What is it all about?
Shouting Tree
I'm new to this newsgroup and probably always will be new to Unitarian
Universalist concepts.
It interests me but sure I'm just an ignorant Irish lad (no..not Catholic -
not even Christian - I don't think they have a word for me...) living in
America trying to figure out anything past my mere interest in this...
Could anyone help me with this?:
What is it all about, what are the traits or fundamental premises of this
religion or philosophy (I don't even know what to call it!)? What is the
full name of the establishment? The Unitarian Universalist Church?
How does it apply to every day life?
Please forgive my ignorance and accept my sincerest thanks, in advance, for
any information,
Dave.
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.399 / Virus Database: 226 - Release Date: 9/10/2002
Steven Botts
--
to reply by e-mail insert a "t" between the first two letters of my address.
"Shouting Tree" <shouti...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:EdCy9.2927$UA4.2...@news.alltel.net...
> Hi everyone,
>
> I'm new to this newsgroup and probably always will be new to Unitarian
> Universalist concepts.
>
> It interests me but sure I'm just an ignorant Irish lad (no..not
Catholic -
> not even Christian - I don't think they have a word for me...) living in
> America trying to figure out anything past my mere interest in this...
>
> Could anyone help me with this?:
>
> What is it all about, what are the traits or fundamental premises of this
> religion or philosophy (I don't even know what to call it!)? What is the
> full name of the establishment? The Unitarian Universalist Church?
>
> How does it apply to every day life?
>
> Please forgive my ignorance and accept my sincerest thanks, in advance,
for
> any information,
>
> Dave.
Rather than trying to explain Unitarian Universalism for the umpteenth time,
I'm refering you to
http://www.uua.org/aboutuu/weare.html Scroll down to "About Unitarian
Universalism" and click on.
Steve
stephen burke
BluueNikki
> I'm new to this newsgroup and probably always will be new to Unitarian
> Universalist concepts.
That is pretty much true in a sense. We, as humans, are always
evolving....and not just in the biological sense. ;-) Our concepts of
"god" (whatever it is), theology, what is good/evil, what is
right/wrong....it changes over time as we grow and mature.
Awww, Dave, you are adorable, in re: Irish lad. ;-) :-) Curious, how
did you arrive at your handle "Shouting Tree"? :-)
> What is it all about, what are the traits or fundamental premises of this
> religion or philosophy (I don't even know what to call it!)? What is the
> full name of the establishment? The Unitarian Universalist Church?
The principles and purposes (I affectionately call it the PeePees, to
some UUs' distaste--giggle! ;-) For me, I see it as more of a
philosophy than a religion, even if it has religious tax exemptness.
The name of the organization is Unitarian Universalist Association.
FYI, many UUs have a cross cringe to the word "church" (among many
"god" words), that I find a bit sad.
> How does it apply to every day life?
As much as one applies any other religion or philosophy to every day
life. :-) You make your own rules, basically and apply them to your
life.
Nikki
Ed B
>
> Hi everyone,
>
> I'm new to this newsgroup and probably always will be new to Unitarian
> Universalist concepts.
>
> It interests me but sure I'm just an ignorant Irish lad (no..not Catholic -
> not even Christian - I don't think they have a word for me...) living in
> America trying to figure out anything past my mere interest in this...
>
> Could anyone help me with this?:
>
> What is it all about, what are the traits or fundamental premises of this
> religion or philosophy (I don't even know what to call it!)? What is the
> full name of the establishment? The Unitarian Universalist Church?
The fundamental premise of our faith is that we encourage all to believe
whatever their heart, mind and life experience has led them to believe.
Our full name is The Unitarian Universalist Association of Congregations
(UUA).
> How does it apply to every day life?
We have developed a set of principles that we hope will guide us in our
lives. Each principle is open to individual interpretation. We have no
final authority to give us pat answers or to reward or punish us.
Our principles:
We, the member congregations of the Unitarian Universalist Association,
covenant to affirm and promote
The inherent worth and dignity of every person;
Justice, equity and compassion in human relations;
Acceptance of one another and encouragement to spiritual growth in our
congregations;
A free and responsible search for truth and meaning;
The right of conscience and the use of the democratic process within our
congregations and in society at large;
The goal of world community with peace, liberty, and justice for all;
Respect for the interdependent web of all existence of which we are a
part.
> Please forgive my ignorance and accept my sincerest thanks, in advance, for
> any information,
>
> Dave.
Your ignorance (I prefer lack of knowledge) is natural. There is
nothing to forgive.
--
~)< Love & Peace Ed B.
Sometimes I wonder whether the world is being run by smart people who
are putting us on or by imbeciles who really mean it.
--Mark Twain
Steve Caldwell
bluue...@1st.net (BluueNikki) wrote:
-snip-
> FYI, many UUs have a cross cringe to the word "church" (among many
> "god" words), that I find a bit sad.
Nikki,
For another perspective on using the word "church" in a UU settiing,
an Islamic UU who lives near me in East Texas suggested that we should use
neutral words like "fellowship" or "society" rather than "church." For
those coming from Islamic, Jewish, and other non-Christian backgrounds,
the word "church" may suggest Christianity rather than a more inclusive
Unitarian Universalism where all (Christian and non-Christian) are
welcome.
You may not think that "church" implies this. But what would you
think of a "UU mosque" or a "UU synagogue"? The words "church," "mosque",
and "synagogue" are all linked to specific faith traditions and may
exclude those outside that faith tradition.
Take care,
Steve
--
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
Steve Caldwell
srca...@iamerica.net http://members.aol.com/uuwebman/
"Come to think of it, there are already a million monkeys on a million typewriters, and Usenet is NOTHING like Shakespeare."
--Blair Houghton
Robin Edgar
> How does it apply to every day life?
You need only read my new "Just Shoot Me Thread" to see a pertinent
answer to that question... Run a search on the phrases "Unitarian
Church of Montreal" and "Ministerial Fellowship Committee" to see how
poorly some UUs apply their claimed ideals and principles in every day
life.
gksh...@ucdavis.edu
> For another perspective on using the word "church" in a UU
> settiing, an Islamic UU who lives near me in East Texas suggested
> that we should use neutral words like "fellowship" or "society"
> rather than "church." For those coming from Islamic, Jewish, and
> other non-Christian backgrounds, the word "church" may suggest
> Christianity rather than a more inclusive Unitarian Universalism
> where all (Christian and non-Christian) are welcome.
You know, an interesting thing about UUism and Islam is that
traditional Christian unitarianism (that is, belief in Jesus as
teacher but rejection of belief in the Trinity) is extremely
acceptable to Muslims. True, they did not accept Muhammed as the
ultimate prophet (or therefore the Koran), and did not practice
the various daily rituals, etc., but as far as the theology is
concerned, traditional Christian unitarianism is very close to
Islam.
If UUs were Christians (and of course, around 20% of them are,
IIRC), then they would unapologetically call their places of worship
churches; as far as I'm concerned, this is reasonable, especially
(as was already pointed out) given the Christian roots of both
Unitarianism and Universalism.
It would be interesting to hear the reaction of Muslims who object
to the use of "church" by UU groups, once the historical/theological
similarity to Islam is explained.
Greg Shenaut
Ed B
>
> --
> to reply by e-mail insert a "t" between the first two letters of my address.
> news:srcaldwe-121...@1cust119.tnt2.shreveport.la.da.uu.net...
> > In article <3a8bf7d4.02110...@posting.google.com>,
> > bluue...@1st.net (BluueNikki) wrote:
> >
> > -snip-
> > > FYI, many UUs have a cross cringe to the word "church" (among many
> > > "god" words), that I find a bit sad.
> >
> > Nikki,
> > For another perspective on using the word "church" in a UU settiing,
> > an Islamic UU who lives near me in East Texas suggested that we should use
> > neutral words like "fellowship" or "society" rather than "church." For
> > those coming from Islamic, Jewish, and other non-Christian backgrounds,
> > the word "church" may suggest Christianity rather than a more inclusive
> > Unitarian Universalism where all (Christian and non-Christian) are
> > welcome.
> >
> > You may not think that "church" implies this. But what would you
> > think of a "UU mosque" or a "UU synagogue"? The words "church," "mosque",
> > and "synagogue" are all linked to specific faith traditions and may
> > exclude those outside that faith tradition.
> >
> > Take care,
> > Steve
>
> natural that we should use the term "church".
Following that line of reasoning all Christian churches should be called
synagogues since Christianity derived from Judaism.
> Besides, we already use the
> term "fellowship", usually to designate a smaller Uu congreattion with a
> less formal structure than a "church". And the Quakers have already taken
> the word "Society" as in "society of Friends".
>
> Anyway, I'm getting a little arthritic from bending over backwards trying to
> accomodate everyone who just might, somehow be offended or put off at
> something we do or say.
>
> Steve B.
--
~)< Love & Peace Ed B.
"I believe the world is beautiful
and that poetry, like bread, is for everyone."
Roque Dalton "Like You"
Elmer Bataitis
> "Shouting Tree" <shouti...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<EdCy9.2927$UA4.2...@news.alltel.net>
> > How does it apply to every day life?
> You need only read my new "Just Shoot Me Thread" to see a pertinent
> answer to that question... Run a search on the phrases "Unitarian
> Church of Montreal" and "Ministerial Fellowship Committee" to see how
> poorly some UUs apply their claimed ideals and principles in every day
> life.
So? Islam's supposed to be a "religion of peace" and lots of adherents
are killing enormous numbers of people in its name.
Are you shocked that people claim ideals and principles and then don't
live up to them?? Sheest! Welcome to reality!
***************************************************************
Elmer Bataitis “Hot dog! Smooch city here I come!”
Planetech Services -Hobbes
585-442-2884
"...proudly wearing and displaying, as a badge of honor, the
straight jacket of conventional thought."
***************************************************************
Ted Lechman
place. My observation about the "feel" of UU is as follows:
1. There ar every few "whole" families that belong- by that I mean a
traditional mother-father-children type families, where both the mother and
father are both the bilological parents of the children.
2. More typical is either single divorcees, divorced couples with merged
families, and gay singles and couples. Most are pretty well educated and
very liberal. No working class people.
3. The Sunday services consists of two parts; the service officiated by the
minister, and the informal get together after the service.
4. The service consists of the sermon by the minister, and the open forum
where the attendees can comment on the services or other issues. The open
forum during the service, in my opinion, is the glory of the UU services.
5. *** Caution ***: (the following observation will offend most UU'ers.
Those with senitive dispositions should skip this point): The UU church's
primary "constituency" is to gay members. Gay culture is very explicit and
made equal to traditional lifestyles in both culture and ceremony. For
example, in one church I attended, on Valentine day service, there where two
pictures on the "altar" representing the Valentines Spirit, one was a
traditional image of heterosexual love and the other was a homosexual image
of love. The minister felt the need to make this distinction. And this one
was in a more "conservative" UU congregation. In a more "liberal"
congregation, I was accosted by a lesbian after the service and accused of
being too "butch" (i'm a heterosexual male). My own personal inclination is
to downplay the difference between "straits" and "gays" rather then
emphasize the difference - yes, because I find ones sexual preference to be
both irrelevant and unimportant, rather then the focus of once exisitance.
However the UU church places tremendous emphesis and window dressing on gay
issues and culture that practically makes the UU church a (the) gay church.
6. If you are single, highly intelligent, and hurting (for what ever reason)
you will find the UU's receptive, open and will readily accept you into the
core of their activities, which they have many. You will also be able to
explore various aspects of religious experience within UU.
7. UU's are fairly hard and dogmatically (new)left, politically. Like most
new left liberals, they aren't interested in working class issues. Their
prime interest is in a. gay rights, b. abortion rights, c. other womens
issues and d. anti-American diplomacy and pro-leftist/Islamist regimes. If
you have conscience issues with the abortion maybe being a form of killing,
or feel that perhaps the Boy Scouts have a right to protect the boys under
their care as best they see fit, or feel that marxists and islamists are as
demented and unscientific as any other fundamentalist religious group, then
you will feel very unconfortable. However, you will probably find this a
minor issue.
I hope you don;t interpret this is being Anti-UU, actually I find it
probably the best religious congregation I've found anywhere.
These are my observations after years of attending three different Uu
congregations. I will not respond to any criticism of my remarks because the
above are not theories just honest personal observations, colored only by
what I see and hear, independant of the doctrine or philosophy.
Ted
"Elmer Bataitis" <nyli...@frontiernet.net> wrote in message
news:3DD259FD...@frontiernet.net...
Steven Botts
--
to reply by e-mail insert a "t" between the first two letters of my address.
"Ted Lechman" <lec...@adelphia.net> wrote in message
news:e8CA9.20027$6g.54...@news1.news.adelphia.net...
I have visited several UU churches around the country, and I can agree with
some of what you've said, particularly the part about the \absence of
"whole' families. I'm not sure it's entirely fair, though. I haven't
attended any non-UU churches in years, except for weddings and funerals, but
I expect the number of "broken" families there may be higher than it was in
the days of my Southern Baptist youth.
I do notice a lot of wrinkled faces and gray hair in UU churches, and fewer
young couples or families. Also I notice it takes a fair-sized UU church to
have much of a youth program.
I have noticed the presence of gays in most UU churches, but I have never
seen them as being obtrusive. They seem mainly interested in being accepted
for who they are than in "taking over" in any sense. There have been a
number of gays who have come to my church, stayed a while, and then moved
on. They appreciated our acceptance of their orientation and lifestyle, but
often found our theology a bit too liberal for their liking.
Most generally, UUs are somewhat liberal in their politics as well as their
religion, but not exclusively so. there is still a lot of difference of
opinion on political and social issues.
Steve
Ed B
>
> Independant of the offical "theology" of UU, there is the "feel" of the
> place.
There is no official "theology".
> My observation about the "feel" of UU is as follows:
> 1. There ar every few "whole" families that belong- by that I mean a
> traditional mother-father-children type families, where both the mother and
> father are both the bilological parents of the children.
The above is not true in my congregation nor in other congregations
close by that I am familiar with.
> 2. More typical is either single divorcees, divorced couples with merged
> families, and gay singles and couples. Most are pretty well educated and
> very liberal. No working class people.
My congregation DOES have "working class people". Some of those
"working class people" are well-educated. You seem to indicate that the
two are mutually exclusive.
> 3. The Sunday services consists of two parts; the service officiated by the
> minister, and the informal get together after the service.
> 4. The service consists of the sermon by the minister, and the open forum
> where the attendees can comment on the services or other issues. The open
> forum during the service, in my opinion, is the glory of the UU services.
That is not true in my congregation. There is a Sunday Service. There
may or may not be a discussion after the service but it is not part of
the service.
> 5. *** Caution ***: (the following observation will offend most UU'ers.
> Those with senitive dispositions should skip this point): The UU church's
> primary "constituency" is to gay members.
FALSE!
Many UU Congregations have Gay and Lesbian members but they are NOT the
"PRIMARY" constituency. "Primary" would mean, IMO, an overwhelming
majority. That is NOT true in ANY UU church, not even in the Bay area
where there is a large Gay and Lesbian population.
> Gay culture is very explicit
You mean we DARE to be open about who we are?
> and
> made equal to traditional lifestyles in both culture and ceremony.
Do you mean to say that we should not be equal? We should be second
class citizens? And as for tradition, my orientation (it is not a
lifestyle) is every bit as traditional as heterosexuality.
> For
> example, in one church I attended, on Valentine day service, there where two
> pictures on the "altar" representing the Valentines Spirit, one was a
> traditional image of heterosexual love and the other was a homosexual image
> of love.
Why does that offend you? And don't say it doesn't because if it didn't
you would not feel the need to mention it.
> The minister felt the need to make this distinction. And this one
> was in a more "conservative" UU congregation. In a more "liberal"
> congregation, I was accosted by a lesbian after the service and accused of
> being too "butch" (i'm a heterosexual male).
Maybe you were "flaunting" it!
> My own personal inclination is
> to downplay the difference between "straits" and "gays" rather then
> emphasize the difference
This post doesn't show that. You have gone out of your way to point out
that we ARE different and that it doesn't sit well with you that we are
"made equal to traditional lifestyles in both culture and ceremony".
> - yes, because I find ones sexual preference to be
> both irrelevant and unimportant,
Bullshit! You wouldn't have concentrated so much on it here if you
truly felt it was irrelevant. And it is not a "preference" it is an
ORIENTATION.
> rather then the focus of once exisitance.
> However the UU church places tremendous emphesis and window dressing on gay
> issues and culture that practically makes the UU church a (the) gay church.
No, THE Gay Church is MCC. UU congregations for the most part recognize
that we should be treated equally. Why is that a problem for you?
> 6. If you are single, highly intelligent, and hurting (for what ever reason)
> you will find the UU's receptive, open and will readily accept you into the
> core of their activities, which they have many. You will also be able to
> explore various aspects of religious experience within UU.
Taken alone this statement would seem benign. But in context, where you
are finding fault with UU congregations it appears that you consider
this to be a problem.
> 7. UU's are fairly hard and dogmatically (new)left, politically.
The many UU conservatives and Republicans would argue this point with
you.
> Like most
> new left liberals, they aren't interested in working class issues. Their
> prime interest is in a. gay rights, b. abortion rights, c. other womens
> issues and d. anti-American diplomacy and pro-leftist/Islamist regimes. If
> you have conscience issues with the abortion maybe being a form of killing,
> or feel that perhaps the Boy Scouts have a right to protect the boys under
> their care as best they see fit,
You don't seem to understand what the Boy Scout issue is all about. Boy
Scout officials have stated that they know that Gay men are not child
molesters and that they are not excluding them to protect the boys.
They have stated that Gay men are excluded because the largest
supporters of the BSA (Mormons and Catholics) want it that way.
> or feel that marxists and islamists are as
> demented and unscientific as any other fundamentalist religious group, then
> you will feel very unconfortable. However, you will probably find this a
> minor issue.
>
> I hope you don;t interpret this is being Anti-UU,
It is not only anti-UU, it is homophobic!
> actually I find it
> probably the best religious congregation I've found anywhere.
Then why didn't you post something positive about UUism instead of going
out of your way to denigrate us?
>
> These are my observations after years of attending three different Uu
> congregations.
How many years? When? And you obviously think it is fair to take your
personal experiences with less than 3 tenths of a percent of the UU
congregations and generalize to paint all of us with your negative
brush!
> I will not respond to any criticism of my remarks because the
> above are not theories just honest personal observations, colored only by
> what I see and hear, independant of the doctrine or philosophy.
A copout! You make bold, bigoted statements and then say you refuse to
discuss it any further.
> Ted
stephen burke
things Ted said about uu in my local church (sydney). i can't go much due to
illness but last time i went there were families, singles, old people and
young people and i don't know for sure but i think most of them were
straight. the only point i would bother to take u to task about is what's
wrong with old people?
"Ed B" <huma...@nethere.com> wrote in message
news:3DD3F3DA...@nethere.com...
Steven Botts
--
to reply by e-mail insert a "t" between the first two letters of my address.
"stephen burke" <sburk...@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:3dd4b6ec$0$18873$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
> i don't want to argue. i just want to say that i don't recongnize any of
the
> things Ted said about uu in my local church (sydney). i can't go much due
to
> illness but last time i went there were families, singles, old people and
> young people and i don't know for sure but i think most of them were
> straight. the only point i would bother to take u to task about is what's
> wrong with old people?
I was the one that mentioned that there is a lot of gray hair and wrinkled
faces in most UU churches. Of course, there's nothing wrong with old people.
But the fact that they far outnumber young people means that there will be
fewer UUs in the future unless something changes.
Steve
Ed B
>
> --
> to reply by e-mail insert a "t" between the first two letters of my address.
> "stephen burke" <sburk...@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
> news:3dd4b6ec$0$18873$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
> > i don't want to argue. i just want to say that i don't recongnize any of
> the
> > things Ted said about uu in my local church (sydney). i can't go much due
> to
> > illness but last time i went there were families, singles, old people and
> > young people and i don't know for sure but i think most of them were
> > straight. the only point i would bother to take u to task about is what's
> > wrong with old people?
>
> I was the one that mentioned that there is a lot of gray hair and wrinkled
> faces in most UU churches. Of course, there's nothing wrong with old people.
> But the fact that they far outnumber young people means that there will be
> fewer UUs in the future unless something changes.
>
> Steve
Apparently it is changing. My congregation still has founding members
who are now in their 80s and it has many young families as well as every
age group in between. The congregation about 20 miles north of us has
also experienced a lowering of the average age of its membership.
Steve Caldwell
<sbo...@texas.net> wrote:
-snip-
> Well, UUism derived from Christianity, rather than some other faith, so it's
> natural that we should use the term "church".
Steve,
And it would be just as "natural" for Christian churches to call
themselves "synagogues" since Christianity is derived from Judaism. :^)
> Besides, we already use the
> term "fellowship", usually to designate a smaller Uu congreattion with a
> less formal structure than a "church". And the Quakers have already taken
> the word "Society" as in "society of Friends".
