinking at all?"

GKW said this on December 15, 2008 at 3:26 pm

Herewith my currently "moderated" response to "GKW" -

In my experience and observation of the U*U World a much better question would be -

Do U*Us, especially the UUA and its very aptly named Ministerial Fellowship Committee, ever approach other people’s complaints with any critical thinking at all?

Be assured that I am no slouch when it comes to critical thinking GKW. Why not wander over to The Emerson Avenger blog to see some recent fine examples of my critical thinking to say nothing of a vintage one in the form of my response to former UUA President Rev. Dr. John A* Buehrens' glaring dearth of critical thinking in his negligent and effectively complicit response to my serious complaint about Rev. Ray Drennan's not so unique and original "insulting and defamatory language" that was inspired by his "fundamentalist atheist" anti-religious intolerance and bigotry.

For the record I have seen plenty of evidence of U*Us being both “Religiously ignorant/stagnant” in the sense that Kim Hampton means here, and also *religiously* ignorant/stagnant in the sense that I reinterpreted that phrase. In fact I am not sure that I can point to a better example of U*Us being *religiously* ignorant and stagnant in the sense of being "scrupulously faithful" and "conscientious" in their willful ignorance and stagnance, or being willfully ignorant and stagnant "with extreme conscientiousness", than the well-documented egregious institutional stonewalling that I have been dealing with for the better part of thirteen years. . . Can you?

Thank you so much GKW for providing me with yet another opportunity to remind *religiously* ignorant/stagnant U*Us of one of my all time favorite sayings of the Reverend Doctor Martin Luther King Jr. -

"Nothing in all the U*U world is more dangerous than
sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity. . ."


Hopefully MLK will forgive me for slightly modifying his not so
"bon mot". In light of his own "less than excellent" experience of Unitarian*Universalism aka U*Uism I expect that he would concur. . .


* I don't know who GKW is, although I can hazard an educated guess or two. . . but I am fully confident that God knows who GKW is.

Labels: , , , , ,

Rev. Dr. Timothy W. Jensen Gets Congratulations Where Congratulations Are Definitely Due. . .

The following comment was submitted to the 'What Have You Done In Your Life? a meme' blog post on Rev. Dr. Tim Jensen's 'The Eclectic Cleric blog' at a bit before 3:30 pm EAT on MoonDay aka LuneDay December 15, 2008. I have added appropriate informational embedded links that were not in the comment as submitted to the not so good Reverend Doctor's blog since I have reasonable grounds to believe that he is now quite familiar of the facts aka TRUTHS referred to in this comment -

Congratulations Rev. Dr. Tim W. Jensen for your insightful observation that if you get into a pissing match with a skunk --
win or lose, you still end up stinking, and the skunk likes it.
You were brilliant to notice that, if I do say so myself.

Oops! Apparently that was your Grandmother's insightful observation that you completely, and quite foolishly. . . disregarded by not only starting a "pissing match" with this alleged "skunk" but even aggravating and escalating it after I blew your stinking "wind" right back to you. . . Well at least you gave your Grandmother "credit where credit is due" or what you call "a little honest attribution" and didn't actually plagiarize her.

Here is yet another Unitarian*Universalist congratulations for you not so good Reverend Doctor Timothy W. Jensen.

Congratulations!

Regardless of whether or not you actually plagiarized my quite original and comparatively unique words and ideas expressed on my StumbleUpon blog and shared with the U*U "blogosphere" in my well-meant comments on Rev. Christine Robinson's 'Purple America' blog post. You can now officially add -

Got in a "pissing match" with the dreaded Emerson Avenger

to the list of things that you have done in your life.

In fact AFAIAC you can add -

*Started* a "pissing match" with that dreaded "skunk" known U*U World-wide as The Emerson Avenger

to the list of things that you have done in your life.

