Words That The Emerson Avenger "Hammered Into Stone" Last Thor's Day
U*U seminarian Errant Frogs asked "So what are you hammering into stone these days?"
Here is my response to the question that he posed on his blog.
Hopefully he will not "memory hole" it. . .
Well I've hammered all kinds of things into stone and will continue to do so. I have even quite literally created a bona fide petroglyph or two on occasion. I expect to do more of that down the road a bit.
Here is the final paragraph from an email that I sent to UUA President Bill Sinkford last Thor's Day. . . He and all other U*Us would do well to consider these words to be hammered into stone.
I expect you to stand up and speak out against the kind of anti-religious intolerance and bigotry that I and too many other God believing people have been subjected to, not only by Rev. Ray Drennan but by no shortage of other like-minded fundamentalist atheist “Humanist” U*Us who delight in casting aspersions on theistic religions and believers. I expect you to acknowledge that the anti-Christian and more broadly anti-religious intolerance that militant atheist “Humanist” U*Us regularly engage in makes too many U*U congregations anything but welcoming congregations to God believing people. I have asked you to do this in the past but you have disregarded my requests. I will no longer allow you or the UUA to turn a blind eye to what you once rightly described as my “obviously deep concerns.”
Here is my response to the question that he posed on his blog.
Hopefully he will not "memory hole" it. . .
Well I've hammered all kinds of things into stone and will continue to do so. I have even quite literally created a bona fide petroglyph or two on occasion. I expect to do more of that down the road a bit.
Here is the final paragraph from an email that I sent to UUA President Bill Sinkford last Thor's Day. . . He and all other U*Us would do well to consider these words to be hammered into stone.
I expect you to stand up and speak out against the kind of anti-religious intolerance and bigotry that I and too many other God believing people have been subjected to, not only by Rev. Ray Drennan but by no shortage of other like-minded fundamentalist atheist “Humanist” U*Us who delight in casting aspersions on theistic religions and believers. I expect you to acknowledge that the anti-Christian and more broadly anti-religious intolerance that militant atheist “Humanist” U*Us regularly engage in makes too many U*U congregations anything but welcoming congregations to God believing people. I have asked you to do this in the past but you have disregarded my requests. I will no longer allow you or the UUA to turn a blind eye to what you once rightly described as my “obviously deep concerns.”
Comments
There is nothing particularly "anti-Christian" about my "campaign". Au contraire, my campaign exposes and denounces no shortage of well-documented "anti-Christian" intolerance and bigotry perpetrated by U*Us. I have plenty of moral support for my "campaign" from Christian friends and acquaintances. In fact very recently a devout Roman Catholic expressed his approval and appreciation for my "outing" of Peacebang as Rev. Victoria Weinstein because of her outrageously hypocritical scapegoating of Catholics over sexual abuse. Indeed he described my "campaign" as "very courageous". . .
Perhaps you meant that some of my behaviour is unChristian but even that accusation would be open to considerable question and debate. In any case make no claims to being a Christian so it is a spurious argument even if some of my behaviour is not "Christian". I will none-the-less remind you that Jesus repeatedly castigated hypocrites with considerable vehemence and what might be described as "insulting and defamatory language".
I will also remind you that Jesus physically assaulted some people who he believed were defiling the temple in Jerusalem. I am one up on Jesus in that sense as I have never even come close to assaulting anyone, even when I have been physically assaulted by U*Us. . . I have no intention of physically assaulting anyone and I have been totally non-violent throughout this conflict which is more than may be said for several U*Us and one self-proclaimed "rabbi".
I expect that God, and maybe even
Jesus, have had more than a few chuckles watching this ludicrous U*U soap-opera unfold before their eyes. . .
Obviously you missed the part above where I very clearly said, "In any case (I) make no claims to being a Christian so it is a spurious argument even if some of my behaviour is not "Christian".
:It seems to me that UU isn't about dogma or forcing beliefs.
Well then you aren't looking close enough at U*U and you are not engaging in a genuinely free and responsible search for the truth and meaning of what I am stating on this blog. U*Us do have their own "dogmas" and at least some of them do go to considrable lengths to force their beliefs on people.