You're right that "fellowship" is the term generally used for smaller
congregations, but there is no reason that a 500-1000 member congregation
couldn't call itself a fellowship.
> Anyway, I'm getting a little arthritic from bending over backwards trying to
> accomodate everyone who just might, somehow be offended or put off at
> something we do or say.
I always thought that there was nothing wrong in being considerate of
others' feelings ...
Steve Caldwell
-snip-
> It would be interesting to hear the reaction of Muslims who object
> to the use of "church" by UU groups, once the historical/theological
> similarity to Islam is explained.
Greg,
The person I mentioned is well aware of UU history and theology.
However, in East Texas, the word "church" has decidedly Christian
baggage. Insisting on using the word "church" rather than a more neutral
term could be unwelcoming.
BluueNikki
how I feel about people's problems with certain words.
---------Steve Caldwell:
You may not think that "church" implies this. But what would you
think of a "UU mosque" or a "UU synagogue"? The words "church,"
"mosque",
and "synagogue" are all linked to specific faith traditions and may
exclude those outside that faith tradition.------
I would have no problem if a person wanted to call a UU church a "UU
synagogue". :-) The words synogogue/mosque are rather cool words to me
and appear more interesting than the dull christian word "church".
And I actually see no reason why the words synogogue/mosque should
exclude certain groups. What I do care about is some people INSISTING
that OTHER people do just to accomodate their poor christian chips on
their weak shoulders. And I do insist that _I_myself_ be allowed to
use the word 'church' without being browbeaten. If they insist they
be allowed to use "fellowship", I say gopher it! :-)
----------Greg Shenaut:
>>>> If UUs were Christians (and of course, around 20% of them are,
IIRC), then they would unapologetically call their places of worship
churches; as far as I'm concerned, this is reasonable, especially
(as was already pointed out) given the Christian roots of both
Unitarianism and Universalism.--------
MAR. GAR. RITAS. ;-) I welcome proper labels to use for UU chuches:
fellowship. society. church. mosque. synogogue. and others I may not
have thought of. Any word that others like to use, I say gopher it.
Just allow me the same freedom. :-)
--------Steve Caldwell:
However, in East Texas, the word "church" has decidedly Christian
baggage. Insisting on using the word "church" rather than a more
neutral term could be unwelcoming. ----------
The key word is "insist", Steve C. I would never insist that others
use the word "church" just cuz _I_ like it. Never. As I said, if
they wanna use other words, peachy keen with me. :-) I just ask that
we both allow one another to use whatever label as we please, and we
will get along. :-)
--------Ed Burditt:
Following that line of reasoning all Christian churches should be
called
synagogues since Christianity derived from Judaism. --------
MAR. GAR. RITAS. ;-)
-------Steve Caldwell in response to Steve Botts:
S.Botts:
> Well, UUism derived from Christianity, rather than some other faith, so it's
> natural that we should use the term "church".
-------S.Caldwell:
And it would be just as "natural" for Christian churches to call
themselves "synagogues" since Christianity is derived from Judaism.
:^) ---
Purdy nose. Margaritas to both points, Two Steves. ;-) I swear, there
are a lot of UU Steves! ;-)
-------S.Botts typed wisely:
> Anyway, I'm getting a little arthritic from bending over backwards trying to
> accomodate everyone who just might, somehow be offended or put off at
> something we do or say.---
MAR! GAR! RITAS! (oh sheesh, I am getting drunk! ;-) Yay for this
point, S.Botts. :-) I, too, am tired of trying to please everyone by
using whatever word THEY want me to use. I want to use the word that
_I_ like and to be quite frank and blunt....POO on anyone who insists
otherwise. ;-) Those who do...imnsho...have baggage that I think they
need to work through rather than running away from it by asking others
to accomodate their glass nerves.
-------S.Caldwell:
I always thought that there was nothing wrong in being considerate of
others' feelings ...---
Not to the point of denying yourself some pleasures, Caldwell. Not to
the point that I have to do this against *MY* feelings just to
accomodate someone else's overly-fragile feelings. My preferred word
is "church". And to be frank, if others don't like it, loves, then it
is their "Cross" to bear. ;-)
Nikki
Has a UU *CHURCH* near here! :-)
gksh...@ucdavis.edu
> In article <aqrd9j$k73$1...@woodrow.ucdavis.edu>, gksh...@ucdavis.edu wrote:
> -snip-
>> It would be interesting to hear the reaction of Muslims who object
>> to the use of "church" by UU groups, once the historical/theological
>> similarity to Islam is explained.
> Greg,
> The person I mentioned is well aware of UU history and theology.
> However, in East Texas, the word "church" has decidedly Christian
> baggage. Insisting on using the word "church" rather than a more neutral
> term could be unwelcoming.
Sure, but my point is that "Unitarian church" shouldn't be seen as
unwelcoming by Muslims. There is no shirk in non-Trinitarian
Christianity. "Church" certainly does imply Christianity, including
Unitarian Christianity, but in spite of the Christian mainstream's
best propaganda efforts, "Christian" does not imply belief in the
Trinity.
If your acquaintance views every church, even Unitarian ones, as
dangerous to Islam, then he has been confused by trinitarian
propaganda.
It seems to me that it would be much more consistent for a Muslim
to be put off by the large numbers of atheists that he might find
in a Unitarian church, not by the (false) implication
church->christian->trinity->shirk.
Furthermore, if, as is likely, the word "church" carries *trinitarian*
baggage, then this is something that should be as offensive to UUs
as it is to Muslims. That is, for "Unitarian church" merely to
imply Christianity is fine--it is true that Unitarianism is
historically Christian, and to deny the implication would be to
deny our roots. However, by definition Unitarian Christianity has
never been trinitarian, and if people in East Texas or anywhere
else believe that "church" implies "belief in the Trinity", then
they are simply wrong.
Perhaps you could put an educational sign up in front of the church
saying "Christian members of this Unitarian-Universalist church do
not accept the Nicene Trinity".
Spelling it out like that that should make it a bit more welcoming
to liberal Muslims.
Of course, if you take this advice, you might get the random bullet
hole in the front signboard or burning cross in the parking lot.
Greg
Steven Botts
--
to reply by e-mail insert a "t" between the first two letters of my address.
<gksh...@ucdavis.edu> wrote in message
news:aqrd9j$k73$1...@woodrow.ucdavis.edu...
Sometimes I am a little put off by all the efforts made by UUs not to offend
anyone in order to make oursevlves more acceptable. it seems to me that we
are defined as much by what we do not believe and refuse to accept as much
as we are by what we are willing to include.
As far as Muslims are concerned, we have had them visit my church and
speak to the congregation, where they were received in as civil and
respectful manner. However, I'm not sure we would want to accept practicing
Muslims as members any more than we would want to accept
practicing, Bible-believing Christians.
I am well aware that most Muslims practice their religion in a peaceful,
civilized manner, but as far as I know, all practicing Muslims subscribe to
the belief that the Koran was literally dictated to the Prophet Mohammed by
God, and that properly understood, it is an infallible guide.
Now, I could be wrong about this, there may be Muslims who, like liberal
Christians, take the specifics of the Koran with a few grains of salt while
following the general principles of the prophet's teachings. If there are
such people, I haven't run across any. The nearest I've even read about is
Salomon Rushdie, who has given up all religious practice and considers
himself Muslim in a cultural sense only.
The point I wish to make here is that we should be open to people of
different beliefs, but we should
not try to get people into our church who believe that they have the One
True Way which everyone else must accept. I expect that any effort to court
Muslims would be a wasted enterprise when they find out what we're really
like.
Steve
gksh...@ucdavis.edu
> Sometimes I am a little put off by all the efforts made by UUs not to offend
> anyone in order to make oursevlves more acceptable. it seems to me that we
> are defined as much by what we do not believe and refuse to accept as much
> as we are by what we are willing to include.
> As far as Muslims are concerned, we have had them visit my church and
> speak to the congregation, where they were received in as civil and
> respectful manner. However, I'm not sure we would want to accept practicing
> Muslims as members any more than we would want to accept
> practicing, Bible-believing Christians.
Hmm. Well, it seems to me that anyone who wants to sign the
membership book can join a UU church, at least as I understand it.
Last I heard, there are no particular beliefs you have to have or
not have to be a UU, and that includes Bible-believing Christians
and Koran-thumping Muslims.
However, that has nothing to do with the point I was trying to make.
Look, back when Muhammed was starting out (so the legends go), he
seriously considered existing religions "of the book", namely
Judaism and the version of Christianity that existed near where he
lived. He considered them to be at least partially valid, and
certainly to be based on valid "prophesies", and he apparently
entertained the idea of merging with one or the other instead of
establishing a new religion. For example, in the earliest days of
Islam, Muslims prayed toward Jerusalem rather than toward Mecca.
The big problem he had with Christianity was that he could not
accept the concept of the Trinity. The Islamic idea is that of
strict monotheism: there is only one god, and he has no partners
whatever, and, after pondering the issue, Muhammed, *just like the
earlier and later Christian unitarians*, decided that the Trinity
was unacceptable. In fact, some have referred to Islam as the most
successful Christian "unitarian heresy" movement. Others have
pointed out that if one of the unitarian Christian movements had
been ubiquitous around Mecca during Muhammed's lifetime, the East
would have stayed nominally Christian (but obviously, not trinitarian).
So, I am not saying that UUs need to do anything different to make
their churches more welcoming to Muslims, but only that our Unitarian
tradition should automatically make us seem at least less theologically
foreign to them.
Greg
Steven Botts
--
to reply by e-mail insert a "t" between the first two letters of my address.
<gksh...@ucdavis.edu> wrote in message
news:ar6lon$p3k$1...@woodrow.ucdavis.edu...
Ok, Greg. I see your point. They recognise only one God, we recognise only
one God at most.
Steve
Steve Caldwell
-snip-
> Sure, but my point is that "Unitarian church" shouldn't be seen as
> unwelcoming by Muslims. There is no shirk in non-Trinitarian
> Christianity. "Church" certainly does imply Christianity, including
> Unitarian Christianity, but in spite of the Christian mainstream's
> best propaganda efforts, "Christian" does not imply belief in the
> Trinity.
Greg,
My UU Islamic acquaitence in East Texas doesn't view "church =
trinitarian" but rather views the word "church" as a word coming of a
distinctly Christian heritage. I'll agree that Unitarian Universalism has
historical roots in Christianity (much the same way that Christianity has
historical roots in Judaism and Bahai has roots in Islam). And there are
UUs who consider themselves Christian. But that doesn't mean that UUism
is a "Christian" religion in the sense that Christianity is commonly
defined in North America.
> If your acquaintance views every church, even Unitarian ones, as
> dangerous to Islam, then he has been confused by trinitarian
> propaganda.
>
> It seems to me that it would be much more consistent for a Muslim
> to be put off by the large numbers of atheists that he might find
> in a Unitarian church, not by the (false) implication
> church->christian->trinity->shirk.
Actually, he has very little problem with atheists in his
congregation. And his spouse is a UU who is also a Christian. I don't
know, but his objections may come from the very oppressive cultural
influence that most forms of Christianity have in East Texas and NW
Louisiana (conservative Southern Baptist and conservative Assembly of
God).
> Furthermore, if, as is likely, the word "church" carries *trinitarian*
> baggage, then this is something that should be as offensive to UUs
> as it is to Muslims. That is, for "Unitarian church" merely to
> imply Christianity is fine--it is true that Unitarianism is
> historically Christian, and to deny the implication would be to
> deny our roots. However, by definition Unitarian Christianity has
> never been trinitarian, and if people in East Texas or anywhere
> else believe that "church" implies "belief in the Trinity", then
> they are simply wrong.
I never said that the word "church" had trinitarian baggage. I
suggested that it implied that Christianity has a preferred place in
UUism. Given that our worship services often follow a Protestant
Christian model and we probably celebrate Christmas Eve more than we do
Ramadan and other Islamic holidays in our congregations, our implied
endorsement of cultural Christianity may be an "-ism" much in the same way
that heterosexism is. The word "church" may imply that one set of
cultural/theological assumptions is the preferred or default condition
(much in the same way that "white," "male," and "heterosexual" are viewed
as cultural defaults).
TL
Yes, you are correct here, I am wrong. (referring to the above statement).
There's an interesting psychological term called "Cognitive Dissonance" that
seems to govern much of human behavior and interpretation. One application
of the notion of Cognitive Dissonance is to take emotional offense at a
specific position of someone and then not able to subsequently agree with
that person even on positions that they share! This is a common trick in
politics to make someone vote against their best interest.
>
> > 7. UU's are fairly hard and dogmatically (new)left, politically.
>
> The many UU conservatives and Republicans would argue this point with
> you.
>
> > Like most
> > new left liberals, they aren't interested in working class issues. Their
> > prime interest is in a. gay rights, b. abortion rights, c. other womens
> > issues and d. anti-American diplomacy and pro-leftist/Islamist regimes.
If
> > you have conscience issues with the abortion maybe being a form of
killing,
> > or feel that perhaps the Boy Scouts have a right to protect the boys
under
> > their care as best they see fit,
>
You focus in the above paragraph on the gay rights/boy scout issue rather
then on my point. Let me make my point more clear.
Both "Liberals" and "Conservative" have completely abandoned "working-class"
concerns. The Conservatives principally interested in reducing taxes and
government regulation over business. The Liberals are primarily interested
in Race and Gender issues. Both parties use sexually charged issues to
maintain the psychological loyalty of their partisans.
The most important concern of the working class are Their Families and their
families integrity and survival. Period. Everything else is secondary.
Working class people usually have jobs that they do not feel defines them
fully. For example, GM factory workers like their pay and benefits, but don'
t think of themselves primarily as "Mill Rats" but as "family men", etc,
whose primary concern is not their production supervisors but their
families.
This contrasts sharply with college professors and other professinals whose
jobs define then, and who don't have the sense of sacrificing themselve in
their work for the benefit of their families.
Therefore, those things that liberals typically espouse are those things
that working people feel are against their interests. Examples of such
Liberal anti-working people positions are anti-patriarchialist feminism (the
notion of the traditional family as oppressive), gay liberation, free trade
(moving jobs first to Mexico because of low wages, and now finally to China
because of even lower wages together with social controls of the
authoritative Communist Party), and environmentalism without concern for the
effected displaced workers.
As such, both parties work to reduce salaries, wages, benefits and job
security, but by scaring working people away from their economic interests
in different ways.
The conservatives by taking the "pro-family" position and scaring working
people to accept corporate economic terms in exchange for socially
conservative "pro-family" talk.
The liberals by taking people's focus away from their economic interests and
instead making them focus on irrelevant sectarian issues, such as race,
sexual orientation, gender and "choice". So while liberals have succeeded in
making "progress" in these issues, they have allowed wages to slip and the
manufacturing base of the working class to go oversees.
> You don't seem to understand what the Boy Scout issue is all about. Boy
> Scout officials have stated that they know that Gay men are not child
> molesters and that they are not excluding them to protect the boys.
> They have stated that Gay men are excluded because the largest
> supporters of the BSA (Mormons and Catholics) want it that way.
>
I DO understand what the Boy Scout issue is about. The fact that I may or
may not reach the same conclusions as you doesn't imply that I don't
understand the issues.
> > or feel that marxists and islamists are as
> > demented and unscientific as any other fundamentalist religious group,
then
> > you will feel very unconfortable. However, you will probably find this a
> > minor issue.
> >
> > I hope you don;t interpret this is being Anti-UU,
>
> It is not only anti-UU, it is homophobic!
Excellent mud slinging! Come on everybody, close the mind and sling the
mud!! There is a need for this talent in every age, and evidently you feel
the need for it in this age as well.
>
> > actually I find it
> > probably the best religious congregation I've found anywhere.
>
> Then why didn't you post something positive about UUism instead of going
> out of your way to denigrate us?
>
I bring up those positions of UU that newbies would find most different from
their connventional denominations. I didn't make my points to make you
feel warm and cozy. See comments about cognitive dissonance.
> >
> > These are my observations after years of attending three different Uu
> > congregations.
>
> How many years? When? And you obviously think it is fair to take your
> personal experiences with less than 3 tenths of a percent of the UU
> congregations and generalize to paint all of us with your negative
> brush!
>
What negative brush? I think there is good things and bad things in
EVERYTHING. Nothing is sacred unless you want to be conned. Everything needs
to be examined in a non-emotional manner in order to get at the truth. I
find UU to be the best religious group that I know of (I know about quit a
number of them). My position on UU is like Churchils on Democracy. The fact
that you don't like people like me doesn't imply that I don't like UU. UU
isn'st/shouldn't be static and I intend to influence it, with or with mud
dripping off me.
wandering star
>Both "Liberals" and "Conservative" have completely abandoned "working-class"
>concerns. The Conservatives principally interested in reducing taxes and
>government regulation over business. The Liberals are primarily interested
>in Race and Gender issues. Both parties use sexually charged issues to
>maintain the psychological loyalty of their partisans.
>
>
>
>The most important concern of the working class are Their Families and their
>families integrity and survival. Period. Everything else is secondary.
>Working class people usually have jobs that they do not feel defines them
>fully. For example, GM factory workers like their pay and benefits, but don'
>t think of themselves primarily as "Mill Rats" but as "family men", etc,
>whose primary concern is not their production supervisors but their
>families.
>
>
>
>This contrasts sharply with college professors and other professinals whose
>jobs define then, and who don't have the sense of sacrificing themselve in
>their work for the benefit of their families.
>
>
>
>Therefore, those things that liberals typically espouse are those things
>that working people feel are against their interests. Examples of such
>Liberal anti-working people positions are anti-patriarchialist feminism (the
>notion of the traditional family as oppressive), gay liberation, free trade
>(moving jobs first to Mexico because of low wages, and now finally to China
>because of even lower wages together with social controls of the
>authoritative Communist Party), and environmentalism without concern for the
>effected displaced workers.
No offense, but I don't see your definition of liberal to be accurate.
For one, liberals are typically left-of-center. The US Democratic
party and the federal Canadian Liberal party have taken a largely
right-of-center position since the early 1990s. So a lot of positions
that they have taken can't be seen as representative of liberals.
Secondly, free trade is not a liberal position, although freer trade
is.
Free trade is basically a right-wing big-business idea. It's based on
the concept that each country is good at producing some things and
inefficient at producing other things. When governments use
protectionist policies - such as subsidies and tariffs - to prop up
failing industries, they are only wasting tax payer money, increasing
the cost of the goods produced, and creating other economic
inefficiencies which lead to lower productivity and economic growth.
One can see how this would make sense to right-of-center "Liberals".
And if any Republicans are not on board it's only because their
populist politics outweigh their political ideology.
But the one thing that is wrong with the carte blanche free trade
ideology is that a lot of third world nations are largely "good" at
exploiting their workers to keep wage costs down. There are examples
of factories only hiring young people because they are easier to
control and manipulate to keep wages down.
So instead of free trade creating wealth in third world countries to
bring them out of poverty, they only tend to perpetuate their poverty
and oppression and establish a form of first-world neo-colonialism...
The concept of freer trade balances things out by incorporating labor
laws which protect unions and establish a reasonable minimum wage,
among other things.
The fact is, it was labour laws and the power of unions which created
the enormous wealth of first world nations in the post-war era -
unprecedented in human history - that allowed factory workers to
become part of the middle class.
With freer trade, people in third world countries will be able to make
a decent wage and become a market for first world products, which will
benifit everyone...
Third, your concept of environmentalism without the concern of
displaced workers is way off base.
In case you haven't noticed, out-of-control greenhouse gas emissions -
according to 9 out of 10 scientists on the issue - are going to create
major problems in the upcoming decades, such as more common severe
summer droughts and winter floods, more frequent and brutal storms,
rising sea levels causing coastal flooding, etc. - all costing
governments and insurance companies billions upon billions of dollars.
Where are the so-called family values now, where the people now burn
the candle at both ends and pass the repercussions down to their
children??
The fact is no one knows how many jobs doing the necessary thing is
going to cost.
Back in the eighties when it was determined that acid rain was
destroying lakes in northern Ontario, the major mining company which
produced the emissions that created acid rain, Inco, said that the new
government regulations would put them out of business. But the fact is
Inco went on to become one of the most profitable mining companies in
the world after implementing the emission-controlling protocols.
I've heard about numerous other examples where big-business claimed it
would be put out of business by regulations, but that all turned out
to be a bunch of nonsense...
The fact is there are 160 nations that have signed the Kyoto
convention, with nations like Russia and Canada who have commited to
signing. That the US, which is the greatest producer of greenhouse
gases in the world, has refused to do the right thing and adjust their
economy just like every other country is really despicable. It would
seem that any company that wants to make a quick buck by destroying
the world's environment can relocate in the US, which will make the
economic adjustments of responsible countries a lot more difficult,
not to mention undoing much of their efforts to reduce greenhouse
emmisions.
Did I mention that the US position is despicable??
ws
TL
"wandering star" <wanderin...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:6utotus6ber2872ve...@4ax.com...
more obvious to me then my own (unfortunately).