Bravo Rev. Dr. Jensen!

end quote

P.S. About ten seconds of "internet research" aka "Googling" indicates that Rev. Dr. Tim W. Jensen's grandmother might have plagiarized General George S. Patton, or no less a figure than former U.S. President Dwight D. Eisenhower! ;-)

Really Rev. Dr. Jensen, what ever *possessed* you to "get into", to say nothing of *start*. . . a "pissing match" with an alleged "skunk" who has a well established track record of taking the piss out of hypocritical U*Us, perhaps especially obnoxious and offensive, to say nothing of outright abusive. . . "less than excellent" U*U ministers whose "insulting and defamatory language" is condoned, if not outright endorsed, by the UUA, its department of Congregational Services, and its very aptly named Ministerial *Fellowship* Committee?

Labels: , , , , ,

Something U*Us Don't Want to Read About. . .

Oh dear. . .

It looks like The Reverend Doctor Eric Theodore Cartman III aka The Emerson Avengah has gone and plagiarized Rev. Dr. Marilyn Sewell's blog post titled 'Something You Don't Want to Read About' in order to deliver a "sermon" to U*Us, especially "less than excellent" U*U clerics, who dare to "piss on" Robin Edgar aka The Emerson Avenger -

Did U*Us know that when men stand up to urinate that this "sends a fine spray around the room (as does every toilet flushed without the lid closed). Spray becomes vapor,which leaves a chemical deposit on anything surrounding the urinal. It can also change the color of wallpaper"? This interesting bit of bathroom trivia comes from a book by Rose George, entitled The Big Necessity: The Unmentionable World of Human Waste and Why it Matters. (Reviewed by Dwight Garner, NY Times, 12/12/08)

Incidentally, German men are heavily into the sitting-down approach. And this doesn't mean U*Us are a girly-men, Gov. Schwarchenegger. Having raised two boys, I would say that sitting down is just polite and expedient.

Labels: , , , , , ,

Sunday, December 14, 2008

The Reverend Doctor Timothy W. Jensen Should Have Listened To His Grandmother. . .

I have said it before but it bears repeating -

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

For a number of good reasons I am posting my point-by-point re*butt*al of the self-titled Eclectic Cleric's initial comment on my 'Rev. Tim Jensen - Eclectic Cleric Or Klepto Cleric? U*Us Decide. . .' blog post as a brand-spanking new blog post here -

:My Grandmother once warned me never to get into a pissing match with a skunk -- win or lose, you still end up stinking, and the skunk likes it.

Thank you so much for publicly referring to me as a "skunk" Rev. Dr. Tim Jensen. I expect that you are well on your way to losing this "pissing match" and please allow me to remind you that *you* very much started it. . . As noted in this blog post, I quite politely and also quite *privately* suggested/requested that you should provide credit where credit was due about two weeks ago now by submitting a comment to the 'Can You Name This Creature' post on your "moderated" The Eclectic Cleric blog saying -

I don't suppose you would care to give some credit where credit is due Rev. Jensen?

You totally ignored that polite suggestion cum request so, several days later, I somewhat less politely, but every bit as privately, suggested that you might have plagiarized me by somewhat waggishly suggesting that you might want to add -

"plagiarized the dreaded Emerson Avenger"

to the list of things that you have done in your life in a comment submitted to the 'What Have You Done in your Life?' blog post on your 'The Eclectic Cleric' blog.

I said nothing more, and nothing publicly, until *you* publicly berated me in *your* insulting, and I believe more than a little bit defamatory, 'Is it a Phoenix or an "Obama?"' blog post. So just who is the "skunk" who started a very public "pissing match" ever so Reverend Doctor Timothy W. Jensen? I am confident that a good number of people who have read my blog post titled 'Rev. Tim Jensen - Eclectic Cleric Or Klepto Cleric? U*Us Decide. . .' have already determined that you are rather more deserving of being described as a "skunk" in this matter than I am. I am equally confident that most of those people of intelligence and conscience who will read that blog post in the future will agree you are rather more appropriately described as a "skunk" and not just because *you* started this public "pissing match". . . There is no question that you were the first "skunk" to raise a very public "stink" which this blog post is only re*butt*ing. For the record, someone who is aware of this situation has already described you as a "pirate" and they were not referring to the fact that you almost certainly "pirated" the original words and ideas that I expressed in a comment on your "dear friend" Rev. Christine Robinson's 'Purple America' blog post after first presenting those original words and ideas to the public on my StumbleUpon blog over a month ago on November 9th.

