U*U Ü*Über-Blogger ChaliceChick Rushes In Where Angels Fear To Tread In Defense Of UUA President Bill Sinkford's Somewhat Questionable Reputation. . .
For reasons known only to herself Ü*Über-Blogger ChaliceChick has chosen the fate of rushing in where angels fear to tread in a "less than well advised" defense of UUA President Bill Sinkford's questionable reputation on the 'Hazards of Marijuana' post of Pagan U*U Joel Monka's CU*UM*BOO*YAH blog. I am cross-posting the pertinent impertinent comments about Rev. William G. Sinkford's *alleged* clergy sexual misconduct here for U*U posteriority. . . ChaliceChick's initial comment regarding President Bill Sinkford's *alleged* clergy sexual misconduct seems to be responding to some, but not all, of the questions that I posed to her on my 'UUA President Bill Sinkford's Alleged Clergy Sexual Misconduct - The Veiled InU*Uendo And The Readily Verifiable Facts. . .' blog post.
Chalicechick said...
Robin, I know you well enough to know that if you had more proof you would have written about it. Pointing out wrongdoing is one of your favorite things to do. I didn't need to ask that question.
That said, I'm pretty horrified by what you've written there. I want the best for victims of clergy sexual misconduct and I don't think making accusations like that is the best way to help them. One of the hardest parts of being a victim of such things is getting people to believe you and the more accusations without real proof behind them there are out there, the harder it will be for them to seek justice.
As for the ad hominem stuff, I don't think you two are swapping insults just to be amusing. You're swapping insults because you have a larger argument.
The larger argument is more important and more interesting than the insults.
The "Killing Joke" was an awesome graphic novel. I'm not sure of its relevance to this conversation, but I liked it.
CC
Robin Edgar said...
:Robin, I know you well enough to know that if you had more proof you would have written about it.
Then you obviously don't know me that well at all ChaliceChick. I very often do not post all of the evidence or proof that I have at my disposition. It is good strategy to keep some things in reserve. . . There are cases of clergy misconduct that I have yet to blog about and I can in fact post more information about UUA President Bill Sinkford's alleged, if not actual. . . clergy sexual misconduct.
:Pointing out wrongdoing is one of your favorite things to do. I didn't need to ask that question.
What question was "that question" CC? This one? You will learn that you *really* didn't need to ask that question ChaliceChick, at least you *really* didn't need to ask it under the cover of anonymity when you could have and *should* have asked it under your well known ChaliceChick pseudonym.
:That said, I'm pretty horrified by what you've written there.
As you and other U*Us should be. . .
:I want the best for victims of clergy sexual misconduct and I don't think making accusations like that is the best way to help them.
I am not making anything up CC. . . For starters, as I have already explained to you in your guise as Anonymouse, so far. . . I am just publicly *demonstrating* how the "profile" of the kind of "sleezy" aka "creepy" "conspicuous or famous" "Baby Boomer" U*U ministers who commit adultery (serial adultery or otherwise) and "still get the plummiest pulpits" in the whole wide U*U World because "all is forgiven" if they marry their "fling", no matter how they met. . . as provided by the inU*Uendo of Rev. Scott Wells, Rev. Victoria Weinstein, Rev. Adam Tierney-Eliot, Hank, and Sarah, if not other U*Us on Rev. Scott Wells' UU clergy sexual misconduct roll call blog post, aligns all too well with some undeniable publicly available facts about UUA President Bill Sinkford. Maybe you *really* should ask Rev. Victoria Weinstein and Rev. Scott Wells, to say nothing of other U*Us "in the know" about the clergy sexual misconduct of prominent U*U ministers, what *they* know about any allegations of clergy sexual misconduct on the part of UUA President Bill Sinkford. . . Maybe you *really* should take up my suggestion that you and other Unitarian*Universalists might do well to enter into a free and responsible search for the truth and meaning that inspired my 'UUA President Bill Sinkford's *Alleged* Clergy Sexual Misconduct' blog post and inquire directly with the UUA's department of ministry and/or its ever so aptly named Ministerial *Fellowship* Committee and ask them straight out if Rev. William G. Sinkford has ever had a clergy sexual misconduct complaint brought against him.
Didn't I say, "Seek and U*Us shall find" CC?
:One of the hardest parts of being a victim of such things is getting people to believe you and the more accusations without real proof behind them there are out there, the harder it will be for them to seek justice.
I guess that depends on what constitutes "real proof" CC. Do us all a favor and ask the UUA directly if Rev. William G. Sinkford ever had a clergy sexual misconduct complaint brought against him. Put on your hat as an investigative reporter and look into the circumstances that led to Rev. Bill Sinkford's divorce from his previous wife, to say nothing of his subsequent marriage to his current wife Maria Sinkford. The divorce records should be publicly available. No?
:As for the ad hominem stuff, I don't think you two are swapping insults just to be amusing. You're swapping insults because you have a larger argument.
Well I certainly have a larger argument about Joel Monka's dim thinking DIM thinking to say nothing of his recent "prescription" based on an unqualified false diagnosis.
:The larger argument is more important and more interesting than the insults.
Well do remind us what that "larger argument" is CC because it seems to be lost on both Joel and I. . .
:The "Killing Joke" was an awesome graphic novel. I'm not sure of its relevance to this conversation, but I liked it.
I was thinking of the rock band 'Killing Joke' myself CC. I expect that they too have some music for U*Us to face. In fact I know they do. . .
Now how about if you go and post your best halfways *credible* explanation as to why you posed your question and posted your DIM Thinking -
"Didn't think you had any proof."
follow-up comment as Anonymous rather than as ChaliceChick. I look forward to seeing just how lame your exuse is. . .
Interestingly enough the WVC for this comment is trounc. . . Who needs an 'e' to soften the 'c'. Certainly not me.
8:57 PM
Robin Edgar said...
It looks like the HTML for some the the links got stripped out. This one is worth providing, the rest of the references are easily found using appropriate Google searches.
9:07 PM
Chalicechick said...
I think it's pretty much the nature of arguments that often each side thinks the other is boneheaded or crazy or whatever, but calling names is still not the intelligent way to argue and strikes me as a sign of desperation.
If you can decide that Joel is stupid and smokes pot, I don't see why he can't decide you're crazy. Actually, I can see why, because it makes the both of you sound silly and if he's so obviously sounding stupid and you're so obviously sounding crazy, then people will figure that out for themselves without having to be told.
If you have actual evidence that the Rev. Sinkford has done something wrong, then you should share it. But I've never heard anyone other than you allege it.
You keep saying that what people say align with the "facts" about President Sinkford, yet you keep quoting opinions. I don't know if Sinkford is "sleazy" or "creepy" for example as they are matters of opinion. Most manipulators know their own tactics when they see them, so I doubt he's a skilled manipulator given how easily the Iranian president's staff manipulated him, though I know that's just an opinion, too.
I guess he's charismatic, but ministers and people who win elections both tend to be and he's both. I think you're going to have a hard time finding a president of a large organization who ISN'T charismatic.
So yeah, I don't see that there are facts that fit and I'm not even sure about the opinions.
I think we would know if Sinkford had ever been found guilty of misconduct and I tend to think people are innocent until proven guilty. The records are likely sealed if someone is found to be innocent anyway since making disproven charges of immoral conduct freely available might be legally and morally questionable.
As for divorce, even if it were our business, which until someone files a complaint, it's not, most places in America have had no-fault* divorce since the 1960's and few divorce records have any kind of detail about what actually went on in the marriage as most divorces have people doing obnoxious things on both sides and it isn't in either side's best interest for it to come out in court.
Usually that stuff is negotiated between the couple and the judge simply signs off on what they agree to as far as finances and custody go, so the records would be very minimal.
As for his courtship of Mrs. Sinkford, public records would have nothing but a marriage license.
But ultimately, I don't see why it is our business until we know that there has been wrongdoing.
People who aren't accused of wrongdoing by a wronged party or the state should be allowed their privacy.
CC
who tends to side with Justice Brennan on these things.
* Indeed, before no fault divorce, it was common practice for couples who didn't dislike each other but were just bored and wanted to find other people to stage scenes of the husband's "adultery" as to have grounds for divorce, and then the wife simply wouldn't raise the issue of marital fault. I read a wonderful opinion once where a judge made fun of the practice and how similar the fake infidelity photos were to one another.
The history of divorce law is one of those topics you don't even want to get me started on unless you want a speech. It's so interesting!
9:30 AM
Robin Edgar said...
:I think it's pretty much the nature of arguments that often each side thinks the other is boneheaded or crazy or whatever, but calling names is still not the intelligent way to argue and strikes me as a sign of desperation.
I couldn't agree more CC, but that is the way that all too many boneheadedly stupid U*Us choose to argue, or at least irresponsibly allow verbally abusive U*U clergy to argue, so I don't mind going along for the ride. . . :-) I find it quite entertaining myself, kind of like the ersatz bravado of WWA Wrestling aka U*U-U*U-Eh Wrestling, as do various readers of my blog posts and comments. . .
:If you can decide that Joel is stupid and smokes pot, I don't see why he can't decide you're crazy.
