Church of fraud...
gksh...@ucdavis.edu
and so I did a short investigation into this on Google. Here is
a sampling of my findings, instances of true fraud either by the
management or by members of churches.
http://www.askwhy.co.uk/awcnotes/cn4/0340ChristianFraud.html
http://www.sptimes.com/News/060701/TampaBay/2_sentenced_in_church.shtml
http://www.tennessean.com/sii/00/06/30/solicit30.shtml
http://www.raids.org/raid022.htm
http://www.afriendlyletter.com/afl154.html
http://www.win.net/~brother/text/church.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/2317461.stm
http://www.churchbusiness.com/articles/0b1edlet.html
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/9td/9td16a.html
http://www.watchtowerinformationservice.org/fraud.htm
(I stopped at this point out of boredom. There are many more.)
In addition to these, there were several cases where "fraud" seemed
to have the vague meaning that Robin claims his signs have for
passers-by of his local UU church. However, at least two of these
alternate-meaning sites preserved a modicum of precision by using
adjectives, as in "spiritual fraud" or "doctrinal fraud". There
were several who, along with Robin, do not, such as one site claiming
that the Roman Catholic Church is a fraud because it is not Christian.
However, the best adjective I found was "pious". Apparently a
"pious fraud" (see the first citation above) was a fraudulent
(forged) manuscript or other object created by monks in the Dark
Ages, with full connivance of their superiors, to sell to raise
money for the monastery.
The bottom line is that if, as Robin would have it, the UU Church
is a Church of Fraud, then this status should cement it strongly
and centrally into the Christian tradition, not single it out as
an object of disdain. Actually, I believe exactly the converse
to be true (No fraud, therefore not in Christian mainstream).
However, my main point is that most instances where people talk
about "fraud" with respect to a church, they mean actual fraud,
like wire fraud or other scams, not "spiritual fraud" or "doctrinal
fraud", and therefore Robin should desist, unless he has evidence
of actual, criminal fraud (or even "pious" fraud).
Greg Shenaut
P.S. I looked for a case in which a UU church actually did commit
fraud, but the only instance I found was this one, in which the
UU Church of Milford, NH, was helping to free a person accused
of Visa (as in immigration, not credit cards) Fraud.
Steve Caldwell
-snip-
> However, the best adjective I found was "pious". Apparently a
> "pious fraud" (see the first citation above) was a fraudulent
> (forged) manuscript or other object created by monks in the Dark
> Ages, with full connivance of their superiors, to sell to raise
> money for the monastery.
Greg,
Friedman's book _Who Wrote the Bible_ is an exploration of the
multiple author theory for the first five books of the Old Testament. One
scholar he quotes describes the book of Deuteronomy as being a "pious
fraud." It was "found" by a temple priest (. Scholars think it was
invented to support the royal power structure at the time of its
"discovery."
<<D(euteronomy) was written perhaps a century later. It was conveniently
"discovered" in the temple by the priest Hilkiah in 622 BCE, shortly after
it was written. D was then joined with JE (two other traditions combined
within the Torah)>>
http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_tora1.htm
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
gksh...@ucdavis.edu
> In article <attmna$n95$1...@woodrow.ucdavis.edu>, gksh...@ucdavis.edu wrote:
> -snip-
>> However, the best adjective I found was "pious". Apparently a
>> "pious fraud" (see the first citation above) was a fraudulent
>> (forged) manuscript or other object created by monks in the Dark
>> Ages, with full connivance of their superiors, to sell to raise
>> money for the monastery.
> Greg,
> Friedman's book _Who Wrote the Bible_ is an exploration of the
> multiple author theory for the first five books of the Old Testament. One
> scholar he quotes describes the book of Deuteronomy as being a "pious
> fraud." It was "found" by a temple priest (. Scholars think it was
> invented to support the royal power structure at the time of its
> "discovery."
> <<D(euteronomy) was written perhaps a century later. It was conveniently
> "discovered" in the temple by the priest Hilkiah in 622 BCE, shortly after
> it was written. D was then joined with JE (two other traditions combined
> within the Torah)>>
> http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_tora1.htm
Interesting--so the Medieval monks were just carrying on an even older,
pre-Christian tradition.
