The Emerson Avenger

The Emerson Avenger is a "memory hole" free blog where censorship is scorned. This blog will "guard the right to know" about any injustices and abuses that corrupt Unitarian Universalism. Posters may speak and argue freely, according to conscience, about any injustices and abuses, or indeed hypocrisy, that they may know about so that the Avenger, in the form of justice and redress, may come surely and swiftly. . . "Slowly, slowly the Avenger comes, but comes surely." - Ralph Waldo Emerson

My Photo
Location: Montreal, Quebec, Canada

In 1992 I underwent a profound revelatory experience of God which revealed that the total solar eclipse "Eye of God" is a "Sign in the Heavens" that symbolizes God's divine omniscience. You may read about what Rev. Ray Drennan of the Unitarian Church of Montreal contemptuously dismissed as my "psychotic experience" here: - This revelatory religious experience inspired me to propose an inter-religious celebration of Creation that would take place whenever a total solar eclipse took place over our planet. You may read about what Rev. Ray Drennan and other leading members of the Unitarian Church of Montreal falsely and maliciously labeled as a "cult" here: - I am now an excommunicated Unitarian whose "alternative spiritual practice" includes publicly exposing and denouncing Unitarian*Universalist injustices, abuses, and hypocrisy. The Emerson Avenger blog will serve that purpose for me and hopefully others will share their concerns here. Dee Miller's term DIM Thinking is used frequently and appropriately on this blog. You may read more about what DIM Thinking is here -

Monday, March 02, 2009

From No Sex Please, We're British To No God Please, We're Unitarians. . . False And Misleading Advertising In Unitarian*Universalist Marketing

In a brand spanking new blog post titled 'Do Unitarian-Universalist Ministers Have a Calling?' on his Transient And Permanent blog, lifelong U*U Jeff Wilson says the following words that resonate very well with The Emerson Avenger's "crusade" against anti-religious intolerance and bigotry within the U*U World -

"While there have always been significant numbers of theists in the denomination, strong anti-God or simply non-God constituencies have had a prominent voice in some congregations that have been virtual “no God please, we’re UU” zones."

I couldn't have said it much "less than diplomatically" myself and, for several different reasons, I do like Jeff Wilson's ironic reference to the comedic play 'No Sex Please, We're British'. Indeed I wonder if Jeff Wilson is aware of the plot of the comedy 'No Sex Please, We're British'. To be honest I wasn't familiar with the plot myself until I Googled 'No Sex Please, We're British' and was informed by Wikipedia that -

The farce surrounds an assistant bank manager, Peter Hunter, who lives above his bank with his new bride Frances. When Frances innocently sends a mail order off for some Scandinavian glassware, what comes back is Scandinavian pornography. The two, along with the bank's frantic chief cashier Brian Runnicles, must decide what to do with the veritable floods of pornography, photographs, books, films and eventually girls that threaten to engulf this happy couple.

The farcical plot of this British comedy is not all *that* far removed from what happens to many Christian-oriented or otherwise God believing people who, on the basis of highly misleading if not outright false (and thus effectively fraudulent) UUA national marketing campaign advertisements and diverse other misleading Unitarian*Universalist publicity and false advertising, visit and/or even unwittingly join the so-called First Unitarian Church Of God Knows Where only to discover that it is one of those "Humanist" dominated "No God Please, We’re U*Us" Unitarian Churches that U*U blogger Jeff Wilson is freely and responsibly telling the truth about. . . I well remember how, in his efforts to have the word "church" removed from the official legal name of the Unitarian Church of Montreal, fundamentalist atheist "Humanist" U*U minister Rev. Ray Drennan pronounced in the "church" newsletter that it was "false advertising" to call the Unitarian Church of Montreal a "church". AFA*I*AC Rev. Drennan was "just being honest" as he would say. . . Most ironically yet another "Humanist" Unitarian*Universalist U*U, namely Queen's Counsel lawyer and petty criminal Kenneth Howard QC, wrote a letter to the editor pointing out that it was equally "false advertising" to call the alleged Unitarian Church of Montreal "Unitarian" in any traditional sense of the word 'Unitarian' which clearly implies belief in one God. Doh!

In 'No Sex Please, We're British' the difference between the "product" ordered and the "product" that is actually delivered is due to simple "human error". There is no false advertising involved in this situation. The same cannot be said about how the religious "product" promised by the UUA and the greater Unitarian*Universalist religious community (if *The* Tiny, Declining, Fringe Religion can be properly described in that way) and what people actually receive in diverse Unitarian*Universalist congregations, be they No God Please, We’re U*Us zones or otherwise. There is really no question that the UUA, and individual U*U "churches" more generally, are guilty of a certain amount of "false advertising", but don't take my word for it, take Rev. Ray Drennan's word for it or even Kenneth Howard QC's word for it. . .

Do U*Us remember this UUA national marketing campaign ad that was published in TIME magazine in 2007 which said -


Maybe you’re uncomfortable with the idea of God —
or at least someone else’s idea of God. Yet maybe you yearn
for a loving, spiritual community where you can be
inspired and encouraged as you search for your own truth and meaning. This is a church, you ask? Welcome to Unitarian Universalism.