I can decide that Joel says boneheadedly stupid things on the basis of the obviously stupid things that he says CC. I did not decide that he smokes pot. I put it out as a *possibility* that was largely poking fun at him over his apparent dearth of short term memory. . .
I don't see why Joel can't decide that I am crazy either ChaliceChick. I will only say that he is boneheadedly stupid, if not just a tad crazy. . . for actually doing so.
:Actually, I can see why, because it makes the both of you sound silly and if he's so obviously sounding stupid and you're so obviously sounding crazy, then people will figure that out for themselves without having to be told.
Well you know what they say about getting in a pissing match with a skunk don't you CC? :-) I don't think that Joel is "role playing" when he says boneheadedly stupid things CC. Anyone who is so boneheadedly stupid as to be unable to see that I am "role playing" in most if not all of my online "insanity" is at least a little crazy themselves, especially if they foolishly pathologize me on the basis of my satirical parody blog posts and comments and have the temerity (aka boneheaded stupidity) to publicly share their "diagnosis". . .
:If you have actual evidence that the Rev. Sinkford has done something wrong, then you should share it. But I've never heard anyone other than you allege it.
Yoo hoo CC. For starters I am talking about UUA President Bill Sinkford's *alleged* clergy sexual misconduct, and pointing out how Rev. Scott Wells' UU clergy sexual misconduct roll call "profile" of prominent U*U ministers who are *alleged* to be guilty of clergy sexual misconduct but are protected by "current clergy guidelines and attitudes" which create a "veil of silence and fog of frustration" aligns all too well with some publicly known facts about Rev. Bill Sinkford. In fact, one of the multiple reasons that I am engaging in this exercise, but by no means the only one. . . is to try to persuade U*Us that it is far better to name the names of those U*U ministers who are suspected of being, or actual are, guilty of clergy sexual misconduct (to say nothing of non-sexual misconduct) than to engage in the kind of inU*Uendo that may lead to people suspect innocent ministers of being guilty of clergy sexual misconduct. Peacebang's inU*Uendo, as well as that of other U*Us commenting on Rev. Scott Wells' misleading titled, if not outright fraudulently titled, UU clergy sexual misconduct roll call blog post aligns all too well with publicly available facts about UUA President Bill Sinkford regardless of whether or not he is actually guilty of clergy sexual misconduct himself. N'est-ce pas CC?
That being said, just because you have never heard anyone other than myself allege that UUA President Bill Sinkford is alleged to have committed clergy sexual misconduct in no way means that he has not actually been accused of clergy sexual misconduct, or even has actually committed clergy sexual misconduct of one kind or another. Based on what I know about UUA President Bill Sinkford's alleged clergy sexual misconduct I believe that it is entirely possible, even quite probable, that Rev. Scott Wells has heard about it and that Peacebang aka Rev. Victoria Weinstein has also heard about it, which is precisely why I suggested that you ask *them* what if anything *they* know about UUA President Bill Sinkford's *alleged* if not actual clergy sexual misconduct CC. . . The fact that you and many if not most other U*Us have never heard boo about Rev. William G. Sinkford's alleged clergy sexual misconduct only serves as evidence of just how thick the U*U "veil of silence and fog of frustration" that Rev. Scott Wells' spoke about actually is. . . Not that Rev. Wells is not himself a participant in that "veil of silence" by refusing to name the names of those alleged or actual transgressive U*U ministers that he knows about, one of whom may well be Rev. Bill Sinkford. . . N'est-ce pas CC?
So. . . If you *really* think that if I have any actual evidence that Rev. Bill Sinkford has done something wrong, I should share it publicly that surely applies to everyone else who thinks or even *knows* that Rev. Sinkford has done something wrong doesn't it? So how about asking Rev. Scott Wells, Rev. Victoria Weinstein, and all the other commenters on the UU clergy sexual misconduct roll call blog post to share whatever evidence they have CC? Come to think of it you did nothing of the sort in your comments on that blog post. No. . . Quite the opposite. As is your usual modus operandi you chimed in to caution people about false accusations against innocent ministers, although you did also say -
"I’m sure that most if not all of the people on this page did what people say they did, but still, the possibility of innocence does exist."
without even knowing who Rev. Scott Wells or the commenters were talking about with the possible exception of Rev. Dr. Forrest Church of All U*U Souls Unitarian Church in Manhattan of course. The fact of the matter CC, is unbeknownst to you. . . Rev. Victoria Weinstein may well have been talking about UUA President Bill Sinkford amongst other good ole U*U ministers who (allegedly) commit adultery and still get the plummiest pulpits. So do us all a favor and ask Rev. Victoria Weinstein just exactly what she has been told, anyway. And I mean verbatim. . . Ask Rev. Scott Wells what he knows while you are at it CC. Ask the various other commenters what they know. And last, but by no means least. . . ask the UUA's department of ministry and Ministerial Fellowship Committee to share with you what, if any, actual evidence *they* have in their records that Rev. Bill Sinkford did something wrong. . .
:You keep saying that what people say align with the "facts" about President Sinkford, yet you keep quoting opinions. I don't know if Sinkford is "sleazy" or "creepy" for example as they are matters of opinion.
I could say the same myself CC. But, as should be clear from the facts that I did provide that align with the inU*Uendo on the UU clergy sexual misconduct roll call post, I was talking about actual facts about Rev. Bill Sinkford such as the fact that Rev. Sinkford is a "Baby Boomer" U*U minister, evidently divorced one wife, and remarried down the road a bit. That's all. For now anyway. . .
:Most manipulators know their own tactics when they see them, so I doubt he's a skilled manipulator given how easily the Iranian president's staff manipulated him, though I know that's just an opinion, too.
Indeed it is just an opinion CC. Who knows? Maybe UUA President Bill Sinkford went along for the ride with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad because he none-the-less got the publicity that *he* wanted even if he was "played" by the Iranian delgation.
:I guess he's charismatic, but ministers and people who win elections both tend to be and he's both. I think you're going to have a hard time finding a president of a large organization who ISN'T charismatic.
I don't disagree CC but, quite evidently. . . that would mean that *that* part of the U*U inU*Uendo on Rev. Scott Wells' blog does align quite nicely with UUA president Bill Sinkford don't you think?
:So yeah, I don't see that there are facts that fit and I'm not even sure about the opinions.
Why am I not surprised that CC fails to see the obvious fact that *some* of the facts about UUA President Sinkford, to say nothing of some U*U opinions about him, do in fact align very well with the U*U inU*Uendo in question?
:I think we would know if Sinkford had ever been found guilty of misconduct and I tend to think people are innocent until proven guilty.
Yup. Just like Rev. Ray Drennan is innocent of any clergy misconduct to say nothing of Rev. Victoria Weinstein. . .
:The records are likely sealed if someone is found to be innocent anyway since making disproven charges of immoral conduct freely available might be legally and morally questionable.
Well everybody knows how Rev. Ray Drennan and Rev. Victoria Weinstein, to say nothing of Rev. Dr. Forrest Church. . . were disproven of charges of immoral conduct don't they?
:As for divorce, even if it were our business, which until someone files a complaint, it's not, most places in America have had no-fault* divorce since the 1960's and few divorce records have any kind of detail about what actually went on in the marriage as most divorces have people doing obnoxious things on both sides and it isn't in either side's best interest for it to come out in court. . . Usually that stuff is negotiated between the couple and the judge simply signs off on what they agree to as far as finances and custody go, so the records would be very minimal.
That may be so CC but the key word here is *usually*. . . You don't *really* know what information divorce records may actually contain unless you bother to freely and responsibly search for their truth and meaning by actually accessing them and going through them. Who says nobody ever filed a clergy misconduct complaint against Rev. Bill Sinkford CC? Certainly not me. . . Nor indeed those U*Us "in the know" who informed me years ago that Rev. Bill Sinkford was in fact accused of clergy sexual misconduct as a result of being found in a compromising situation with someone and who even led me to believe that, as a result of this discovery, he had in fact had a formal clergy misconduct complaint brought against him with the UUA's ever so aptly named Ministerial *Fellowship* Committee. Why do you suppose that I suggested that you ask the UUA and MFC straight out if Rev. Bill Sinkford ever had a clergy misconduct complaint brought against him CC?
:But ultimately, I don't see why it is our business until we know that there has been wrongdoing.
Dim thinking CC. Even apparent DIM Thinking. This is a classic logical fallacy there AFA*I*AC. If evidence exists which suggests that there *might* have been wrongdoing it is in fact *our* business to look into that evidence further to determine whether or not there actually has been any wrongdoing. I take note of the fact how you and other U*Us have fallen all over themselves to try to find out about the alleged wrongdoing that is aired in Rev. Scott Wells' "less than honestly" titled UU clergy sexual misconduct roll call post. . .
:People who aren't accused of wrongdoing by a wronged party or the state should be allowed their privacy.
Right. . . So a rapist and/or murderer who is not accused of wrongdoing by the person or indeed persons he raped and/or murdered, and for whatever reason is not formally accused by the state, should be allowed their privacy eh CC?
:CC who tends to side with Justice Brennan on these things.
CC who apparently tends to side with boneheaded stU*Upidity on these things. . .
:The history of divorce law is one of those topics you don't even want to get me started on unless you want a speech. It's so interesting!