Greg Shenaut
Robin Edgar
I see you have started a whole new thread on the "Church of Fraud"
concept. Could it be because you prefer that people don't see the fact
that I shot down all the previous objections to my use of this picket
sign slogan in flames in the original ARUU - What's It All About
thread?
As I have already shown my use of the word "fraud" is hardly "vague".
I can assure you that many passers-by of my local UU church who see my
"CHURCH" OF FRAUD? picket sign slogan "love" it precisely because it
applies to any number of other hypocritical churches that don't
practice what they preach not just the Unitarian Church of Montreal...
What most of them may not know is that it is pretty much "fraud" for
the Unitarian Church of Montreal to call itself a "church" at all.
This is the ultimate meaning of this picket sign slogan which
obviously references the phrase "Church of God" although it refers to
other UU "fraud" as well.
>However, at least two of these alternate-meaning sites preserved a
modicum of precision by using adjectives, as in "spiritual fraud" or
"doctrinal fraud".
Picket sign slogans are rarely noted for their "precision" but most of
my picket sign slogans are in fact quite precise. The Unitarian Church
of Montreal is guilty of "fraud" not only by purporting to be a
"church" when it clearly is not a "church" in the "precise" sense of
the word "church"... Above and beyond this the Unitarian Church of
Montreal engages in "fraud" by purporting to uphold various ideals and
principles that it flagrantly disregards and wantonly violates on an
ongoing basis.
>There were several who, along with Robin, do not, such as one site
claiming
that the Roman Catholic Church is a fraud because it is not Christian.
Actually the Unitarian Church of Montreal, to say nothing of any
number of other "Unitarian" "churches" is a "fraud" because its not
Unitarian in the precise sense of the word either... Actually, one of
the atheist members of this alleged Unitarian "church" already pointed
this out in a letter to the "church" newsletter when there was
discussion about replacing the word "church" with something else that
was less fraudulent... In the end the congregation voted to maintain
this "pious fraud" of Unitarian Church of Montreal. About the only
word in its name that is not a fraud is Montreal...
>However, the best adjective I found was "pious". Apparently a
"pious fraud" (see the first citation above) was a fraudulent
(forged) manuscript or other object created by monks in the Dark
Ages, with full connivance of their superiors, to sell to raise
money for the monastery.
Well the "manuscripts" that are created by UUs in these "Dark Ages" of
UUism may not be "forged" but they are still "fraudulent" in that they
purport to adhere to certain principles and ideals and enforce certain
policies and bylaws that UUs continuously disregard and violate, with
the full connivance of their superiors... In that the fine, but quite
evidently empty and insincere, words in these UU "manuscripts" are
fully intended to attract members to UU "churches" and thus "raise
money" for the UU "religious community" they are quite fraudulent even
in the "precise" sense of the word.
>The bottom line is that if, as Robin would have it, the UU Church
is a Church of Fraud, then this status should cement it strongly
and centrally into the Christian tradition, not single it out as
an object of disdain. Actually, I believe exactly the converse
to be true (No fraud, therefore not in Christian mainstream).
Why am I not surprised that Greg uses my "CHURCH" OF FRAUD picket sign
to take a swipe at Christianity as a whole while denying any fraud on
the part of UUs? I have already pointed out the various ways in which
the Unitarian Church of Montreal and indeed the greater UU "religious
community" engage in "fraud" in the broader sense of the word. I have
also pointed out that the slogan "CHURCH" OF FRAUD is indeed
applicable in other ways to many other churches.
>However, my main point is that most instances where people talk
about "fraud" with respect to a church, they mean actual fraud,
like wire fraud or other scams, not "spiritual fraud" or "doctrinal
fraud", and therefore Robin should desist, unless he has evidence
of actual, criminal fraud (or even "pious" fraud).
Sorry Greg most people fully understand and appreciate (in every sense
of the word...) the broader meaning of my "CHURCH" OF FRAUD picket
sign. I am confident that few passers-by of the Unitarian Church of
Montreal think for a second that my picket sign slogan refers to
actual financial fraud. They know perfectly well that I am saying that
the words of UU "covenants", principles,
and other propaganda and publicity are so devoid of truthfulness and
sincerity that they are effectively "fraud". I am sure that if they
knew more of the gory details that most would agree that it is "fraud"
for the Unitarian Church of Montreal to even call itself a "church"...