:The TRUTH of the matter is that I didn't even see your work until you brought it to my attention, and with the exception the minor detail that at one point we both coincidentally compare the electoral map to the same common cultural icon, my posting is actually quite different from yours, as anyone who reads them will quickly notice.

ROTFLMU*UO! Actually I am very confident that pretty much anyone who reads your 'Can You Name This Creature?' blog post, and reasonably and responsibly compares it to what I said in my comments on Rev. Christine Robinson's 'Purple America' blog post as well as my StumbleUpon blog post of November 9th 2008 which suggested that this modified electoral map of the United States Of America could be seen as a kind of Rorschach Ink Blot Test and said,

"Kind of looks like the classic image of a Phoenix rising from its ashes to me. . ."

and

"Hopefully it is an auspicious omen."

will quickly notice that your posting "pirates" not just one, but two, and even three. . . of the original and unique words and/or ideas presented in those "electronic communications".

The TRUTH of the matter is that not only did I compare the modified electoral map of the U.S.A. to the "common cultural icon" of a mythical Phoenix bird rising from its ashes but ALSO to a Rorschach Inkblot Test and I ALSO somewhat cautiously suggested that it could "hopefully" be interpreted as an "auspicious omen". Your 'Can You Name This Creature?' blog post plays off of all three of those original and unique words and ideas, not just one of them, as you try to pretend. . . What I find quite interesting, to say nothing of revealing, ever so "Eclectic" Cleric is how you so disingenuously try to pretend here that there is only one element of "overlap" between my original and unique ideas and your 'Can You Name This Creature?' blog post when I have already pointed out that there are two and, as I have just shown here, your blog post plays off all three of the *original* and quite *unique* ideas that were shared with the U*U "blogosphere" on Tuesday November 11th, 2008. Be assured that it was not my intention to start yet another Unitarian*Universalist "war of words" with those comments that were "coincidentally" posted to a blog post made on Armistice Day aka Remembrance Day. *You* are the "skunk" who decided to raise a very public "stink". Not me. I am just blowing your stinking "wind" back to you.

The TRUTH of the matter is that, in that you are an active participant in the rather tiny U*U "blogosphere", hold Rev. Christine Robinson amongst your "dear friends", and commented on her iminister blog both prior to and following her 'Purple America' blog post, it is rather unlikely that you didn't even SEE *my* "work" until I brought it to your attention. N'est-ce pas ever so Eclectic Cleric?

What is the TRUTH Rev. Dr. Tim Jensen? Do you, or do you not, have an RSS feed to your "dear friend" Rev. Christine Robinson's iminister blog?

The TRUTH of the matter is that, apparently as part of your effort to Deny and Minimize your apparent unethical behavior, you completely "Ignore" the "minor detail" that the rather small 200px × 135px JPEG image of the electoral map "phoenix" that you used to illustrate your 'Can You Name This Creature?' blog post is *exactly* the same size as the rather small 200px × 135px thumbnail JPEG image that was posted on Rev. Christine Robinson's 'Purple America' blog post. How do you explain that "coincidence" ever so Eclectic Cleric? How do you explain the fact that you used an image that was originally used to illustrate Rev. Christine Robinson's 'Purple America' blog post without actually seeing my original words and ideas that were closely associated with that image? Please do come back here and offer an *honest* and credible aka believable explanation as to how you managed to do that not so good Reverend Doctor Tim Jimsen.

The TRUTH of the matter is that the mathematical odds that "we both coincidentally compare the electoral map to the same common cultural icon" as a result of pure random chance coincidence are rather high, possibly even astronomically high, especially when one considers the readily verifiable TRUTH that your 'Can You Name This Creature?' blog post actually plays off of at least TWO, and more like THREE or more. . . of the unique and original words and/or ideas that were previously presented in my "work" and ALSO used a 200×135 pixel JPEG that apparently traces its internet "pedigree" back to your "dear friend" Rev. Christine Robinson's 'Purple America' blog post. . .

:But since all you seem to be looking for is "Credit Where Credit is Due," Congratulations Robin for your insightful observation that the electoral map does indeed resemble a Phoenix. You were brilliant to notice that, if I do say so myself.

