UU Pagan Charles Rowe Speaks Out About The Weapons Policy Of The Franklin Unitarian Universalist Fellowship
I only just noticed today that somebody claiming to be UU Pagan Charles Rowe has posted two comments to 'The Wild Hunt' blog post titled 'Quick Note: Weapons and UU Churches' that dealt with the dubious 'Weapons Policy' of the Franklin Unitarian Universalist Fellowship of North Carolina. I have little reason to believe that the person is not in fact Charles Rowe and he sheds light on what happens that confirms some of the things that I believed based on what was said in the news reports. Here is what Charles Rowe said in his two comments verbatim with a few "Editor's Notes" from your's truly added here and there -
This is Fergus, mundanely known as Charles Rowe. Just to answer some of the questions Y'all have brought up. My knife ALWAYS has the peace strap fastened unless it is in use. So it has always been bound at church. I never asked anyone at the church if it would bother them because it just never occurred to me to, it is so much a habit for me to have it with me that I feel naked without it. If the individual had come to me, I would have sat down with them and tried to discuss it rationally. (This makes it clear that no attempt was made to discuss the situation with Charles Rowe before the FUUF drafted and implemented its weapons policy) However, his paranoia would not allow him to talk with me. Even now, he has refused to sit down to mediation. (This seems to be all too typical behavior of "less than excellent" U*U clergy) I was willing to let this pass and in the interest of diplomacy, leave my knife in my truck. But I only learned of his threat via the television interview and that has made me reconsider. (I am not sure what "threat" Charles Rowe is referring to here but it most probably refers to the fact that in the ABC TV news report FUUF President Virginia Wilson asserted that Rev. Bill David forced her to act rapidly by saying, "If you don't do something about that knife I will.") In fact y'all's conversation have given me an idea on my next step. Sunday, we will attend and before church go into the kitchen and remove all the knives and then dump them out during the service saying that under their new policy they are no longer allowed on church property. (I could be mistaken but I expect that this idea was inspired by my pointing out in comments that the knives in the kitchen drawers of the Franklin Unitarian Universalist Fellowship violated their foolishly worded 'Weapons Policy' as much as Charles Rowe's knife did. Glad to have been of some service here. Another thing that Charles Rowe could do is engage in civil disobedience and simply wear his knife to church as he had always done previously in protest against this less than just "law" of the FUUF) Oh, and to the one person who said the young man should have asked if my knife offended anyone, I thank you for the compliment since I'm 51 years old.
This is Fergus, mundanely known as Charles Rowe. To answer some of the comments here, my knife always has the peace strap secured unless it is in use. Furthermore, by it's size, it does not meet the legal definition of a knife considered a weapon. (Which is probably why the church Board changed the wording of the "Weapons Policy' from "legally defined as a weapon" to "reasonably defined as a weapon". They might be in a bit of a bind if they had gone ahead with the original wording eh?)
To answer Sia's question, it never occurred to me to ask anyone about it when I first started attending several years ago because it is such a part of me that I feel naked without it. I carry it every where and do so openly, even in circle with out any problem. I learned knife safety and etiquette in the Boy Scouts and have always been careful to abide by those practices.
Someone, I can't find it right now, made a good point that in many early religions, weapons were left outside the temple. I'm not sure how this was handled with the Celts, but I do know that they used ritual blades during some of their ceremonies. Also, I know that at times weapons were taken into the ritual space as sacrifices to the gods, so I kind of doubt they banned all blades.
To answer Carol Maltby's comment about my not living the Celtic lifestyle and being very modern, yes that is true. But these are not those times and as such, we do not have the same conditions and so can not live fully in that style. If I were living in the time of the early Celts, I would be a part of a clan that would work together in common ownership of the land and the products thereof. If I were living it the time of our mountain forefathers, I would be able to acquire enough land to make a living off of. But neither of these apply in our modern time when everything is governed by the all mighty dollar and land is so high because so many people want vacation homes. Furthermore, if I were living back then, I wouldn't have AIDS and would be physically able to do more than I can now. (If it is true that Charles Rowe has AIDS, as this comment suggests, it would support my contention that one of the main reasons Charles Rowe's knife is so important to him is that it is a symbol of a *healthy* lifestyle that he aspires to.)
Finally, just so y'all know, my main complaint isn't that I was asked to leave my knife behind. More importantly is how I was told to do so without any input from me. Every time I tried to approach this issue in a rational discussion, I was blocked by the board. Most of the congregation probably didn't even know anything about it. If I had been given the chance to address the person who made the complaint, or to talk about it, none of this would have happened and I would have been agreeable to leaving my knife in my truck. (This is what I thought was probably the case based on the news reports and reading between the lines a bit. It was a Board decision, made under the pressure of Rev. Bill Davis' ultimatum aka "threat" with little or no input from the congregation of the Franklin Unitarian*Universalist Fellowship to say nothing of Charles Rowe himself. This is Unitarian*Universalist "democracy" at work folks. . .) After all, I can understand how paranoid our society has become. But I am of the camp that believes if more honorable people were not prevented from carrying arms, then the dishonorable ones who do violence would not stand a chance and violence such as the Tennessee church shooting could be prevented.