CC I would *love* to see you get started on divorce law, even see your "speech", I have little doubt that it would be very interesting. . .
3:44 PM
Chalicechick said...
I'm pretty sure that they were talking about Forrest Church, who is quite famous for having left his spouse for a church member.
Note how Forrest Church has one of the plummiest pulpits in the UUA--that of 1000+ member All Souls in New York.
According to the biography you liked to, Sinkford was a UUA beaureaucrat and that's the sort of job he has had since getting out of Starr King. It doesn't mention him serving any plummy congregation, or any congregation at all other than getting ordained by his home congregation.
Given that, I'm not sure why you're convinced that it was Bill Sinkford since the bit about "plummy pulpits" doesn't seem to fit at all and literally everything they were saying fits Forrest Church.
Indeed, the sheer famousness of Forrest Church's marrying a congregant is part of the reason I'm skeptical that we wouldn't have heard of similar shenanagins on Sinkford's part.
Also, if Sinkford wasn't serving a congregation, I don't see that anything that can happen between consenting adults would be clergy sexual misconduct. As far as I know, UUA staff members can date anybody they like and rightly so, since they don't have the power over people that ministers sometimes have.
(((Right. . . So a rapist and/or murderer who is not accused of wrongdoing by the person or indeed persons he raped and/or murdered, and for whatever reason is not formally accused by the state, should be allowed their privacy eh CC?)))
The only reason the state wouldn't pursue a case like that is because they didn't have enough evidence to get probable cause.
If there's no evidence at all, then there's no case, and yes, people should be allowed their privacy if the police can't even get probable cause.
Think of it this way. (And yes, I'm about to apply American criminal law to Canada here, but I'm just making a point.) What if there were a fire that burned down UCM and the cops decided it was arson? (As you've been known to point out, it has happened before.)
Given your feelings about the church, you know lots of people would see you as a likely suspect and think it would be a good idea and have the cops kick down your door and search your apartment for lighter fluid and matches and your writings about how the church has wronged you.
My guess is that a Nifong-style prosecutor could build a decent circumstantial case against you merely from what you happen to innocently own and use your writing to make you look very very nasty in front of the jury.
At the very, very least any computers you own and quite possibly all your cameras are going in to evidence. Probably for about a year.
Should they be able to storm your house like that and take your stuff? Not without a better reason than "he doesn't like UCM."
Thus, probable cause.
CC
8:27 PM
Robin Edgar said...
:I'm pretty sure that they were talking about Forrest Church, who is quite famous for having left his spouse for a church member.
I'm pretty sure that they were talking about Rev. Dr. Forrest Church too CC but he was by no means the *only* U*U minister they were talking about and it is entirely possible, if not probable, that Rev. Scott Wells and Rev. Victoria Weinstein are aware of Rev. Bill Sinkford's alleged clergy sexual misconduct to boot. . . Peacebang clearly spoke in the plural when she spoke of "good ole ministers who commit serial adultery and still get the plummiest pulpits." It is quite probable that Peacebang was killing two or more birds with one stone with *that* assertion CC.
:Note how Forrest Church has one of the plummiest pulpits in the UUA--that of 1000+ member All Souls in New York.
Been there done that CC. . . I *also* note that UUA President Bill Sinkford has an even plummier pulpit, that of the 1000+ (at last count) congregation Unitarian*Universalist Association of Congregations.
:According to the biography you liked to, Sinkford was a UUA beaureaucrat and that's the sort of job he has had since getting out of Starr King. It doesn't mention him serving any plummy congregation, or any congregation at all other than getting ordained by his home congregation.
See above. I expect that most people will agree that UUA President Bill Sinkford has a very plummy pulpit as President of the UUA.
:Given that, I'm not sure why you're convinced that it was Bill Sinkford since the bit about "plummy pulpits" doesn't seem to fit at all and literally everything they were saying fits Forrest Church.
ROTFLMU*UO. Once again I am trying to figure out if you are being stupid or disingenuous because it is one or the other CC. I am not *convinced* that they are talking about Bill Sinkford but it is glaringly obvious that they are talking about multiple U*U ministers, not just Rev. Dr. Forrest Church, and it is well within possibility that Peacebang at least is talking about Bill Sinkford with the rather broad brush that she paints with. . . Some U*U ministers are aware of Rev. Bill Sinkford's alleged clergy misconduct, how many exactly I don't know, but it is a real possibility that both Rev. Scott Wells and Rev.l Victoria Weinstein are at least to some degree aware of it.
:Indeed, the sheer famousness of Forrest Church's marrying a congregant is part of the reason I'm skeptical that we wouldn't have heard of similar shenanagins on Sinkford's part.
*You* haven't heard of similar shenanagins on Sinkford's part, nor probably on any other U*U minister's part but Peacebang clearly is speaking about multiple U*U ministers and appears to be insinU*Uating that both male and female good ole U*U ministers "commit serial adultery and still get the plummiest pulpits." Please note that both ministers and pulpits are plural forms of those nouns. . .
:Also, if Sinkford wasn't serving a congregation, I don't see that anything that can happen between consenting adults would be clergy sexual misconduct.
Maybe *you* don't CC but I expect that a certain number of U*U clergy would think that *if* as an ordained U*U minister, albeit one not serving as a minister of a U*U "church", Rev. Bill Sinkford had a "fling" or even a full blown affair with a young U*U ministerial intern at a UUA GA or something like that, while he was married to another woman, that such behavior would constitute what is commonly known as *adultery* and that committing adultery, besides disregarding one of the Ten Commandments, would be a form of clergy sexual misconduct.
:As far as I know, UUA staff members can date anybody they like and rightly so, since they don't have the power over people that ministers sometimes have.
UUA staff members can date anybody they like even if they are married CC? What the heck, I will take your word for that. Knowing what I know about the "loose canons" of the U*Us you may well be right. . .
:The only reason the state wouldn't pursue a case like that is because they didn't have enough evidence to get probable cause. If there's no evidence at all, then there's no case, and yes, people should be allowed their privacy if the police can't even get probable cause.
Are you really that naïve CC? I stand by what I said and I am confident that most people will agree with it.
:Should they be able to storm your house like that and take your stuff? Not without a better reason than "he doesn't like UCM."
Need I remind you that Rev. Diane Rollert and the Unitarian Church of Montreal managed to obtain a restraining order with virtually no evidence that I represented any kind of real threat to anyone at the UCM CC?
11:16 PM
Chalicechick said...
Damn. Blogger just ate a lengthy and detailed response. I will hit the high points.
1. I don't deny that multiple UU ministers have probably cheated on their spouses. Don't know how we would gauge who cheated with someone that they were in a real ministerial relationship.
But I'm sure it has happend.
2. I really don't understand why you think that rudeness and namecalling is an effective argument technique.
You and I have different ideas about whether a UUA minister is likely to describe the UUA presidency as a "pulpit" in a casual blog conversation.
Good arguments can be made on both sides. I don't think you're stupid for disagreeing with me, and I'm not sure what you get out of calling me "stupid."
And don't equate siding with Justice Brennan to siding with Boneheaded Stupidity. He was a great man.
3. Maria Sinkford looks about fifty in her pictures. Assuming that she might have been an "intern" seems silly and arguably a little sexist.
4. Clergy sexual misconduct is, to quote Dan Harper "a clergyperson using the power differential between clergy and members of congregation to engage in sexualized behavior that could not happen minus that power differential."
Even if Sinkford had cheated on his wife, which you haven't even begun to prove, two consenting adult UUA staffers having an affair doesn't fit under that definition because one is not the other's minister in any meaningful sense and thus doesn't have the coercive power that a minister might have over his or her congregation.
This might be clearer if I show the law equivalent, which would be what kind of sex gets people kicked out of bar associations:
Sex that might get you kicked out of the Bar: Sex with a prostitute or sex that is otherwise illegal, sex with a client
Sex that won't even be an issue: Anything else, adultery or otherwise. You can leave your wife for your secretary; you can sleep with a stripper on a business trip. As far as the bar is concerned, that's none of their business.
Besides, the UUA has a lot of hippies. What if someone has an open marriage?
5. (((UUA staff members can date anybody they like even if they are married CC? What the heck, I will take your word for that. Knowing what I know about the "loose canons" of the U*Us you may well be right. . .)))
I think so. UUA staffers are human, marriages break up and people find new people. As long as there is no weird coercion going on, that's life.
Martin Luther King cheated on his wife. If he were still alive and the UUA wanted to hire him, I would be all in favor of it.
6. I agree with you that "most people" would agree that police shouldn't need probable cause to arrest people or search their homes.
However "most people" are total facists as far as criminal law is concerned, and I do not use than term lightly. Many, MANY jurors have been reported to judges for saying, essentially, "well, it looks like he accused didn't commit THIS crime, but if the police arrested him for it, surely his guilty of something. Might as well punish him for this."
Somebody, I think it was Rep. Henry Waxman said that if the Bill of Rights were proposed legislation today, it would never make it out of committee. I agree.
“Most people” seem to firmly believe that criminals are an entirely different species and that no reasonable, law-abiding person ever has a nasty run in with the police and gets arrested for no good reason. That’s just not true.
7. I haven’t forgotten the restraining order issue, but given that the only real punishment for a restraining order is having to stay away from somebody, and that if you comply with a restraining order, the judge will usually take it off your record, it’s a pretty mild thing.