It is true that this UUA national marketing campaign advertisement would appear to be attempting to attract more American atheists and agnostics to the existing "strong anti-God or simply non-God constituencies" within the U*U "church", which is an issue in itself AFA*I*AC. . . but what I find most ironic about this particular TIME magazine ad is that the existing fundamentalist atheist "Humanist" members of the anti-God and*or anti-religious constituencies that sadly thrive in too many U*U "churches" are in fact "someone elses" whose "idea of God" is the exact opposite of what most people would expect or indeed want to find in any "church". How many people who were exposed to this UUA advertising understood that intolerant and obnoxious, if not outright hostile and abusive, militant atheists aka Atheist Supremacists, some of whom are ordained U*U ministers, have a "a prominent voice" in the Unitarian*Universalist "Church"? How many people, God believing people or otherwise, are comfortable with this particular "idea of God"?

I have said it many times before, but it bears repeating, it is exactly this anti-God or otherwise anti-religious "idea of God" that is keeping a whole lot of God believing American people, and even some genuinely liberal non-believers who know anti-religious intolerance and bigotry when they see it and don't like it. . . from going to a good number of Unitarian*Universalist "churches", much less choosing to join them as members. Welcome to Unitarian*Universalism indeed. . . Just how welcome is any God believing person going to feel in any "No God Please, We’re U*Us" kind of "Unitarian Church"? Will theists of any variety, but liberal Christians in particular, *really* find "a loving, spiritual community" where they can "be inspired and encouraged" as they search for their own truth and meaning? I think not. Indeed I know all too well, not only from my own bitter personal experience but the public testimony of other people, just how far from welcome Christians and other theists are in too many U*U "Welcoming Congregations".

It is not God who is keeping people from going to going to church but, based on a realistic assessment of U*U "churches" that are quite evidently "No God Please, We’re U*Us" zones where anti-God or otherwise anti-religious constituencies are given a prominent voice, one can very reasonably argue that the anti-religious intolerance and bigotry of the fundamentalist atheist faction of Unitarian*Universalism is keeping a whole lot of God believing people, and even some sane and sensible non-believers, from regularly attending or choosing to join U*U "churches". Just how are "No God Please, We’re U*Us" Unitarian churches with strong anti-God and*or anti-religious constituencies going to nurture the spirit of God believing people? Indeed just how are such "Humanist" dominated U*U congregations going to genuinely "honor and uphold" the third principle of Unitarian*Universalism which *promises* "acceptance of one another and encouragement to spiritual growth" in U*U congregations? How can Unitarian*Universalists ever realistically hope to "Help Heal Our World" as in the *real world* when they continue to abjectly fail, and even obstinately refuse, to do what is necessary to help heal the tiny and declining U*U World?

Labels: , , , , , ,


Blogger Not Quite Human said...

Interesting post. We have encountered this in UU "churches" in multiple states. My husband won't go because he said he cannot talk about Jesus without becoming a outcast and looked upon as if he were stupid for even mentioning the name, even though multiple religions acknowledge Jesus in some form. We are too liberal for the liberal christian churches and too "focused on God" for the UU. We had really hoped the UU would be a place we could be open with our beliefs, that was the advertising at one point...sadly we have not found that to be the case. I know we are not alone, unfortunately none of us have a place to belong. Thanks for the post.

Monday, March 09, 2009 9:10:00 pm  
Blogger Robin Edgar said...

Well thank you for your validating comment Not Quite Human. I am quite aware that "No God, Please We're Unitarians" "churches" are found in multiple states to say nothing of multiple Canadian provinces and elsewhere in the so-called U*U World. U*Us talk a good talk about atheists aka Humanists and theists coexisting and indeed co-operating in U*U "churches" but all too often they abjectly fail and even obstinately refuse to walk that walk. Yes, from what I have seen, liberals Christians and other theists are persona non grata, or at best "less than welcome" in many "Humanist" dominated U*U "churches" aka "Welcoming Congregations". . . In light of the handle you are using it might interest you to know that it was the rather inhuman behavior of U*U "Humanists" that inspired me to come up with the saying -

Quite regrettably it is all too human to be inhuman. . .

Your loss is also Unitarian*Universalism's loss and AFA*I*AC your testimony here is validating some things that I said on another U*U blog earlier today -

I am not really suggesting that U*U congregations be "less open" Ogre. I am suggesting that they have to decide who they want to appeal to the most. Does it make sense to gear your marketing efforts to a "demographic" that is at best only 15% of the population *and* has very little need for what Unitarian Universalism offers? I think not. U*U congregations would be a lot better off being a bit "too religious" for the 5-15% of the population that isn't all that interested in going to "church" on Sunday anyway, than being "not religious enough" for the other 85% that *is* actually interested in going to church on Sunday. That is all I am saying and have been saying for over a decade now. It's called common sense aka good old fashioned Unitarian Reason.

I hope that the "tiny, declining, fringe religion" known as Unitarian*Universalism will come to its senses and take steps to make its "Welcoming Congregations" genuinely welcoming to people like you and your husband. If it fails or refuses to do so within "out time" it will never be "the religion of our time" and it is likely to go the way of Charles Darwin's dodo. . .

Monday, March 09, 2009 11:26:00 pm  
Blogger Robin Edgar said...

Correction - all too often they abjectly fail and even obstinately refuse to walk that talk.

Or alternatively - all too often they abjectly fail and even obstinately refuse to walk the walk.

Monday, March 09, 2009 11:28:00 pm  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home