>
> For one, liberals are typically left-of-center. The US Democratic
> party and the federal Canadian Liberal party
Canadian, eh! (If so, then too bad about the Leafs! - Go Sabres!))
> have taken a largely
> right-of-center position since the early 1990s. So a lot of positions
> that they have taken can't be seen as representative of liberals.
>
I always thought that the transition occured (in the US) in the transition
between Humphrey and McGovern ('68-'72). The Humphrey party was economically
left while being socially right, while the McGovern party was socially left
but moved economically right. Ever since McGovern the democratic party
appears to have been focused on left social issues at the epense of economic
ones. That would be the reason for the almost complete abondonment of the
democratic party by union household in both '72 and '80 (I consider '76 to
be a reaction to Watergate). In my personal opinion, Clinton won in '92
because of his economic platform of single payer health care. However it was
clear that he other priorities when he put his wife Hillary in charge of it,
thereby being able to plausibly deny responsibility for its failure, as well
as his half hearted effort. In '96 the Republicans couldn't have fond a
worse candidate then Dole.
> Secondly, free trade is not a liberal position, although freer trade
> is.
>
I believe that free trade is a "libertarian" issue. Although there is some
difference between the notions of "Libertarian" and "Liberal", currently
they seem to be the same to me, with the exception of "school choice".
> Free trade is basically a right-wing big-business idea.
I believe that both "liberal" as well as "Conservative" former trust fund
kids support free trade, not just the right wingers. For example Ted (and
therest) Kennedy (sponsor of deregulation)
I agree 100%. The Free trade theory applies to trade betwen first world
contries only, not between fist and third (or second) world countries. The
notion that protectionism is self defeating to a countries interests is
clearly contradicted in the case of China (PRC). Most manufactured goods are
now made in China.
However I believe the issue goes further. The recent Homeland Security bill
passed by the Senate contains a provision to allow companies to sell to the
federal Government HomeLand Security Dept even if they have moved their
corporate offices to the caribean in order to avoid paying ANY corporate
taxes. So now not only are the goods that our tax dollars going to buy going
to be made offshore bythe cheapest labor available, but no taxes are going
to return to the government to help pay for infrastructure, social safety
nets or the products themselves. Unbelievable. How come there is no
"liberal" economic theory that clearly show how selfdefeating this policy is
comporable to the "Free Trade"liberal theory you mentioned before.
>
> Third, your concept of environmentalism without the concern of
> displaced workers is way off base.
>
> In case you haven't noticed, out-of-control greenhouse gas emissions -
> according to 9 out of 10 scientists on the issue - are going to create
> major problems in the upcoming decades, such as more common severe
> summer droughts and winter floods, more frequent and brutal storms,
> rising sea levels causing coastal flooding, etc. - all costing
> governments and insurance companies billions upon billions of dollars.
>
> Where are the so-called family values now, where the people now burn
> the candle at both ends and pass the repercussions down to their
> children??
>
Look,
1. It is true that at one time, I had even less of an opinion of
environmentalism than I do now. Then I went on a trip to the x-Soviet Union
and was appalled at how bat the environmental situation was: the streets
stank of emission that reminded me of the time before emision controls in
US/Can. I drove by a herd of cows once that had white dust on their backs
from the stack emissions of a nearby cement factory. When I got back I had a
much deeper appreciation of the effect that environmental legislation has
had on our health and living standards. Really - honest!.
2. I belive that environmental conditions in the first world are getting
better, while those of the second and third worlds are getting worse, as a
consequence of the free (rather then your free-er) policies that make poor
contries lack of environmental policies an asset rather then a liability.
3. It is also a fact that manufacturing industries are needed in the first
world contries - we can not let them all leave the first world for the third
and expect to retain a middle class.
4. I therefore firmly believe that purely environmental concerns MUST take a
back seat to the economic - creating legislation that conditions free trage
on labor and environmental regulation will have more sweeping impact than
environmental issues alone.
5. In other words, put the donkey in front of the cart, not behind it. I
feel it is mistake to be an environmentalist advocate, while decrying the
loss of skilled labor jobs in the US/Canada.
Again, I'n not opposed to environmental issues, just that focusing on
environmental issues is a distraction from the main issue - which is
changing free trade to free-er trade. At no time has there been a faster
loss of manufacturing jobs and labor union clout then at the present - I
believe the cause is distraction preventing effective change.
wandering star
>
>"wandering star" <wanderin...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:6utotus6ber2872ve...@4ax.com...
>> For one, liberals are typically left-of-center. The US Democratic
>> party and the federal Canadian Liberal party
>
>Canadian, eh! (If so, then too bad about the Leafs! - Go Sabres!))
Hehe.. actually I don't follow hockey too much...
>> have taken a largely
>> right-of-center position since the early 1990s. So a lot of positions
>> that they have taken can't be seen as representative of liberals.
>>
>I always thought that the transition occured (in the US) in the transition
>between Humphrey and McGovern ('68-'72). The Humphrey party was economically
>left while being socially right, while the McGovern party was socially left
>but moved economically right. Ever since McGovern the democratic party
>appears to have been focused on left social issues at the epense of economic
>ones. That would be the reason for the almost complete abondonment of the
>democratic party by union household in both '72 and '80 (I consider '76 to
>be a reaction to Watergate). In my personal opinion, Clinton won in '92
>because of his economic platform of single payer health care. However it was
>clear that he other priorities when he put his wife Hillary in charge of it,
>thereby being able to plausibly deny responsibility for its failure, as well
>as his half hearted effort. In '96 the Republicans couldn't have fond a
>worse candidate then Dole.
I'm not too familiar with American politics. But I was mainly refering
to some of Bill Clinton's policies and to Michael Moore's statement
that Clinton was the one of the greatest Republican presidents (Moore
being a true 'leftist' liberal...)
>> Secondly, free trade is not a liberal position, although freer trade
>> is.
>>
>
>I believe that free trade is a "libertarian" issue. Although there is some
>difference between the notions of "Libertarian" and "Liberal", currently
>they seem to be the same to me, with the exception of "school choice".
I thought libertarians were mostly focused on personal freedom issues,
and take a mostly 'everyone for themselves' position on social issues,
like conservatives and neo-cons do... (There's not much of a
libertarian movement up here...)
But true liberals like big government, don't mind paying taxes if they
go towards the betterment of society, and are for issues like
medicare, pharmacare, daycare, welfare for people who can't find work,
the social safety net, etc.
>> Free trade is basically a right-wing big-business idea.
>I believe that both "liberal" as well as "Conservative" former trust fund
>kids support free trade, not just the right wingers. For example Ted (and
>therest) Kennedy (sponsor of deregulation)
Well like I said just because some "Democrats" accept the idea doesn't
mean all liberals accept it. I think true left-of-center liberals
would be skeptical... But it could be that some liberals could be
fooled because they believe it will bring third-world countries out of
poverty and create new markets which will create more wealth for
first-world nations and balance out any loss of jobs. (I believe that
could be true of the 'freer trade' model, which ensures worker
prosperity and the creation of new markets for first world
products...)
I guess it's like Ralph Nader says, that the major political parties
are largely influenced by corporate interests because of political
donations, so they will be inclined to represent the interests of
corporations over the interests of society.
Many environmental conditions could be seen to be improving. But the
emission of greenhouse gases is not one of them. And the poor
environmental conditions of third-world countries have nothing to do
with their overall contribution to the emissions of greenhouse gases.
The fact is it is the first-world nations, most predominately the
United States, that are responsible for most of the emissions. It's
also a fact, that many third-world nations have signed on to Kyoto, so
there will be no link between loss of US or Canadian manufacturing
jobs to third-world countries if greenhouse gases are reduced. There's
also the fact that there will be major consequences to future
generations if this problem isn't dealt with. We don't have the right
to make a big mess of the world's climate just to supposedly save a
few jobs - or make a quick and easy buck, which is the real coporate
agenda... Just because one can label this as just an 'environmental'
issue which is therefore, somehow, unimportant, and if you just ignore
it it will, somehow, go away, is completely unrealistic. This is a
deadly serious problem that has to be dealt with now, while it still
can be dealt with.
ws
Gene Douglas
"what church do you belong to," we have an answer. And if they say, what do
you believe, we start talking about tolerance of difference. They're not
likely to get all the way to "why, you're not one of those... those... Gasp!
Arrgghhh! Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhh......"
Gene Douglas
"Steven Botts" <sbo...@texas.net> wrote in message
news:ub2cnQ5V3o_...@texas.net...
> As far as Muslims are concerned, we have had them visit my church and
> speak to the congregation, where they were received in as civil and
> respectful manner. However, I'm not sure we would want to accept
practicing
> Muslims as members any more than we would want to accept
> practicing, Bible-believing Christians.
>
control. It's a matter of whether they accept us. That said, we don't need
to change ourselves to make sure that they do.
I remember a fellowship that had financial problems, and was considering
hiring a minister who could possibly increase our membership. Some said
they didn't want to increase the membership, because it would "dilute what
we stand for." Actually, they didn't stand for anything, and were more of a
social club than anything. Eventually they were virtually taken over by
Pagans, who caused humanists and the like to drift away. Would that be a
lot different from being taken over by Baptists, who just happen to attract
their friends in increasing numbers?
Still, there are Christian UU's, just as they were in the beginning. Some
consider Jesus to be a rabbi, some a prophet, some a deity. They don't
always stick around long, because the humanists among us seem to have
collective B.O. to their taste.
Gene Douglas
Our problem is our tolerance. We are made up of different kinds of people.
If we should start thinking that UU's are really humanists, or are really
agnostics or whatever, then we're putting ourself into a small pidgeonhole.
And no matter what we do, it will be different from what somebody would
prefer.
You know why UU's are such lousy singers, of course. We're so busy reading
ahead to see if we approve of the words, we aren't paying attention to the
music.
Gene Douglas
Middle East right now derives from the fact that Romans and ancient Greeks
were Pagans, and injected their idea of multiple gods into Christianity?
<gksh...@ucdavis.edu> wrote in message
news:ar6lon$p3k$1...@woodrow.ucdavis.edu...
Robin Edgar
> "Steven Botts" <sbo...@texas.net> wrote in message
> news:ub2cnQ5V3o_...@texas.net...
> > As far as Muslims are concerned, we have had them visit my church and
> > speak to the congregation, where they were received in as civil and
> > respectful manner. However, I'm not sure we would want to accept
> practicing
> > Muslims as members any more than we would want to accept
> > practicing, Bible-believing Christians.
> >
> But, we do. It's not a matter of whether we accept them. That's thought
> control. It's a matter of whether they accept us. That said, we don't need
> to change ourselves to make sure that they do.
>
> I remember a fellowship that had financial problems, and was considering
> hiring a minister who could possibly increase our membership. Some said
> they didn't want to increase the membership, because it would "dilute what
> we stand for." Actually, they didn't stand for anything, and were more of a
> social club than anything.
This is true of rather too many UU congregations...
> Eventually they were virtually taken over by
> Pagans, who caused humanists and the like to drift away.
According to German antifascist and antiracist groups the German
Unitarian community ( Deutsche Unitarier Religionsgemeinschaft eV )
was subverted by Nazi ideologues, including former SS officers,
following WWII. According to these antifascist groups the alleged Nazi
ideologues called themselves "humanists".
> Still, there are Christian UU's, just as they were in the beginning. Some
> consider Jesus to be a rabbi, some a prophet, some a deity. They don't
> always stick around long, because the humanists among us seem to have
> collective B.O. to their taste.
Actually UU "humanists", especially the intolerant fundamentalist
atheist variety, often go out of their way to make God believing
people feel remarkably unwelcome in UU "Welcoming Congregations"...
gksh...@ucdavis.edu
> Actually, it allows some of us to stay in the closet. When somebody asks,
> "what church do you belong to," we have an answer. And if they say, what do
> you believe, we start talking about tolerance of difference. They're not
> likely to get all the way to "why, you're not one of those... those... Gasp!
> Arrgghhh! Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhh......"
R i g h t o n ! This is IMHO exactly correct and is the true
reason why we continue to use Christian-sounding names (like church,
unitarian, universalist, sermon, pulpit, minister, pastor, hymn,
worship, congregation, fellowship, sanctuary, flower "communion"),
for things that in fact no longer have anything directly to do with
Jesus, God, or conventional Christianity.
In general, it works quite well, but then there are those unfortunate
exceptions when outsiders who don't quite "get" (or who are outraged
by) this polite fiction try to hold us to the letter of our protective
verbiage. (Robin, is this your shoe size?)
Greg Shenaut
PS. This was said much better (and much more honestly) than I have said
it here in the following document which I downloaded several years ago
from the Internet:
WHY I AM NOT A UNITARIAN UNIVERSALIST
by Larry Reyka, Humanist Chaplain
Humanist Society of Friends
===================================================================
INTRODUCTION:
This was my last sermon preached from a Unitatian Universalist
pulpit, it was delivered in 1985 or so at The First Unitatian
Universalist Church of Columbus (OH), and in it I share my, shall
we say, misgivings about the Unitarian Universalist movement.
Around that time is when I resigned from membership in that
church.
==================================================================
The reasons for NOT being Unitarian Universalist may be as diverse
as the reasons for coming here in the first place.
I've been told by a Unitarian Universalist minister acquaintance
of mine that the average "stay" within the Unitarian Universalist
church is about five years.
In that sense, it seems to me the church is like a train station,
a place to be between where you're leaving from and where you're
going to. This led me to a working title for my talk today,
UNITARIAN UNIVERSALISM, THE TRAIN STATION RELIGION, OR PARDON ME
BOY, IS THAT THE CHATTANOOGA U-U?
My personal stay as a MEMBER of the church was approximately two
years. My doubts began, in reality, about the time the ink was
drying on my name in the book, but it took me a number of
experiences, some of which I detailed in my sermon on my religious
odyssey, to realize that I am, in fact NOT a Unitarian
Universalist.
The historical roots of the Unitarian Universalist Church have
produced a religion with a unique flavor. The combination of
residual Christianity and disguised Humanism found in this
denomination is to be found nowhere else. The hospitality to
atheists as well as to believers in mysticism, flying saucers,
pyramid power and all manner of foolishness is amazing. You do
provide a church home for a lot of people who simply would be
without one otherwise. I am attracted to many things, and most of
the people here. Hence, my reason for still being about as a
FRIEND.
However, as a Humanist, I find certain aspects of Unitarian
Universalism to be frustrating. The principle of affirming no
creed is, I believe, less than forthright. Agreeing to disagree
is an appropriate principle for our pluralistic society as a
whole, but it is not appropriate for a religious community
dedicated to celebration and action as a community. Groups that
stand for everything stand for nothing or else they deceive.
The alliance of convenience between residual Christians and Closet
Humanists is inhibiting - to both groups. Neither theists nor
atheists may act boldly or creatively on their convictions out of
fear of offending the other. For Humanists, the result is a timid
humanism that spends more time keeping peace with the god
believers in the church than meeting their own needs as Humanists
and reaching out to other Humanists in the larger community.
The Unitarian Universalist Hymnal - a hymnal for both Protestants
and Atheists - is not a miracle; it's a disaster. This hymnal to
me is a symbol of the watered down religion so often offered in
the U-U church.
The willingness on the part of the Unitarian Universalist Church
to TOLERATE my Humanism is far from enough for me. My need is for
an organization that AFFIRMS my Humanism.
So, while I will remain a friend of the Unitarian Universalist
Church and of all of you, as long as you'll have me, I cannot for
reasons above consider myself a member of your congregation.
Robin Edgar
> Gene Douglas <gene...@prodigy.net> wrote (Thu, 28 Nov 2002 23:35:04 GMT):
> > Actually, it allows some of us to stay in the closet. When somebody asks,
> > "what church do you belong to," we have an answer.
I see... So, from the perspective of Gene Douglas and Greg Shenaut,
the Unitarian Universalist "church" is really only a convenient
"closet" for insecure closeted atheists. Why am I not surprised? In
fact I have often said that no self-respecting atheist would be caught
dead in something calling itself a "church" on a Sunday morning...
Evidently many closeted UU atheists are not the self-respecting
variety which tends to explain their deep insecurities that border on
outright paranoia... Which in turn manifests themselves in deep
suspicion, hostility, discrimination and harassment and outright
abusiveness towards God believing people including, but by no means
limited to bona fide monotheistic Unitarians and Universalists...
> > And if they say, what do
> > you believe, we start talking about tolerance of difference. They're not
> > likely to get all the way to "why, you're not one of those... those... Gasp!
> > Arrgghhh! Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhh......"
Indeed...
> R i g h t o n ! This is IMHO exactly correct and is the true
> reason why we continue to use Christian-sounding names (like church,
> unitarian, universalist, sermon, pulpit, minister, pastor, hymn,
> worship, congregation, fellowship, sanctuary, flower "communion"),
> for things that in fact no longer have anything directly to do with
> Jesus, God, or conventional Christianity.
Thanks for so frankly exposing the fact that my "CHURCH" OF FRAUD?
picket sign is entirely justified at least in terms of some UU
"churches" to say nothing of the Unitarian Universalist "church" as a
whole...
> In general, it works quite well, but then there are those unfortunate
> exceptions when outsiders who don't quite "get" (or who are outraged
> by) this polite fiction try to hold us to the letter of our protective
> verbiage. (Robin, is this your shoe size?)
What you call a "polite fiction" is in reality outright fraud in many
instances. Also many UU atheists are far from "polite" when it comes
to this "fiction" and their demeaning and abusive treatment of God
believing people. Many UU "Welcoming Congregations" are very
Unwelcoming places for God believing people of any kind and some are
even far from "Safe Congregations" hence my UNSAFE SECT ? picket sign.
> PS. This was said much better (and much more honestly) than I have said
> it here in the following document which I downloaded several years ago
> from the Internet:
Thanks for publicly admitting to your own dishonesty here. Regrettably
there are far to many dishonest UUs who clearly believe that virtually
every "covenant" of each purported principle and purpose of UUism is
but a "polite fiction"...
> WHY I AM NOT A UNITARIAN UNIVERSALIST
>
> by Larry Reyka, Humanist Chaplain
> Humanist Society of Friends
>
> ===================================================================
>
> INTRODUCTION:
>
> This was my last sermon preached from a Unitatian Universalist
> pulpit, it was delivered in 1985 or so at The First Unitatian
> Universalist Church of Columbus (OH), and in it I share my, shall
> we say, misgivings about the Unitarian Universalist movement.
> Around that time is when I resigned from membership in that
> church.
Three cheers for this Humanist's personal integrity. Would that many
more UU
closet atheist "humanists" who can't get along with God believing
people would follow his fine example...
> The reasons for NOT being Unitarian Universalist may be as diverse
> as the reasons for coming here in the first place.
>
> I've been told by a Unitarian Universalist minister acquaintance
> of mine that the average "stay" within the Unitarian Universalist
> church is about five years.
>
> In that sense, it seems to me the church is like a train station,
> a place to be between where you're leaving from and where you're
> going to. This led me to a working title for my talk today,
> UNITARIAN UNIVERSALISM, THE TRAIN STATION RELIGION, OR PARDON ME
> BOY, IS THAT THE CHATTANOOGA U-U?
>
> My personal stay as a MEMBER of the church was approximately two
> years. My doubts began, in reality, about the time the ink was
> drying on my name in the book, but it took me a number of
> experiences, some of which I detailed in my sermon on my religious
> odyssey, to realize that I am, in fact NOT a Unitarian
> Universalist.
Hurrah again. Would that more UU "humanists" entered into a genuinely
free and responsible search for the truth and meaning of the words
Unitarian and Universalist to say nothing of the principles and
purposes of contemporary UUism.
> The historical roots of the Unitarian Universalist Church have
> produced a religion with a unique flavor. The combination of
> residual Christianity and disguised Humanism found in this
> denomination is to be found nowhere else.
I do like that "disguised Humanism" referrence. In some cases there is
"disguised atheist intolerance and bigotry" to boot...
> The hospitality to atheists as well as to believers in mysticism, flying
> saucers, pyramid power and all manner of foolishness is amazing.
Hmmm... Is it possible that Larry is including atheism in "all manner
of foolishness"?
> You do provide a church home for a lot of people who simply would be
> without one otherwise.
True enough but it is often a far from welcoming or hospitable "church
home" to God believing Unitarians...
> I am attracted to many things, and most of the people here. Hence, my reason > for still being about as a FRIEND.
How sensible. Would that more Humanists came to UU "churches" as
FRIENDS and refrained from undermining to say nothing of harassing and
abusing God believing UUs.
> However, as a Humanist, I find certain aspects of Unitarian
> Universalism to be frustrating. The principle of affirming no
> creed is, I believe, less than forthright.
I agree. There are many more less than forthright "polite fictions" of
UUism as well...
> Agreeing to disagree is an appropriate principle for our pluralistic society > as a whole, but it is not appropriate for a religious community
> dedicated to celebration and action as a community.
I agree. Why do UUs suppose that God believing Unitarians of honesty
and integrity felt it necessary to start the American Unitarian
Conference?
> Groups that stand for everything stand for nothing or else they deceive.