And you still got to have a hearing and face your accuser.
A restraining order sucks, but having your house raided and your stuff put in to evidence for a year is a lot worse and should require probable cause, and anyone who would tell you otherwise is so terrified of crime that they have lost all sense of what is just.
CC
10:04 AM
Robin Edgar said...
:Damn. Blogger just ate a lengthy and detailed response. I will hit the high points.
When you are writing a lengthy and detailed comment you should do it in Blogger as though it were a blog post so that it is automatically saved etc., or do it in a word processing program.
2. I really don't understand why you think that rudeness and namecalling is an effective argument technique.
I engage in rudeness and name-calling with those U*Us who engage in these argument techniques themselves and/or approve of other U*Us doing so, especially if they approve of U*U ministers using rudeness and name-calling aka insulting and defamatory language.
:You and I have different ideas about whether a UUA minister is likely to describe the UUA presidency as a "pulpit" in a casual blog conversation. Good arguments can be made on both sides. I don't think you're stupid for disagreeing with me, and I'm not sure what you get out of calling me "stupid."
I usually only use that word where there is good reason to use it CC. I quite justifiably accused you of being either stupid or disingenuous because you stupidly or disingenuously asserted that I was/am "convinced that it was Bill Sinkford" that Rev. Victoria Weinstein and possibly other commenters were talking about on Rev. Scott Wells' Clergy Sexual Misconduct Roll Call blog post when that is not exactly true. I was/am convinced that it is *possible* that Rev. Victoria Weinstein and possibly other commenters were aware of Rev. Bill Sinkford's alleged clergy sexual misconduct. Two quite different things CC. In fact I think you are being a bit stupid and/or disingenuous for pretending that I suggested you were being stupid for disagreeing about whether or not the UUA presidency is a "pulpit" when that is quite obviously not why I did so. . . Also CC, it's not like *you* don't throw the word "stupid" around on your ChaliceChick blog a fair bit or in your blog comments etc.
:And don't equate siding with Justice Brennan to siding with Boneheaded Stupidity. He was a great man.
Well I hate to have to say so ChaliceChick but I did not in any way shape or form *equate* your own apparent stupidity and/or disingenuousness with Justice Brennan. I accused you of boneheaded stupidity on the basis of your own words not on anything Justice Brennan may have said which I am completely unfamiliar with. It looks to me, and probably others who will read this, that you are being stupid and/or disingenuous yet again. . . I'll tell you what though CC. I will *try* to avoid describing you as stupid when you say and do things that I have reasonable grounds to believe are stupid, such as posting comments anonymously on The Emerson Avenger blog knowing full well the possible consequences for doing so. . . I am confident that other people will see what I see and not really need to be informed of my opinion. OTOH If you get my back up by saying or doing something stupid I might describe you as "less than bright" or something.
:3. Maria Sinkford looks about fifty in her pictures. Assuming that she might have been an "intern" seems silly and arguably a little sexist.
I was not necessarily talking about Maria Sinkford there CC. Mrs. Maria Sinkford may not be the alleged "fling" that the alleged clergy sexual misconduct of Rev. Bill Sinkford arose from. OTOH a good number of people enter the ministry later in life so it is not entirely out of the question that she might have been a U*U seminarian when Rev. Bill Sinkford met her. Peacebang speaks about the good ole ministers "who commit serial adultery and still get the plummiest pulpits" in her comment. It is possible that Mrs. Maria Sinkford met Rev. Bill Sinkford some time after his alleged clergy sexual misconduct and had nothing to do with it. Then again she may well have had a sexual relationship with Rev. Bill Sinkford while he was still married to his previous wife. Only a proper investigation can determine what the actual facts are.
:4. Clergy sexual misconduct is, to quote Dan Harper "a clergyperson using the power differential between clergy and members of congregation to engage in sexualized behavior that could not happen minus that power differential."
That is Rev. Dan Harper's definition of clergy sexual misconduct. Other people may have different opinions about what constitutes clergy sexual misconduct. It is glaringly obvious from Rev. Scott Wells' blog post that *some* U*U ministers consider pure and simple adultery to be a form of clergy sexual misconduct regardless of any "power differential" involved.
:Even if Sinkford had cheated on his wife, which you haven't even begun to prove,
I do not have to *prove* anything CC to speak about Rev. Bill Sinkford's *alleged* clergy sexual misconduct, which may or may not involve having cheated on his former wife.
:two consenting adult UUA staffers having an affair doesn't fit under that definition because one is not the other's minister in any meaningful sense and thus doesn't have the coercive power that a minister might have over his or her congregation.
Try on these definitions for size ChaliceChick -
As a sexual being, I will recognize the power that ministry gives me and *refrain from practices which are harmful to others* and which *endanger my integrity* or my professional effectiveness. Such practices include sexual activity with any child or with an unwilling adult, with a counselee, with the spouse or partner of a person in the congregation, with interns, or any other such exploitative relationship. . . Because the demands of others upon me will be many and unceasing, I will try to keep especially aware of *the rights and needs of my family* and *my relation to them as spouse*, parent and friend. . . I will not engage in sexual activities with a member of the congregation who is not my spouse or partner, if I am married or in a committed relationship. . . The way in which ministers and their families conduct their private lives, choose their friends, spend their money, rear their children and express their sexuality is a private concern. However, there is *a public facet to the minister’s life*. Perceptions of the public will have some bearing on the effectiveness of the ministry and therefore *implications for private choices*.
:This might be clearer if I show the law equivalent, which would be what kind of sex gets people kicked out of bar associations:
We are not talking about Bar Associations ChaliceChick we are talking about U*U "churches" and/or the Unitarian*Universalist Association of Congregations.
:Besides, the UUA has a lot of hippies. What if someone has an open marriage?
That is a very good legitimate question CC, one that I have thought about myself before, even quite recently, but I think that you need to pose it to the Unitarian*Universalist Ministers Association and/or the UUA's aptly named Ministerial *Fellowship* Committee not me.
::5. (((UUA staff members can date anybody they like even if they are married CC? What the heck, I will take your word for that. Knowing what I know about the "loose canons" of the U*Us you may well be right. . .)))
:I think so. UUA staffers are human, marriages break up and people find new people. As long as there is no weird coercion going on, that's life.
That's life alright CC but I am not convinced that the simple act of committing adultery does not constitute a form of clergy sexual misconduct if and when ordained U*U ministers commit adultery. Judging from the comments on Rev. Scott Wells blog some U*U ministers consider committing adultery to be clergy sexual misconduct. The position(s) of the UUMA and MFC on that question do seem to be somewhat "broad and vague" as Rev. Scott Wells said.
:Martin Luther King cheated on his wife. If he were still alive and the UUA wanted to hire him, I would be all in favor of it.
I might be in favor of it as well ChaliceChick but that would not necessarily mean that the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. had not committed a form of clergy sexual misconduct, to say nothing of breaking one of the Ten Commandments, would it CC?
:6. I agree with you that "most people" would agree that police shouldn't need probable cause to arrest people or search their homes.
That's wonderful CC except I never said that or even suggested that. . . I suggested that, unlike you, most people would agree that a rapist and/or murderer who is not accused of wrongdoing by the person or indeed persons he raped and/or murdered, and for whatever reason is not formally accused by the state, should NOT be allowed their privacy. I didn't say anything suggesting that police shouldn't need probable cause to arrest people or search their homes. I fully agree that they should but I also recognize, based on direct personal experience courtesy of Totalitarian U*Unitarians. . . that the police can and do arrest people and/or search their homes without probable cause. Heck the restraining order against me that Totalitarian U*Unitarians obtained on the basis of paranoia and perjury, with a little bit of help of a biased and hostile judge. . . was granted without any valid probable cause.
:However "most people" are total facists as far as criminal law is concerned, and I do not use than term lightly.
I do not use the term Totalitarian U*Unitarians lightly either CC even if it is kind of a funny pun. . . BTW The word you want is fascists not facists.
:Many, MANY jurors have been reported to judges for saying, essentially, "well, it looks like he accused didn't commit THIS crime, but if the police arrested him for it, surely his guilty of something. Might as well punish him for this."
No doubt many MANY U*U "jurors" think the same way ChaliceChick. . .
:Somebody, I think it was Rep. Henry Waxman said that if the Bill of Rights were proposed legislation today, it would never make it out of committee. I agree.
Probably.
:“Most people” seem to firmly believe that criminals are an entirely different species and that no reasonable, law-abiding person ever has a nasty run in with the police and gets arrested for no good reason. That’s just not true.
Do you *really* think you need to tell *me* that ChaliceChick?
:7. I haven’t forgotten the restraining order issue, but given that the only real punishment for a restraining order is having to stay away from somebody, and that if you comply with a restraining order, the judge will usually take it off your record, it’s a pretty mild thing.
Agreed. Quite frankly I am enjoying the holiday myself. But. . . that does not mean that it is not in violation of my civil rights and liberties and even an all too fascist suppression of my constitutionally guaranteed right to peaceful public protest. N'est-ce pas CC?
:And you still got to have a hearing and face your accuser.
Indeed I did. It was not necessarily a genuinely just and equitable aka fair hearing however. . .