Actually all I *was* looking for prior to your insulting, and I believe more than a little bit defamatory, 'Is it a Phoenix or an "Obama?"' blog post that most people of intelligence and conscience will agree *started* this rather public "pissing match" that your Grandmother apparently failed to warn you not to start. . . was indeed "credit where credit is due", or what you have called "a little honest attribution".
I am afraid that I am *now* "looking for" something else that I have yet to see not so good Reverend Doctor Timothy W. Jensen. Your (typically U*U) self-congratulatory, condescending, if not outright contemptuous, sarcasm here will get you, and indeed U*Us, nowhere Rev. Jensen. I never asked you to describe my "observation" as "insightful" or me as "brilliant". All that I *did* quite politely and quite privately ask of you was to *care* to provide some credit where credit was due. Quite evidently you did not *care* to do so.

Au contraire. . .

Everyone can SEE how you finally did *care* to respond to my suggestion/request in your "less than excellent" U*U ministry.

N'est-ce pas Rev. Dr. Jensen?

As someone who has extensively researched the phoenix myth as a result of intuitively, and thus I suppose quite insightfully and even a tad brilliantly, seeing the "phoenix" in the bird-like form of the sun's corona as seen in French astronomer Serge Koutchmy's excellent photograph of the July 1991 total solar eclipse it was neither "insightful" nor particularly "brilliant" for me to compare the modified 2008 electoral map cum Rorschach Inkblot Test, which does indeed look a lot like a bird, to "a Phoenix rising from its ashes". It was second nature for me, especially in light of the fact that this particular electoral map was directly associated with the idea of the United States of America *hopefully* rising like a phoenix from the "ashes" of President George W. Bush's eight year term as President of the U.S.A. following the election of Democratic Party candidate Senator Barack Obama as the next President of the U.S.A.

:Now, please take all of your credit and brilliance and go play with someone else and leave me alone.

Unfortunately I cannot accede to that request/demand as a result of your insulting and quite defamatory personal attacks on me Rev. Dr. Jensen. Had you responded appropriately to my comparatively civil requests for "credit where credit is due" in a timely manner I could have and would have left you alone, especially since there are no shortage of other "less than excellent" U*U ministers to play with in the "sandbox" but it is a bit late for that now. In foolishly disregarding your Grandmother's good advice you have publicly insulted me and have even defamed me as far as I am concerned, so until the "stink" raised by that "disruptive behavior" is adequately addressed and redressed by you and/or the UUA's department of ministry I will not be leaving you alone, even though I will be playing with a few other less than excellent U*U ministers in the meantime. Didn't I reasonably politely suggest that you do the proverbial "right thing" a while back Rev. Jensen? Quite regrettably you failed or refused to do so, as is clear from what you say in your comments here as well as what you fail or indeed refuse to say in your comments here or anywhere else. . . I just took the opportunity to check my email and see no evidence of you doing the right thing privately so, unless your reality check is in the snail mail, something I have reasonable grounds to fear is not the case, I have to conclude that you have not only failed to do the right thing, but are refusing to do the right thing.

:BTW, copying entire posts of mine on to your web site for whatever reason you choose to do that certainly seems to me to exceed the common understanding of "fair use." Just something you might want to keep in mind in future.

I am quite familiar with what constitutes "fair use" Rev. Dr. Jensen. You are quite right that reproducing *entire* blog posts be may be a bit *too* broad and "liberal" when it comes to the "amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole" but weren't you the guy who recently said,

"I also tend to take a fairly broad and "liberal" view of "fair use;" we are, after all, called upon to Proclaim the Good News, not to copyright it."

ever so Eclectic Cleric?

I do realize that what you so eclectically *chose* to very publicly *Proclaim* in the first salvo of this very public and now rather "stinky" "pissing match" isn't exactly "Good News" but I hope that you will forgive me for being fairly broad and "liberal" in what most people will agree is, in all other respects, eminently "fair" use in quoting your considerably less than Good News for the non-commercial purposes of "criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research." N'est-ce pas ever so Academic Cleric? After all, it's not like I haven't given you full credit where credit is due, or have failed or refused to provide a little *honest* attribution to your very poorly *chosen* words, is it Reverend Doctor Jensen?