>P.S. I looked for a case in which a UU church actually did commit
fraud, but the only instance I found was this one, in which the
UU Church of Milford, NH, was helping to free a person accused
of Visa (as in immigration, not credit cards) Fraud.
UUs are pretty good at covering up their errors and keeping them out
of the public eye. You can be pretty sure that there have been
instances of actual financial fraud committed by individual UU
churches. It is not out of the question that the UUA as an
organization has engaged in fraudulent financial practices too.
Here are a few paragraphs from a "sermon" of Rev. Charles Eddis -
Then in 1983 another fund appeared, the Liberal Religious Charitable
Society. Because of restrictions in the bequest, the UUA could only
spend this money outside of the United States. Accord number four
was then worked out. The CUC agreed to pay all the money it raised,
less $4,000, to the UUA. The UUA, in return, would give the CUC the
same amount out of the restricted funds of the Liberal Religious
Charitable Society.
The net result, give or take $4,000, was that for every dollar the CUC
raised in Canada, the UUA got two,- and the CUC kept for its own use
all the money it raised. This was sufficient for the CUC to hire its
first executive director, a full-time position, to add to its
administrator, then Thelma Peters.
This double dipping, as Bert Christensen, one-time CUC President and
later UUA Board member called it, was, as Bob Hope's theme song went,
"swell while it lasted." In 1987 the party ended. The Veatch Fund
stopped giving annual matching grants. Instead, it gave the UUA U.S.
$20 million outright to complement its annual fund raising. In
addition, the UUA broke the trust of the Liberal Religious Charitable
Society, so that it could spend its income in the United States if it
wanted to. The UUA income outside its own fund raising remained as
before. The free ride in the UUA for the Canadian congregations,
however, was over. The UUA wanted CUC payment for services rendered
to Canadian congregations.
end quote
The financial arrangements described here are highly questionable. It
could be suggested that this cynical manipulation of the Liberal
Religious Charitable Society is a form of "fraud".
gksh...@ucdavis.edu
> I see you have started a whole new thread on the "Church of Fraud"
> concept. Could it be because you prefer that people don't see the fact
> that I shot down all the previous objections to my use of this picket
> sign slogan in flames in the original ARUU - What's It All About
> thread?
Actually, it was because all articles of the original thread had
expired on my news server. As to "shooting down", I must have
missed that--all saw in your responses were assertions of the "I'm
right because I say so" type, which I ignored.
However, I congratulate you in your response to this "new" thread,
which actually contains--for the first time--substantive evidence
that could possibly be called "fraud" on the part of the UU Church:
> Here are a few paragraphs from a "sermon" of Rev. Charles Eddis -
> Then in 1983 another fund appeared, the Liberal Religious Charitable
> Society. Because of restrictions in the bequest, the UUA could only
> spend this money outside of the United States. Accord number four
> was then worked out. The CUC agreed to pay all the money it raised,
> less $4,000, to the UUA. The UUA, in return, would give the CUC the
> same amount out of the restricted funds of the Liberal Religious
> Charitable Society.
> The net result, give or take $4,000, was that for every dollar the CUC
> raised in Canada, the UUA got two,- and the CUC kept for its own use
> all the money it raised. This was sufficient for the CUC to hire its
> first executive director, a full-time position, to add to its
> administrator, then Thelma Peters.
> This double dipping, as Bert Christensen, one-time CUC President and
> later UUA Board member called it, was, as Bob Hope's theme song went,
> "swell while it lasted." In 1987 the party ended. The Veatch Fund
> stopped giving annual matching grants. Instead, it gave the UUA U.S.
> addition, the UUA broke the trust of the Liberal Religious Charitable
> Society, so that it could spend its income in the United States if it
> wanted to. The UUA income outside its own fund raising remained as
> before. The free ride in the UUA for the Canadian congregations,
> however, was over. The UUA wanted CUC payment for services rendered
> to Canadian congregations.
> end quote
> The financial arrangements described here are highly questionable. It
> could be suggested that this cynical manipulation of the Liberal
> Religious Charitable Society is a form of "fraud".