:A restraining order sucks, but having your house raided and your stuff put in to evidence for a year is a lot worse and should require probable cause,
So should a restraining order CC. . .
:and anyone who would tell you otherwise is so terrified of crime that they have lost all sense of what is just.
Sounds like some of the paranoid Totalitarian U*Unitarians I have the misfortune to know ChaliceChick.
Not sure why the WVC for this comment is haunch. :-)
1:16 PM
Chalicechick said...
Robin, I know you well enough to know that if you had more proof you would have written about it. Pointing out wrongdoing is one of your favorite things to do. I didn't need to ask that question.
That said, I'm pretty horrified by what you've written there. I want the best for victims of clergy sexual misconduct and I don't think making accusations like that is the best way to help them. One of the hardest parts of being a victim of such things is getting people to believe you and the more accusations without real proof behind them there are out there, the harder it will be for them to seek justice.
As for the ad hominem stuff, I don't think you two are swapping insults just to be amusing. You're swapping insults because you have a larger argument.
The larger argument is more important and more interesting than the insults.
The "Killing Joke" was an awesome graphic novel. I'm not sure of its relevance to this conversation, but I liked it.
CC
Robin Edgar said...
:Robin, I know you well enough to know that if you had more proof you would have written about it.
Then you obviously don't know me that well at all ChaliceChick. I very often do not post all of the evidence or proof that I have at my disposition. It is good strategy to keep some things in reserve. . . There are cases of clergy misconduct that I have yet to blog about and I can in fact post more information about UUA President Bill Sinkford's alleged, if not actual. . . clergy sexual misconduct.
:Pointing out wrongdoing is one of your favorite things to do. I didn't need to ask that question.
What question was "that question" CC? This one? You will learn that you *really* didn't need to ask that question ChaliceChick, at least you *really* didn't need to ask it under the cover of anonymity when you could have and *should* have asked it under your well known ChaliceChick pseudonym.
:That said, I'm pretty horrified by what you've written there.
As you and other U*Us should be. . .
:I want the best for victims of clergy sexual misconduct and I don't think making accusations like that is the best way to help them.
I am not making anything up CC. . . For starters, as I have already explained to you in your guise as Anonymouse, so far. . . I am just publicly *demonstrating* how the "profile" of the kind of "sleezy" aka "creepy" "conspicuous or famous" "Baby Boomer" U*U ministers who commit adultery (serial adultery or otherwise) and "still get the plummiest pulpits" in the whole wide U*U World because "all is forgiven" if they marry their "fling", no matter how they met. . . as provided by the inU*Uendo of Rev. Scott Wells, Rev. Victoria Weinstein, Rev. Adam Tierney-Eliot, Hank, and Sarah, if not other U*Us on Rev. Scott Wells' UU clergy sexual misconduct roll call blog post, aligns all too well with some undeniable publicly available facts about UUA President Bill Sinkford. Maybe you *really* should ask Rev. Victoria Weinstein and Rev. Scott Wells, to say nothing of other U*Us "in the know" about the clergy sexual misconduct of prominent U*U ministers, what *they* know about any allegations of clergy sexual misconduct on the part of UUA President Bill Sinkford. . . Maybe you *really* should take up my suggestion that you and other Unitarian*Universalists might do well to enter into a free and responsible search for the truth and meaning that inspired my 'UUA President Bill Sinkford's *Alleged* Clergy Sexual Misconduct' blog post and inquire directly with the UUA's department of ministry and/or its ever so aptly named Ministerial *Fellowship* Committee and ask them straight out if Rev. William G. Sinkford has ever had a clergy sexual misconduct complaint brought against him.
Didn't I say, "Seek and U*Us shall find" CC?
:One of the hardest parts of being a victim of such things is getting people to believe you and the more accusations without real proof behind them there are out there, the harder it will be for them to seek justice.
I guess that depends on what constitutes "real proof" CC. Do us all a favor and ask the UUA directly if Rev. William G. Sinkford ever had a clergy sexual misconduct complaint brought against him. Put on your hat as an investigative reporter and look into the circumstances that led to Rev. Bill Sinkford's divorce from his previous wife, to say nothing of his subsequent marriage to his current wife Maria Sinkford. The divorce records should be publicly available. No?
:As for the ad hominem stuff, I don't think you two are swapping insults just to be amusing. You're swapping insults because you have a larger argument.
Well I certainly have a larger argument about Joel Monka's dim thinking DIM thinking to say nothing of his recent "prescription" based on an unqualified false diagnosis.
:The larger argument is more important and more interesting than the insults.
Well do remind us what that "larger argument" is CC because it seems to be lost on both Joel and I. . .
:The "Killing Joke" was an awesome graphic novel. I'm not sure of its relevance to this conversation, but I liked it.
I was thinking of the rock band 'Killing Joke' myself CC. I expect that they too have some music for U*Us to face. In fact I know they do. . .
Now how about if you go and post your best halfways *credible* explanation as to why you posed your question and posted your DIM Thinking -
"Didn't think you had any proof."
follow-up comment as Anonymous rather than as ChaliceChick. I look forward to seeing just how lame your exuse is. . .
Interestingly enough the WVC for this comment is trounc. . . Who needs an 'e' to soften the 'c'. Certainly not me.
8:57 PM
Robin Edgar said...
It looks like the HTML for some the the links got stripped out. This one is worth providing, the rest of the references are easily found using appropriate Google searches.
9:07 PM
Chalicechick said...
I think it's pretty much the nature of arguments that often each side thinks the other is boneheaded or crazy or whatever, but calling names is still not the intelligent way to argue and strikes me as a sign of desperation.
If you can decide that Joel is stupid and smokes pot, I don't see why he can't decide you're crazy. Actually, I can see why, because it makes the both of you sound silly and if he's so obviously sounding stupid and you're so obviously sounding crazy, then people will figure that out for themselves without having to be told.
If you have actual evidence that the Rev. Sinkford has done something wrong, then you should share it. But I've never heard anyone other than you allege it.
You keep saying that what people say align with the "facts" about President Sinkford, yet you keep quoting opinions. I don't know if Sinkford is "sleazy" or "creepy" for example as they are matters of opinion. Most manipulators know their own tactics when they see them, so I doubt he's a skilled manipulator given how easily the Iranian president's staff manipulated him, though I know that's just an opinion, too.
I guess he's charismatic, but ministers and people who win elections both tend to be and he's both. I think you're going to have a hard time finding a president of a large organization who ISN'T charismatic.
So yeah, I don't see that there are facts that fit and I'm not even sure about the opinions.
I think we would know if Sinkford had ever been found guilty of misconduct and I tend to think people are innocent until proven guilty. The records are likely sealed if someone is found to be innocent anyway since making disproven charges of immoral conduct freely available might be legally and morally questionable.
As for divorce, even if it were our business, which until someone files a complaint, it's not, most places in America have had no-fault* divorce since the 1960's and few divorce records have any kind of detail about what actually went on in the marriage as most divorces have people doing obnoxious things on both sides and it isn't in either side's best interest for it to come out in court.
Usually that stuff is negotiated between the couple and the judge simply signs off on what they agree to as far as finances and custody go, so the records would be very minimal.
As for his courtship of Mrs. Sinkford, public records would have nothing but a marriage license.
But ultimately, I don't see why it is our business until we know that there has been wrongdoing.
People who aren't accused of wrongdoing by a wronged party or the state should be allowed their privacy.
CC
who tends to side with Justice Brennan on these things.
* Indeed, before no fault divorce, it was common practice for couples who didn't dislike each other but were just bored and wanted to find other people to stage scenes of the husband's "adultery" as to have grounds for divorce, and then the wife simply wouldn't raise the issue of marital fault. I read a wonderful opinion once where a judge made fun of the practice and how similar the fake infidelity photos were to one another.
The history of divorce law is one of those topics you don't even want to get me started on unless you want a speech. It's so interesting!
9:30 AM
Robin Edgar said...
:I think it's pretty much the nature of arguments that often each side thinks the other is boneheaded or crazy or whatever, but calling names is still not the intelligent way to argue and strikes me as a sign of desperation.
I couldn't agree more CC, but that is the way that all too many boneheadedly stupid U*Us choose to argue, or at least irresponsibly allow verbally abusive U*U clergy to argue, so I don't mind going along for the ride. . . :-) I find it quite entertaining myself, kind of like the ersatz bravado of WWA Wrestling aka U*U-U*U-Eh Wrestling, as do various readers of my blog posts and comments. . .
:If you can decide that Joel is stupid and smokes pot, I don't see why he can't decide you're crazy.
I can decide that Joel says boneheadedly stupid things on the basis of the obviously stupid things that he says CC. I did not decide that he smokes pot. I put it out as a *possibility* that was largely poking fun at him over his apparent dearth of short term memory. . .
I don't see why Joel can't decide that I am crazy either ChaliceChick. I will only say that he is boneheadedly stupid, if not just a tad crazy. . . for actually doing so.
:Actually, I can see why, because it makes the both of you sound silly and if he's so obviously sounding stupid and you're so obviously sounding crazy, then people will figure that out for themselves without having to be told.