:If you want to be a prick to us atheists then bring it but you should probably be honest and do it from one of the less "tolerant" groups.
Well I think you really have it ass backwards here Sam. The Emerson Avenger blog exists due in no small measure to the fact that intolerant and abusive fundamentalist atheist "Humanist" U*Us not only want to be, but actually have been. . . pricks (or perhaps I should say a**holes. . .) to me and other God believing people. I have no interest in being a prick to atheists and get along just fine with your average run-of-the-mill atheist. It's the intolerant and outright bigoted "fundie" atheists that I have a legitimate beef with. For all its pretense at being tolerant U*Uism actually harbors and protects very intolerant "fundie" atheists. It even ordains some as U*U ministers. . . Maybe U*Us should be more honest and admit that they aren't half as tolerant a they pretend to be. One of the main missions of The Emerson Avenger is to expose and denounce the anti-religious intolerance and bigotry of "fundie" atheist "Humanist" U*Us and the fact that too many other U*Us tolerate their intolerance. . .
:The klan is always looking for new people.
The KU*U Klutz Klan? I don't doubt it. . .
:Maybe they can use your stuff or Jerry Falwell and his like.
Who knows. Maybe they can and maybe they will but I am not one of them by any means. I am actually combatting the Jerry Falwells of atheism. Rev. Ray Drennan being a case in point, but Richard Dawkins is now *the* poster boy for evangelical fundamentalist atheism. . .
:See there are lots of places that your dislike of others opinions could make you more inclusive.
You have it ass backwards again Sam. It is Rev. Ray Drennan's and rather too many other like-minded U*Us' intense dislike, even outright hatred, of my own quite reasonable monotheistic religious opinions that got U*Us into this mess in the first place. What I dislike is intolerance and bigotry and U*U injustices, abuses and outrageous hypocrisy. I not only have a right to dislike such things but even a moral responsibility to dislike such things. Once U*Us responsibly acknowledge the wrongfulness and harmfulness of these things the path to peace will be open. . .
How authoritative do you consider the Bible?
What reasons did you have to distrust me 'from day one' and when was that?
Now if only you could find someone who's read the site and still supports you!
Now if only you could find someone who's read the site and still supports you!"
I've already told you indrax that at least 30 people have recently read the site and indicated their support for me with a positive rating and supportive emails. Above and beyond that I have a fair number of "real life" friends and acquaintances who know what I am doing and have indicated their moral support for what I am doing.
Richard Dawkins and Rev. Ray Drennan are cut from the same cloth. They, and other like-minded fundamentalist atheist bigots, go out of their way to belittle and malign God believing people and theistic religion.
:How authoritative do you consider the Bible?
Like any good Unitarian I believe some parts of the Bible to be highly reliable and trustworthy and others to be anything but "authoritative".
:What reasons did you have to distrust me 'from day one' and when was that?
Well "Day One" is a figure of speech referring to the earliest stages of something. In this case our interaction and communication. Your blog title 'Heresiology' with the statement 'I have a gift for blasphemy' associated with it is an indication that you might not be terribly trustworthy. Some of the things posted on your Psychohazard Premier blog, including the "Ideas that are compelling, yet unhealthy" slogan, gave me good reason to be somewhat cautious about you. This thread in particular gave me some reason to believe that you just might be engaged in a game of deception and misinformation etc. in offering to be my "friend" and pretending to be totally committed to seeing to it that my membership in the Unitarian Church of Montreal was restored. I decided to give you the benefit of the doubt and see what happened.
There were signs quite early in your "friendship" with me that indicated to me that your claimed "friendship" was more pretense than anything else. When you saw an opportunity to try to discredit me, or cast doubt on my credibility, you took it. I could go on a bit but I think that I have made my point. If you don't "get it" pretty much everyone else will. . .
At times, you have cited the bible describing a violent and wrathful God. Is this the view of God you support?