Well, after having read the entire document (it can be found on
the Internet at <http://www.cuc.ca/who_we_are/accord_eddis.htm>),
it doesn't sound like fraud to me because of the lack of a victim,
unless the LRCS could somehow be considered a victim. After the
UUA "broke" the LRCS trust so that it could spend the money in the
US, various other agreements were made between the US and Canadian
orgranizations, leading to an almost complete loosening of the bonds
between them. It sounds like no one really liked the way the LRCS
money was being used, and that most people really just took a "it
was nice while it lasted" attitude about it.
However, ever curious, I wanted to know more about the mysterious
LRCS trust and how/why the UUA "broke" it. I found a somewhat
onesided, but reasonably thorough critical view of the LRCS trust,
its sources, and the track record of the UUA, at
<http://www.svabhinava.org/friends/RajanMylvaganam/Holdeen/Holdeen-Final-edition.html>.
It appears that the UUA used a pack of lawyers to gain control of
a chunk of money that had been bequeathed in part to them and in
part to others, and that while they are still using part of the
money for its original purposes, they have in fact used part of it
for purposes not envisaged by the guy whose will it was.
There is no question of fraud--the various maneuvers took place
completely in the open, in court, and have been scrutinized by
numerous legal beagles--but I do think that at the very least, the
UUA could be accused of financial opportunism.
Fraud? No, not even close. But it was an excellent try, Robin,
based on actual evidence. I found the whole affair interesting to
read about, and, I must say, it rather diminished my respect for
the financial operations of the UUA. Keep it up and who knows?--you
may eventually find a fact or two to support your "fraud" rhetoric.
In the meantime, I propose a possible new sign, "UU Church of
Financial Opportunism", (or even "UU Church of Lawyers") and this
time you could totally back it up, with the Holdeen/LRCS story!
Greg Shenaut
Robin Edgar
> Robin Edgar <robin...@altavista.com> wrote (21 Dec 2002 08:58:06 -0800):
> > I see you have started a whole new thread on the "Church of Fraud"
> > concept. Could it be because you prefer that people don't see the fact
> > that I shot down all the previous objections to my use of this picket
> > sign slogan in flames in the original ARUU - What's It All About
> > thread?
>
> Actually, it was because all articles of the original thread had
> expired on my news server. As to "shooting down", I must have
> missed that--all saw in your responses were assertions of the "I'm
> right because I say so" type, which I ignored.
I could have sworn that my arguments were of the I'm right because the
dictionary definition of the word "fraud" says so...
> However, I congratulate you in your response to this "new" thread,
> which actually contains--for the first time--substantive evidence
> that could possibly be called "fraud" on the part of the UU Church:
Actually everything that I have called "fraud" could more than
possibly be called "fraud" as per dictionary definitions of the word
"fraud" as I have now repeatedly pointed out.
Here is a reminder from the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary
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
My legitimate use of the word "fraud" fits definition 1b for sure and
could even fit definition 1a in some instances. I could also accuse
the Unitarian Church of Montreal of being a "fraud" as per definition
2a since it is by no means what it fraudulently pretends to be... It
is clearly guilty of DECEPTION and IMPOSTURE
The person or persons who set up the Liberal Religious Charitable
Society could in fact be considered to be victims in that the
conditions that they placed on the trust were cynically subverted by
both the UUA and the CUC to their benefit. There were in fact other
very real victims of this quite fraudulent manipulation of the LRCS
trust however. What about those people or organizations who would have
benefitted from donations from the LRCS trust if its funds had not
been so cynically funnelled back to the UUA with the full collusion
and participation of the CUC? It should be glaringly obvious that the
intended recipients of the money did not receive it. They were thus
defrauded of money that was rightfully theirs...
> After the UUA "broke" the LRCS trust so that it could spend the money in the
> US, various other agreements were made between the US and Canadian
> orgranizations, leading to an almost complete loosening of the bonds
> between them.
Yes, isn't it interesting that the "bonds" were largely based on the
UUA needing the CUC to funnel funds from the LRCS trust back to the
UUA...
> It sounds like no one really liked the way the LRCS
> money was being used, and that most people really just took a "it
> was nice while it lasted" attitude about it.