Well you know what they say about getting in a pissing match with a skunk don't you CC? :-) I don't think that Joel is "role playing" when he says boneheadedly stupid things CC. Anyone who is so boneheadedly stupid as to be unable to see that I am "role playing" in most if not all of my online "insanity" is at least a little crazy themselves, especially if they foolishly pathologize me on the basis of my satirical parody blog posts and comments and have the temerity (aka boneheaded stupidity) to publicly share their "diagnosis". . .
:If you have actual evidence that the Rev. Sinkford has done something wrong, then you should share it. But I've never heard anyone other than you allege it.
Yoo hoo CC. For starters I am talking about UUA President Bill Sinkford's *alleged* clergy sexual misconduct, and pointing out how Rev. Scott Wells' UU clergy sexual misconduct roll call "profile" of prominent U*U ministers who are *alleged* to be guilty of clergy sexual misconduct but are protected by "current clergy guidelines and attitudes" which create a "veil of silence and fog of frustration" aligns all too well with some publicly known facts about Rev. Bill Sinkford. In fact, one of the multiple reasons that I am engaging in this exercise, but by no means the only one. . . is to try to persuade U*Us that it is far better to name the names of those U*U ministers who are suspected of being, or actual are, guilty of clergy sexual misconduct (to say nothing of non-sexual misconduct) than to engage in the kind of inU*Uendo that may lead to people suspect innocent ministers of being guilty of clergy sexual misconduct. Peacebang's inU*Uendo, as well as that of other U*Us commenting on Rev. Scott Wells' misleading titled, if not outright fraudulently titled, UU clergy sexual misconduct roll call blog post aligns all too well with publicly available facts about UUA President Bill Sinkford regardless of whether or not he is actually guilty of clergy sexual misconduct himself. N'est-ce pas CC?
That being said, just because you have never heard anyone other than myself allege that UUA President Bill Sinkford is alleged to have committed clergy sexual misconduct in no way means that he has not actually been accused of clergy sexual misconduct, or even has actually committed clergy sexual misconduct of one kind or another. Based on what I know about UUA President Bill Sinkford's alleged clergy sexual misconduct I believe that it is entirely possible, even quite probable, that Rev. Scott Wells has heard about it and that Peacebang aka Rev. Victoria Weinstein has also heard about it, which is precisely why I suggested that you ask *them* what if anything *they* know about UUA President Bill Sinkford's *alleged* if not actual clergy sexual misconduct CC. . . The fact that you and many if not most other U*Us have never heard boo about Rev. William G. Sinkford's alleged clergy sexual misconduct only serves as evidence of just how thick the U*U "veil of silence and fog of frustration" that Rev. Scott Wells' spoke about actually is. . . Not that Rev. Wells is not himself a participant in that "veil of silence" by refusing to name the names of those alleged or actual transgressive U*U ministers that he knows about, one of whom may well be Rev. Bill Sinkford. . . N'est-ce pas CC?
So. . . If you *really* think that if I have any actual evidence that Rev. Bill Sinkford has done something wrong, I should share it publicly that surely applies to everyone else who thinks or even *knows* that Rev. Sinkford has done something wrong doesn't it? So how about asking Rev. Scott Wells, Rev. Victoria Weinstein, and all the other commenters on the UU clergy sexual misconduct roll call blog post to share whatever evidence they have CC? Come to think of it you did nothing of the sort in your comments on that blog post. No. . . Quite the opposite. As is your usual modus operandi you chimed in to caution people about false accusations against innocent ministers, although you did also say -
"I’m sure that most if not all of the people on this page did what people say they did, but still, the possibility of innocence does exist."
without even knowing who Rev. Scott Wells or the commenters were talking about with the possible exception of Rev. Dr. Forrest Church of All U*U Souls Unitarian Church in Manhattan of course. The fact of the matter CC, is unbeknownst to you. . . Rev. Victoria Weinstein may well have been talking about UUA President Bill Sinkford amongst other good ole U*U ministers who (allegedly) commit adultery and still get the plummiest pulpits. So do us all a favor and ask Rev. Victoria Weinstein just exactly what she has been told, anyway. And I mean verbatim. . . Ask Rev. Scott Wells what he knows while you are at it CC. Ask the various other commenters what they know. And last, but by no means least. . . ask the UUA's department of ministry and Ministerial Fellowship Committee to share with you what, if any, actual evidence *they* have in their records that Rev. Bill Sinkford did something wrong. . .
:You keep saying that what people say align with the "facts" about President Sinkford, yet you keep quoting opinions. I don't know if Sinkford is "sleazy" or "creepy" for example as they are matters of opinion.
I could say the same myself CC. But, as should be clear from the facts that I did provide that align with the inU*Uendo on the UU clergy sexual misconduct roll call post, I was talking about actual facts about Rev. Bill Sinkford such as the fact that Rev. Sinkford is a "Baby Boomer" U*U minister, evidently divorced one wife, and remarried down the road a bit. That's all. For now anyway. . .
:Most manipulators know their own tactics when they see them, so I doubt he's a skilled manipulator given how easily the Iranian president's staff manipulated him, though I know that's just an opinion, too.
Indeed it is just an opinion CC. Who knows? Maybe UUA President Bill Sinkford went along for the ride with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad because he none-the-less got the publicity that *he* wanted even if he was "played" by the Iranian delgation.
:I guess he's charismatic, but ministers and people who win elections both tend to be and he's both. I think you're going to have a hard time finding a president of a large organization who ISN'T charismatic.
I don't disagree CC but, quite evidently. . . that would mean that *that* part of the U*U inU*Uendo on Rev. Scott Wells' blog does align quite nicely with UUA president Bill Sinkford don't you think?
:So yeah, I don't see that there are facts that fit and I'm not even sure about the opinions.
Why am I not surprised that CC fails to see the obvious fact that *some* of the facts about UUA President Sinkford, to say nothing of some U*U opinions about him, do in fact align very well with the U*U inU*Uendo in question?
:I think we would know if Sinkford had ever been found guilty of misconduct and I tend to think people are innocent until proven guilty.
Yup. Just like Rev. Ray Drennan is innocent of any clergy misconduct to say nothing of Rev. Victoria Weinstein. . .
:The records are likely sealed if someone is found to be innocent anyway since making disproven charges of immoral conduct freely available might be legally and morally questionable.
Well everybody knows how Rev. Ray Drennan and Rev. Victoria Weinstein, to say nothing of Rev. Dr. Forrest Church. . . were disproven of charges of immoral conduct don't they?
:As for divorce, even if it were our business, which until someone files a complaint, it's not, most places in America have had no-fault* divorce since the 1960's and few divorce records have any kind of detail about what actually went on in the marriage as most divorces have people doing obnoxious things on both sides and it isn't in either side's best interest for it to come out in court. . . Usually that stuff is negotiated between the couple and the judge simply signs off on what they agree to as far as finances and custody go, so the records would be very minimal.
That may be so CC but the key word here is *usually*. . . You don't *really* know what information divorce records may actually contain unless you bother to freely and responsibly search for their truth and meaning by actually accessing them and going through them. Who says nobody ever filed a clergy misconduct complaint against Rev. Bill Sinkford CC? Certainly not me. . . Nor indeed those U*Us "in the know" who informed me years ago that Rev. Bill Sinkford was in fact accused of clergy sexual misconduct as a result of being found in a compromising situation with someone and who even led me to believe that, as a result of this discovery, he had in fact had a formal clergy misconduct complaint brought against him with the UUA's ever so aptly named Ministerial *Fellowship* Committee. Why do you suppose that I suggested that you ask the UUA and MFC straight out if Rev. Bill Sinkford ever had a clergy misconduct complaint brought against him CC?
:But ultimately, I don't see why it is our business until we know that there has been wrongdoing.
Dim thinking CC. Even apparent DIM Thinking. This is a classic logical fallacy there AFA*I*AC. If evidence exists which suggests that there *might* have been wrongdoing it is in fact *our* business to look into that evidence further to determine whether or not there actually has been any wrongdoing. I take note of the fact how you and other U*Us have fallen all over themselves to try to find out about the alleged wrongdoing that is aired in Rev. Scott Wells' "less than honestly" titled UU clergy sexual misconduct roll call post. . .
:People who aren't accused of wrongdoing by a wronged party or the state should be allowed their privacy.
Right. . . So a rapist and/or murderer who is not accused of wrongdoing by the person or indeed persons he raped and/or murdered, and for whatever reason is not formally accused by the state, should be allowed their privacy eh CC?
:CC who tends to side with Justice Brennan on these things.
CC who apparently tends to side with boneheaded stU*Upidity on these things. . .
:The history of divorce law is one of those topics you don't even want to get me started on unless you want a speech. It's so interesting!
CC I would *love* to see you get started on divorce law, even see your "speech", I have little doubt that it would be very interesting. . .
3:44 PM
Chalicechick said...
I'm pretty sure that they were talking about Forrest Church, who is quite famous for having left his spouse for a church member.
Note how Forrest Church has one of the plummiest pulpits in the UUA--that of 1000+ member All Souls in New York.
According to the biography you liked to, Sinkford was a UUA beaureaucrat and that's the sort of job he has had since getting out of Starr King. It doesn't mention him serving any plummy congregation, or any congregation at all other than getting ordained by his home congregation.