This is Fergus, mundanely known as Charles Rowe. Just to answer some of the questions Y'all have brought up. My knife ALWAYS has the peace strap fastened unless it is in use. So it has always been bound at church. I never asked anyone at the church if it would bother them because it just never occurred to me to, it is so much a habit for me to have it with me that I feel naked without it. If the individual had come to me, I would have sat down with them and tried to discuss it rationally. (This makes it clear that no attempt was made to discuss the situation with Charles Rowe before the FUUF drafted and implemented its weapons policy) However, his paranoia would not allow him to talk with me. Even now, he has refused to sit down to mediation. (This seems to be all too typical behavior of "less than excellent" U*U clergy) I was willing to let this pass and in the interest of diplomacy, leave my knife in my truck. But I only learned of his threat via the television interview and that has made me reconsider. (I am not sure what "threat" Charles Rowe is referring to here but it most probably refers to the fact that in the ABC TV news report FUUF President Virginia Wilson asserted that Rev. Bill David forced her to act rapidly by saying, "If you don't do something about that knife I will.") In fact y'all's conversation have given me an idea on my next step. Sunday, we will attend and before church go into the kitchen and remove all the knives and then dump them out during the service saying that under their new policy they are no longer allowed on church property. (I could be mistaken but I expect that this idea was inspired by my pointing out in comments that the knives in the kitchen drawers of the Franklin Unitarian Universalist Fellowship violated their foolishly worded 'Weapons Policy' as much as Charles Rowe's knife did. Glad to have been of some service here. Another thing that Charles Rowe could do is engage in civil disobedience and simply wear his knife to church as he had always done previously in protest against this less than just "law" of the FUUF) Oh, and to the one person who said the young man should have asked if my knife offended anyone, I thank you for the compliment since I'm 51 years old.
This is Fergus, mundanely known as Charles Rowe. To answer some of the comments here, my knife always has the peace strap secured unless it is in use. Furthermore, by it's size, it does not meet the legal definition of a knife considered a weapon. (Which is probably why the church Board changed the wording of the "Weapons Policy' from "legally defined as a weapon" to "reasonably defined as a weapon". They might be in a bit of a bind if they had gone ahead with the original wording eh?)
To answer Sia's question, it never occurred to me to ask anyone about it when I first started attending several years ago because it is such a part of me that I feel naked without it. I carry it every where and do so openly, even in circle with out any problem. I learned knife safety and etiquette in the Boy Scouts and have always been careful to abide by those practices.
Someone, I can't find it right now, made a good point that in many early religions, weapons were left outside the temple. I'm not sure how this was handled with the Celts, but I do know that they used ritual blades during some of their ceremonies. Also, I know that at times weapons were taken into the ritual space as sacrifices to the gods, so I kind of doubt they banned all blades.
To answer Carol Maltby's comment about my not living the Celtic lifestyle and being very modern, yes that is true. But these are not those times and as such, we do not have the same conditions and so can not live fully in that style. If I were living in the time of the early Celts, I would be a part of a clan that would work together in common ownership of the land and the products thereof. If I were living it the time of our mountain forefathers, I would be able to acquire enough land to make a living off of. But neither of these apply in our modern time when everything is governed by the all mighty dollar and land is so high because so many people want vacation homes. Furthermore, if I were living back then, I wouldn't have AIDS and would be physically able to do more than I can now. (If it is true that Charles Rowe has AIDS, as this comment suggests, it would support my contention that one of the main reasons Charles Rowe's knife is so important to him is that it is a symbol of a *healthy* lifestyle that he aspires to.)
Finally, just so y'all know, my main complaint isn't that I was asked to leave my knife behind. More importantly is how I was told to do so without any input from me. Every time I tried to approach this issue in a rational discussion, I was blocked by the board. Most of the congregation probably didn't even know anything about it. If I had been given the chance to address the person who made the complaint, or to talk about it, none of this would have happened and I would have been agreeable to leaving my knife in my truck. (This is what I thought was probably the case based on the news reports and reading between the lines a bit. It was a Board decision, made under the pressure of Rev. Bill Davis' ultimatum aka "threat" with little or no input from the congregation of the Franklin Unitarian*Universalist Fellowship to say nothing of Charles Rowe himself. This is Unitarian*Universalist "democracy" at work folks. . .) After all, I can understand how paranoid our society has become. But I am of the camp that believes if more honorable people were not prevented from carrying arms, then the dishonorable ones who do violence would not stand a chance and violence such as the Tennessee church shooting could be prevented.
Comments