Wrong. The way the LRCS money was used was in fact a misuse and abuse
of how it was intended to be used. It is very clear that the CUC and
UUA had an it was "swell while it lasted" attitude because they both
benefitted quite significantly from this clearly quite fraudulent
redirection of charitable funds from the LRCS trust. I am sure that
those people or organizations who might otherwise have benefitted from
donations from this charitable trust hardly felt that this fraudulent
redirection of funds was "swell while it lasted"...
> However, ever curious, I wanted to know more about the mysterious
> LRCS trust and how/why the UUA "broke" it. I found a somewhat
> onesided, but reasonably thorough critical view of the LRCS trust,
> its sources, and the track record of the UUA, at
> <http://www.svabhinava.org/friends/RajanMylvaganam/Holdeen/Holdeen-Final-edition.html>.
>
> It appears that the UUA used a pack of lawyers to gain control of
> a chunk of money that had been bequeathed in part to them and in
> part to others, and that while they are still using part of the
> money for its original purposes, they have in fact used part of it
> for purposes not envisaged by the guy whose will it was.
To put it lightly... It seems to me that if someone makes a donation
to an institution with specific conditions attached to how the trust's
money is to be used and the institution knowingly and willfully
disregards these conditions or cynically bypasses them using
underhanded financial procedures as was the case with the LRCS trust
that this is quite fraudulent and that both the donor and the intended
donnees are victims of this fraud.
> There is no question of fraud--the various maneuvers took place
> completely in the open, in court, and have been scrutinized by
> numerous legal beagles--but I do think that at the very least, the
> UUA could be accused of financial opportunism.
At the very least indeed... Sorry but there is plenty of question of
possible fraud involved here. Were the various highly questionable
financial manoeuvres of the UUA and CUC, as described in Rev. Charles
Eddis' sermon, "completely in the open, in court" and "scutinized by
numerous legal beagles"? I'm not so sure at all. In any case there are
plenty of instances of fraud that occur under such circumstances.
> Fraud? No, not even close.
Actually it is very close to fraud. In fact it fits the looser 1b
definition of fraud.
b : an act of deceiving or misrepresenting : TRICK
> But it was an excellent try, Robin, based on actual evidence.
All of my use of the word "fraud" in relation to the Unitarian Church
of Montreal and the greater UU religious community is an "excellent
try" that is "based on actual evidence"... You just insist on defining
"fraud" in its narrowest legalistic definition whereas I feel
justified in using it in the broader generally accepted use of the
word. The fact remains that in some instances the UCM and the UUA and
CUC could quite justifiably be accused of "fraud" even in the narrower
legalisic definition and not just in terms of the fraudulent
manipulation of the LRCS charitable trust.
> I found the whole affair interesting to
> read about, and, I must say, it rather diminished my respect for
> the financial operations of the UUA.
As it should. I expect that there are even more such skeleton's in the
financial closet of the UUA and CUC to say nothing of individual UU
"churches". Perhaps you might begin to understand my own diminished
respect for the UUA, the CUC, and Unitarian Church of Montreal is in
fact justified by what I have experienced and what I know from
reliable second hand sources.
> Keep it up and who knows?--you
> may eventually find a fact or two to support your "fraud" rhetoric.
I have already provided plenty of readily verifiable facts that more
than support my "CHURCH" OF FRAUD picket sign.
> In the meantime, I propose a possible new sign, "UU Church of
> Financial Opportunism", (or even "UU Church of Lawyers") and this
> time you could totally back it up, with the Holdeen/LRCS story!
Actully after the retired Queen's Counsel lawyer who had advised the
unitarian Church of Montreal about the highly questionable criminal
legal procedures it could take against me foolishly stole some of my
picket signs and technically assaulted me by physically pushing me in
the commission of this crime I seriously considered displaying a
picket sign saying A "CHURCH" WITH A FOOL FOR A LAWYER... I can
totally back up all of my picket sign slogans with plenty of pertinent
facts and testimony most of which is readily verifiable from written
documentary evidence of some kind.
Sincerely,
Robin Edgar
gksh...@ucdavis.edu
> I could have sworn that my arguments were of the I'm right because the
> dictionary definition of the word "fraud" says so...