Interestingly enough this parallels almost exactly the "creed" of the
founders of the AUC. Regrettably UUism does indeed "deceive" hence my
ongoing protest against UU deceptions and fraudulence...
> The alliance of convenience between residual Christians and Closet
> Humanists is inhibiting - to both groups.
Well said. Again this statement almost exactly parallels statements
made by the founders of the American Unitarian Conference.
> Neither theists nor atheists may act boldly or creatively on their
> convictions out of fear of offending the other.
Elementary my dear Larry! Actually there is considerable overlap where
atheists and theists may cooperate and act boldly or creatively on
their convictions together but regrettably many of the insecure
closeted "fundie" atheists who hide out in UU "churches" have a bad
habit of going out of their way to offend God believing people...
> For Humanists, the result is a timid humanism that spends more time keeping
> peace with the god believers in the church than meeting their own needs as
> Humanists and reaching out to other Humanists in the larger community.
Would that this was true of UU humanists. Regrettably many UU
humanists are far from "timid" and spent more time making war with God
believers in the church to say nothing of "outsiders"...
> The Unitarian Universalist Hymnal - a hymnal for both Protestants
> and Atheists - is not a miracle; it's a disaster.
Well it's not a miracle but it's not a disaster either. Some
individual hymns may qualify as disasters perhaps.
> This hymnal to me is a symbol of the watered down religion so often offered in
> the U-U church.
I cannot disagree.
> The willingness on the part of the Unitarian Universalist Church
> to TOLERATE my Humanism is far from enough for me. My need is for
> an organization that AFFIRMS my Humanism.
Aha! I do believe that there is just such an organization. It's called
the American Humanist Association... Would that more UU "humanists"
would join it and allow God believing Unitarians and Universalists to
live in peace in UU "churches"... Humanists would be most welcome as
genuine FRIENDS but I and other God believing UUs have had enough of
"humanists" enemies going out of their way to "ostrichize" us and
discourage our spiritual growth in flagrant disregard and wanton
violation of the purported principles and purposes of UUism.
> So, while I will remain a friend of the Unitarian Universalist
> Church and of all of you, as long as you'll have me, I cannot for
> reasons above consider myself a member of your congregation.
Bravo! Encore! Encore!
The more such honest Humanists of personal integrity and committent to
Truth with a capital 'T' the merrier many UU congregations will be for
those who do not consider UU principles and propaganda to be nothing
but a "polite fiction" to say nothing of outright fraud...
Steven Botts
--
to reply by e-mail insert a "t" between the first two letters of my address.
"Gene Douglas" <gene...@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:IKxF9.7014$6V3...@newssvr16.news.prodigy.com...
> Actually, it allows some of us to stay in the closet. When somebody asks,
> "what church do you belong to," we have an answer. And if they say, what
do
> you believe, we start talking about tolerance of difference. They're not
> likely to get all the way to "why, you're not one of those... those...
Gasp!
> Arrgghhh! Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhh......"
>
Besides, when we mention that place where we go on Sunday morning to sing
songs, hear speeches, and talk about stuff, it helps other people to get
some idea what we're talking about if we call it a church.
Steve
gksh...@ucdavis.edu
> What you call a "polite fiction" is in reality outright fraud in many
> instances.
Robin, in order to have fraud, you must have the intention to induce
someone to part with something of value or to surrender a legal
right. I think that the UU church is open about being "noncreedal"
and so on, and its Christian roots are undeniable. Therefore,
while these implications of lingering Christianity that we keep
around both for historical reasons as well as for protective cover
are fictional to some degree, the fact that it may sometimes fool
the gullible into taking it literally doesn't constitute fraud,
and from my point of view is far less fraudulent than an individual
or group seeking something of value for the glory of "god".
And, let's not forget that even the fictional suggestion that the
UU church is Christian is not completely fictional--around 20% of
UUs are Christian, and there are also plenty of Christian Unitarians
who are not members of the UUA (I don't know about non-UUA
Universalists, but it wouldn't surprise me if there were some of
them too). Speaking as a former Southern Baptist, I can let out
the little secret that the proportion of Baptists who are God-believing
Christians is close to, but somewhat less than, 100%. Therefore,
we are simply talking about a quantitative difference here--the
terminology used by a religious organization probably *never* agrees
100% with all of its members.
Furthermore, speaking for myself, I was an atheistic Southern
Baptist for pretty much the same reason I am an atheistic UU: at
the time, it seemed worth it to me to put up with the cognitive
dissonance in order to be a member of the group, in other words,
to facilitate religious intercourse. Larry Ryeka is in a different
place from me, both personality-wise and geographically; if I could
find a Humanist group who met regularly near where I live, I would
join them in a flash. If the UU group near where I live were more
humanistic/atheist, it would suit me better. If I had no need for
religious intercourse, I would stop self-identifying as a UU
Humanist. However, those things are not true, and so for the moment
I am glad that the UU church is available to me, in spite of the
rather insignificant (to me) element of hypocrisy involved.
In general, I think that you start getting on very shaky legal
ground when you start trying to apply "fraud" to any kind of religion
due to the overwhelmingly fictional nature of religion itself.
(You don't need to "prove" that it is fictional in any absolute
sense to accept this, you just need to compare what the various
religions have to say about *each other's* doctrines.)
Inconsistency in dogma or religious terminology alone, even if it
misleads, is never fraudulent. For example, if a UU individual
collected money to be spent on Africa AIDS victims under the "UU
Church's Mission to Africa" title, and if some people donated money
to them under the mistaken belief that since it was a church and
a mission that the organization was a Christian one, I deny that
any fraud could have occurred, as long as the money was indeed
spent on caring for African AIDS victims by a UU Church mission.
In fact, AFAIK fraud in the religious context *never* has been
found to occur in doctrinal matters, only in garden-variety ways,
such as collecting money for a special Christian missionary fund
and then spending it on a vacation in Florida for the minister and
his girlfriend.
So, while it may be theoretically possible for the use of Christian
terminology by UUs to be misleading to outsiders, and even for some
hypothetical nefarious individual to use it to swindle people, I
am aware of no instance where this kind of "outright fraud" has
actually taken place, and none of the examples you have cited
indicate otherwise.
Greg Shenaut
Robin Edgar
> Robin Edgar <robin...@altavista.com> wrote (29 Nov 2002 17:50:30 -0800):
> > What you call a "polite fiction" is in reality outright fraud in many
> > instances.
>
> Robin, in order to have fraud, you must have the intention to induce
> someone to part with something of value or to surrender a legal
> right.
Perhaps in the strictest legalistic sense of the word "fraud" but I am
using it in the commonly accepted broader sense that simply means
seriously misleading or outright false whether intentionally so or
not. In that all UU "churches" do induce people to part with their
money and other things of value to support the "church" the strict
legalistic sense of the word might well be applicable in some
particularly egregious cases of willful misrepresentation by UU
churches. A variety of claims made by individual UU churches and the
UUA, indeed far too many of them, can be shown to be quite fraudulent
in the broader sense of the word.
> I think that the UU church is open about being "noncreedal"
> and so on, and its Christian roots are undeniable. Therefore,
> while these implications of lingering Christianity that we keep
> around both for historical reasons as well as for protective cover
> are fictional to some degree,
What's with this "protective cover"? What's with closeted atheists, to
say nothing of intolerant "fundie" atheists hiding out in UU
"churches" and making life miserable for God believing people? What's
with the disturbing allegations of German anti-fascist groups that
Nazi ideologues subverted the German Unitarian community in order to
use it as a "protective cover" for their post-war activities?
> the fact that it may sometimes fool the gullible into taking it literally
> doesn't constitute fraud,
Yes it does in the broader commonly accepted definition of the word.
Believe me the general public know what I mean when I display my
"CHURCH" OF FRAUD picket sign... In any case the misrepresentation and
outright lies in UU propaganda are so pervasive that they don't just
"fool the gullible".
The Rev. William Sloane Coffin has a saying that applies all too well
to many UU "churches" to say nothing of much UUA propagnada, "So
you're disillusioned, Big deal. All that means is that were illusioned
in the first place."
> And, let's not forget that even the fictional suggestion that the
> UU church is Christian is not completely fictional--around 20% of
> UUs are Christian, and there are also plenty of Christian Unitarians
> who are not members of the UUA (I don't know about non-UUA
> Universalists, but it wouldn't surprise me if there were some of
> them too).
It's not unusual for liars to add the "protective cover" of truth to
their lies... Anyone who presents the contemporary UU religious
community as being a "Christian" "church" is a "fraud"... I guess that
would include former UUA President John Buehrens unless Rev. Ray
Drennan lied about him in one of his Sunday sermons.
> Speaking as a former Southern Baptist, I can let out
> the little secret that the proportion of Baptists who are God-believing
> Christians is close to, but somewhat less than, 100%.
I am perfectly aware of that. In fact I would say that the of
proportion of Christian clergy who are God-believing Christians is
somewhat less than, 100% possibly even significantly less. Such
closeted non-believers are "frauds" too... N'est-ce pas?
> Therefore,we are simply talking about a quantitative difference here--the
> terminology used by a religious organization probably *never* agrees
> 100% with all of its members.
No we are talking about a qualitative difference.
> Furthermore, speaking for myself, I was an atheistic Southern
> Baptist for pretty much the same reason I am an atheistic UU: at
> the time, it seemed worth it to me to put up with the cognitive
> dissonance in order to be a member of the group, in other words,
> to facilitate religious intercourse.
I don't have too many problems with UU humanists who genuinely want to
"facilitate religious intercourse" as you put it but rather too many
UU humanists go out of their way to debilitate religious intercourse
and actively discourage the spiritual growth of God believing UUs.
> Larry Ryeka is in a different
> place from me, both personality-wise and geographically;
And honesty and integrity wise...
> if I could find a Humanist group who met regularly near where I live,
> I would join them in a flash. If the UU group near where I live were
> more humanistic/atheist, it would suit me better.
Well it wouldn't suit God believing Unitarians and Universalists would
it, particularly if those atheists and humanists made a mockery of UU
principles?
> If I had no need for religious intercourse, I would stop self-identifying as > a UU Humanist. However, those things are not true, and so for the moment
> I am glad that the UU church is available to me, in spite of the
> rather insignificant (to me) element of hypocrisy involved.
Obviously the hypocrisy is far more significant in every sense of the
word to me and other God believing people who have seen "humanist" UUs
flagrantly disregard and wantonly violate virtually everything that
the purported principles and purposes of UUism and much other UU
publicity, propaganda, and official policies proclaim.
> In general, I think that you start getting on very shaky legal
> ground when you start trying to apply "fraud" to any kind of religion
> due to the overwhelmingly fictional nature of religion itself.
Religion is not nearly as fictional as you would like to believe. This
statements is somewhat symptomatic of the oh so superior condescension
and even outright hostility and contempt that many UU "humanists"
display towards religion.
> (You don't need to "prove" that it is fictional in any absolute
> sense to accept this, you just need to compare what the various
> religions have to say about *each other's* doctrines.)
Well based on what I have seen of UUism its purported principles and
purposes and much other propaganda etc. is of an "overwhelmingly
fictional nature"... You just need to compare what UUs say to what
thery actually do... Hence my "CHURCH OF FRAUD? picket sign. Actually
I will be removing the question mark since it is quite redundant.
> Inconsistency in dogma or religious terminology alone, even if it
> misleads, is never fraudulent.
I disagree but I am not talking about such inconsistencies. I am
talking about glaring inconsistencies between what UUs say and what
UUs actually do...
> For example, if a UU individual
> collected money to be spent on Africa AIDS victims under the "UU
> Church's Mission to Africa" title, and if some people donated money
> to them under the mistaken belief that since it was a church and
> a mission that the organization was a Christian one, I deny that
> any fraud could have occurred, as long as the money was indeed
> spent on caring for African AIDS victims by a UU Church mission.
I agree that little or no fraud in the legalistic sense occurred.
This is not the type of thing I am talking about. I am talking about
UUs abjectly failing and obstinately refusing to actually practice
what they preach. I am talking about very misleading UU publicity and
propaganda etc.
> In fact, AFAIK fraud in the religious context *never* has been
> found to occur in doctrinal matters,
Well there is a first time for everything... The UU religious
community could potentially be prosecuted for fraud and/or false and
misleading publicity if the law allowed for this. Maybe it does but I
am assuming that "churches" are protected from such prosecution or
litigation.
> only in garden-variety ways,
> such as collecting money for a special Christian missionary fund
> and then spending it on a vacation in Florida for the minister and
> his girlfriend.
I expect some UU ministers have done similar things or much worse that
would allow people to accuse them of fraud...
> So, while it may be theoretically possible for the use of Christian
> terminology by UUs to be misleading to outsiders,
I am not just talking about misleading use of Christian terminology. I
am talking about all kinds of other misleading and outright false
claims made by UU churches and the UUA in their publicity, propaganda,
and other policy statements etc.
> and even for some hypothetical nefarious individual to use it to swindle
> people, I am aware of no instance where this kind of "outright fraud" has
> actually taken place, and none of the examples you have cited
> indicate otherwise.
There are no shortage of examples of "outright fraud" on the part of
UUs that I could present here but having done so repeatedly here and
elsewhere I will provide just one glaring example -
UUs in general, and the Unitarian Church of Montreal in particular,
purport to affirm and promote "right of conscience" and to be opposed
to any censorship by state, church, or any other institution but most
UU listserves are heavily censored by so called "moderators". At this
moment I have been banned from ALL UUA sponsored listserves for
posting entirely legitimate criticism. Well above and beyong this the
Montreal UU community has engaged in all kinds of measures designed to
censor or suppress my right of conscience and my freedom of speech. I
was expelled for six months in late 1996 for doing nothing more than
submitting a letter of grievance to church. Montreal UUs have used
underhanded and highly questioable legal tactics to try to end my
protest campaign. They have even gone so far as to try to subvert my
constitutional right to protest by accusing me of "hate speech" and
"hate crime" and harassed the police into arresting me on dubious
public nuisance charges that almost certainly will not stand up in
court. On its web site the MUUQ purports to be opposed to any
censorship by state, church, or any other institution on this page -
http://www.uuqc.ca/libres_penseurs.html
but when I post truthful and accurate critiocism and dissent in the
MUUQ Discussion area it is repeatedly deleted as soon as the notice it
here -
http://www.uuqc.ca/discussion/discussion.html
Oops... It looks like they got rid of their discussion area all
together in order to prevent my critical posts for being seen at all.
In fact their is no longer a tab for a discussion area on any of the
other pages so it appears to be history. Behold the UU "memory hole"
in all its glory... I honestly just found out now when I tried to
access the discussion page. I was going to post some criticism just so
you could see it disappear into the MUUQ's memory hole but now their
discussion area seems to be but a memory itself...
gksh...@ucdavis.edu
> gksh...@ucdavis.edu wrote in message news:<asaqa0$jum$1...@woodrow.ucdavis.edu>...
>> someone to part with something of value or to surrender a legal
>> right.
> Perhaps in the strictest legalistic sense of the word "fraud" but I am
> using it in the commonly accepted broader sense that simply means
> seriously misleading or outright false whether intentionally so or
> not.
You evidently do not understand the difference between a "lie" (the
utterance of a false statement with intent to mislead) and "fraud"
(the attempt to mislead *for the purpose of swindling someone out
of something of value*). I don't know what linguistic community
you hang out with, but to me and those I speak English with, this
isn't the "strictest legalistic" sense of "fraud", but the
straightforward, common, everyday use of the word. If it were as
you say, then "fraud" and "lie" would be synonyms, and they clearly
are not.
I don't think that calling a UU meeting house a church is either
a lie or a fraud, and the same goes for their various doctrinal
statements, but if things can be partially a lie or partially
fraudulent, then I would argue that it is much less a fraud than
it is a lie. This is because while there might be an element of
misleading going on (this is the protective cover/polite fiction
business), there is never any attempt to swindle anyone out of
anything that I have ever heard of.
Robin, with respect to the meaning of the word "fraud" and your
application of it in harrassing UUs, don't you have to agree that
under your rules, the use of the word "fraud" on your sign in a
deliberately sloppy and misleading manner is in itself fraudulent?
That is, if someone who was not a UU and didn't know you drove by the
UU church and saw your sign accusing UUs of fraud, don't you agree
that they would probably interpret it under the standard definition
of fraud, of swindling someone out of something of value?
Now, as I said before, *I* don't think that fraud is the correct
word to describe your harrassment activities, but the word "libel"
does seem to fit the situation fairly well.
I recommend that you change your sign to say "This UU church doesn't
follow UU doctrines", "UUs are hypocrits", or even "The UUA isn't
a Christian church", simply for the sake of precision.
Greg Shenaut
BluueNikki
> Oops... It looks like they got rid of their discussion area all
> together in order to prevent my critical posts for being seen at all.
Robin, an idea (if you have not thought of it already) I have about
losing articles like you wrote for other discussion forums, is to save
them on disk, or save URLs to that website, etc., and hell, even PRINT
them out. Another idea is to actually go to the website, save that on
disk, that way you have the headers/dates/who/where info, like ARUU
has the headers info above. :-)
I printed out most of my articles that I wrote over the years recently
cuz I knew I might wanna show them to my friends who might be
interested.
Nikki
Who knows that some UUs may hate her for posting this idea to Robin,
but gives a Vulcan blessing instead to them: \\//,
Robin Edgar
> Robin Edgar <robin...@altavista.com> wrote (30 Nov 2002 19:02:29 -0800):
> > gksh...@ucdavis.edu wrote in message news:<asaqa0$jum$1...@woodrow.ucdavis.edu>...
> >> Robin, in order to have fraud, you must have the intention to induce
> >> someone to part with something of value or to surrender a legal
> >> right.
>
> > Perhaps in the strictest legalistic sense of the word "fraud" but I am
> > using it in the commonly accepted broader sense that simply means
> > seriously misleading or outright false whether intentionally so or
> > not.
>
> You evidently do not understand the difference between a "lie" (the
> utterance of a false statement with intent to mislead) and "fraud"
> (the attempt to mislead *for the purpose of swindling someone out
> of something of value*).
You evidently do not understand the plain English of my post. Did you
bother to consult a dictionary before posting this response?
Here is how the Merriam Webster Online Dictionary defines the word
"fraud" -
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary
2 entries found for fraud.
To select an entry, click on it.
fraudwire fraud
Main Entry: fraud
Pronunciation: 'frod
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English fraude, from Middle French, from Latin
fraud-, fraus
Date: 14th century
1 a : DECEIT, TRICKERY; specifically : intentional perversion of truth
in order to induce another to part with something of value or to
surrender a legal right b : an act of deceiving or misrepresenting :
TRICK
2 a : a person who is not what he or she pretends to be : IMPOSTOR;
also : one who defrauds : CHEAT b : one that is not what it seems or
is represented to be
synonym see DECEPTION, IMPOSTURE
As you can see my use of the word "fraud" is arguably legitimate even
in terms of definition 1 a in that the deceit and trickery of UU
"churches" is an intentional perversion of the truth in order to
induce "gullible" others into parting with there money to say nothing
of their time and other things of value... In any case my use of the
word "fraud" is 100% legitimate in terms of definition 1 b. The
Unitarian "Church" of Montreal to say nothing of other UU "churches"
and the UUA itself does in fact engage in a variety of acts of
deception and misrepresentation. In terms of definition 2 a The
Unitarian "Church" of Montreal, to say nothing of other UU "churches"
and the UUA itself, is not what it pretends to be. It is clearly
guilty of deception and imposture.
> I don't know what linguistic community you hang out with, but to me and those > I speak English with, this isn't the "strictest legalistic" sense of "fraud", > but the straightforward, common, everyday use of the word. If it were as
> you say, then "fraud" and "lie" would be synonyms, and they clearly
> are not.
Read the dictionary definitions quoted above and weep...
> I don't think that calling a UU meeting house a church is either
> a lie or a fraud, and the same goes for their various doctrinal
> statements, but if things can be partially a lie or partially
> fraudulent, then I would argue that it is much less a fraud than
> it is a lie.
I see so you would have no problem with me picketing with a sign
saying "CHURCH" OF THE BIG LIE or "CHURCH" OF THE LYING LIPS...
You are remarkably disingenuous. You are a living example of how many
UUs cynically twist the truth and outright lie to suit their purposes.
In any case the "fraud" of the Unitarian "Church" of Montreal and the
greater UU religious community goes well beyond simply calling UU
meeting houses "churches" and various "doctrinal statements" as you
put it.
> This is because while there might be an element of
> misleading going on (this is the protective cover/polite fiction
> business), there is never any attempt to swindle anyone out of
> anything that I have ever heard of.
I and other God believing people have made donations to UU "churches"
on the basis of believing that they would actually live up to their
purported principles and purposes, empty propaganda, and various
policy statements etc. I hand other God believing people have been
swindled by outrageously hypocritical UUs who make no effort to
practice what they preach and go out of their way to flagrantly
disregard and wantonly violate the purported principles and purposes
of UUism etc.