That being said, you have not made "fair use" of my original words and ideas in any sense of the word "fair" and, most regrettably, I find it very hard to believe that the capital 'T' Truth, indeed your all caps "TRUTH". . . is that you didn't even see my work until I brought it to your attention as you publicly claim here. In fact, all readily verifiable TRUTHS considered, perhaps especially this "hard evidence" aka TRUTH, I have more than reasonable grounds to believe that you are LYING when you disingenuously pretend, or even outright Proclaim, that you did not see THIS blog post before so eclectically writing THIS blog post. A lot of circumstantial evidence, and even some "hard evidence", strongly suggests, if not proves beyond any "reasonable doubt", that you had in fact actually SEEN my original work prior to "creating" your 'Can You Name This Creature?' blog post and did in fact "borrow" it if not "steal" it.

You would have done very well to remember, and responsibly heed. . . your Grandmother's warning never to get into a pissing match with a "skunk" before very publicly starting this "pissing match" with the insulting and defamatory language of your 'Is it a Phoenix or an "Obama?"' blog post. Win or lose, and I have very reasonable grounds to believe, aka fully expect, that you will soon lose this "war of words" (if you have not already been thoroughly "skunked" by now. . .) you are already "stinking" to high heaven Rev. Dr. Jensen with the "stink" of your own original words and ideas presented here and there.

And yes not so good Reverend Doctor, this alleged "skunk" likes it. . .

Labels: , , , , ,

Saturday, December 13, 2008

The UUMA Code of Professional Practice Is More What U*Us Would Call "Guidelines". . .

And sadly. . .

This code is more what you'd call "guidelines" than actual rules. . .

Labels: , , , ,

Former UUA President Rev. Dr. John A* Buehrens' Less Than Excellent Ministry. . .

Since the subject of "less than excellent" ministry on the part of "less than excellent" Unitarian*Universalist ministers has come up during the UUA's recent Summit on Excellence In Ministry I thought that it might be a cue to remind Unitarian*Universalists aka U*Us of the considerably less than excellent ministry of former UUA President Rev. Dr. John A* Buehrens as exhibited in his condescending, negligent, effectively complicit, and outright incompetent response to my original grievances arising from so-called, self-titled, "pastoral specialist" Rev. Ray Drennan's even less excellent "less than excellent" ministry. . .

Here is former UUA President John Buehrens' angry "dressing down" which responds to my follow-up letter responding to his initial negligent and effectively complicit response to my first letter of grievance informing him of the fact that Rev. Ray Drennan had falsely and maliciously labeled Creation day as "your cult", contemptuously dismissed my revelatory religious experience as "your psychotic experience", and sneeringly written off my monotheistic religious beliefs that were informed by that alleged "psychotic experience" as nothing but "silliness and fantasy" -

Unitarian Universalist Association of Congregations
25 Beacon Street, Boston, Massachusetts 02108
The Rev. Dr. John A. Buehrens
President
(617) 742-2100 FAX (617) 367-3237
May 6, 1996

Robin Edgar
15 rue Lafleur apt. 11
Verdun, Quebec
CANADA, H4G 3C3

Dear Mr. Edgar:

Your actions on Sunday, April 21, were, by your own description, quite reprehensible.

It is inappropriate to use the time set aside in community worship for "joys and concerns" to speak in derogation of the minister, no matter how disappointed you may feel in him. Handing out letters to the same effect following the service is also entirely out of bounds.

Historically, other congregations that have had such behavior from congregants have been forced to remove such persons from membership and to ask help from secular authorities in seeing to it that their worship is not disrupted.

As I have told you before, the Unitarian Universalist Association does not require that its ministers see to it that a member's "claim of a revelatory religious experience be properly documented and critically examined." We are also under no obligation to share with other religious communities any message from a person who has behaved as you have.

You lack a basic understanding of, and respect for, the procedures of a democratically governed religious community. The minister, having been chosen by that community, is not to be publicly attacked. One may challenge privately, and discuss concerns through other channels established by the congregation. One may not behave as you have done.

