A Reminder Of The UUMA Guidelines and Code of Professional Practice aka Code Of Ethics And The "Less Than Ethical" Code Of Silence They Contain. . .
Here are slightly revised and edited versions of some comments that I submitted to the 'Reminder of Comment Guidelines' post of Rev. Sean Parker Dennison's Ministrare in August. Some were posted for a while although the first one was censored and suppressed but it now seems that even the ones that were not censored and suppressed in August have since been deleted aka "memory holed" by Rev. Sean Parker Dennison. He has yet to offer a satisfactory explanation as to why my comments have been suppressed. In fact he has yet to offer *any* explanation as to why my comments have been suppressed, but I expect that it has something to do with the "less than ethical" or at least questionably ethical Code Of Silence that is written into the UUMA Guidelines and Code of Professional Practice, formerly known as the Code of Ethics, to say nothing of the even broader unwritten Code of Silence that many U*U ministers adhere to. . .
I am adding some extra links that were not in the original comments -
Over on the Barney Frank Did EXACTLY The Right Thing post on Rev. Victoria Weinstein's 'Peacebang' blog Rev. Sean said -
"And the rest remain silent. And there lies evil, according to some very wise people."
Yes Rev. Sean I can't help but notice how you and other *complicit* U*U clergy aka *cronies* are remarkably silent about Rev. Victoria Weinstein's own insulting, offensive and abusive words posted right on her Peacebang blog, or elsewhere on the internet, to say nothing of the highly questionable words and actions of other U*U clergy such as Rev. Ray Drennan and Rev. Cynthia P. Cain etc. etc. who act ridiculously in public forums and then get a "less than kind" response in kind. . . Not only that Rev. Sean but you and other *complicit* cronies of Peacebang et al actively silence those people who actually do speak out against those U*U ministers who act ridiculously in public forums.
For the record Rev. Clyde Grubbs is included amongst those "less excellent" U*U ministers but you "memory holed" my comment which simply pointed out that Rev. Grubbs is a hypocrite because that was allegedly "a personal attack on another’s character." You even threatened to ban ALL of my future comments to your ministrare blog if I dared to publicly criticize a U*U minister in my comments posted to it or as you put it "continues to comment inappropriately". . . Please forgive me for suggesting that *you* actively participate in the *evil* of not only remaining silent when Peacebang and other insulting and abusive U*U clergy behave badly in public, but even go further by engaging in the *evil* of actively attempting to silence those people who actually do speak out when U*U ministers behave badly. Shame on you and all other U*U ministers who not only fail to speak out when your professional colleagues aka cronies behave badly but even attempt to silence those people who do dare to speak out against "less than excellent" U*U ministers who behave badly in public or indeed in private and even under the cover of internet anonymity. . .
Robin Edgar said -
For the record the above “rant” really does say what I meant to say Sean. Sorry to be so blunt and to the point but to use one of Rev. Ray Drennan’s favorite phrases much more appropriately than he ever did,
“I am just being honest.”
revsean said …
There is a difference, Robin, between making arguments of substance and attacking a person’s character and ministry. You seem to be unable to see the difference.
Like the colleagues you attacked in the rant I deleted, I have no interest in letting you use my blog as a forum for your ongoing vendetta. I’ve said it before to you Robin, and I’ll say it again–just as honestly and directly as I can: You seem stuck. Why not forgive and move on?
on 21 Aug 2009 at 5:32 pm 3 Robin Edgar said …
Asserting that a U*U minister is being hypocritical *is* an argument of substance Sean or, can most certainly be backed up by an argument of substance. N’est-ce pas? Will you post critical comments that explain precisely why U*U minister X, Y, or Z is hypocritical or otherwise “less than excellent”? If so I will happily oblige. . .
AFAIAC, as per the initial comment here that you deleted aka “memory-holed”, and which will now be reproduced on The Emerson Avenger blog, you are simply participating in the clearly written (and even worse unwritten) Code of Silence that U*U ministers uphold and enforce when *any* U*U minister comes under public criticism now matter how legitimate that criticism may be.
You said - I’ve said it before to you Robin, and I’ll say it again - just as honestly and directly as I can: You seem stuck. Why not forgive and move on?
You should be able to figure that out for yourself Sean, especially since I have quite clearly articulated why I will not “forgive and move on” plenty of times in the past, but since you apparently cannot do so I will answer your question as as honestly and directly as I can. Not that I haven’t done so before elsewhere on the internet.