> Robin, with respect to the meaning of the word "fraud" and your
> application of it in harrassing UUs, don't you have to agree that
> under your rules, the use of the word "fraud" on your sign in a
> deliberately sloppy and misleading manner is in itself fraudulent?
No I do not agree at all. My use of the word "fraud" on my picket
sign(s) is not "deliberately sloppy and misleading" at all. It is
deliberately truthful and accurate and deliberately plays of the
phrase "Church of God"... Unlike you I consulted a dictionary and gave
considerable thought to the justification of using the word "fraud" on
my picket signs before actually making use of it...
> That is, if someone who was not a UU and didn't know you drove by the
> UU church and saw your sign accusing UUs of fraud, don't you agree
> that they would probably interpret it under the standard definition
> of fraud, of swindling someone out of something of value?
No I don't, but even if they did interpret the word "fraud" this way
my use of it is still quite justified. In any case most people
probably understand that my picket sign saying "CHURCH" OF FRAUD
simply means a "church" that is guilty of some kind of deception
and/or misrepresentation and is a "church" that is not what it
pretends to be... The general public love this picket sign because
they know full well that it is applicable to any number of other
churches.
> Now, as I said before, *I* don't think that fraud is the correct
> word to describe your harrassment activities, but the word "libel"
> does seem to fit the situation fairly well.
Not at all. I challenge the Unitarian Church of Montreal to sue mne
for libel. I would love to go to court and show how my picketr sign
slogans are by no means libelous. In fact I am in the process of
demonstrating that they are not libelous in terms of my criminal trial
on highly questionable "public nuisance" charges that the Unitarian
"Church" of Montreal brought against me in a cynical effort to
suppress my freedom of conscience and freedom of expression.
> I recommend that you change your sign to say "This UU church doesn't
> follow UU doctrines", "UUs are hypocrits", or even "The UUA isn't
> a Christian church", simply for the sake of precision.
Sorry Gebe I am not the least bit worried about a libel suit. My
response to UUs is "Go ahead. Make my day..." My "CHURCH" OF FRAUD
picket sign stays and UUs may well see it displayed at next year's UUA
GA in Boston if what UUA President Bill Sinkford has described as my
"obviously deep concerns" are not responsibly addressed by UUs. UUs
must refrain from their fraudulent practices either by changing their
behavior so that it is clearly in line with what they so misleadingly
and deceptively, to say nothing of outrageously hypocritically,
"preach" or by refraining from making deceptive and misleading
statements and pretending to be something that they quite evidently
are not...
BTW In terms of your suggested picket sign slogans I have already
displayed picket signs saying -
A "CHURCH" WHERE HYPOCRISY IS THE MAIN (or BEST) POLICY (soon to be
revived)
UU WORLD OF ANTI-CHRISTIAN BIGOTRY
(this one was displayed today and at the UUA GA in Quebec City it
refers to the March/April UU World magazine and the anti-Christian
intolerance and bigotry that may be found throughout the "world" of
UUism...)
A "CHURCH" THAT WON'T WALK WHAT IT TALKS
Sincerely,
Robin Edgar
gksh...@ucdavis.edu
> http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary
Dictionaries legitimize nothing. There is no source of legitimacy
for the English language, people just use the language and other
people make dictionaries to record how words get used. Finding an
entry in a dictionary means that the dictionary maker found a text
where someone used the word that way.
I am saying that in its literal, conventional meaning (and definitely
in its legal meaning), "fraud" refers to a kind of theft where
misrepresentation is used to get the victim to hand over something
of value. The dictionary definition you reproduced certainly is
centered on that interpretation. It also reflects that a later,
less precise usage has been attested, but so what? My Webster's
Collegiate includes "something very difficult or dangerous" and
"something outrageous or blameworthy" as alternate meanings of the
word "murder": does this mean that you can have a sign saying "The
Unitarian Church of Montréal is a pack of murderers" (meaning its
members are "outrageous and blameworthy") without committing libel?
Nonsense. In fact, it is you who are "murdering" the English
language with your "fraudulent" displays.
Greg Shenaut
Gene Douglas
<gksh...@ucdavis.edu> wrote in message
news:asaqa0$jum$1...@woodrow.ucdavis.edu...
There's a Baptist seminary in Fort Worth that occasionally gets newspaper
publicity when the liberals and conservatives there get to fighting, and
especially if somebody there gets fired. Some Baptists, including
ministers, don't believe in the divinity of Jesus. Or they may see him as a
prophet or in some other light. However, any Baptist minister who would
come out and say something like that would find himself unemployed.
>
> Furthermore, speaking for myself, I was an atheistic Southern
> Baptist for pretty much the same reason I am an atheistic UU: at
> the time, it seemed worth it to me to put up with the cognitive
> dissonance in order to be a member of the group, in other words,
> to facilitate religious intercourse. Larry Ryeka is in a different
> place from me, both personality-wise and geographically; if I could
> find a Humanist group who met regularly near where I live, I would
> join them in a flash. If the UU group near where I live were more
> humanistic/atheist, it would suit me better. If I had no need for
> religious intercourse, I would stop self-identifying as a UU
> Humanist. However, those things are not true, and so for the moment
> I am glad that the UU church is available to me, in spite of the
> rather insignificant (to me) element of hypocrisy involved.
Well, there's one UU fellowship that's been pretty well taken over by
Pagans. As a Humanist myself, I was dismayed by this, but my solution was
to move to another congregation.
Anybody who hangs around a UU church for very long becomes aware of the
attitudes of the people who are there.
> Greg Shenaut
Gene Douglas
Sunday, there are adults and young children, but practically no teenagers.
I have been in five UU congregations, and in all, gays were a very small
minority. Persons who were not gay however, spoke up in defense of their
rights as citizens, the same as they would for racial minorities.
"Ted Lechman" <lec...@adelphia.net> wrote in message
news:e8CA9.20027$6g.54...@news1.news.adelphia.net...
> Independant of the offical "theology" of UU, there is the "feel" of the
> place. My observation about the "feel" of UU is as follows:
> 1. There ar every few "whole" families that belong- by that I mean a
> traditional mother-father-children type families, where both the mother
and
> father are both the bilological parents of the children.
> 2. More typical is either single divorcees, divorced couples with merged
> families, and gay singles and couples. Most are pretty well educated and
> very liberal. No working class people.
"No" is an exaggeration. But there are fewer than elsewhere.
> 3. The Sunday services consists of two parts; the service officiated by
the
> minister, and the informal get together after the service.
> 4. The service consists of the sermon by the minister, and the open forum
> where the attendees can comment on the services or other issues. The open
> forum during the service, in my opinion, is the glory of the UU services.
> 5. *** Caution ***: (the following observation will offend most UU'ers.
> Those with senitive dispositions should skip this point): The UU church's
> primary "constituency" is to gay members. Gay culture is very explicit and
> made equal to traditional lifestyles in both culture and ceremony. For
> example, in one church I attended, on Valentine day service, there where
two
> pictures on the "altar" representing the Valentines Spirit, one was a
> traditional image of heterosexual love and the other was a homosexual
image
> of love. The minister felt the need to make this distinction. And this one
> was in a more "conservative" UU congregation. In a more "liberal"
> congregation, I was accosted by a lesbian after the service and accused of
> being too "butch" (i'm a heterosexual male).
So, do you think you could at least wear something more colorful?
My own personal inclination is
> to downplay the difference between "straits" and "gays" rather then
> emphasize the difference - yes, because I find ones sexual preference to
be
> both irrelevant and unimportant, rather then the focus of once exisitance.
> However the UU church places tremendous emphesis and window dressing on
gay
> issues and culture that practically makes the UU church a (the) gay
church.
> 6. If you are single, highly intelligent, and hurting (for what ever
reason)
> you will find the UU's receptive, open and will readily accept you into
the
> core of their activities, which they have many. You will also be able to
> explore various aspects of religious experience within UU.
Also, if you're married. I believe most are.
> 7. UU's are fairly hard and dogmatically (new)left, politically. Like most
> new left liberals, they aren't interested in working class issues. Their
> prime interest is in a. gay rights, b. abortion rights, c. other womens
> issues and d. anti-American diplomacy and pro-leftist/Islamist regimes.
They're interested in working class issues, but mostly, issues of poverty.
I think it depends on what is brought to one's attention. Sometimes one has
to strain to keep it from being more like a democratic political rally.
Still, one soft pedals when there are also say, wealthier people in the
congregation too, whose complaint is what they believe are high taxes on
themselves, and disproportionately small for others.
If
> you have conscience issues with the abortion maybe being a form of
killing,
> or feel that perhaps the Boy Scouts have a right to protect the boys under
> their care as best they see fit, or feel that marxists and islamists are
as
> demented and unscientific as any other fundamentalist religious group,
then
> you will feel very unconfortable. However, you will probably find this a
> minor issue.
>
You will of course have the right to express your view, and it will be
respected.
> I hope you don;t interpret this is being Anti-UU, actually I find it
> probably the best religious congregation I've found anywhere.
>
> These are my observations after years of attending three different Uu
> congregations. I will not respond to any criticism of my remarks because
the
> above are not theories just honest personal observations, colored only by
> what I see and hear, independant of the doctrine or philosophy.
>
> Ted
>
> "Elmer Bataitis" <nyli...@frontiernet.net> wrote in message
> news:3DD259FD...@frontiernet.net...
> > Robin Edgar wrote:
> > > "Shouting Tree" <shouti...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:<EdCy9.2927$UA4.2...@news.alltel.net>
> >
> > > > How does it apply to every day life?
> >
> > > You need only read my new "Just Shoot Me Thread" to see a pertinent
> > > answer to that question... Run a search on the phrases "Unitarian
> > > Church of Montreal" and "Ministerial Fellowship Committee" to see how
> > > poorly some UUs apply their claimed ideals and principles in every day
> > > life.
> >
> > So? Islam's supposed to be a "religion of peace" and lots of adherents
> > are killing enormous numbers of people in its name.
> >
> > Are you shocked that people claim ideals and principles and then don't
> > live up to them?? Sheest! Welcome to reality!
> >
> > ***************************************************************
> > Elmer Bataitis "Hot dog! Smooch city here I come!"
> > Planetech Services -Hobbes
> > 585-442-2884
> > "...proudly wearing and displaying, as a badge of honor, the
> > straight jacket of conventional thought."
> > ***************************************************************
>
>
Gene Douglas
> then on my point. Let me make my point more clear.
>
> Both "Liberals" and "Conservative" have completely abandoned
"working-class"
> concerns. The Conservatives principally interested in reducing taxes and
> government regulation over business. The Liberals are primarily interested
> in Race and Gender issues. Both parties use sexually charged issues to
> maintain the psychological loyalty of their partisans.
>
>
>
> The most important concern of the working class are Their Families and
their
> families integrity and survival. Period. Everything else is secondary.
> Working class people usually have jobs that they do not feel defines them
> fully. For example, GM factory workers like their pay and benefits, but
don'
> t think of themselves primarily as "Mill Rats" but as "family men", etc,
> whose primary concern is not their production supervisors but their
> families.
>
>
>
> This contrasts sharply with college professors and other professinals
whose
> jobs define then, and who don't have the sense of sacrificing themselve in
> their work for the benefit of their families.
You'd be surprised at the professionals who find themselves buried in
paperwork or menial tasks, having much lower salaries than they might have
expected, or caught up in office politics and petty backstabbing, which
makes their vocational lives miserable.
>
>
>
> Therefore, those things that liberals typically espouse are those things
> that working people feel are against their interests. Examples of such
> Liberal anti-working people positions are anti-patriarchialist feminism
(the
> notion of the traditional family as oppressive), gay liberation, free
trade
> (moving jobs first to Mexico because of low wages, and now finally to
China
> because of even lower wages together with social controls of the
> authoritative Communist Party), and environmentalism without concern for
the
> effected displaced workers.
>
All of those things are of great interest to UU's, and often discussed.
>
>
> As such, both parties work to reduce salaries, wages, benefits and job
> security, but by scaring working people away from their economic interests
> in different ways.
>
Parties, yes. UU's, no.
>
>
> The conservatives by taking the "pro-family" position and scaring working
> people to accept corporate economic terms in exchange for socially
> conservative "pro-family" talk.
>
Today I saw a UU with a bumper sticker reading, "Hatred is NOT a family
value."
>
>
> The liberals by taking people's focus away from their economic interests
and
> instead making them focus on irrelevant sectarian issues, such as race,
> sexual orientation, gender and "choice". So while liberals have succeeded
in
> making "progress" in these issues, they have allowed wages to slip and the
> manufacturing base of the working class to go oversees.
>
I am sometimes put out by fellowships caught up in "nuts and bolts" issues.
I believe there should be a way any issue can be shown -- at the time it is
expressed in church -- to be related to purpose, philosophy, decency and
idealism. If it is simply a matter of whether the dockworkers win or the
company wins, that's not an appropriate topic for discussion until the above
elements are shown.
>
>
Gene Douglas
> > Secondly, free trade is not a liberal position, although freer trade
> > is.
> >
>
> I believe that free trade is a "libertarian" issue. Although there is some
> difference between the notions of "Libertarian" and "Liberal", currently
> they seem to be the same to me, with the exception of "school choice".
Actually, Libertarians are closer to conservatives (read Walter Williams'
column.) In fact, they're a bit like the 1960's expressions of Goldwater,
challenging not only current issues, but even the philosophical
underpinnings to any common position.
>
Steve Caldwell
robin...@altavista.com (Robin Edgar) wrote:
-snip-
> Aha! I do believe that there is just such an organization. It's called
> the American Humanist Association... Would that more UU "humanists"
> would join it and allow God believing Unitarians and Universalists to
> live in peace in UU "churches"... Humanists would be most welcome as
> genuine FRIENDS but I and other God believing UUs have had enough of
> "humanists" enemies going out of their way to "ostrichize" us and
> discourage our spiritual growth in flagrant disregard and wanton
> violation of the purported principles and purposes of UUism.
Robin,
Within the North American UU movement (both UUA and CUC), there's a
wide range of UU practice. In the Southwest District and especially
within my congregation, people who are humanist, atheist, non-theist, and
agnostic are treated less comfortably than those who routinely use "god"
language in the pulpit. My 15 year old daughter (who's primary exposure
to UUism has been our congregation and not district or continental YRUU)
thought that UUism was a form of Christianity. Maybe you should leave
Montreal for another UU congregation in North America?
Robin Edgar
> Robin Edgar wrote in message:
>
> > Oops... It looks like they got rid of their discussion area all
> > together in order to prevent my critical posts for being seen at all.
>
> Robin, an idea (if you have not thought of it already) I have about
> losing articles like you wrote for other discussion forums, is to save
> them on disk, or save URLs to that website, etc., and hell, even PRINT
> them out. Another idea is to actually go to the website, save that on
> disk, that way you have the headers/dates/who/where info, like ARUU
> has the headers info above. :-)
Been there. Done that... ;-)
Don't worry I save most of my posts to my hard drive just in case they
are deleted. In fact I posted the identical content of what I posted
to the MUUQ French language web site right here in ARUU and in the
CFUU forum a while back... It's really hilarious how the "church"
claims to be opposed to censorship but not only repeatedly deletes my
"challenge and critique" on their "discussion" page but finally get
rid of the "discussion" page altogether when I refuse to stop
reposting my criticism after they delete it...
> I printed out most of my articles that I wrote over the years recently
> cuz I knew I might wanna show them to my friends who might be
> interested.
The one's that I think are most interesting usually get spread around
a bit on the internet. Actually I think this very revealing ARUU
thread is going to be shared around a bit... I love how Greg say UU
principles etc. aren't "fraud" but only "lies"... ;-)
> Nikki
> Who knows that some UUs may hate her for posting this idea to Robin,
> but gives a Vulcan blessing instead to them: \\//,
Don't worry Nikki that idea is pretty much a no brainer and whatever
other UUs may think of me I am sure they have figured out by now that
I do have a brain...
Robin Edgar
And I am saying that even by that present day "literal, conventional
meaning (and definitely its legal meaning)" I can rightly describe the
Unitarian Church of Montreal, to say nothing of the greater UU
"religious community" as a "CHURCH" OF FRAUD.
> It also reflects that a later, less precise usage has been attested, but so
> what?
So what? So the less precise usage that everyone is very familiar with
more than justifies my "CHURCH" OF FRAUD picket sign slogan. That's
what. The public have a very good idea of what it means even if they
don't know the specifics of why I am displaying it in front of the
Unitarian "Church" of Montreal. They know very well that I could
justifiably display it in front of any number of other churches, UU or
otherwise...
> My Webster's
> Collegiate includes "something very difficult or dangerous" and
> "something outrageous or blameworthy" as alternate meanings of the
> word "murder": does this mean that you can have a sign saying "The
> Unitarian Church of Montréal is a pack of murderers" (meaning its
> members are "outrageous and blameworthy") without committing libel?
Yup... If I enclosed the word "murderers" within quotation marks to
indicate that I was using it euphemistically and had some good reason
to use it euphestically I could display such a picket sign slogan
without committing libel. I remind you that in spite of the fcat that
some UUs have described my picket signs slogans as "slanderous" or
"libelous" that UUs have never sued for slander or libel. Why? Because
they know perfectly well that my picket signs are not in fact
slanderous and libelous and that I can easily defend these slogans in
a court of law. What is of a slanderous nature is the labeling of
Creation Day as a "cult" and the repeated unjustified pathologizing of
me by various UUs. Regrettably the "cult" allegation was never made in
a public forum so technically it is not slander. I could take action
on the repeated pathologizing of me and this does constitute part of
my complaint with the Quebec Human Rights Commission that is now
investigating Rev. Ray Drennan and the Unitarian Church of Montreal.
> Nonsense. In fact, it is you who are "murdering" the English
> language with your "fraudulent" displays.
Not at all. I am confident that George Orwell would agree that my use
of the English language is quite acceptable. My displays are not
"fraudulent" at all. They are all supported by plenty of evidence or
reliable testominoy from myself or other people. I would have no
trouble defending my slogans an any libel suit hence there IS no libel
suit against me not is there likely to be one any time soon... I
strongly suggest that you read George Orwell's essay 'Politics of the
English Language' linked below.
http://www.resort.com/~prime8/Orwell/patee.html
If anyone is "murdering" the English language with "fraudulent"
publicity and propaganda etc. it is the "Unitarian" "Universaist"
"church"... I am confident that George Orwell would agree with me that
your own "political langauge" and much of the "religious language" of
the Unitarian "Church" of Montreal and the greater UU "religious
community" is as he put is - "designed to make lies sound truthful and
murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure
wind."
Sincerely,
Robin Edgar
Robin Edgar
> > terminology by UUs to be misleading to outsiders, and even for some
> > hypothetical nefarious individual to use it to swindle people, I
> > am aware of no instance where this kind of "outright fraud" has
> > actually taken place, and none of the examples you have cited
> > indicate otherwise.
> >
> Anybody who hangs around a UU church for very long becomes aware of the
> attitudes of the people who are there.
Anyone who hangs around a fraud artist for a very long eventually
becomes aware of his or her "attitudes"... Has it ever occurred to you
and other UUs that one of the main reasons a whole lot of people DO
NOT hang around UU "churches" for very long is because they quite
rapidly see through the "polite fictions" aka "lies" and outright
"fraud" of the purported principles purposes of UUism and the
misleading and outright "fraudulent" publicity and propaganda etc.?
Robin Edgar
> In article <9186418c.02112...@posting.google.com>,
> robin...@altavista.com (Robin Edgar) wrote:
>
> -snip-
> > Aha! I do believe that there is just such an organization. It's called
> > the American Humanist Association... Would that more UU "humanists"
> > would join it and allow God believing Unitarians and Universalists to
> > live in peace in UU "churches"... Humanists would be most welcome as
> > genuine FRIENDS but I and other God believing UUs have had enough of
> > "humanists" enemies going out of their way to "ostrichize" us and
> > discourage our spiritual growth in flagrant disregard and wanton
> > violation of the purported principles and purposes of UUism.
>
> Robin,
> Within the North American UU movement (both UUA and CUC), there's a
> wide range of UU practice. In the Southwest District and especially
> within my congregation, people who are humanist, atheist, non-theist, and
> agnostic are treated less comfortably than those who routinely use "god"
> language in the pulpit. My 15 year old daughter (who's primary exposure
> to UUism has been our congregation and not district or continental YRUU)
> thought that UUism was a form of Christianity. Maybe you should leave
> Montreal for another UU congregation in North America?
>
> Take care,
> Steve
Why should I, or any other person, have to move to another city or
worse another state or province, to find a UU "church" that does not
flagrantly disregard and wantonly violate the purported principles and
purposes? These "covenants" are very clearly stated, as are other UU
policies and bylaws etc. UUs simply need to responsibly enforce their
own existing rules to ensure that ALL UU congegations are both
"Welcoming" and "Safe" to God believing UUs. As far as I am concerned
UU "churches" that abjectly fail or obstinately refuse to live up to
these "covenants" should be removed from the Association if they don't
change their ways. Similarly the UUA's Ministerial Fellowship
Committee has to responsibly deal with my own and other UUs'
complaints about abusive clergy misconduct and hold UU ministers who
violate UU principles and the UUMA Guidelines and Code of Professional
Practice fully accountable for their abuse of ministry.
wandering star
wrote:
>And I am saying that even by that present day "literal, conventional
>meaning (and definitely its legal meaning)" I can rightly describe the
>Unitarian Church of Montreal, to say nothing of the greater UU
>"religious community" as a "CHURCH" OF FRAUD.