Yours sincerely,

John A. Buehrens

cc. The Rev. Ray Drennan
President of the Unitarian Church of Montreal
The Rev. Wendy Colby, St. Lawrence District


Here is my response to UUA President Reverend "Doctor" John A* Buehrens "less than excellent" ministry as expressed in the above letter -

Robin Edgar
15 rue Lafleur apt. 11
Verdun, Quebec,
Canada, H4G 3C3

Dr. John A. Buehrens
President of the Unitarian
Universalist Association
25 Beacon Street, Boston, MA
U.S.A. 02108

Wodensday May 15, 1996

Dear Dr. Buehrens,

You say that the fact that I brought my very serious concerns about Rev. Ray Drennan's clearly unprofessional, demeaning, and damaging comportment towards me to the attention of the congregation of the Unitarian Church of Montreal during the "Joys and Concerns" segment of the Sunday, April 21, service and the fact that, after the service was concluded, I distributed a letter which called upon the members of the congregation to directly intervene in this matter was "quite reprehensible" and "entirely out of bounds". May I point out to you that the primary reason that I felt obliged to take this step was that none of the clergy or elected representatives of the Unitarian Church of Montreal, the Canadian Unitarian Council, or the Unitarian Universalist Association who I complained to took steps to ensure that Unitarian Universalist principles were upheld and that genuine justice was effectively achieved in this matter.

Mr. John Slattery, President of the Canadian Unitarian Council, made it clear that the CUC could not help me in regards to my complaint about the unprofessional conduct of Rev. Ray Drennan because the CUC "is based on the principle of congregational polity" and that this means that, in practice, "the CUC president, Board and staff do not have the authority to intervene in the internal affairs of any of our member congregations. Only the congregation as a whole, operating within its own bylaws, has the ultimate say in determining how it should conduct its affairs."

You, yourself, wrote that the UUA "does not intervene in local matters unless asked to do so by the congregation's board. They have not done so." The Board of the Unitarian Church of Montreal failed to respond to my obviously very serious grievances in even a remotely satisfactory manner, the Board simply acknowledged the "strength of (my) feelings regarding Rev. Drennan's behaviour as well as the depth of (my) belief in (my) revelatory experience" and concluded by lamely stating, "We hereby take note of your views." There was no indication whatsoever that the Board made any attempt to persuade Rev. Ray Drennan to retract his damaging allegations about me and to formally apologize to me for his unprofessional and demeaning comportment towards me, nor was there any apparent move by the Board towards any responsible mediation of this dispute.

Perhaps I should have informed you that, in a letter which Board President Krystyna Matula assured me was read during the April Board meeting (copy enclosed), I formally warned the Board of the Unitarian Church of Montreal that I would bring my grievances to the attention of the congregation of our church as a result of the failure of the Board to respond to my grievances in a satisfactory manner. Not a single Board member suggested that such an action would be "quite reprehehensible" or "entirely out of bounds" nor did the Board take any further steps to properly address my clearly stated dissatisfaction over its failure to respond in a genuinely responsible manner to my letter of grievance which clearly detailed Rev. Ray Drennan's deplorable comportment towards me. When I aired my grievances to the congregation, more than ten days after my clear warning of this, several congregation members expressed their concern and one former Board member said that "it took guts" for me to air, to the congregation as a whole, the demeaning and damaging allegations that Rev. Drennan has made about me. Not one member of our congregation indicated to me that my action was inappropriate. In view of all the foregoing I feel that I was perfectly justified in airing my very serious concerns to our congregation as a whole.