It is not me who is “stuck” Sean or, if I am actually “stuck”, it has everything to do with the UUA and the Unitarian Church of Montreal being very obstinately stuck in the institutional stonewalling and denial that they have been stuck in from the earliest stages of this conflict. . . Anticipating a certain amount of institutional stonewalling and denial, aka a refusal to actually practice justice, equity and compassion in their rather inhuman human relations with me, I warned Montreal Unitarian U*Us in the earliest stages of this conflict that I would not back down until justice was done. Justice has not been done, au contraire the initial injustices have been perpetuated for over a decade now and additional injustices and abuses have been committed by U*Us and, lo and behold. . . I have not backed down.
I absolutely refuse to reward those outrageously hypocritical U*Us who engage in egregious institutional stonewalling and denial with exactly what they want from me and other victims of U*U clergy misconduct who they stonewall which is to “forgive and move on”. I expect the UUA and the Unitarian Church of Montreal to demonstrate that they are actually capable of responding to my own and other people’s serious grievances in a manner that genuinely lives up to U*U principles and purposes and other ideals rather than repeatedly, indeed quite continually. . . making a total mockery of them. Nuff said Sean? If not I will happily say more. . .
There will be no peace until something resembling genuine justice is done by both the UUA and the Unitarian Church of Montreal. The sooner they both throw in the proverbial towel and responsibly admit to the injustices and abuses that they are clearly and unequivocally guilty of directly perpetrating and/or indirectly perpetuating the sooner this conflict will come to a genuinely just and equitable if not compassionate conclusion. I am ready to move *forward* when the UUA and Unitarian Church of Montreal are Sean. It is not like I haven’t repeatedly given them opportunities to move forward but I am not “moving on” with this conflict unresolved. Period.
Thanks Sean, for not suppressing aka "memory holing" my response to your comment which includes my very honest and very direct answer to the very honest and very direct question that you asked me. I look forward to you answering my own honest and direct question as honestly and directly as you can Rev. Sean -
Will you post critical comments that explain precisely why U*U minister X, Y, or Z is hypocritical or otherwise “less than excellent”?
It is a fair question and, in light of the written and unwritten Code of Silence that most if not all U*U ministers adhere to, I am quite curious as to just how you will answer it in an honest and direct manner. . .
If you need a reminder as to the exact wording of the 'Code Of Silence' that is actually written into the The UUMA Guidelines for the Conduct of Ministry which includes the Code of Professional Practice for the Unitarian Universalist ministry which once upon a time was also known as the Code Of *Ethics* of U*U ministers it says -
"I will not speak scornfully or in derogation of any colleague in public. In any private conversation critical of a colleague, I will speak responsibly and temperately."
Feel free to consult with some of your professional colleagues or even the leaders of the UUMA itself before providing your answer here. I will however say the following which very honestly and very directly reflects something that I have thought for some years now. . . Just the other day on the Barney Frank Did EXACTLY The Right Thing post on Rev. Victoria Weinstein's 'Peacebang' blog you said -
"And the rest remain silent. And there lies evil, according to some very wise people."
At least with respect to *public* statements the UUMA Guidelines demand that U*U ministers must maintain total silence about any "colleague" who "is engaged in practices that are damaging." N'est-ce pas Sean? Sure a U*U minister can theoretically "speak openly and frankly to her/him" in *private*, and even "bring such matters to the attention of the UUMA Executive Committee" if *necessary*, but speaking "scornfully or in derogation of any colleague in public" would appear to be verbotten. Indeed it would appear that a U*U minister may not even "speak responsibly and temperately" in a *public* arena about another U*U minister who is "engaged in practices that are damaging", or is otherwise deserving of a certain amount of *derogation* aka criticism or even some well-deserved scorn. . . Am I wrong Sean?
And that is just what is expressly written into the UUMA Guidelines for the Conduct of Ministry. As you no doubt know Sean, the *unwritten* Code of Silence of U*U ministers goes considerably deeper than that, and often results in U*U ministers censoring and suppressing other people (who BTW are in no way parties to that UUMA Code Of Silence since they are not U*U ministers. . .) who have the temerity to speak "scornfully or in derogation" of any U*U minister in a public forum. Indeed even if public criticism of a U*U minister is presented in a manner that can be properly described as "conversation critical of a colleague" which is none-the-less spoken as responsibly and temperately as circumstances allow, many U*U ministers will censor and suppress if it is within their power to do so. Right Sean? Do you need me to provide examples of such behavior by U*U clergy? I think not. . .
So the upshot, or indeed the quite regretable downbeat. . . of what I have just very honestly and directly said above is that the UUMA Guidelines contain a rather dubious Code Of Silence that is positively *evil*, at least according to some very wise people. . . N'est-ce pas Sean? Perhaps that is why the UUMA has apparently stopped referring to its 'Code of Professional Practice' as a 'Code of Ethics'. Maybe some wise people in the UUMA figured out that at least some of the alleged "ethics" that it encoded were actually just a tad "less than ethical". I think that you and ALL of your professional colleagues need to responsibly reexamine and review the ethical standards of your 'Code of Professional Practice' in light of the fact that at least one of the clauses it contains is just plain *evil* according to some wise people because calls upon "the rest" of U*U clergy to "remain silent", at least in terms of speaking in public, when one of their colleagues is engaged in practices that are damaging or otherwise deserving of criticism and derogation or even some scorn.