'Heresiology' and 'I have a gift for blasphemy' were chosen because that is my blog about being a Unitarian Universalist. I have a particular interest in learning about and creating unorthodox theologies.
Do you have a problem with blasphemy?
Psychohazard isn't supposed to be taken too seriously, that's the point. 'Destroy the Customer' is a business strategy. I don't know what problem you have with the July archive. If you meant to link to 'Beware panoptcon theology', remember that that, like the rest of psychohazard, is just a way to play with ideas.
I was not trying to discredit you in February. I DID want to show you that your hostile rhetoric is itself discrediting. I don't feel comfortable trusting your characterizations of people's words, when I have seen you make other characterizations that I disagree with.
I also was trying to open some discussion between you and other UUs, on a subject somewhat removed from your complaints, so that any understanding reach might be a basis for going forward.
Or are you upset that I had the audacity to disgree with you?
Well that's a fine example of DIM Thinking Denial, Ignorance and Minimization of the glaringly obvious fact that Richard Dawkins is intolerantly and offensively attacking and demoting religion. . .
:At times, you have cited the bible describing a violent and wrathful God. Is this the view of God you support?
I usually do that to make a point. I don't believe that God is the genocidal war criminal that the Bible sometimes is guilty of "promoting" but nature proves that God is ultimately responsible for violence of all kinds. As far as being wrathful goes one would hope that after a few billion years God has learned to refrain from being *too* wrathful assuming God is wrathful at all.
:'Heresiology' and 'I have a gift for blasphemy' were chosen because that is my blog about being a Unitarian Universalist. I have a particular interest in learning about and creating unorthodox theologies. Do you have a problem with blasphemy?
I sure do have a problem with some forms of blasphemy indrax. AFAIAC Rev. Ray Drennan's false and malicious labeling of Creation Day as "your cult", and my revelatory religious experience as "your psychotic experience" is iconoclastic blasphemy according to the first and fourth definitions of "blasphemy".
:Psychohazard isn't supposed to be taken too seriously, that's the point.
That is irrelevant. People's "jokes" are often very revealing of their true mindset. For instance former UCM President Frank Greene "jokingly" said, "I hope what you're doing doesn't have anything to do with the Solar Temple". . . when I was organizing the first celebration of Creation Day in October of 1994, just weeks after the first Solar Temple mass murder/suicide events. He said other things that insinuated that Creation Day was a dangerous "cult". I was later informed by a member of the Unitarian Church of Montreal that Frank Greene had repeatedly labeled Creation Day as a "cult" in the course of a conversation that he had with this person. I pay attention to what may be lurking behind people's jokes and humor. In fact I prevented a possible suicide earlier this year by picking up on what lay behind a blogger's online "humor". . .
:'Destroy the Customer' is a business strategy.
It could also be a strategy of the religion business indrax, and it could also reflect your own personal mindset and philosophy. . . Reason enough to you.
:I don't know what problem you have with the July archive.
I guess that's your problem then.
:If you meant to link to 'Beware panoptcon theology',
I didn't.
:remember that that, like the rest of psychohazard, is just a way to play with ideas.
Yes, ideas that reflect what is fermenting in that brain of yours indrax. . .
:I was not trying to discredit you in February.
No of course not.
:I DID want to show you that your hostile rhetoric is itself discrediting.
My "hostile rhetoric". . .
ROTFLMU*UO
Don't you think that Rev. Ray Drennan's genuinely hostile rhetoric towards me and other people is just a tad discrediting and that any "hostile rhetoric" on my part is mild in comparison? In any case my perfectly legitimate criticism of David Miles' sarcastic spurious dismissal of Dr. Anthony Perks potentially very valuable Stonehenge theory can hardly be properly characterized as "hostile rhetoric". All I said was that David Miles was "flippant and gratuitously dismissive". There is no comparison to the outrageous "hostile rhetoric" of Rev. Ray Drennan to say nothing of many of the other hostile and abusive U*Us I have the misfortune to know.
:I don't feel comfortable trusting your characterizations of people's words, when I have seen you make other characterizations that I disagree with.