Given that, I'm not sure why you're convinced that it was Bill Sinkford since the bit about "plummy pulpits" doesn't seem to fit at all and literally everything they were saying fits Forrest Church.
Indeed, the sheer famousness of Forrest Church's marrying a congregant is part of the reason I'm skeptical that we wouldn't have heard of similar shenanagins on Sinkford's part.
Also, if Sinkford wasn't serving a congregation, I don't see that anything that can happen between consenting adults would be clergy sexual misconduct. As far as I know, UUA staff members can date anybody they like and rightly so, since they don't have the power over people that ministers sometimes have.
(((Right. . . So a rapist and/or murderer who is not accused of wrongdoing by the person or indeed persons he raped and/or murdered, and for whatever reason is not formally accused by the state, should be allowed their privacy eh CC?)))
The only reason the state wouldn't pursue a case like that is because they didn't have enough evidence to get probable cause.
If there's no evidence at all, then there's no case, and yes, people should be allowed their privacy if the police can't even get probable cause.
Think of it this way. (And yes, I'm about to apply American criminal law to Canada here, but I'm just making a point.) What if there were a fire that burned down UCM and the cops decided it was arson? (As you've been known to point out, it has happened before.)
Given your feelings about the church, you know lots of people would see you as a likely suspect and think it would be a good idea and have the cops kick down your door and search your apartment for lighter fluid and matches and your writings about how the church has wronged you.
My guess is that a Nifong-style prosecutor could build a decent circumstantial case against you merely from what you happen to innocently own and use your writing to make you look very very nasty in front of the jury.
At the very, very least any computers you own and quite possibly all your cameras are going in to evidence. Probably for about a year.
Should they be able to storm your house like that and take your stuff? Not without a better reason than "he doesn't like UCM."
Thus, probable cause.
CC
8:27 PM
Robin Edgar said...
:I'm pretty sure that they were talking about Forrest Church, who is quite famous for having left his spouse for a church member.
I'm pretty sure that they were talking about Rev. Dr. Forrest Church too CC but he was by no means the *only* U*U minister they were talking about and it is entirely possible, if not probable, that Rev. Scott Wells and Rev. Victoria Weinstein are aware of Rev. Bill Sinkford's alleged clergy sexual misconduct to boot. . . Peacebang clearly spoke in the plural when she spoke of "good ole ministers who commit serial adultery and still get the plummiest pulpits." It is quite probable that Peacebang was killing two or more birds with one stone with *that* assertion CC.
:Note how Forrest Church has one of the plummiest pulpits in the UUA--that of 1000+ member All Souls in New York.
Been there done that CC. . . I *also* note that UUA President Bill Sinkford has an even plummier pulpit, that of the 1000+ (at last count) congregation Unitarian*Universalist Association of Congregations.
:According to the biography you liked to, Sinkford was a UUA beaureaucrat and that's the sort of job he has had since getting out of Starr King. It doesn't mention him serving any plummy congregation, or any congregation at all other than getting ordained by his home congregation.
See above. I expect that most people will agree that UUA President Bill Sinkford has a very plummy pulpit as President of the UUA.
:Given that, I'm not sure why you're convinced that it was Bill Sinkford since the bit about "plummy pulpits" doesn't seem to fit at all and literally everything they were saying fits Forrest Church.
ROTFLMU*UO. Once again I am trying to figure out if you are being stupid or disingenuous because it is one or the other CC. I am not *convinced* that they are talking about Bill Sinkford but it is glaringly obvious that they are talking about multiple U*U ministers, not just Rev. Dr. Forrest Church, and it is well within possibility that Peacebang at least is talking about Bill Sinkford with the rather broad brush that she paints with. . . Some U*U ministers are aware of Rev. Bill Sinkford's alleged clergy misconduct, how many exactly I don't know, but it is a real possibility that both Rev. Scott Wells and Rev.l Victoria Weinstein are at least to some degree aware of it.
:Indeed, the sheer famousness of Forrest Church's marrying a congregant is part of the reason I'm skeptical that we wouldn't have heard of similar shenanagins on Sinkford's part.
*You* haven't heard of similar shenanagins on Sinkford's part, nor probably on any other U*U minister's part but Peacebang clearly is speaking about multiple U*U ministers and appears to be insinU*Uating that both male and female good ole U*U ministers "commit serial adultery and still get the plummiest pulpits." Please note that both ministers and pulpits are plural forms of those nouns. . .
:Also, if Sinkford wasn't serving a congregation, I don't see that anything that can happen between consenting adults would be clergy sexual misconduct.
Maybe *you* don't CC but I expect that a certain number of U*U clergy would think that *if* as an ordained U*U minister, albeit one not serving as a minister of a U*U "church", Rev. Bill Sinkford had a "fling" or even a full blown affair with a young U*U ministerial intern at a UUA GA or something like that, while he was married to another woman, that such behavior would constitute what is commonly known as *adultery* and that committing adultery, besides disregarding one of the Ten Commandments, would be a form of clergy sexual misconduct.
:As far as I know, UUA staff members can date anybody they like and rightly so, since they don't have the power over people that ministers sometimes have.
UUA staff members can date anybody they like even if they are married CC? What the heck, I will take your word for that. Knowing what I know about the "loose canons" of the U*Us you may well be right. . .
:The only reason the state wouldn't pursue a case like that is because they didn't have enough evidence to get probable cause. If there's no evidence at all, then there's no case, and yes, people should be allowed their privacy if the police can't even get probable cause.
Are you really that naïve CC? I stand by what I said and I am confident that most people will agree with it.
:Should they be able to storm your house like that and take your stuff? Not without a better reason than "he doesn't like UCM."
Need I remind you that Rev. Diane Rollert and the Unitarian Church of Montreal managed to obtain a restraining order with virtually no evidence that I represented any kind of real threat to anyone at the UCM CC?
11:16 PM
Chalicechick said...
Damn. Blogger just ate a lengthy and detailed response. I will hit the high points.
1. I don't deny that multiple UU ministers have probably cheated on their spouses. Don't know how we would gauge who cheated with someone that they were in a real ministerial relationship.
But I'm sure it has happend.
2. I really don't understand why you think that rudeness and namecalling is an effective argument technique.
You and I have different ideas about whether a UUA minister is likely to describe the UUA presidency as a "pulpit" in a casual blog conversation.
Good arguments can be made on both sides. I don't think you're stupid for disagreeing with me, and I'm not sure what you get out of calling me "stupid."
And don't equate siding with Justice Brennan to siding with Boneheaded Stupidity. He was a great man.
3. Maria Sinkford looks about fifty in her pictures. Assuming that she might have been an "intern" seems silly and arguably a little sexist.
4. Clergy sexual misconduct is, to quote Dan Harper "a clergyperson using the power differential between clergy and members of congregation to engage in sexualized behavior that could not happen minus that power differential."
Even if Sinkford had cheated on his wife, which you haven't even begun to prove, two consenting adult UUA staffers having an affair doesn't fit under that definition because one is not the other's minister in any meaningful sense and thus doesn't have the coercive power that a minister might have over his or her congregation.
This might be clearer if I show the law equivalent, which would be what kind of sex gets people kicked out of bar associations:
Sex that might get you kicked out of the Bar: Sex with a prostitute or sex that is otherwise illegal, sex with a client
Sex that won't even be an issue: Anything else, adultery or otherwise. You can leave your wife for your secretary; you can sleep with a stripper on a business trip. As far as the bar is concerned, that's none of their business.
Besides, the UUA has a lot of hippies. What if someone has an open marriage?
5. (((UUA staff members can date anybody they like even if they are married CC? What the heck, I will take your word for that. Knowing what I know about the "loose canons" of the U*Us you may well be right. . .)))
I think so. UUA staffers are human, marriages break up and people find new people. As long as there is no weird coercion going on, that's life.
Martin Luther King cheated on his wife. If he were still alive and the UUA wanted to hire him, I would be all in favor of it.
6. I agree with you that "most people" would agree that police shouldn't need probable cause to arrest people or search their homes.
However "most people" are total facists as far as criminal law is concerned, and I do not use than term lightly. Many, MANY jurors have been reported to judges for saying, essentially, "well, it looks like he accused didn't commit THIS crime, but if the police arrested him for it, surely his guilty of something. Might as well punish him for this."
Somebody, I think it was Rep. Henry Waxman said that if the Bill of Rights were proposed legislation today, it would never make it out of committee. I agree.
“Most people” seem to firmly believe that criminals are an entirely different species and that no reasonable, law-abiding person ever has a nasty run in with the police and gets arrested for no good reason. That’s just not true.
7. I haven’t forgotten the restraining order issue, but given that the only real punishment for a restraining order is having to stay away from somebody, and that if you comply with a restraining order, the judge will usually take it off your record, it’s a pretty mild thing.
And you still got to have a hearing and face your accuser.
A restraining order sucks, but having your house raided and your stuff put in to evidence for a year is a lot worse and should require probable cause, and anyone who would tell you otherwise is so terrified of crime that they have lost all sense of what is just.
CC
10:04 AM
Robin Edgar said...
:Damn. Blogger just ate a lengthy and detailed response. I will hit the high points.