Sincerely,
Robin Edgar
I am adding some extra links that were not in the original comments -
Over on the Barney Frank Did EXACTLY The Right Thing post on Rev. Victoria Weinstein's 'Peacebang' blog Rev. Sean said -
"And the rest remain silent. And there lies evil, according to some very wise people."
Yes Rev. Sean I can't help but notice how you and other *complicit* U*U clergy aka *cronies* are remarkably silent about Rev. Victoria Weinstein's own insulting, offensive and abusive words posted right on her Peacebang blog, or elsewhere on the internet, to say nothing of the highly questionable words and actions of other U*U clergy such as Rev. Ray Drennan and Rev. Cynthia P. Cain etc. etc. who act ridiculously in public forums and then get a "less than kind" response in kind. . . Not only that Rev. Sean but you and other *complicit* cronies of Peacebang et al actively silence those people who actually do speak out against those U*U ministers who act ridiculously in public forums.
For the record Rev. Clyde Grubbs is included amongst those "less excellent" U*U ministers but you "memory holed" my comment which simply pointed out that Rev. Grubbs is a hypocrite because that was allegedly "a personal attack on another’s character." You even threatened to ban ALL of my future comments to your ministrare blog if I dared to publicly criticize a U*U minister in my comments posted to it or as you put it "continues to comment inappropriately". . . Please forgive me for suggesting that *you* actively participate in the *evil* of not only remaining silent when Peacebang and other insulting and abusive U*U clergy behave badly in public, but even go further by engaging in the *evil* of actively attempting to silence those people who actually do speak out when U*U ministers behave badly. Shame on you and all other U*U ministers who not only fail to speak out when your professional colleagues aka cronies behave badly but even attempt to silence those people who do dare to speak out against "less than excellent" U*U ministers who behave badly in public or indeed in private and even under the cover of internet anonymity. . .
Robin Edgar said -
For the record the above “rant” really does say what I meant to say Sean. Sorry to be so blunt and to the point but to use one of Rev. Ray Drennan’s favorite phrases much more appropriately than he ever did,
“I am just being honest.”
revsean said …
There is a difference, Robin, between making arguments of substance and attacking a person’s character and ministry. You seem to be unable to see the difference.
Like the colleagues you attacked in the rant I deleted, I have no interest in letting you use my blog as a forum for your ongoing vendetta. I’ve said it before to you Robin, and I’ll say it again–just as honestly and directly as I can: You seem stuck. Why not forgive and move on?
on 21 Aug 2009 at 5:32 pm 3 Robin Edgar said …
Asserting that a U*U minister is being hypocritical *is* an argument of substance Sean or, can most certainly be backed up by an argument of substance. N’est-ce pas? Will you post critical comments that explain precisely why U*U minister X, Y, or Z is hypocritical or otherwise “less than excellent”? If so I will happily oblige. . .
AFAIAC, as per the initial comment here that you deleted aka “memory-holed”, and which will now be reproduced on The Emerson Avenger blog, you are simply participating in the clearly written (and even worse unwritten) Code of Silence that U*U ministers uphold and enforce when *any* U*U minister comes under public criticism now matter how legitimate that criticism may be.
You said - I’ve said it before to you Robin, and I’ll say it again - just as honestly and directly as I can: You seem stuck. Why not forgive and move on?
You should be able to figure that out for yourself Sean, especially since I have quite clearly articulated why I will not “forgive and move on” plenty of times in the past, but since you apparently cannot do so I will answer your question as as honestly and directly as I can. Not that I haven’t done so before elsewhere on the internet.
It is not me who is “stuck” Sean or, if I am actually “stuck”, it has everything to do with the UUA and the Unitarian Church of Montreal being very obstinately stuck in the institutional stonewalling and denial that they have been stuck in from the earliest stages of this conflict. . . Anticipating a certain amount of institutional stonewalling and denial, aka a refusal to actually practice justice, equity and compassion in their rather inhuman human relations with me, I warned Montreal Unitarian U*Us in the earliest stages of this conflict that I would not back down until justice was done. Justice has not been done, au contraire the initial injustices have been perpetuated for over a decade now and additional injustices and abuses have been committed by U*Us and, lo and behold. . . I have not backed down.