Just because you aren't getting sued for libel doesn't mean you can
rightly describe the Unitarian Church of Montreal or the greater UU
religious community as a "Church of Fraud."
Frankly, many people just see you as a crackpot and don't want to
bother with it.
And what's the big deal anyways?? That a few people in the Montreal
Unitarian Church didn't buy your divine revelation?? So what? "Screw
them"... None of the people in Jesus' hometown thought He was anything
special... You'd obviously be a lot better off devoting your manic
energy to exploring the theology of Creation Day rather than uselessly
butting heads with people who aren't interested... The fact is every
new religion faces persecution when it first emerges... And the
persecution you faced is definitely on the lower end of the scale...
What are your plans for the future? You've already been protesting for
4 years, with your protest signs becoming more and more accusatory.
Are you going to be out there 20 years from now with a sign that says
"Church of the baby-sacrificing satanic fiends!!!"?
If ever there was a case of Captain Ahab and the White Whale, this is
it...
BluueNikki
> Maybe you should leave
> Montreal for another UU congregation in North America?
Yo, Steve........I can perfectly understand and relate to Robin's
answer to this. I would have found this to be a tad offensive.
How about this for a taste:
1) Atheist, if you don't like this UU church, GO SOMEWHERE ELSE!
2) Pagan, if you don't like this UU church, quit yer whining and go
someplace else!
3) Humanist, if you don't like how we do things in our church, then
quit your moaning and join the Humanist Assoication!
4) Agnostic, if you don't like the term "god", then freakin' go
someplace else.
In fact, Steve C., I *do* find being told to go someplace else a tad
offensive, so I can relate to how Robin responded. What you just said
above is what I call "UU Snobbery". I have done this before,
unfortunately, and I desire NOT to do that anymore. I have seen it
here, at SRUU, and at UUA.org again and again. I fear I will continue
to see it repeatedly. How about saying this for a change:
Friend, you don't like how we do things in our church? May I ask what
the certain things are? May I ask why? [Then LISTEN to friend share
hisher discomforts] Hmm, some ideas, Friend: you could start a group
here, or reasonably work on effecting change within our church, or ask
us how we can help you adjust; find other outlets here or create
something within the church that you will enjoy.
Rather long-winded, but better than being subjected to the UU
Snobbery. *shrugs*
Nikki
gksh...@ucdavis.edu
> srca...@iamerica.net (Steve Caldwell) wrote in message:
>> Maybe you should leave
>> Montreal for another UU congregation in North America?
> Yo, Steve........I can perfectly understand and relate to Robin's
> answer to this. I would have found this to be a tad offensive.
> How about this for a taste:
> 1) Atheist, if you don't like this UU church, GO SOMEWHERE ELSE!
> 2) Pagan, if you don't like this UU church, quit yer whining and go
> someplace else!
> 3) Humanist, if you don't like how we do things in our church, then
> quit your moaning and join the Humanist Assoication!
> 4) Agnostic, if you don't like the term "god", then freakin' go
> someplace else.
That's a good point, but really, no church could possibly please
all comers. A centrally-based hierarchy such as Catholic or many
Protestant churches can try to keep a constant set of attitudes in
all of the member churches, but UUism (and several other churches)
has always been decentralized, with each individual congregation
making those determinations. UU churches are united in a loose
confederation, where there is majority (but never complete) agreement
on a set of more or less general principals and on another set of
more specific positions on particular issues. But in GA votes,
unanimity is rare, and even on a unanimous vote, individual UU
churches--not to mention UU individuals--retain the right to disagree
without jeopardizing their status as members/affiliates.
So, there really is truth in the admonition to seek out a UU church
more to your liking if your current one pleases you not.
Obviously, the flip side is that this is not often practical or
even possible, but what could possibly be done in this case? The
individual church has the absolute right within the UUA to make
its own doctrinal and policy decisions. If one church veered too
sharply away from the pack of other UU churches, then there could
be a parting of ways, but surely this is a rare event(?)
For me, I continue to identify myself with my local UU church even
though it is not fully consistent with my personal beliefs, but
there are fellow local members with whom I have common ground on
many if not most issues, and the nearest humanist meetings are too
far away for convenience. Also, my family has received value from
our participation in some of the RE classes. Like many other areas
of life, it is a compromise.
Greg Shenaut
BluueNikki
I think we both have very valid points. Thanks for bringing this up.
*a light glare at Steve C.* ;-)
Nikki
Robin Edgar
> On 2 Dec 2002 08:18:23 -0800, robin...@altavista.com (Robin Edgar)
> wrote:
>
> >And I am saying that even by that present day "literal, conventional
> >meaning (and definitely its legal meaning)" I can rightly describe the
> >Unitarian Church of Montreal, to say nothing of the greater UU
> >"religious community" as a "CHURCH" OF FRAUD.
>
> Just because you aren't getting sued for libel doesn't mean you can
> rightly describe the Unitarian Church of Montreal or the greater UU
> religious community as a "Church of Fraud."
Hi Wandering Star,
I somehow missed your post. I agree in principle that just because I
am not "getting sued for libel" doesn't mean that I can rightly
describe the Unitarian Church of Montreal or the greater UU religious
community as a "Church of Fraud." Regrettably however I very
justifiably CAN "rightly describe" the Unitarian Church of Montreal as
a "CHURCH" OF FRAUD and back this assertion up with plenty of evidence
that many of the claims that it makes in its publicity and other
propaganda are indeed "fraudulent" in the broader sense of the word
"fraud" to say nothing of the narrower legalistic definition of
"fraud"... It is exaclty for this reason that I am NOT "getting sued
for libel" by the Unitarian Church of Montreal or the greater UU
religious community or Rev. Ray Drennan himself for that matter...
They know perfectly well that if they tried to sue me for libel that I
could more than justify the words on my picket signs and they would
not only lose the case their "image" would be even more "tarnished" in
the eyes of the general public than it already is... The last thing
Rev. Ray Drennan wants is to have this case dealt with in a court of
law where he cannot so easily lie and otherwise manipulate the truth.
I on the other hand have no reason to fear even the bogus criminal
charges brought against me by Montreal UUs in an effort to force an
end to my public protest. Similarly I have good reason to have the
Quebec Human Rights Commission investigate my grievances and have
nothing to hide from the scrutiny of the Commission. In fact I have
already provided copies of many letters and documents relating to this
conflict as evidence aginst Rev. Ray Drennan and the Unitarian Church
of Montreal and would happily provide copies of every single letter
and document in my possession if necessary.
> Frankly, many people just see you as a crackpot and don't want to
> bother with it.
Not the public... mainly just particularly small minded UUs who have a
vested interest in writing me off as a "crackpot". Measurable public
response to my ongoing protest is overwhelmingly positive and
supportive. In fact the public really like my "CHURCH" OF FRAUD picket
sign... The fact of the matter is there are a reasonable number of UUs
who are well informed about this matter who have acknowledged that I
have a good case against Rev. Ray Drennan, the Unitarian Church of
Montreal, and the UUA and its negligent and complicit Ministerial
Fellowship Committee. Some UUs who are on my side have asked me to
come on down to Boston and picket next year's UUA GA and I fully
intend to do so if this conflict is not largely settled in the coming
months.
> And what's the big deal anyways?? That a few people in the Montreal
> Unitarian Church didn't buy your divine revelation??
Nope that's not the big deal. I suggest that you review my many other
posts to see what the "big deal" that I am protesting against is.
> So what? "Screw them"...
Looks like they're pretty good at screwing themselves...
> None of the people in Jesus' hometown thought He was anything
> special... You'd obviously be a lot better off devoting your manic
> energy to exploring the theology of Creation Day rather than uselessly
> butting heads with people who aren't interested...
My butting heads with disinterested UUs is far from useless. There is
a method to my apparent "madness" and my Quixotic tilting at UU
"windmills" is actually much more useful to me and to other people
than you may realize...
> The fact is every new religion faces persecution when it first emerges...
Perhaps so but a new religious idea should definitely NOT face
persecution by the UU religious community according to its own
purported principles and purposes and other propaganda.
> And the persecution you faced is definitely on the lower end of the scale...
I agree that I have not been burned at the stake but I have been
treated like a "witch" or a "heretic". Thanks for acknowledging that I
have in fact faced "persecution" by intolerant and abusive UUs. It is
outrageously hypocritical that UUs have in fact engaged in ANY
persecution of me even if it is "on the lower end of the scale" as you
put it. The fact is however that maliciously labeling Creation Day
and/or my other religious activities as a "cult" of the "manipulative
and secretive" (read Solar Temple, Heaven's Gate, David Koresh, Jim
Jones etc.) is at the upper end of the scale of persecution. Labeling
me as "psychotic" and "nutcase" and "crazy" and any number of other
epithets for insane is also at the upper level of persecution. I expec
t that i it was within the power of Rev. Ray Drennan and other
"fundie" atheist UUs to have me committed to a mental institution they
would have done so by now. Thankfully our modern Western society
prevents them from doing that but it was not so long ago or so far
away that "fundie" atheists could and did send people like me to
insane asylums and just a bit longer ago that people like me might
have been jailed or even killed. The fact of the matter is that at
least a few Montreal UUs have made it clear that they would like to
see me in jail or dead... I expect more feel the same way but have the
brains not to say so, or suggest so via innuendo and veiled threats,
to my face.
> What are your plans for the future?
In terms of this dispute my plans are to persuade the UUA to
responsibly investigate my original grievances and the mishandling of
them by the UUA's Ministerial Fellowship Committee. I plan to persuade
the Quebec Human Rights Commission that Rev. Ray Drennan and the
Unitarian Church of Montreal did in fact subject me to discrimination
and harassment on religious grounds. I plan to picket next year's UUA
GA in Boston if this conflict is not largely resolved to my
satisfaction in the next several months. In terms of other matters I
prefer to keep my plans to myself so that UUs can't attempt to
sabotage them.
> You've already been protesting for 4 years, with your protest signs becoming > more and more accusatory.
Actually I exercised considerable restraint in my early picket sign
slogans because I did not want to "burn bridges" too much. I was
primarily seeking a timely just and equitable negotiated settlement
and expected that I would probably only have to protest for a few
Sundays before the congregation came to its senses and offered to
enter into constructive dialogue and initiate responsible conflict
resolution measures. Instead they have foolishly chosen to willfully
ignore my protest and subject me to increasingly punitive measures for
refusing to "accept" their unjust, inequitable and uncompassionate
arbitrary "rejection" of my totally legitimate and very serious
grievances.
I could have displayed most of the "more accusatory" slogans that I
display now over 4 years ago when I first started my public protest
but I choose to escalate slowly but steadily and only in direct
response to further injustices and abuses by Montreal UUs.
> Are you going to be out there 20 years from now with a sign that says
> "Church of the baby-sacrificing satanic fiends!!!"?
Not unless UUs actually devolve into baby-sacrificing satanic
fiends...
Each and every slogan that is displayed on my picket signs is
carefully thought out and contemplated before I decide to display it.
Many slogans have been kept in reserve for months before I actually
displayed them. For instance I have not yet displayed a slogan saying
"CHURCH" OF THE MEAN SPIRIT even though I though of it a couple of
years ago now. Not a bad Christmas season slogan eh? I actually have
several unused slogans kept in reserve. Every slogan is supported by
the facts of the discrimination and harassment indeed "persecution"
that I have been subjected to by UUs or other related injustices and
abuses that are quite evidently a problem within the UU religious
community.
> If ever there was a case of Captain Ahab and the White Whale, this is
> it...
More like Don Quixote happily tilting at hypocritical UU
"windmills"...
Come to think of it however... I suppose that the Unitarian Church of
Montreal, and perhaps even the UU religious community as a whole,
could be thought of as a White Whale to say nothing of a White
Elephant... In some ways the Unitarian Church of Montreal is indeed a
White Whale that has rather foolishly beached itself via its own
remarkably ignorant, arrogant, thoughtless and pigheaded actions. The
"dwindling and aging" White Whale of the Unitarian Church of Montreal
is slowly but surely decomposing now that it is a not so "big fish"
that is clearly and unequivocally out of fresh spiritual water. This
beached White Whale most definitely has a pretty awful big stink
emanting from it these days... Maybe this Captain Ahab has done better
than you thought...
gksh...@ucdavis.edu
> I very
> justifiably CAN "rightly describe" the Unitarian Church of Montreal as
> a "CHURCH" OF FRAUD and back this assertion up with plenty of evidence
> that many of the claims that it makes in its publicity and other
> propaganda are indeed "fraudulent" in the broader sense of the word
> "fraud" to say nothing of the narrower legalistic definition of
> "fraud"...
Hey, I know--UU churches are indoctrinating young people with UU
practices. Since you think these practices are "fraudulent", you
must think that, under the "broad definition" that this is an abuse
of those children! So, here's a new sign idea for you: "UU Church
Encourages Child Abuse"!
Or, surely you think that these "fraudulent" practices are an attack
on the principles of the nation, how about "UU Church Plots Attack
on Canada!"
Or, since their practices have clearly been anxiety-producing for
you, and since one definition of "terrorize" is "to fill with...anxiety",
you could go with "UU Church Practices Terrorism!".
All are just as true, under the "broad definitions" you rely on,
as your signs alleging fraud by the church, and that will surely
protect you against any possible criminal or civil action.
Greg Shenaut
wandering star
wrote:
I don't think you can rightfully accuse all of the Unitarian Church of
Montreal or the greater UU comunity as a whole of being hypocrites...
Sure there could be hypocrites in high places in the UU community... I
think that in this world corruption seems to be commonplace...
But every person must ultimately be judged on their own behaviour...
And I don't see all UUs as being corrupt or hypocrites...
I definitely have to look up that Don Quixote analogy of tilting
windmills...
But I really hope that your issue with the Montreal UU Church can be
resolved soon... It just seems in my opinion that you could put your
energy to better use... The fact is there is alot of corruption in the
world, and IMO, people are better off not focusing on the negative but
trying to bring about something positive....
I guess you believe you are trying to do just that... Maybe so... I
wish you the best of luck... I just hope that your battle with them
doesn't take an eternity to resolve... ;)
ws
Robin Edgar
> Robin Edgar <robin...@altavista.com> wrote (6 Dec 2002 16:52:57 -0800):
> > I very
> > justifiably CAN "rightly describe" the Unitarian Church of Montreal as
> > a "CHURCH" OF FRAUD and back this assertion up with plenty of evidence
> > that many of the claims that it makes in its publicity and other
> > propaganda are indeed "fraudulent" in the broader sense of the word
> > "fraud" to say nothing of the narrower legalistic definition of
> > "fraud"...
>
> Hey, I know--UU churches are indoctrinating young people with UU
> practices. Since you think these practices are "fraudulent", you
> must think that, under the "broad definition" that this is an abuse
> of those children! So, here's a new sign idea for you: "UU Church
> Encourages Child Abuse"!
You are grossly misrepresenting what I am doing as it is clearly
expressed in the quote above to say nothing of other posts here and
elsewhere. I am not saying that UU "practices" are fraudulent I am
saying that UU publicity and propaganda are fraudelent precisely
becuae UUs not only abjectly fail but obstinately refuse to "practice"
what they so insincerely preach...
As far as your suggestion for the picket sign slogan goes I would
suggest that you be careful what you ask for lest you get it. At this
point I cannot justifiably say that the UU Church Encourages Child
Abuse and back it up with facts however if I did some digging I just
might be able to do just that... I have picketed UUA headquarters at
25 Beacon Street, the Unitarian Church of Montreal, and the 2001 UUA
GA in Quebec City with a sign saying
UUA & MFC AFFIRM & PROMOTE ABUSIVE CLERGY
This picket sign is entirely justified by the fact that the UUA its
negligent, incompetent and effectively complicit Ministerial
Fellowship Committee have clearly "affirmed" Rev. Ray Drennan's
abusive clergy misconduct by asserting that "its seemed to us to be
within the appropriate guidelines of ministerial leadership" and have
otherwise tacitly affirmed his abusive behavior. Above and beyond this
the Ministerial Fellowship Committee quite literally "promoted" Rev.
Ray Drennan by nominating him to a position on an MFC regional
sub-committee that screens potential candidates for UU ministry... The
candidates are rated with a "Green light" "Yellow light" and "Red
light". Rev. Ray Drennan definitely rates a "Yellow light" rating
himself and many people would agree that he rates a "Red light"
rating. I must admit that I have been tempted to picket the Unitarian
Church of Montreal with a picket sign saying -
"CHURCH" OF THE "RED LIGHT" MINISTER
So far I have not given in to temptation but the day may come when I
do. Such a picket sign slogan would be perfect for protesting against
UU ministers who are guilty of clergy sexual misconduct. N'est-ce pas?
> Or, surely you think that these "fraudulent" practices are an attack
> on the principles of the nation, how about "UU Church Plots Attack
> on Canada!"
Your sarcasm will get you nowhere. The fact of the matter however is
that Rev. Ray Drennan pretty much did attack Canada by offensively
trashing Pierre Elliot Trudeau's state funeral because it was Roman
Catholic rite...
> Or, since their practices have clearly been anxiety-producing for
> you, and since one definition of "terrorize" is "to fill with...anxiety",
> you could go with "UU Church Practices Terrorism!".
Again be careful what you ask for lest you get it... The fact of the
matter is that a few Montreal UUs have accused me of being a
"terrorist" for the reasons you just provided and a few have even said
that they hope that I am charged under Canada's "Terrorist Act" as
they call it. As a result of those foolish words and because Rev. Ray
Drennan's and other UUs malicious and harmful words and actions can
indeed be seen as attempts to "terrorize" me I have considered making
a picket sign slogan that says -
"CHURCH" OF THE "TERRORIST ACT" ?
I am keeping that slogn in reserve for now; however, because some
members of the Unitarian Church of Montreal have accused me of "hate
speech" and "hate crime" because words like "cult", "cult-like" and
"Solar Temple" etc. appear on my picket signs in the context of
protesting against the malicious and harmful use of these words by
Rev. Ray Drennan and/or Frank Greene and/or John Inder I have
displayed a couple of picket signs saying -
A "CHURCH" THAT ENGAGES IN HATE SPEECH ?
"CHURCH" OF THE FIVE YEAR HATE CRIME ?
(which plays off of the "Five Minute Hate" in George Orwell's novel
1984 although few people catch that reference...)
> All are just as true, under the "broad definitions" you rely on,
> as your signs alleging fraud by the church, and that will surely
> protect you against any possible criminal or civil action.
Probably... Maybe even surely.
I remind you that there is a simple method for ending this conflict
and that is for the Unitarian Church of Montreal and the UUA's
Ministerial Fellowship Committee responsibly investigating my
legitimate grievances about the false, malicious, and clearly harmful
and damaging use of "injurious and untrue" words and phrases like
"cult" "cult-like" "Solar Temple" "psychotic" "personality disorder"
"nutcase" "crazy" "sick prick" to describe me or my religious
activities by intolerant and abusive fundamentalist atheist "humanist"
UUs.
Steve Caldwell
robin...@altavista.com (Robin Edgar) wrote:
-snip-
> You are grossly misrepresenting what I am doing as it is clearly
> expressed in the quote above to say nothing of other posts here and
> elsewhere. I am not saying that UU "practices" are fraudulent I am
> saying that UU publicity and propaganda are fraudelent precisely
> becuae UUs not only abjectly fail but obstinately refuse to "practice"
> what they so insincerely preach...
Robin,
One aspect of the Unitarian Universalist tradition is the idea of
congregational polity. Because of this respect for congregational polity,
the UUA and the MFC are going to be reluctant to remove a UU minister from
his or her pulpit. There has be serious evidence of ministerial
misconduct ... e.g. a minister using a congregant for emotional or sexual
purposes. A disagreement over theology (even a heated one like your
current disagreement) would not be an example of misconduct. If a
theological disagreement between an individual congregant and a minister
were evidence of ministerial misconduct, then nearly every UU minister
would then be guilty of "misconduct" (and the word "misconduct" would be
meaningless).
There's a dynamic tension or balancing act between various UU
principles or values. We do respect the worth and dignity of the
individual. We also respect the democratic process and congregational
polity too. From what I've read about your situation in this newsgroup
and in the Canadian newspapers, you sound like you feel that you weren't
treated fairly (note: I'm not saying that you were treated unfairly ...
I'm just trying to articulate my understanding of your point of view).
However, I also read that the minister, lay leadership, and congregation
in your former congregation are OK with their minister, their shared
common view(s) of theology, and their rejection of your theological
views. From the point of view of your old congregation, you may have been
insulting and possibly harmful to the congregational community.