When you are writing a lengthy and detailed comment you should do it in Blogger as though it were a blog post so that it is automatically saved etc., or do it in a word processing program.
2. I really don't understand why you think that rudeness and namecalling is an effective argument technique.
I engage in rudeness and name-calling with those U*Us who engage in these argument techniques themselves and/or approve of other U*Us doing so, especially if they approve of U*U ministers using rudeness and name-calling aka insulting and defamatory language.
:You and I have different ideas about whether a UUA minister is likely to describe the UUA presidency as a "pulpit" in a casual blog conversation. Good arguments can be made on both sides. I don't think you're stupid for disagreeing with me, and I'm not sure what you get out of calling me "stupid."
I usually only use that word where there is good reason to use it CC. I quite justifiably accused you of being either stupid or disingenuous because you stupidly or disingenuously asserted that I was/am "convinced that it was Bill Sinkford" that Rev. Victoria Weinstein and possibly other commenters were talking about on Rev. Scott Wells' Clergy Sexual Misconduct Roll Call blog post when that is not exactly true. I was/am convinced that it is *possible* that Rev. Victoria Weinstein and possibly other commenters were aware of Rev. Bill Sinkford's alleged clergy sexual misconduct. Two quite different things CC. In fact I think you are being a bit stupid and/or disingenuous for pretending that I suggested you were being stupid for disagreeing about whether or not the UUA presidency is a "pulpit" when that is quite obviously not why I did so. . . Also CC, it's not like *you* don't throw the word "stupid" around on your ChaliceChick blog a fair bit or in your blog comments etc.
:And don't equate siding with Justice Brennan to siding with Boneheaded Stupidity. He was a great man.
Well I hate to have to say so ChaliceChick but I did not in any way shape or form *equate* your own apparent stupidity and/or disingenuousness with Justice Brennan. I accused you of boneheaded stupidity on the basis of your own words not on anything Justice Brennan may have said which I am completely unfamiliar with. It looks to me, and probably others who will read this, that you are being stupid and/or disingenuous yet again. . . I'll tell you what though CC. I will *try* to avoid describing you as stupid when you say and do things that I have reasonable grounds to believe are stupid, such as posting comments anonymously on The Emerson Avenger blog knowing full well the possible consequences for doing so. . . I am confident that other people will see what I see and not really need to be informed of my opinion. OTOH If you get my back up by saying or doing something stupid I might describe you as "less than bright" or something.
:3. Maria Sinkford looks about fifty in her pictures. Assuming that she might have been an "intern" seems silly and arguably a little sexist.
I was not necessarily talking about Maria Sinkford there CC. Mrs. Maria Sinkford may not be the alleged "fling" that the alleged clergy sexual misconduct of Rev. Bill Sinkford arose from. OTOH a good number of people enter the ministry later in life so it is not entirely out of the question that she might have been a U*U seminarian when Rev. Bill Sinkford met her. Peacebang speaks about the good ole ministers "who commit serial adultery and still get the plummiest pulpits" in her comment. It is possible that Mrs. Maria Sinkford met Rev. Bill Sinkford some time after his alleged clergy sexual misconduct and had nothing to do with it. Then again she may well have had a sexual relationship with Rev. Bill Sinkford while he was still married to his previous wife. Only a proper investigation can determine what the actual facts are.
:4. Clergy sexual misconduct is, to quote Dan Harper "a clergyperson using the power differential between clergy and members of congregation to engage in sexualized behavior that could not happen minus that power differential."
That is Rev. Dan Harper's definition of clergy sexual misconduct. Other people may have different opinions about what constitutes clergy sexual misconduct. It is glaringly obvious from Rev. Scott Wells' blog post that *some* U*U ministers consider pure and simple adultery to be a form of clergy sexual misconduct regardless of any "power differential" involved.
:Even if Sinkford had cheated on his wife, which you haven't even begun to prove,
I do not have to *prove* anything CC to speak about Rev. Bill Sinkford's *alleged* clergy sexual misconduct, which may or may not involve having cheated on his former wife.
:two consenting adult UUA staffers having an affair doesn't fit under that definition because one is not the other's minister in any meaningful sense and thus doesn't have the coercive power that a minister might have over his or her congregation.
Try on these definitions for size ChaliceChick -
As a sexual being, I will recognize the power that ministry gives me and *refrain from practices which are harmful to others* and which *endanger my integrity* or my professional effectiveness. Such practices include sexual activity with any child or with an unwilling adult, with a counselee, with the spouse or partner of a person in the congregation, with interns, or any other such exploitative relationship. . . Because the demands of others upon me will be many and unceasing, I will try to keep especially aware of *the rights and needs of my family* and *my relation to them as spouse*, parent and friend. . . I will not engage in sexual activities with a member of the congregation who is not my spouse or partner, if I am married or in a committed relationship. . . The way in which ministers and their families conduct their private lives, choose their friends, spend their money, rear their children and express their sexuality is a private concern. However, there is *a public facet to the minister’s life*. Perceptions of the public will have some bearing on the effectiveness of the ministry and therefore *implications for private choices*.
:This might be clearer if I show the law equivalent, which would be what kind of sex gets people kicked out of bar associations:
We are not talking about Bar Associations ChaliceChick we are talking about U*U "churches" and/or the Unitarian*Universalist Association of Congregations.
:Besides, the UUA has a lot of hippies. What if someone has an open marriage?
That is a very good legitimate question CC, one that I have thought about myself before, even quite recently, but I think that you need to pose it to the Unitarian*Universalist Ministers Association and/or the UUA's aptly named Ministerial *Fellowship* Committee not me.
::5. (((UUA staff members can date anybody they like even if they are married CC? What the heck, I will take your word for that. Knowing what I know about the "loose canons" of the U*Us you may well be right. . .)))
:I think so. UUA staffers are human, marriages break up and people find new people. As long as there is no weird coercion going on, that's life.
That's life alright CC but I am not convinced that the simple act of committing adultery does not constitute a form of clergy sexual misconduct if and when ordained U*U ministers commit adultery. Judging from the comments on Rev. Scott Wells blog some U*U ministers consider committing adultery to be clergy sexual misconduct. The position(s) of the UUMA and MFC on that question do seem to be somewhat "broad and vague" as Rev. Scott Wells said.
:Martin Luther King cheated on his wife. If he were still alive and the UUA wanted to hire him, I would be all in favor of it.
I might be in favor of it as well ChaliceChick but that would not necessarily mean that the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. had not committed a form of clergy sexual misconduct, to say nothing of breaking one of the Ten Commandments, would it CC?
:6. I agree with you that "most people" would agree that police shouldn't need probable cause to arrest people or search their homes.
That's wonderful CC except I never said that or even suggested that. . . I suggested that, unlike you, most people would agree that a rapist and/or murderer who is not accused of wrongdoing by the person or indeed persons he raped and/or murdered, and for whatever reason is not formally accused by the state, should NOT be allowed their privacy. I didn't say anything suggesting that police shouldn't need probable cause to arrest people or search their homes. I fully agree that they should but I also recognize, based on direct personal experience courtesy of Totalitarian U*Unitarians. . . that the police can and do arrest people and/or search their homes without probable cause. Heck the restraining order against me that Totalitarian U*Unitarians obtained on the basis of paranoia and perjury, with a little bit of help of a biased and hostile judge. . . was granted without any valid probable cause.
:However "most people" are total facists as far as criminal law is concerned, and I do not use than term lightly.
I do not use the term Totalitarian U*Unitarians lightly either CC even if it is kind of a funny pun. . . BTW The word you want is fascists not facists.
:Many, MANY jurors have been reported to judges for saying, essentially, "well, it looks like he accused didn't commit THIS crime, but if the police arrested him for it, surely his guilty of something. Might as well punish him for this."
No doubt many MANY U*U "jurors" think the same way ChaliceChick. . .
:Somebody, I think it was Rep. Henry Waxman said that if the Bill of Rights were proposed legislation today, it would never make it out of committee. I agree.
Probably.
:“Most people” seem to firmly believe that criminals are an entirely different species and that no reasonable, law-abiding person ever has a nasty run in with the police and gets arrested for no good reason. That’s just not true.
Do you *really* think you need to tell *me* that ChaliceChick?
:7. I haven’t forgotten the restraining order issue, but given that the only real punishment for a restraining order is having to stay away from somebody, and that if you comply with a restraining order, the judge will usually take it off your record, it’s a pretty mild thing.
Agreed. Quite frankly I am enjoying the holiday myself. But. . . that does not mean that it is not in violation of my civil rights and liberties and even an all too fascist suppression of my constitutionally guaranteed right to peaceful public protest. N'est-ce pas CC?
:And you still got to have a hearing and face your accuser.
Indeed I did. It was not necessarily a genuinely just and equitable aka fair hearing however. . .
:A restraining order sucks, but having your house raided and your stuff put in to evidence for a year is a lot worse and should require probable cause,
So should a restraining order CC. . .
:and anyone who would tell you otherwise is so terrified of crime that they have lost all sense of what is just.
Sounds like some of the paranoid Totalitarian U*Unitarians I have the misfortune to know ChaliceChick.
Not sure why the WVC for this comment is haunch. :-)
1:16 PM
Comments
Choosing love as in choosing to say absolutely nothing here Suzyn?