ROTFLMU*UO again. . .
My characterizations of David Miles' sarcastic and flippant spurious dismissal of Dr. Anthony Perks' Stonehenge theory were right on the money; just as my truthful and accurate characterizations of Rev. Ray Drennan's words are entirely justified by his obviously "hostile rhetoric". If you don't trust or "disagree with" my perfectly legitimate characterizations of David Miles' sarcastically dismissive rhetoric and Rev. Ray Drennan's, Frank Greene's, and no shortage of other U*Us' hostile and outright abusive and malicious rhetoric I have good reason to distrust you and to doubt your moral and ethical standards. As do most other intelligent people of conscience indrax. . .
:I also was trying to open some discussion between you and other UUs, on a subject somewhat removed from your complaints, so that any understanding reach might be a basis for going forward.
Well I chimed in but you never replied and neither did anyone else if you really wanted to open some "discussion" aka "dialogue" why did you fail or refuse to respond to my explanation of my criticism of David Miles? Your own failure to enter into any real discussion om that thread gives me some reason to consider that you are being just a tad disingenuous here indrax. Dare I accuse you of *lying*?
:Or are you upset that I had the audacity to disgree with you?
I'm not "upset" indrax. People disagree with me all the time and I rarely get upset unless they disagree in a hostile and/or abusive and/or malicious manner. I am just justifiably cautious about someone who I have very good reason to distrust. . .
No, that was Robin.
(Sure, she called him names, but lots of people have called him names and Robin doesn't work nearly so hard to hurt them. And Robin called Pat Robertson "stupid" in one of the threads Robin quotes. If Robin calls someone "stupid," that's ok. But if some Christian calls Robin "crazy," then she needs to be punished. Robin can call names, Christians just can't.)
And those Christians in Rhode Island who didn't want a pagan festival deserve a spanking, too.
Robin is the biggest anti-Christian bigot of them all.
The real fundamentalist athiests must be so happy with him.
:No, that was Robin.
That's right and I'm proud of it. My "outing" of Peacebang as Rev. Victoria Weinstein was highly justified, not only by the insulting and defamatory language that she repeatedly used to publicly attack me and other people behind the cloak of anonymity aka pseudonymity, but by other harmful and damaging aspects of her online behaviour that was most unbecoming a minister, U*U or otherwise.
:(Sure, she called him names, but lots of people have called him names and Robin doesn't work nearly so hard to hurt them.
It took me all of three Google searches in the space of about five minutes to determine the prime suspect for who Peacebang was. Hardly hard work. In any case my "outing" of Peacebang was primarily intended to bring an end to Rev. Victoria Weinstein's insulting and defamatory anonymous attacks on other people.
:And Robin called Pat Robertson "stupid" in one of the threads Robin quotes.
If people behave in a manner that justifies describing them as "stupid" or even "idiotic" I will occasionally use those words, especially if they use them themselves. . . Usually I am referring to behaviour, i.e. stupid words or actions, rather than labeling the person as stupid or idiotic although when the behaviour is chronic I do feel justified in painting with a broader brush. . .
:If Robin calls someone "stupid," that's ok. But if some Christian calls Robin "crazy," then she needs to be punished. Robin can call names, Christians just can't.)
Sorry but there is a more than subtle difference between correctly describing a person as being "stupid" or even "idiotic" and characterizing them as mentally ill. My formal complaints against Rev. Victoria Weinstein have nothing to do with her being a nominally Christian U*U. They have to do with her repeated egregious insulting and defamatory name-calling and other unbecoming conduct exhibited on her Peacebang blog. You seem to forget that U*U ministers, to say nothing of clergy more generally. . . are supposed to maintain a certain decorum in not only their professional lives but also their private lives. Rev. Victoria Weinstein's Peacebang blog can readily be considered to be part of her professonal life and indeed her "ministry" as a Unitarian*Universalist clergyperson. Her unbecoming conduct on her Peacebang blog clearly violates both the letter and the spirit of various clauses of the UUMA Guidelines
for the conduct of ministry.
