The Standing On The Side Of Love Campaign Stands On The Side Of Love For Abusive U*U Clergy
Before any U*Us accuse me of slandering the UUA's Standing On The Side Of Love campaign. . . Allow me to ever so pointedly point out that the U*Us behind the Standing On The Side Of Love campaign have suppressed a number of my "electronic communications" calling for U*Us to stand on the side of love for victims of U*U clergy misconduct. Above and beyond that. . . UUA President Peter Morales abjectly failed, or more likely obstinately refused, to stand on the side of love for ALL victims of U*U clergy misconduct during the first observance of National Standing On The Side Of Love Day last February 14th, as I had invited him to do in my Groundhog Day email to President Morales. This counts as standing on the side of love for abusive U*U clergy in *my* books.
How about yours U*Us?
How about yours U*Us?
Comments
I was initially expelled from the Unitarian Church of Montreal for six months for doing nothing more than phoning UCM board members to determine if they were aware of the fact that Rev. Ray Drennan had issued an "apology" to me (most were completely unaware) and following that up by depositing letters in the board members' internal church mail boxes informing them that I had rejected Drennan's sorry excuse for an apology which was a classic example of a non-apology apology. This perfectly reasonable action on my part was deemed to be "disruptive behaviour" by the UCM's Disruptive Behaviour Committee which had been set up with the sole purpose of silencing me.
The Unitarian Church of Montreal subsequently permanently revoked my membership as a punishment for tarnishing the image of the "church" by "going public" with my grievances by engaging in peaceful public protest outside the church even though the chair person of the Disruptive Behaviour Committee, the UCM's vice president John Pike, had expressly stated that he did not care if I protested outside of the "church" but only wanted me to stop distributing letters of grievance to congregants after church services as I had done on a few occasions. This was not simply a question of being dropped from the membership role of the UCM. The "church" leaders set up a carefully orchestrated kangaroo court disguised as a "special congregational meeting" in which I faced three "charges" that I had to defend myself against. I should add that I was considered guilty until proven innocent of the BS "charges". In fact the manner in which this "special congregational meeting" kangaroo court was arranged disregarded and violated the UCM's own bylaws regarding procedures for dealing with "disruptive behaviour". It is this highly manipulative carefully orchestrated process for permanently revoking my membership (with no possibility of appeal BTW. . .) which also caused me to use the term "excommunicated".