The unique aspects of congregational polity is that congregations are
free to decide matters with a large amount of autonomy. For example, UU
congregations can reject great UU programming like Young Religious
Unitarian Universalists (YRUU), Welcoming Congregation, and Our Whole
Lives (OWL). Even though many UUs and I also think that YRUU, Welcoming
Congregation, and OWL are great ideas, I also accept that some UU
congregations will reject these great ideas. Even though I think these
hypothetical congregations may be misguided and not supporting our shared
UU principles to the fullest extent possible, I accept them within our
wider UU community.
Ideally, I can meet them where they are and help them towards better
understanding and greater justice. Moving towards better understanding
and greater justice within and among congregations usually won't happen
once either or both parties resorts to name-calling.
-snip-
> As far as your suggestion for the picket sign slogan goes I would
> suggest that you be careful what you ask for lest you get it. At this
> point I cannot justifiably say that the UU Church Encourages Child
> Abuse and back it up with facts however if I did some digging I just
> might be able to do just that... I have picketed UUA headquarters at
> 25 Beacon Street, the Unitarian Church of Montreal, and the 2001 UUA
> GA in Quebec City with a sign saying
>
> UUA & MFC AFFIRM & PROMOTE ABUSIVE CLERGY
I'm not saying that you're wrong and the other folks in Montreal are
right. But I would ask the following question. If the majority of the
other UU congregants are satisfied with Rev. Drennan and the lay
leadership, why should the UUA, the CUC, or the MFC override the existing
outcome of the open and democratic process in Montreal? Generally, it
takes ministerial misconduct such as sexual misconduct with a congregant
in couseling situation to bring in the MFC. What you are complaining
about may not be above the minimum threshold necessary for an individual
complaint to override the democratic wishes of the congregation or even be
investigated by the MFC.
BluueNikki
robin...@altavista.com (Robin Edgar) wrote in message
> You are grossly misrepresenting what I am doing as it is clearly
> expressed in the quote above to say nothing of other posts here and
> elsewhere. I am not saying that UU "practices" are fraudulent I am
> saying that UU publicity and propaganda are fraudelent precisely
> becuae UUs not only abjectly fail but obstinately refuse to "practice"
> what they so insincerely preach...
Sorry so late to respond to this thread.....
With respect to Greg S., I read some of your posts, and to be quite
frank, I think Robin was right when he said that above in re: your
posts. I can see how you were "misinterpreting" some of what he said,
if not downright twisting a few things around. And also to be quite
blunt, Greg, I did not like some of your tones in your latest response
to Robin. That was a bit disappointing, but can understand somewhat
as Robin can be persistent, which CAN be a good quality at times.
Robin, I do think Steve C. has a point about church polity in re:
misconduct. Perhaps you could find more examples, or find other people
to come forward with such misconductive actions done to them in the
past?
Just an idea from ARUU's Mistress Moo ;-)
Nikki
Robin Edgar
> In article <9186418c.02120...@posting.google.com>,
> robin...@altavista.com (Robin Edgar) wrote:
>
> -snip-
> > You are grossly misrepresenting what I am doing as it is clearly
> > expressed in the quote above to say nothing of other posts here and
> > elsewhere. I am not saying that UU "practices" are fraudulent I am
> > saying that UU publicity and propaganda are fraudelent precisely
> > becuae UUs not only abjectly fail but obstinately refuse to "practice"
> > what they so insincerely preach...
>
> Robin,
> One aspect of the Unitarian Universalist tradition is the idea of
> congregational polity. Because of this respect for congregational polity,
> the UUA and the MFC are going to be reluctant to remove a UU minister from
> his or her pulpit.
You too are misrepresenting what I am saying and doing. The statement
you quote is about systematic and widespread hypocrisy and
misrepresentation that exists not only in the Unitarian Church of
Montreal but throughout the whole UU religious community, not just my
personal situation. In any case, to address the distracting point you
made above, in the first few years of this dispute all that I was
demanding was an official apology from Rev. Ray Drennan that clearly
and unequivocally acknowledged the wrongfulness and harmfulness of his
injurious and untrue allegations about me and a formal retraction of
his painful and harmful words. For the record I have never formally
demanded that Rev. Ray Drennan be removed from his wayward pulpit. In
fact, due to congregational polity, the UUA's Ministerial Fellowship
Committee lacks the authority to do so although if it was to
"defellowship" Drennan there would be some pressure on the Unitarian
Church of Montreal to dismiss him and find a new fellowshipped UU
minister. I have only asked that Rev. Ray Drennan's intolerants and
abusive behavior be responsibly investigated by both the Unitarian
Church of Montreal and the Ministerial Fellowship Committee and that
he be subjected to appropriate discliplinary action that is
commensurate with the seriousness of his offenses as determined by a
responsible investigation. Regrettably both the UCM and the MFC have
obstinately refused to do any such thing...
> There has be serious evidence of ministerial misconduct ...
There IS serious evidence of ministerial misconduct. An abundance of
it...
I expect that that is exactly why the Unitarian Church of Montreal and
the UUA's Ministerial Fellowship Committee absolutely refuse to
investigate my complaints because they know full well that Rev.
Drennan said and did what I am accusing him of and they would have to
subject him to signifiacnt disciplinary action following a responsible
anf thorough investigation of my complaints.
> e.g. a minister using a congregant for emotional or sexual
> purposes.
e.g. a minister falsely and maliciously labeling a congregant as
"psychotic", his/her religious beliefs as "silliness and fantasy", and
his/her religious activities as "manipulative and secretive" "cult"
and obstinately refusing to retract these injurious and untrue
allegations to say nothing of other intolertant and abusive behavior.
Rev. Ray Drennan's behavior makes a complete mockery of the
"covenants" expressed in the purported principles ands purposes of
UUism and it flagrantly disregards and wantonly violates various
clauses of the UUMA Guidelines and Code of Professional Practice.
> A disagreement over theology (even a heated one like your
> current disagreement) would not be an example of misconduct.
Wrong. It clearly is misconduct as defined by the UUMA guidelines and
Code of Professional Practice. Anyway angrily labelling a person as
"psychotic" and maliciously labeling their religious activities as a
"cult" goes well beyond being a "disagreement over theology". You are
clearly engaging in DIM Thinking which is a fine blend of Denial,
Ignorance and Minimization of clergy misconduct. It is very telling
that you actually have the gall to assert that Rev. Ray Drennan's
intolerant and abusive behavior is not an example of misconduct.
> If a theological disagreement between an individual congregant and a minister
> were evidence of ministerial misconduct, then nearly every UU minister
> would then be guilty of "misconduct" (and the word "misconduct" would be
> meaningless).
Wrong again. This is not just a "theological disagreement". It is a
"theological disagreement" that has been expressed in an openly
hostile, clearly demeaning and quite evidently abusive manner by Rev.
Ray Drennan and, as such, it is "misconduct" as defined by UUMA
guidelines etc.
> There's a dynamic tension or balancing act between various UU
> principles or values. We do respect the worth and dignity of the
> individual.
No you don't. Not if UUs not only allow Rev. Ray Drennan to get away
with such demeaning and abusive "murder" (i.e. character
assassination) but subject me to unjust, inequitable and
uncompassionate punitive measures for refusing to "accept" the unjust,
inequitable and uncompassionate "rejection" of my legitimate
grievances.
> We also respect the democratic process and congregational
> polity too.
No you don't. UUs abuse and misuse the democratic process and
congregational polity too...
> From what I've read about your situation in this newsgroup
> and in the Canadian newspapers, you sound like you feel that you weren't
> treated fairly (note: I'm not saying that you were treated unfairly ...
> I'm just trying to articulate my understanding of your point of view).
> However, I also read that the minister, lay leadership, and congregation
> in your former congregation are OK with their minister, their shared
> common view(s) of theology, and their rejection of your theological
> views. From the point of view of your old congregation, you may have been
> insulting and possibly harmful to the congregational community.
You are engaging in DIM Thinking again. You clearly have a very poor
understanding of the history of this conflict. What is in fact not
only deeply "insulting" but quite evidently "harmful" is the demeaning
and abusive behavior of Rev. Ray Drennan as I described it in my
original letter of grievance of February 1996, to say nothing of the
insulting and harmful of other Montreal UUs that I have been subjected
to.
> The unique aspects of congregational polity is that congregations are
> free to decide matters with a large amount of autonomy. For example, UU
> congregations can reject great UU programming like Young Religious
> Unitarian Universalists (YRUU), Welcoming Congregation, and Our Whole
> Lives (OWL). Even though many UUs and I also think that YRUU, Welcoming
> Congregation, and OWL are great ideas, I also accept that some UU
> congregations will reject these great ideas. Even though I think these
> hypothetical congregations may be misguided and not supporting our shared
> UU principles to the fullest extent possible, I accept them within our
> wider UU community.
Again this is not simply a matter of lack of acceptance, although even
that alone violates UU principles, it is a matter of demeaning and
abusive clergy misconduct and the abject failure, indeed obstinate
refusal, of both the Unitarian Church of Montreal and the UUA's
Ministerial Fellowship Committee to responsibly address it.
> Ideally, I can meet them where they are and help them towards better
> understanding and greater justice. Moving towards better understanding
> and greater justice within and among congregations usually won't happen
> once either or both parties resorts to name-calling.
You seem to forget that it was Rev. Ray Drennan who resorted to deeply
insulting and seriously harmful "name-calling" within days of being
invested as the new minister of the Unitarian Church of Montreal. This
conflict arises out of his injurious and untrue "name-calling" of me
as "psychotic", my religious beliefs as "silliness and fanatasy" and
Creation Day as "your cult"... My own descriptions of his
unprofessional and abusive clergy misconduct, and the failure and
refusal of UUs to responsibly handle my legitimate complaints, are not
really "name-calling" but truthful and accurate descriptions of actual
behavior by Rev. Ray Drennan and other UUs. This applies to my
description of your very obvious bleding of Denial, Ignorance and
Minimization in this post.
> -snip-
> > As far as your suggestion for the picket sign slogan goes I would
> > suggest that you be careful what you ask for lest you get it. At this
> > point I cannot justifiably say that the UU Church Encourages Child
> > Abuse and back it up with facts however if I did some digging I just
> > might be able to do just that... I have picketed UUA headquarters at
> > 25 Beacon Street, the Unitarian Church of Montreal, and the 2001 UUA
> > GA in Quebec City with a sign saying
> >
> > UUA & MFC AFFIRM & PROMOTE ABUSIVE CLERGY
>
>
> I'm not saying that you're wrong and the other folks in Montreal are
> right. But I would ask the following question. If the majority of the
> other UU congregants are satisfied with Rev. Drennan and the lay
> leadership, why should the UUA, the CUC, or the MFC override the existing
> outcome of the open and democratic process in Montreal?
For starters the "process" was far from "open" and was in fact a
cynical manipulation of the democratic process. The documentary
evidence clearly shows that the response of both the UCM's Board and
the UUA's MFC to my serious grievances was negligent, incompetent, and
effectively if not willfully complicit in Rev. Ray Drennan's
anti-religious intolerance and abusive clergy misconduct. The
Ministerial Fellowship Committee was charged with responsibly dealing
with clergy misconduct complaints and is supposed to deal with it
independently of the congregation. Even if a majority of the
congregation is satisfied with Rev. Drennan it in no way means that he
did nothing wrong. It just means that the congregation is "satisfied"
with his demeaning and abusive clergy misconduct. Plenty of religious
communities, UU and otrherwise, are "satisfied" with the leadership of
abusive clergy and lay leaders, this does not mean that they are right
and that no one was seriously wronged...
> Generally, it takes ministerial misconduct such as sexual misconduct with a
> congregantin couseling situation to bring in the MFC. What you are
> complaining about may not be above the minimum threshold necessary for an
> individual complaint to override the democratic wishes of the congregation or > even be investigated by the MFC.
You are probably correct here however this does not mean that this
unspoken policy of the MFC is not seriously flawed. Although the
Ministerial Felllowship Committee is so far refusing to offer any
formal explanation as to why it refuses to investigate my complaints
it would seem that one of the main reasons is that Rev. Ray Drennan's
abusive clergy misconduct does not involve sexual misconduct of any
kind. In a private phone conversation following the second rejection
of my grievances Rev. David Hubner alluded to this by saying that the
MFC might have acted if Rev. Ray Drennan's miscoduct had been "a more
direct form of misconduct". When I asked him if he meant sexual
misconduct he admitted that that was what he was alluding to. This is
a serious flaw and one that needs to be addressed by the UU religious
community there are all kinds of clergy misconduct that are not sexual
in nature and if the UUA and its Ministerial Fellowship Committee
refuses to responsibly address complaints of non-sexual misconduct
they are perpetuating any number of injustices and abuses. In any case
I have good reason to believe that the MFC has "largely failed" to
responsibly address complaints of clergy sexual misconduct in the
ppast and probably continues to do so to this day. Simply put the
"minimum threshold" of for a complaint to be investigated by the MFC
is much to high and allows all kinds of injustices and abuses to occur
and this probably includes means that some cases of sexual misconduct
are not responsibly dealt with too.
I fully intend to publicly expose and denounce the serious flaws of
the both UUA and MFC policies to say nothing of the refusal of the UUA
and MFC to responsibly enforce existing policies. My picket sign
saying -
UUA & MFC AFFIRM & PROMOTE ABUSIVE CLERGY
is both truthful and accurate and it will almost certainly be
displayed at next year's UUA GA in Boston only it will say -
UNITARIAN UNIVERSALISTS
AFFIRM & PROMOTE
ABUSIVE CLERGY
Because few UUs know what the initials MFC stand for and rather too
many ordinary lay UUs like yourself have tacitly affirmed and/or
effectively promoted the abusive clergy of Rev. Ray Drennan and other
UU ministers via the insidious blend of Denial, Ignorance, and
Minimization that Dee Miller calls DIM Thinking.
Sincerely,
Robin Edgar
gksh...@ucdavis.edu
> Greg, Robin,
> robin...@altavista.com (Robin Edgar) wrote in message
>> You are grossly misrepresenting what I am doing as it is clearly
>> expressed in the quote above to say nothing of other posts here and
>> elsewhere. I am not saying that UU "practices" are fraudulent I am
>> saying that UU publicity and propaganda are fraudelent precisely
>> becuae UUs not only abjectly fail but obstinately refuse to "practice"
>> what they so insincerely preach...
> Sorry so late to respond to this thread.....
> With respect to Greg S., I read some of your posts, and to be quite
> frank, I think Robin was right when he said that above in re: your
> posts. I can see how you were "misinterpreting" some of what he said,
> if not downright twisting a few things around.
Yes, that's called "reductio ad absurdum" and it is a time-honored
rhetorical device used to illustrate that if the logic expressed by
your conversational partner is followed beyond the point that he
took it, an absurdity results.
However, please remember that I wasn't referring so much to what
he has written here, but rather to his practice of standing in
front of his local UU church with marginally accurate, hyperbolic
signs demeaning the congregation because they won't allow him to
hold some kind of orgy under their auspices where he can deliver
a message that he (Robin) has personally received from God (I forget
the exact details; they are unimportant for our purposes--although
they are obviously of exaggerated importance to Robin).
> And also to be quite blunt, Greg, I did not like some of your tones in
> your latest response to Robin. That was a bit disappointing, but can
> understand somewhat as Robin can be persistent, which CAN be a good
> quality at times.
Speaking of "tones", was it "weally" you who "wote" those "wesponses"
to "Sawah"?
Well, I think Robin is emotionally strong enough (or obstinate
enough) to handle anything that I might say to him here quite well,
even if I show him how I think some of what he says reduces to an
absurdity.
Cheers,
Greg
Robin Edgar
> misconduct.
Well I just rebutted it point by point...
> Perhaps you could find more examples, or find other people
> to come forward with such misconductive actions done to them in the
> past?
>
> Just an idea from ARUU's Mistress Moo ;-)
> Nikki
A very good idea and one that I have tried to act upon within my
somewhat limited ability to do so. Reliable sources of information are
few and far between. Regrettably there is an Omerta-like code of
silence amongst UUA officials, UU clergy, and even many lay UUs when
it comes to discussing actual cases of abusive clergy misconduct and
other internal injustices and abuses... The UUA's Ministerial
Fellowship Committee practices a high degree of secrecy under the
guise of "confidentiality"... I have been told that UU victims of
clergy misconduct are compelled to sign confidentiality agreements
with the MFC if they decide to act upon their complaints. I expect
that one of the hidden reasons that the MFC refuses to responsibly
handle my complaint is because they know perfectly well that I would
never agree to blanket confidentiality in this matter. In fact at this
stage of the conflict I am not sure that I would agree to even
partial confidentiality.
As part of this aura of "confidentiality" the MFC is refusing to even
provide me with any formal written explanation as to why it has now
repeatedly refused to responsibly investigate and act upon my
complaints against Rev. Ray Drennan. One of the reasons that I fully
intend to protest at next year's UUA GA in Boston is that I hope that
by going public with my grievances in the Boston area where there are
thousands of UUs that whatever media coverage my protest receives may
cause a number of other victims of UU clergy misconduct of all kinds,
particularly those whose complaints were badly mishandled by their
congregations or the MFC, to come out of the woodwork and speak out...
If I was rich I might even place ads in major newspapers asking people
to speak out about any injustices and abuses that they have been
subjected to by UUs. I will probably recreate my 'Abusive Clergy
Misconduct in the UUA' web site in the coming months in the hope that
it will provide an online resource where other people who have been
subjected to demeaning and abusive treatment by UU clergy may share
their concerns as it were...
Robin Edgar
> Greg, Robin,
>
>
> robin...@altavista.com (Robin Edgar) wrote in message
> > You are grossly misrepresenting what I am doing as it is clearly
> > expressed in the quote above to say nothing of other posts here and
> > elsewhere. I am not saying that UU "practices" are fraudulent I am
> > saying that UU publicity and propaganda are fraudelent precisely
> > becuae UUs not only abjectly fail but obstinately refuse to "practice"
> > what they so insincerely preach...
>
>
> Sorry so late to respond to this thread.....
>
> With respect to Greg S., I read some of your posts, and to be quite
> frank, I think Robin was right when he said that above in re: your
> posts. I can see how you were "misinterpreting" some of what he said,
> if not downright twisting a few things around. And also to be quite
> blunt, Greg, I did not like some of your tones in your latest response
> to Robin. That was a bit disappointing, but can understand somewhat
> as Robin can be persistent, which CAN be a good quality at times.
I should add that I fully expect that other intelligent people with a
modicum of conscience reading these posts, particularly non-UUs who
have no vested interest in Denial, Ignorance, and Minimization of UU
injustices and hypocrisy, will concur. One of the reasons that I
persistently choose to "tango" with UUs like Greg and Gene et al is to
clearly expose the outrageous hypocrisy of such obviously dishonest,
willfully ignorant, and evidently quite unprincipled UUs to public
scrutiny. I have a saying about people like Greg and Gene et al -
"I don't know if they keep putting their foot in their mouth because
their mouth is so big; or if their mouth is so big because they keep
putting their foot in it."
I generally refer to such obvious DIM Thinking, insidious innuendo,
disingenuous and hypocrisy etc. as "foot in mouth disease"...
Dan Abel
robin...@altavista.com (Robin Edgar) wrote:
> you quote is about systematic and widespread hypocrisy and
> misrepresentation that exists not only in the Unitarian Church of
> Montreal but throughout the whole UU religious community, not just my
Once upon a time there was a lady who worked at the same school where I
worked. She was a fairly high-ranking manager, and made a good salary.
She lived just a few blocks from me, in an inexpensive apartment. Then
she joined my church. I was assigned to canvas her. I made an
appointment to see her at work, after hours. I didn't know much about
her, except that she lived alone. Just to start the conversation off, I
asked her how she liked her apartment. To my amazement, she hated it, and
went on for some time about all the faults and problems. She also had a
number of suggestions and complaints about the church, all things that
"somebody" should do something about. I was happy to get out of there.
Several years later, I asked her whether she was still living in the same
apartment. She said she was! She had quit the church after a year or
two, though. Oh, and she hated her job, too. She bailed out of the job
as soon as she got vested in the retirement system.
What's my point? You hate the congregation, you hate the minister, you
hate the UUA and you hate the MFC. Nobody is making you go to church,
especially not this particular church. Wipe it out of your mind, and get
on with life.
--
Dan Abel
Sonoma State University
AIS
da...@sonic.net
BluueNikki
> However, please remember that I wasn't referring so much to what
> he has written here, but rather to his practice of standing in
(snipped)
Ok. Whatever. :-) You are entitled to your own opinions. :-) Just to
let you know, I support Robin, and believe he may be in the right
about some UUs.
> Speaking of "tones", was it "weally" you who "wote" those "wesponses"
> to "Sawah"?
