The Unitarian Universalist Ministers Association's Code Of Ethics Contain Clauses That Are "Legally And Morally Indefensible" aka "Less Than Ethical"
But don't take my word for it U*Us. . .
Take the word of Rev. Daniel Harper in the 'Excellent Suggestions' post of his Yet Another Unitarian*Universalist blog -
"“Safety Net,” a ministry of the First Unitarian Universalist Church of Nashville, Tennessee, has made excellent suggestions for changes to the professional guidelines of the Unitarian Universalist Ministers Association (UUMA). Of particular note is a suggested revision to a clause of the guidelines that asks ministers to “strictly respect confidences given me by colleagues and expect them to keep mine.” This clause is legally and morally indefensible, for it means that if another minister came to me and told me “in confidence” that s/he had engaged in sexual behavior with a legal minor, I would violate the UUMA guidelines when I reported him/her to legal authorities. To state the obvious: in California, I am a mandated reporter and would be legally required to report any suspected child abuse, whether or not I was prohibited from doing so by UUMA guidelines — more importantly, as a human being, I am morally required to report any suspected child abuse, again regardless of UUMA guidelines."
end quote
OK, So Rev. Dan Harper is actually talking about one of the proposed revisions to the UUMA Guidelines that has not actually been adopted yet, but the fact remains that the existing UUMA Guidelines aka UUMA Code Of Professional Practice contain a few clauses that are are morally and ethically questionable, if not outright indefensible. Like the highly questionable proposed clause that Rev. Dan Harper considers to be "legally and morally indefensible" these "less than ethical" clauses are part of the unethical an immoral "Code Of Silence" that is written into the UUMA Guidelines which I have been challenging for years now.
It's kind of disturbing that Unitarian Universalist ministers have chosen the Big Fat U*U Fate of writing unethical, immoral and possibly even outright illegal clauses into the UUMA Code of Professional Practice which is also known as the UUMA Code of Ethics if I am not mistaken.
How embarrassing. . .
Immoral and unethical clauses written into the UUMA's Code Of Ethics aka Code Of Professional Practice by "less than excellent" U*U ministers.
More on this subject later. . .
U*Update 7:20pm TEA Time Sunday June 20, 2010 -
A free and responsible search for the truth and meaning of Rev. Dan Harper's allegations strongly suggests that the ethically questionable clause of the UUMA Guidelines which he characterizes as being "legally and morally indefensible" is not in fact one of the proposed revisions to the UUMA Guidelines and Code of Professional Practice but a clause that is part of the existing UUMA Guidelines.
Take the word of Rev. Daniel Harper in the 'Excellent Suggestions' post of his Yet Another Unitarian*Universalist blog -
"“Safety Net,” a ministry of the First Unitarian Universalist Church of Nashville, Tennessee, has made excellent suggestions for changes to the professional guidelines of the Unitarian Universalist Ministers Association (UUMA). Of particular note is a suggested revision to a clause of the guidelines that asks ministers to “strictly respect confidences given me by colleagues and expect them to keep mine.” This clause is legally and morally indefensible, for it means that if another minister came to me and told me “in confidence” that s/he had engaged in sexual behavior with a legal minor, I would violate the UUMA guidelines when I reported him/her to legal authorities. To state the obvious: in California, I am a mandated reporter and would be legally required to report any suspected child abuse, whether or not I was prohibited from doing so by UUMA guidelines — more importantly, as a human being, I am morally required to report any suspected child abuse, again regardless of UUMA guidelines."
end quote
OK, So Rev. Dan Harper is actually talking about one of the proposed revisions to the UUMA Guidelines that has not actually been adopted yet, but the fact remains that the existing UUMA Guidelines aka UUMA Code Of Professional Practice contain a few clauses that are are morally and ethically questionable, if not outright indefensible. Like the highly questionable proposed clause that Rev. Dan Harper considers to be "legally and morally indefensible" these "less than ethical" clauses are part of the unethical an immoral "Code Of Silence" that is written into the UUMA Guidelines which I have been challenging for years now.
It's kind of disturbing that Unitarian Universalist ministers have chosen the Big Fat U*U Fate of writing unethical, immoral and possibly even outright illegal clauses into the UUMA Code of Professional Practice which is also known as the UUMA Code of Ethics if I am not mistaken.
How embarrassing. . .
Immoral and unethical clauses written into the UUMA's Code Of Ethics aka Code Of Professional Practice by "less than excellent" U*U ministers.
More on this subject later. . .
U*Update 7:20pm TEA Time Sunday June 20, 2010 -
A free and responsible search for the truth and meaning of Rev. Dan Harper's allegations strongly suggests that the ethically questionable clause of the UUMA Guidelines which he characterizes as being "legally and morally indefensible" is not in fact one of the proposed revisions to the UUMA Guidelines and Code of Professional Practice but a clause that is part of the existing UUMA Guidelines.
Comments