When the clergy, elected representatives, or the "procedures" of a democratically governed religious community fail to adequately respond to the legitimate concerns of any member of that community then, in my view, they have a clear right, if not a responsibility, to air their concerns to their religious community as a whole. You have said that, "One may challenge privately, and discuss concerns through other channels established by the congregation. One may not behave as you have done." The fact of the matter is that I took the steps you suggest as I have clearly indicated in the letters that I have written. As I wrote in my letter of complaint of Wodensday, February 14, during a meeting with him in his office on February 1, I "privately challenged" Rev. Drennan about his deplorable conduct during our meeting of Thursday, November 9, 1996. Regrettably, Rev. Drennan made it clear to me that he stood by his demeaning words and damaging allegation about me and reasserted that he was "just being honest" with me. It was evident from his attitude that there was no point requesting an apology from him at this stage and I said as much to him. I also made it clear to him that I would take steps to see to it that my grievances about his conduct towards me were addressed. He chose to ignore my warning. I formally aired my grievances about Rev. Ray Drennan's deplorable conduct towards me to the Board of the Unitarian Church of Montreal in my letter of Wednesday, February 14, 1996, which both you and President John Slattery received copies of, but these very serious grievances were, for all intents and purposes, effectively swept under the carpet by the Board as their written response, and their failure to implement any conflict resolution procedures, clearly indicates. It is the irresponsible failure of the Board of the Unitarian Church of Montreal to establish appropriate channels through which my very serious concerns about Rev. Drennan's behaviour could be discussed which left me with little option but to bring my grievances to the attention of the congregation as a whole and about the only channel that was left open to me to do this was during "joys and concerns".

It is, in my view, quite reprehensible, to use your terminology, that Unitarian Universalist clergy and elected representatives have attemped to "whitewash" Rev. Ray Drennan's deplorable behaviour, -behaviour which is in obvious violation of several clearly stated Unitarian Universalist aims and principles, and have endeavoured to sweep this extremely regrettable matter under the proverbial carpet. John Slattery had the good sense and political astuteness not to suggest, in any way, shape, or form, that Rev. Drennan's behaviour towards me was acceptable professional conduct by a Unitarian Universalist minister. Even the Board of the Unitarian Church of Montreal did not overtly condone Rev. Drennan's behaviour although their failure to condemn it may be interpreted as tacit approval of his behaviour, as I pointed out to them in my letter of Wodensday, April 3. You and Rev. Diane Miller, on the other hand, have made statements which have every appearance of condoning Rev. Ray Drennan's unprofessional, demeaning, and damaging conduct.

Regarding my February 14, 1996, letter of complaint to the Board of the Unitarian Church of Montreal you have said, "I must tell you that my own examination of it leads me to believe that there is nothing in it which warrants investigation." Rev. Diane Miller, after sharing my complaint with Rev. Drennan and reviewing it with the chairperson of the Ministerial Fellowship Committee, has responded, "While we recognize that your expectations of ministry are not being met in your relationship with the Rev. Drennan, we did not see cause to further investigate the minister's conduct. It seemed to us to be within the appropriate guidelines of ministerial leadership." I mailed my response to Rev. Miller on Monday, the day before I received your latest letter, and I am enclosing a copy for your perusal. I would hope that, on further reflection, both you and Rev. Miller will agree that Rev. Ray Drennan's deplorable behaviour, as it is described in considerable detail in my letter of February 14, 1996, can hardly be considered "to be within the appropriate guidelines of ministerial leadership."

I find it difficult to believe that you and Rev. Miller genuinely believe that Rev. Ray Drennan's comportment towards me, as I have described it, is actually "within the appropriate guidelines of ministerial leadership." I can only assume that Rev. Drennan has somehow managed to convince both of you that my description of his behaviour is false. I have affirmed the truthfulness and accuracy of this description in the second paragraph of my letter to Rev. Miller, which you may wish to read, and I reiterate to you that if Rev. Drennan has denied making any of these statements he is lying.

It should be obvious to any reasonable person that it is Rev. Ray Drennan's obstinate refusal to acknowledge the damaging nature of his false allegations about me and his extremely negative and demeaning statements about my religious beliefs; his failure to retract these statements; and his stubborn unwillingness to agree to formally apologize to me for his deplorable behaviour, that has brought us to this rather sad state of affairs. Unfortunately, your responses to my correspondence will clearly do nothing to encourage Rev. Drennan to retract his damaging statements or apologize to me.

I find it incongruous, to say the very least, that you have the temerity to describe my calm and dignified plea to the congregation of the Unitarian Church of Montreal to intervene in my dispute with Rev. Ray Drennan, during a segment of the service which is clearly intended to be one in which concerns of a quite serious nature may be raised, as "quite reprehensible" and that you may describe my handing out of a letter to this effect after the service was concluded as "entirely out of bounds" yet you are apparently totally unwilling or completely incapable of perceiving that Rev. Drennan's comportment towards me during our meeting on Thursday, November 9, 1995, to say nothing of his behaviour on a number of other occasions, is considerably more meritous of being described as "quite reprehensible" and is most assuredly "entirely out of bounds" of "the appropriate guidelines of ministerial leadership."