:And those Christians in Rhode Island who didn't want a pagan festival deserve a spanking, too.
Yes, whoever those intolerant U*Us in Rhode Island who opposed Pagan Pride Day being sponsored by their U*U "church" were, Christian or otherwise. . . they did deserve a good spanking and they got one courtesy of me and quite a few other rightly concerned people.
:Robin is the biggest anti-Christian bigot of them all.
ROTFLMU*UO
Nobody who knows anything about me will believe that hyperbolic hostile rhetoric oh so Anonymous (presumable) U*U. . . Calling intolerant and abusive or outrageously hypocritical Christians to account for their behaviour is not "anti-Christian" by any means. Nor is it in any way bigoted. I am not in any way prejudicially attacking Christian religious beliefs and practices in "outing" Peacebang as Rev. Weinstein. Au contraire, I am calling Peacebang to account for being so callously and indeed offensively unChristian in her insulting and abusive behaviour towards me and other people. Peacebang herself is more justifiably described as being anti-Christian, or at least anti-Catholic than I am. . .
:The real fundamentalist athiests must be so happy with him.
ROTFLMU*UO
Nobody in their right mind will believe that ridiculous assertion oh so DIM Thinking Anonymous Idiot. . .
I wouldn't say psychohazard consists of 'jokes' either. The posts are not intended to be funny, they are intended to be thought provoking. I do think a lot about them before posting them.
It could also be a strategy of the religion business indrax, and it could also reflect your own personal mindset and philosophy. . . Reason enough to you.
There's a typo there, not sure what you meant to say.
Did you read the post? The idea has no connection to your case.
Just what do you think it reflects about me? I know you like to practice declaring what is in other people's hearts and minds, but I assure you that I am aware of the implications of my ideas far more deeply than you are.
Don't you think that Rev. Ray Drennan's
I wasn't talking about Drennan. I was talking about you. Your hostile rhetoric discredits you. I was trying to help you out.
My characterizations of David Miles' sarcastic and flippant spurious dismissal of Dr. Anthony Perks' Stonehenge theory were right on the money;
Saying that doesn't make it so, and more to the point, it doesn't adress any of the concerns I had then or now..
If you don't trust or "disagree with" my perfectly legitimate characterizations of David Miles' sarcastically dismissive rhetoric and Rev. Ray Drennan's, Frank Greene's, and no shortage of other U*Us' hostile and outright abusive and malicious rhetoric I have good reason to distrust you and to doubt your moral and ethical standards.
You try to confuse the issue. I disagreed with your characterizations of Miles, I can do that because I saw what he said and I saw how you reacted to it.
This highlights exatly the problem you have. I pose a simple disagreement with you, and you take it as "reason to distrust you and to doubt your moral and ethical standards."
You marginalize and intimidate those who would be your ally.
I did not carry on the discusion further because I had nothing more to add. Your comment just stated that you were right and I was wrong. I knew then that that attempt to get through to you had failed. You didn't listen to what I said the first time, and you wouldn't listen a second time.
I am just justifiably cautious about someone who I have very good reason to distrust. . .
That you cited the title and taglines of my blogs, and a few odd posts, as reasons to distrust me, shows that I really had no chance of you treating me fairly.
My questions in this thread were entirely about an abusive Unitarian.
Of course indrax. I know that some U*Us hold their U*U to be sacred and I obviously do recognize that it is right to behave irreverently towards U*U asses. . .
:I wouldn't say psychohazard consists of 'jokes' either.
I never said it did.
:The posts are not intended to be funny, they are intended to be thought provoking. I do think a lot about them before posting them.
I don't doubt it which is why I paid close attention to what you said in them indrax. . .
::It could also be a strategy of the religion business indrax, and it could also reflect your own personal mindset and philosophy. . . Reason enough to you.
:There's a typo there, not sure what you meant to say.
Reason enough to distrust you.
:Did you read the post? The idea has no connection to your case.
Of course I read the post. The idea can be applied more broadly indrax and it says plenty about how you think. . .
