Moral Mind Puzzle: UUA Protecting Abusive U*U Clergy By Controlling The Emerson Avenger's Public Criticism Thereof. . .
I will spare U*Us an explanatory intro. Without further ado here is my parody version of Rev. Dr. Victoria Weinstein's 'Moral Mind Puzzle: Controlling Women/”Protecting” Women' Peacebang blog post. The outrageously hypocritical U*U "pastor" known as Peacebang finds herself on The Emerson Avenger's "Eat Your Words" Diet yet again. . .
This is going to sound very Captain Obvious, but I’m trying to figure out how people who think that Rev. Dr. Victoria Weinstein aka Peacebang is "free to express her opinions", including but not limited to her offensive, "threatening and defamatory", obscene, and even quite Sadistic Big Fat U*U Sodomy Fantasy imagining a Republican state senator "anally impaled on the Statue of Liberty's torch", and to freely "do so outside of her professional role as a minister serving a congregation", can accuse The Emerson Avenger of "threatening and defamatory conduct amounting to sexual harassment" of Peacebang for blog posts that criticize Peacebang's "sodomy fantasy".
I am trying to figure out for the life of me how UUA leaders could be passionately against The Emerson Avenger's right to freedom of expression and also be a defender of unlimited deeply insulting and even "threatening and defamatory" language spouted by Peacebang and other verbally and psychologically abusive U*U clergy.
I suppose this sort of person sees themselves as a protector or potential defender of "innocent" U*U clergy.
On a simplistic level, I see it. On the systemic level, however, it just doesn’t hold. There’s no logic to the argument that the UUA should be in the business of misusing and abusing the Canadian Criminal Code to outlaw a blogger that it thinks harasses U*U clergy, but should stay out of the business of protecting innocent people that are being verbally and psychologically abused by out of control U*U clergy.
I also experience brain pain trying to understand how any Unitarian Universalist can decide that all criticism of abusive U*U clergy is "harassment", always, but yet decide that MFC Rules and UUMA Guidelines are about protecting abusive U*U clergy, rather than holding them accountable for their abusive behavior.
I don’t think I’m making my case very well here, probably because I’m still struggling to put myself in those hypothetical Crazy U*U AssHats' shoes. Public criticism of abusive U*U clergy: bad, always "harassment", sinful, should be outlawed. U*U clergy verbal and psychological abuse: good, important, all about projecting U*U clergy image, should be available, UUA & MFC shouldn’t get involved.
Cognitive dissonance and moral confusion. I am still chewing on it because I am trying to imagine how Unitarian Universalists can have more productive conversations on these polarizing issues. Still stymied by the pro-Peacebang, anti-Robin Edgar people and am trying to reach a more generous conclusion than something like,
“They just want to control The Emerson Avenger while they themselves don’t want to be controlled in any way.”
What really made me barf was that arrogant Stikeman Elliott attorney Maitre Marc-André Coulombe who falsely accused The Emerson Avenger of the archaic crime of blasphemous libel on the unfounded basis that TEA has made "unfounded and vicious allegations to the effect that ministers of the Association engage in such despicable crimes as pedophilia and rape." Too late for that, pal. Some of those precious, sacred U*U clergy have actually used their own precious, sacred free will and precious, sacred U*U brains to decide for themselves that they want to be able to use their precious, sacred U*U penises to engage in such despicable crimes as pedophilia and rape. . . Not a choice I would make for myself but boy howdy, if they’re willing and able to do it on behalf of Unitarian Universalist clergy image, I’m just going to have to tell them they shouldn’t be allowed to. Speaking as a person with a penis myself, I’d rather be celibate than a precious and sacred U*U clergy rapist or pedophile.
All of this intersection between controlling The Emerson Avenger's blog posts, ostensibly protecting "women Unitarian Universalist ministers" from "sexual harassment", and Big Fat U*U Hypocritical Double Standards has me feeling bitchy.
Someday I’ll have something coherent to say that will tie all of this together. For now, at least I’ve put it out there. Thanks for listening.
This is going to sound very Captain Obvious, but I’m trying to figure out how people who think that Rev. Dr. Victoria Weinstein aka Peacebang is "free to express her opinions", including but not limited to her offensive, "threatening and defamatory", obscene, and even quite Sadistic Big Fat U*U Sodomy Fantasy imagining a Republican state senator "anally impaled on the Statue of Liberty's torch", and to freely "do so outside of her professional role as a minister serving a congregation", can accuse The Emerson Avenger of "threatening and defamatory conduct amounting to sexual harassment" of Peacebang for blog posts that criticize Peacebang's "sodomy fantasy".
I am trying to figure out for the life of me how UUA leaders could be passionately against The Emerson Avenger's right to freedom of expression and also be a defender of unlimited deeply insulting and even "threatening and defamatory" language spouted by Peacebang and other verbally and psychologically abusive U*U clergy.
I suppose this sort of person sees themselves as a protector or potential defender of "innocent" U*U clergy.
On a simplistic level, I see it. On the systemic level, however, it just doesn’t hold. There’s no logic to the argument that the UUA should be in the business of misusing and abusing the Canadian Criminal Code to outlaw a blogger that it thinks harasses U*U clergy, but should stay out of the business of protecting innocent people that are being verbally and psychologically abused by out of control U*U clergy.
I also experience brain pain trying to understand how any Unitarian Universalist can decide that all criticism of abusive U*U clergy is "harassment", always, but yet decide that MFC Rules and UUMA Guidelines are about protecting abusive U*U clergy, rather than holding them accountable for their abusive behavior.
I don’t think I’m making my case very well here, probably because I’m still struggling to put myself in those hypothetical Crazy U*U AssHats' shoes. Public criticism of abusive U*U clergy: bad, always "harassment", sinful, should be outlawed. U*U clergy verbal and psychological abuse: good, important, all about projecting U*U clergy image, should be available, UUA & MFC shouldn’t get involved.
Cognitive dissonance and moral confusion. I am still chewing on it because I am trying to imagine how Unitarian Universalists can have more productive conversations on these polarizing issues. Still stymied by the pro-Peacebang, anti-Robin Edgar people and am trying to reach a more generous conclusion than something like,
“They just want to control The Emerson Avenger while they themselves don’t want to be controlled in any way.”
What really made me barf was that arrogant Stikeman Elliott attorney Maitre Marc-André Coulombe who falsely accused The Emerson Avenger of the archaic crime of blasphemous libel on the unfounded basis that TEA has made "unfounded and vicious allegations to the effect that ministers of the Association engage in such despicable crimes as pedophilia and rape." Too late for that, pal. Some of those precious, sacred U*U clergy have actually used their own precious, sacred free will and precious, sacred U*U brains to decide for themselves that they want to be able to use their precious, sacred U*U penises to engage in such despicable crimes as pedophilia and rape. . . Not a choice I would make for myself but boy howdy, if they’re willing and able to do it on behalf of Unitarian Universalist clergy image, I’m just going to have to tell them they shouldn’t be allowed to. Speaking as a person with a penis myself, I’d rather be celibate than a precious and sacred U*U clergy rapist or pedophile.
All of this intersection between controlling The Emerson Avenger's blog posts, ostensibly protecting "women Unitarian Universalist ministers" from "sexual harassment", and Big Fat U*U Hypocritical Double Standards has me feeling bitchy.
Someday I’ll have something coherent to say that will tie all of this together. For now, at least I’ve put it out there. Thanks for listening.
Comments