You conclude your letter to me by saying of my actions on Sunday, April 21, "One may not behave as you have done." Are you not capable of seeing that you could, more justifiably, use these words to reprimand Rev. Ray Drennan for his "quite reprehensible" actions on Thursday, November 9, 1995 and that if you had done so that I would most likely not have found myself in a position where I felt that I had few options left open to me but to bring this highly regrettable matter to the attention of our congregation during the "joys and concerns" segment of a Sunday service? I firmly believe that, if you had responded to my serious grievances concerning Rev. Drennan's behaviour towards me by recognizing them as being both truthful and legitimate, if you had quite justifiably reprimanded Rev. Ray Drennan by informing him that you felt that his behaviour towards me, as it is described in my letter of Wednesday February 14, was "quite reprehensible" and had made it clear to him that his deplorable comportment in my apartment was "entirely out of bounds" of the acceptable professional conduct of a Unitarian Universalist minister, and had you told Rev. Ray Drennan that as a Unitarian Universalist minister "One may not behave as you have done," and had recommended that he retract his damaging statements about me and formally apologize to me for his behaviour as I have demanded, this regrettable conflict would hopefully now be well on its way to a satisfactory resolution.

The situation, as it now stands, is far from being satisfactorily resolved. The inability of the Canadian Unitarian Council and the Unitarian Universalist Association to constructively intervene in this matter, and the failure of the Board of the Unitarian Church of Montreal to take appropriate steps towards resolving this very serious dispute is highly regrettable. I will continue in my efforts to try to find a just and equitable resolution to this conflict by dealing with concerned members of the congregation.

Sincerely,

Robin Edgar

For some strange reason UUA President John A* Buehrens never responded to this "Eat Your Words Diet" response to his own "inappropriate" and "quite reprehensible" response to my serious grievances arising from Rev. Ray Drennan's even more "inappropriate" and "quite reprehensible" anti-religious intolerance and bigotry. . .

Labels: , ,

The Reverend Doctor Eric Theodore Cartman III aka The Emerson Avengah *Defected* To The U*U Jihad Naval Reserve A While Back. . .


Full disclosure -

I use ‘The Emerson Avengah’ "persona", instead of ‘The Emerson Avenger’ pseudonym, to allow me to post comments to some U*U blogs that have used “electronic countermeasures” to block the “electronic communications” of the dreaded Emerson Avenger.
For those U*Us who haven’t quite figured it out for themselves yet,
‘The Emerson Avengah’ pseudonym aka "persona" references the Reverend Doctor Eric Theodore Cartman III’s U*U World famous saying:

U*Us will respect mah authoritah.” ;-)

I have heard an "unsubstantiated rumour" to the effect that the Reverend Doctor Eric Theodore Cartman III is on the short list of prospective excellent U*U ministers being considered by the Search Committee of the currently lay led South Park Unitarian*Universalist Fellowship. . . ;-)

Little known to the good U*U lay-people who sporadically attend the South Park Unitarian*Universalist Fellowship, to say nothing of the rest of the U*U World, the Reverend Doctor Eric T. Cartman III is suspected of plagiarizing the original words and ideas aka sermons of excellent U*U ministers of the ancient past in order to create an aura of 'Excellence in Ministry' aka 'Ministerial Excellence'.

I have heard yet another Unitarian*Universalist "unsubstantiated rumour" to the effect that the Reverend Doctor Eric Theodore Cartman III "moonlights" as a "bad cop" to supplement the "less than excellent" income he earns as an excellent U*U minister.

Even fuller "full disclosure" -

The ever so Reverend Doctor Eric T. Cartman III secretly defected to The Dagger Of Sweet Reason's U*U Jihad a while back and now serves as an excellent Naval Chaplain in the U*U Jihad Naval Reserve on those weekends when he is not busy delivering plagiarized Sunday sermons to unsuspecting U*U worshippers.

U*Us gotta love the ever so excellent Reverend Doctor Eric Cartman III, no?

Labels: , , , , , ,