:Just what do you think it reflects about me? I know you like to practice declaring what is in other people's hearts and minds, but I assure you that I am aware of the implications of my ideas far more deeply than you are.
That post and other posts indicate that you just might like to sabotage and destroy things. . .
::Don't you think that Rev. Ray Drennan's
:I wasn't talking about Drennan. I was talking about you. Your hostile rhetoric discredits you. I was trying to help you out.
No indrax you were, and still are, trying to turn tables. . . and I won't let you. What you characterized as "hostile rhetoric" on my part wasn't even close to being genuine hostile rhetoric whereas Rev. Ray Drennan's rhetoric, and indeed the rhetoric of various other U*U ministers including Rev. Victoria Weinstein. . . most certainly is genuinely hostile rhetoric.
::My characterizations of David Miles' sarcastic and flippant spurious dismissal of Dr. Anthony Perks' Stonehenge theory were right on the money;
:Saying that doesn't make it so, and more to the point, it doesn't adress any of the concerns I had then or now..
Your concerns then and now are largely spurious indrax. You falsely characterized my criticism of David Miles as "hostile rhetoric" but turn a blind eye to the very real hostile rhetoric of U*Us that I am exposing and denouncing.
::If you don't trust or "disagree with" my perfectly legitimate characterizations of David Miles' sarcastically dismissive rhetoric and Rev. Ray Drennan's, Frank Greene's, and no shortage of other U*Us' hostile and outright abusive and malicious rhetoric I have good reason to distrust you and to doubt your moral and ethical standards.
:You try to confuse the issue. I disagreed with your characterizations of Miles, I can do that because I saw what he said and I saw how you reacted to it.
And you grossly misrepresented how I reacted to what David Miles said by accusing me of "hostile rhetoric".
:This highlights exatly the problem you have.
Actually it highlights you problems a lot more than any I may have indrax and I am very confident that most people will agree with me on that.
:I pose a simple disagreement with you, and you take it as "reason to distrust you and to doubt your moral and ethical standards."
You did not pose a simple disagreement with me indrax. You tried to discredit me by pretending that I over-reacted to David Miles' words and then saying -
This has implications to interpreting Robin Edgar's words against Unitarian Universalists.
:You marginalize and intimidate those who would be your ally.
You have already proven that your claim to be an ally is open to considerable question indrax. Even if you were genuinely interested in being an ally I really don't need stupid and incompetent allies who cause more harm than good. It's not without cause that I have said - With "friends" like indrax who needs enemies?
:I did not carry on the discusion further because I had nothing more to add. Your comment just stated that you were right and I was wrong. I knew then that that attempt to get through to you had failed. You didn't listen to what I said the first time, and you wouldn't listen a second time.
Sounds like you are describing yourself here indrax, only with you one can try explaining things a dozen times over and you still just don't get it. . .
::I am just justifiably cautious about someone who I have very good reason to distrust. . .
:That you cited the title and taglines of my blogs, and a few odd posts, as reasons to distrust me, shows that I really had no chance of you treating me fairly.
Wrong. I did treat you quite fairly, especially in light of the indications that you might not be trustworthy and that you might even be out to try to sabotage my cause.
:My questions in this thread were entirely about an abusive Unitarian.
If you are talking about me I have stated plainly that I reserve the right to return abuse for abuse when Unitarians attack me. In fact that was pretty clearly stated on my public opinion poll that received overwhelmingly positive from those who responded to it. If U*Us don't want to be on the receiving end of some verbal abuse from The Emerson Avenger they had better refrain from dishing it out to me or indeed other people.
What are you talking about?
I did treat you quite fairly,
Then why didn't you answer my questions of December 16, 2005. specifically asking for full sentence quotes.
What are you talking about?
I am talking about a reasonable assessment of the underlying implications of what you said in a variety of your posts, not just one or two indrax.
::I did treat you quite fairly,
:Then why didn't you answer my questions of December 16, 2005. specifically asking for full sentence quotes.
Because you already had more than enough information available to you indrax and that is what I have being telling you all along.
From here on in if you post off topic I will ignore those posts.