I absolutely refuse to reward those outrageously hypocritical U*Us who engage in egregious institutional stonewalling and denial with exactly what they want from me and other victims of U*U clergy misconduct who they stonewall which is to “forgive and move on”. I expect the UUA and the Unitarian Church of Montreal to demonstrate that they are actually capable of responding to my own and other people’s serious grievances in a manner that genuinely lives up to U*U principles and purposes and other ideals rather than repeatedly, indeed quite continually. . . making a total mockery of them. Nuff said Sean? If not I will happily say more. . .
There will be no peace until something resembling genuine justice is done by both the UUA and the Unitarian Church of Montreal. The sooner they both throw in the proverbial towel and responsibly admit to the injustices and abuses that they are clearly and unequivocally guilty of directly perpetrating and/or indirectly perpetuating the sooner this conflict will come to a genuinely just and equitable if not compassionate conclusion. I am ready to move *forward* when the UUA and Unitarian Church of Montreal are Sean. It is not like I haven’t repeatedly given them opportunities to move forward but I am not “moving on” with this conflict unresolved. Period.
Thanks Sean, for not suppressing aka "memory holing" my response to your comment which includes my very honest and very direct answer to the very honest and very direct question that you asked me. I look forward to you answering my own honest and direct question as honestly and directly as you can Rev. Sean -
Will you post critical comments that explain precisely why U*U minister X, Y, or Z is hypocritical or otherwise “less than excellent”?
It is a fair question and, in light of the written and unwritten Code of Silence that most if not all U*U ministers adhere to, I am quite curious as to just how you will answer it in an honest and direct manner. . .
If you need a reminder as to the exact wording of the 'Code Of Silence' that is actually written into the The UUMA Guidelines for the Conduct of Ministry which includes the Code of Professional Practice for the Unitarian Universalist ministry which once upon a time was also known as the Code Of *Ethics* of U*U ministers it says -
"I will not speak scornfully or in derogation of any colleague in public. In any private conversation critical of a colleague, I will speak responsibly and temperately."
Feel free to consult with some of your professional colleagues or even the leaders of the UUMA itself before providing your answer here. I will however say the following which very honestly and very directly reflects something that I have thought for some years now. . . Just the other day on the Barney Frank Did EXACTLY The Right Thing post on Rev. Victoria Weinstein's 'Peacebang' blog you said -
"And the rest remain silent. And there lies evil, according to some very wise people."
At least with respect to *public* statements the UUMA Guidelines demand that U*U ministers must maintain total silence about any "colleague" who "is engaged in practices that are damaging." N'est-ce pas Sean? Sure a U*U minister can theoretically "speak openly and frankly to her/him" in *private*, and even "bring such matters to the attention of the UUMA Executive Committee" if *necessary*, but speaking "scornfully or in derogation of any colleague in public" would appear to be verbotten. Indeed it would appear that a U*U minister may not even "speak responsibly and temperately" in a *public* arena about another U*U minister who is "engaged in practices that are damaging", or is otherwise deserving of a certain amount of *derogation* aka criticism or even some well-deserved scorn. . . Am I wrong Sean?
And that is just what is expressly written into the UUMA Guidelines for the Conduct of Ministry. As you no doubt know Sean, the *unwritten* Code of Silence of U*U ministers goes considerably deeper than that, and often results in U*U ministers censoring and suppressing other people (who BTW are in no way parties to that UUMA Code Of Silence since they are not U*U ministers. . .) who have the temerity to speak "scornfully or in derogation" of any U*U minister in a public forum. Indeed even if public criticism of a U*U minister is presented in a manner that can be properly described as "conversation critical of a colleague" which is none-the-less spoken as responsibly and temperately as circumstances allow, many U*U ministers will censor and suppress if it is within their power to do so. Right Sean? Do you need me to provide examples of such behavior by U*U clergy? I think not. . .
So the upshot, or indeed the quite regretable downbeat. . . of what I have just very honestly and directly said above is that the UUMA Guidelines contain a rather dubious Code Of Silence that is positively *evil*, at least according to some very wise people. . . N'est-ce pas Sean? Perhaps that is why the UUMA has apparently stopped referring to its 'Code of Professional Practice' as a 'Code of Ethics'. Maybe some wise people in the UUMA figured out that at least some of the alleged "ethics" that it encoded were actually just a tad "less than ethical". I think that you and ALL of your professional colleagues need to responsibly reexamine and review the ethical standards of your 'Code of Professional Practice' in light of the fact that at least one of the clauses it contains is just plain *evil* according to some wise people because calls upon "the rest" of U*U clergy to "remain silent", at least in terms of speaking in public, when one of their colleagues is engaged in practices that are damaging or otherwise deserving of criticism and derogation or even some scorn.
Sincerely,
Robin Edgar
Comments