Yes, to clarify, that was I. :-) I don't like this "Sawah Bellhop"
and I want her to stay away from ARUU, or at least......leave MY
threads that I started alone and to never respond to ANY of my posts
at all. I guess I can really relate to you, Greg-- you probably are
feeling the same way towards Robin as I do towards Sawah
Bellhop....wanting HIM to leave ARUU too. ;-)
Respectfully,
Nikki
Robin Edgar
> BluueNikki <bluue...@1st.net> wrote (13 Dec 2002 07:11:49 -0800):
> > Greg, Robin,
>
>
> > robin...@altavista.com (Robin Edgar) wrote in message
> >> You are grossly misrepresenting what I am doing as it is clearly
> >> expressed in the quote above to say nothing of other posts here and
> >> elsewhere. I am not saying that UU "practices" are fraudulent I am
> >> saying that UU publicity and propaganda are fraudelent precisely
> >> becuae UUs not only abjectly fail but obstinately refuse to "practice"
> >> what they so insincerely preach...
>
> > Sorry so late to respond to this thread.....
>
> > With respect to Greg S., I read some of your posts, and to be quite
> > frank, I think Robin was right when he said that above in re: your
> > posts. I can see how you were "misinterpreting" some of what he said,
> > if not downright twisting a few things around.
>
> Yes, that's called "reductio ad absurdum" and it is a time-honored
> rhetorical device used to illustrate that if the logic expressed by
> your conversational partner is followed beyond the point that he
> took it, an absurdity results.
Actually Greg I am confident that most people will readily see that it
is your own twisted logic and rhetoric that is patently absurd to say
nothing of willfully deceptive and misleading. Dare I say
"fraudulent"?
> However, please remember that I wasn't referring so much to what
> he has written here, but rather to his practice of standing in
> front of his local UU church with marginally accurate, hyperbolic
> signs demeaning the congregation because they won't allow him to
> hold some kind of orgy under their auspices where he can deliver
> a message that he (Robin) has personally received from God (I forget
> the exact details; they are unimportant for our purposes--although
> they are obviously of exaggerated importance to Robin).
Once again you grossly distort the facts of this conflict and the more
you do it the more I have reason to believe that it is willfully
deceptive "spin"... My picket signs are actually far more accurate and
even less demeaning than Rev. Ray Drennan's malicious labeling of my
revelatory religious experience as "your psychotic experience", my
monotheistic religious beliefs as nothing but "silliness and fantasy"
and Creation Day as a "manipulative and secretive" "cult". It is Rev.
Ray Drennan's inaccurate and demeaning words and the abject failure
and obstinate refusal of both the Unitarian Church of Montreal and the
UUA's Ministerial Fellowship Committee to responsibly redress my
legitimate grievances and hold Rev. Drennan fully accountable for his
abusive clergy misconduct.
Your clearly demeaning, and quite probably willfully malicious,
characterization of Creation Day as "some kind of orgy" is every bit
as untrue and almost as injurious as Rev. Ray Drennan's and other
Montreal UU's labeling of Creation Day as some kind of "cult". In fact
it is just such demeaning and malicious behavior by UUs that justifies
my picket signs that say -
"CHURCH" OF FRAUD, "CHURCH" OF THE TWO FACES, and UNSAFE SECT ? etc.
Please explain how this demeaning and malicious allegation does
flagrantly disregard and wantonly violate the fraudulent "covenants"
expressed in the purported principles and purposes of UUism.
I really must get around to making that "CHURCH" OF THE MEAN SPIRIT
picket sign that the obviously mean spirited behavior of Rev. Ray
Drennan, you, and far too many other UUs clearly justifies.
> Well, I think Robin is emotionally strong enough (or obstinate
> enough) to handle anything that I might say to him here quite well,
That is a rational assessment. Not only can I handle it but I can put
it to good use to demomnstrate just why my picket sign slogans are
actually very much justified by the behavior of you and other UUs.
> even if I show him how I think some of what he says reduces to an
> absurdity.
Again, it is your own twisted logic and insidious rhetoric that is an
obvious absurdity.
Gene Douglas
Vietnam era bumper stickers reading, "America Love it or Leave It." Or, do
it our way or leave the country.
More below.
"BluueNikki" <bluue...@1st.net> wrote in message
news:3a8bf7d4.0212...@posting.google.com...
> srca...@iamerica.net (Steve Caldwell) wrote in message:
>
> > Maybe you should leave
> > Montreal for another UU congregation in North America?
>
>
> Yo, Steve........I can perfectly understand and relate to Robin's
> answer to this. I would have found this to be a tad offensive.
>
> How about this for a taste:
> 1) Atheist, if you don't like this UU church, GO SOMEWHERE ELSE!
> 2) Pagan, if you don't like this UU church, quit yer whining and go
> someplace else!
> 3) Humanist, if you don't like how we do things in our church, then
> quit your moaning and join the Humanist Assoication!
> 4) Agnostic, if you don't like the term "god", then freakin' go
> someplace else.
By the time you eliminate all of the above, who do you mean by "we?" If one
is in the group, and doesn't like something, then as a citizen of the group,
he works to correct what he sees as the problem.
I can remember being in an ACOA group, noticing a grievous error,
complaining that something was being done wrongly, and being told that if I
didn't like it, maybe I could find another group. Well, if I didn't like
it, I might say something, and encourage the others to stop doing that.
Arthur Meineke
"Dan Abel" <da...@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:dabel-13120...@ssu-64en129.sonoma.edu...
Sounds like a good suggestion. Maybe starting a new religion based on
Creation Day would work.
Steve Caldwell
robin...@altavista.com (Robin Edgar) wrote:
-snip-
> You too are misrepresenting what I am saying and doing. The statement
> you quote is about systematic and widespread hypocrisy and
> misrepresentation that exists not only in the Unitarian Church of
> Montreal but throughout the whole UU religious community, not just my
> personal situation. In any case, to address the distracting point you
> made above, in the first few years of this dispute all that I was
> demanding was an official apology from Rev. Ray Drennan that clearly
> and unequivocally acknowledged the wrongfulness and harmfulness of his
> injurious and untrue allegations about me and a formal retraction of
> his painful and harmful words.
Robin,
Only knowing one side of this dispute (mostly from reading your words
online), I really don't know Rev. Drennan's view on this or the views of
others in Montreal, the CUC, or the UUA. Not having transcripts of what
words were exchanged between you and your former minister, how can I
really know what is going on here.
For all I know, the comments from Rev. Drennan about the state of
your mental health may be accurate (and if he is right about your mental
health status, letting you know that is actually a favor and not a
disservice).
> For the record I have never formally
> demanded that Rev. Ray Drennan be removed from his wayward pulpit. In
> fact, due to congregational polity, the UUA's Ministerial Fellowship
> Committee lacks the authority to do so although if it was to
> "defellowship" Drennan there would be some pressure on the Unitarian
> Church of Montreal to dismiss him and find a new fellowshipped UU
> minister. I have only asked that Rev. Ray Drennan's intolerants and
> abusive behavior be responsibly investigated by both the Unitarian
> Church of Montreal and the Ministerial Fellowship Committee and that
> he be subjected to appropriate discliplinary action that is
> commensurate with the seriousness of his offenses as determined by a
> responsible investigation. Regrettably both the UCM and the MFC have
> obstinately refused to do any such thing...
Let me provide you with two examples of ministerial mistakes that
were hurtful to members of two different congregations. Although they
were injurious, that doesn't make them "ministerial misconduct.
1. A UU minister in our district made know from his pulpit and other
communication paths that the pagan members in the congregation weren't
welcome there. A board member in this same congregation said to those
pagans who were not wanted but still there " ... you really don't
understand ... this is like a divorce ... you are suppossed to move out
now" (quote is a rough paraphrase from memory).
2. A UU minister in our district told the About Your Sexuality (AYS)
teachers in his congregation that they couldn't show the male-male
lovemaking filmstrips to the AYS students. He was backed up on this
opinion by the Board President. These two individuals had no problem with
male-female lovemaking and female-female lovemaking. But the idea of two
men having sex together really bother these two male congregational
leaders. Our AYS teachers suspected that this demand was homophobic, very
unreasonable, not in keeping with the diversity-affirming spirit found in
AYS and UUism. They refused to edit out the male-male visuals. Because
of this disagreement, the youth in this congregation had no UU sexuality
education for several years (the new Our Whole Lives program allowed
everyone to readdress this issue without anyone having to admit they were
right or wrong ... thereby allowing everyone to save face on this
subject).
In both cases, real harm happened to the pagan congregants and the
adolescent congregants. However, the MFC didn't step and address this
local congregational issue. Nor did the district. This is partly due to
various UU agencies respecting congregational polity. Even if Rev.
Drennan and the lay leadership is wrong in Montreal, they are allowed this
freedom to be wrong. In other hierarchial denominations, ministers and
congregations have to do what their denominational headquarters tells
them. But this doesn't happen in UUism.
-snip-
> There IS serious evidence of ministerial misconduct. An abundance of
> it...
> I expect that that is exactly why the Unitarian Church of Montreal and
> the UUA's Ministerial Fellowship Committee absolutely refuse to
> investigate my complaints because they know full well that Rev.
> Drennan said and did what I am accusing him of and they would have to
> subject him to signifiacnt disciplinary action following a responsible
> anf thorough investigation of my complaints.
You have said that there is evidence of misconduct. Frankly, I'm
agnostic on this topic. I really don't know. However, just because you
say there is misconduct doesn't mean that really is misconduct. I don't
know the other sides of this story. Maybe the MFC does and that's why
they aren't investigating this situation? That's one logical
possibility.
> e.g. a minister falsely and maliciously labeling a congregant as
> "psychotic", his/her religious beliefs as "silliness and fantasy", and
> his/her religious activities as "manipulative and secretive" "cult"
> and obstinately refusing to retract these injurious and untrue
> allegations to say nothing of other intolertant and abusive behavior.
Can you prove that Rev. Drennan said these things about you? Can you
prove that his statements were false? Can you prove they were malicious?
Other that what you've reported to us, I don't know what Rev. Drennan
said.
It's entirely possible that the UUA, CUC, and MFC are doing nothing
because you are not sane and Rev. Drennan's rejection of your activities
was appropriate. It's also possible that you are correct in saying that
Rev. Drennan and the Montreal church has mistreated you. I cannot decide
which possibility is closer to reality based on the evidence available to
me.
Steve Caldwell
Douglas" <gene...@prodigy.net> wrote:
-snip-
> I'm no fan of Robin, but there is a tad of illogic in this. It reeks of
> Vietnam era bumper stickers reading, "America Love it or Leave It." Or, do
> it our way or leave the country.
Gene,
From my background as a youth advisor and advocate for YRUU, I often
run into adults in my congregation and my district who don't like the
theology behind YRUU, it's anti-bias/anti-ageism approach to working with
youth, the idea of youth empowerment, etc. Given the lack of support that
I have as a youth advisor in my congregation, it would be easier to give
up. If there were another UU congregation that was more liberal in my
community, I would join it. Because that option isn't available, I am
staying where I'm at, not totally happy, and attempting to make the
religious exploration experience for the youth both affirming and grounded
in YRUU and UU theology. So ... I know something about staying in a UU
congregation is considerably flawed and not fully supporting our shared UU
principles.
Gene Douglas
outnumbered, and his arguments fall on deaf ears, then that's the way it is.
I left a church that bothered me because it was overwhelmed by Pagans, and
had too many of what I call "nuts and bolts" lectures, without referenced to
purpose, ideals, or philosophy. As it happened, I was exactly equidistant
from two churches, and that made it easier.
I knew a person who paid a lot of the bills for a small fellowship, but kept
saying that we should talk more about science. He never gave a talk
himself, but eventually, he left. That was his way of solving the problem,
I guess.
"Steve Caldwell" <srca...@iamerica.net> wrote in message
news:srcaldwe-141...@1cust140.tnt1.shreveport.la.da.uu.net...
BluueNikki
> > How about this for a taste:
> > 1) Atheist, if you don't like this UU church, GO SOMEWHERE ELSE!
> > 2) Pagan, if you don't like this UU church, quit yer whining and go
> > someplace else!
> > 3) Humanist, if you don't like how we do things in our church, then
> > quit your moaning and join the Humanist Assoication!
> > 4) Agnostic, if you don't like the term "god", then freakin' go
> > someplace else.
>
> By the time you eliminate all of the above, who do you mean by "we?"
*That* is kind of my point, Gene. ;-)
> If one
> is in the group, and doesn't like something, then as a citizen of the group,
> he works to correct what he sees as the problem.
Provided the problem IS a problem and the group/citizen is going about
it the reasonable way. I don't entirely agree with all of whats and
hows Robin is going about the problem with Drennen, love, but I
support his right and NEED to do this, even if it seems "illogical"
(Vulcan ring) to many UUs.
Mayhaps the Vulcan blessing SHOULD be the UU blessing:
Live Long and Prosper. ;-)
Nikki
Robin Edgar
> I'm no fan of Robin, but there is a tad of illogic in this. It reeks of
> Vietnam era bumper stickers reading, "America Love it or Leave It." Or, do
> it our way or leave the country.
I am not sure quite what you are getting at here Gene but if you mean
that the Untarian Church of Montreal and/or the greater UU "religious
community" have quite illogically said and done things that
effectively translate to "UUism Love It Or Leave It" or "Do It Our Way
Or Leave The Church" I would have to wholeheartedly agree. Far too
many UUs have not so politely suggested that I leave UUism if I am not
happy with the injustices and abuses that I and indeed other UUs have
been subjected to by our fellow UUs. In fact one did so this morning
as I was engaging in my "alternative spiritual practice" of picketing
Montreal's Unitarian "Church" of Fraud... Since I refused to leave and
insisted that UUs should make a reasonable effort to actually practice
what they so fraudulently preach they decided to throw me out
instead... I was permanently expelled from the Unitarian Church of
Montreal on the fateful date of November 22, 1999 for, get this...
refusing to "accept" the injustices and abuses that I had been
subjected to and for "tarnishing" the "image" of the Unitarian church
of Montreal by publicly protesting against these injustices and
abuses. Imagine if America had punished those Americans who opposed
the war in Vietnam by stripping them of American citizenship and
exiling them from the country... Yes, these parallels are very
disturbing and it is exactly because of these and other disturbing
parallels that I will continue to publicly protest against UU
injustices, abuses and hypocrisy.
Robin Edgar
> In article <SQIK9.3502$nW2.11...@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com>, "Gene
> Douglas" <gene...@prodigy.net> wrote:
>
> -snip-
> > I'm no fan of Robin, but there is a tad of illogic in this. It reeks of
> > Vietnam era bumper stickers reading, "America Love it or Leave It." Or, do
> > it our way or leave the country.
>
> Gene,
> From my background as a youth advisor and advocate for YRUU, I often
> run into adults in my congregation and my district who don't like the
> theology behind YRUU, it's anti-bias/anti-ageism approach to working with
> youth, the idea of youth empowerment, etc. Given the lack of support that
> I have as a youth advisor in my congregation, it would be easier to give
> up. If there were another UU congregation that was more liberal in my
> community, I would join it. Because that option isn't available, I am
> staying where I'm at, not totally happy, and attempting to make the
> religious exploration experience for the youth both affirming and grounded
> in YRUU and UU theology. So ... I know something about staying in a UU
> congregation is considerably flawed and not fully supporting our shared UU
> principles.
That's exactly what I tried to do Steve but the Unitarian Church of
Montreal threw me out for refusing to accept its considerable flaws
and for publicly protesting the injustices and abuyses that I was
subjected to by Rev. Ray Drennan, other prominent Montreal UUs, and
indeed the congregation as a whole which turned a blind eye to my
letters of grievance etc. and chose to hear no evil and see no evil
when Rev. Ray Drennan and others most certainly spoke evil of me...
Robin Edgar
> Of course, one can try to get things changed. If he's hopelessly
> outnumbered, and his arguments fall on deaf ears, then that's the way it is.
That's may well be the way it is, indeed that quite evidently is the
way it is not only in terms of the Unitarian Church of Montreal but
the greater UU religious community as represented by the UUA and its
Ministerial Fellowship Committee etc. but it doesn't mean that it they
are right and that I have not been seriously wronged by UUs... I have
every right, and even a moral responsibility, to protest against such
injustices abuses and hypocrisy in an effort to change the way it is.
That is exactly what I am doing. My protest will end when I see
positive changes talking place. So far I have seen more than seven
years of injustices, abuses and outrageous hypocrisy on the part of
UUs.
Gene Douglas
> "Gene Douglas" <gene...@prodigy.net> wrote in message news:<SQIK9.3502
>
> > > How about this for a taste:
> > > 1) Atheist, if you don't like this UU church, GO SOMEWHERE ELSE!
> > > 2) Pagan, if you don't like this UU church, quit yer whining and go
> > > someplace else!
> > > 3) Humanist, if you don't like how we do things in our church, then
> > > quit your moaning and join the Humanist Assoication!
> > > 4) Agnostic, if you don't like the term "god", then freakin' go
> > > someplace else.
> >
> > By the time you eliminate all of the above, who do you mean by "we?"
>
>
> *That* is kind of my point, Gene. ;-)
Maybe you needed a smiley above.
>
>
> > If one
> > is in the group, and doesn't like something, then as a citizen of the
group,
> > he works to correct what he sees as the problem.
>
> Provided the problem IS a problem and the group/citizen is going about
> it the reasonable way. I don't entirely agree with all of whats and
> hows Robin is going about the problem with Drennen, love, but I
> support his right and NEED to do this, even if it seems "illogical"
> (Vulcan ring) to many UUs.
Of course, there's a difference between democratic working for change, and
bullying. If one person has made his point clear, the others have said no,
and the one wants to make them do it anyway, then how often can anybody else
do the same? And how right of it would be for one person to make the
congregation, including Robin, wear a tutu to services, because he says that
they should?
Arthur Meineke
BTW, did you know that Nimoy, a jewish man, ad-libbed the sign and that it
is the hand-sign for the Hebrew letter 'shin'.
Later....
> >
>
>
Robin Edgar
> Of course, there's a difference between democratic working for change, and
> bullying.
I agree Gene. I was working for change in a democratic manner. I
worked within the rules of the church even though the "fundie"
atheists changed the rules or unilaterally disregarded them in order
to undermine my efforts to work within the "system". The fact of the
matter is that Creation Day was gaining support in the congregation in
spite of the efforts of the "fundie" atheists to prevent Creation Day
from being celebrated in "their" "church". The Unitarian church of
Montreals' RE committee unanimously voted to sponsor the second
Creation Day as an adult RE activity of the church. Because I knew
there was opposition from the clique of hard core atheists because
several intolerant atheists had tried to prevent the first celebration
of Creation Day from being held in the "their" "church" I drew up a
petition calling for strong support of Creation Day. Well over twenty
members signed this petition and I could have and would have gained
even more signatures if Creation Day had not been outright banned from
being celebrated in the UCM by the UCM Board in a totally secretive
and clearly manipulative "in camera" segment of the October 1995 Board
meeting that was a clear misuse and abuse of the democratic process.
The fact of the matter is that far more members of the Unitarian
Church of Montreal clearly voted in favor of Creation Day but their
votes were over-ridden by the clique that had control of the Board of
the Unitarian Church of Montreal. When I filed a complaint about this
underhanded manipulation of the democratic process that physically
prevented me from being present at the meeting and being able to
respond to any opposition to Creation Day the Board arbitrarily
dismissed my complaint in a manner that clearly showed their atheist
bias.
It was the "fundie" atheists "humanists" like Rev. Ray Drennan, Frank
Greene, Val Bourdon who were guilty of anti-democratic behavior and
outright bullying. Labeling me as "psychotic" "nuts" "crazy" "nutcase"
etc. etc. etc. ad nauseum is "bullying". Labeling my theistic
religious beliefs as "silliness and fantasy" is bullying. Maliciously
labeling Creation Day as a "manipulative and secretive" "cult" and
even "jokingly" insinuating links between Creation Day and the
notorious Solar Temple cult is "bullying". I am simply responding to
the bullying by publicly protesting against it because UUs have
abjectly failed and obstinately refused to deal with it in a manner
consistent with UU principles. If someone who is repeatedly bullied by
others finally gets fed up and delivers a good swift kick to the balls
of the bullies a bully themselves? I don't think so. This conflict is
very well documented and the many letters and documents reveal who the
real bullies are...
> If one person has made his point clear, the others have said no,
> and the one wants to make them do it anyway, then how often can anybody else
> do the same?
What you fail to understand is that sometimes "no" is the wrong answer
and that there are times one person is right about something and most
if not all of the "others" are wrong. I have said it before but it
bears repeating - When I know I am right about something and, more
particularly, if I know that I have been wronged by someone I do not
back down as a matter of principle. It is time for the Unitarian
Church of Montreal and the greater UU religious community to
acknowledge the wrongfulness and harmfulness of their treatment of me
and take steps to responsibly redress my grievances. A thorough
investigation of this conflict by unbiased people will show that I did
little or nothing to provoke the intolerant and unjust, hostile and
abusive treatment that I have been subjected to by UUs.
> And how right of it would be for one person to make the congregation,
> including Robin, wear a tutu to services, because he says that they should?
Once again you use sarcasm to grossly misrepresent what this conflict
is about. The fact of the matter is that I never requested or demanded
that the congregation or the greater UU religious community do
anything other than practice what they preach...