And I could have sworn that I had shown how that logic quickly
reduced to absurdities such as "UU church calls for attack on
Canada" or "UU church sanctions murder". Dictionaries merely report
the various ways words have been used; they do not control how they
are interpreted. Given the numerous times genuine fraud has been
associated with religious organizations (*other* than the UUA), I
still maintain that your sign is a calumny. Just imagine, for
example, a sign in front of *any* church today saying "This church's
leaders abuse children", meaning they fill their heads with doctrinal
nonsense. It's the same principle with the "fraud" signs.
>> It sounds like no one really liked the way the LRCS
>> money was being used, and that most people really just took a "it
>> was nice while it lasted" attitude about it.
> Wrong. The way the LRCS money was used was in fact a misuse and abuse
> of how it was intended to be used.
Well, the guy who bequeathed it *migh* have objected, but we cannot
know because he died. His daughter (grand-daughter?) did object,
and the UUA's (and State of Pennsylvania's) lawyers basically wore
her out (she was in her 90's). Definitely a bit heavy-handed for
my taste. But keep in mind that the state government was unwilling
to be a party to the original goals of the legator, so that was
already a dead issue (so to speak).
>> There is no question of fraud--the various maneuvers took place
>> completely in the open, in court, and have been scrutinized by
>> numerous legal beagles--but I do think that at the very least, the
>> UUA could be accused of financial opportunism.
> At the very least indeed... Sorry but there is plenty of question of
> possible fraud involved here. Were the various highly questionable
> financial manoeuvres of the UUA and CUC, as described in Rev. Charles
> Eddis' sermon, "completely in the open, in court" and "scutinized by
> numerous legal beagles"? I'm not so sure at all. In any case there are
> plenty of instances of fraud that occur under such circumstances.
It is my understanding that they, as well as all beneficiaries of the
funds, were openly disclosed to the public.
>> Fraud? No, not even close.
>> But it was an excellent try, Robin, based on actual evidence.
> All of my use of the word "fraud" in relation to the Unitarian Church
> of Montreal and the greater UU religious community is an "excellent
> try" that is "based on actual evidence"... You just insist on defining
> "fraud" in its narrowest
Not at all--it is the basic meaning of the word, other usages
are derived from that one.
> legalistic
I think you mean "legal", not "legalistic" here.
> definition whereas I feel justified in using it in the broader
> generally accepted use of the word.
I have no problem with these metaphorical or less precise usages,
as long as sufficient context is provided to prevent misunderstanding,
as it usually is. In the case of a picket sign it is not.
> The fact remains that in some instances the UCM and the UUA and
> CUC could quite justifiably be accused of "fraud" even in the narrower
> legalisic definition and not just in terms of the fraudulent
> manipulation of the LRCS charitable trust.
Go for it, man. Find someone who was harmed by this act of fraud
and convince them to take the UCM/UUA/CUC or whoever is nearby to
court (I don't think that you would have any standing to do it
yourself, but maybe you could convince a cop to start a criminal
action).
BTW, I am continuing with this because I believe that you are an
intelligent, rational individual. I believe that if you really
understood that your sign means something different from what you
intend, that you wouldn't display it. And I really do believe that
to the majority of people who might see it, they would think it
could mean actual fraud in the usual, legal meaning of the word,
and despite our discussion of the Holdeen business (which after
all was one motivation for the CUC/UCM to *split* with the UUA),
I don't believe that that is what you have intended the sign to
mean. Another possibility would be to send the "fraud" sign
down to the Tampa Bay community, where it could be used with
considerably more precision.
Greg Shenaut
Robin Edgar
> Robin Edgar <robin...@altavista.com> wrote (22 Dec 2002 11:42:56 -0800):
> > I could have sworn that my arguments were of the I'm right because the
> > dictionary definition of the word "fraud" says so...
>
> And I could have sworn that I had shown how that logic quickly
> reduced to absurdities such as "UU church calls for attack on
> Canada" or "UU church sanctions murder". Dictionaries merely report
> the various ways words have been used; they do not control how they
> are interpreted. Given the numerous times genuine fraud has been
> associated with religious organizations (*other* than the UUA), I
> still maintain that your sign is a calumny. Just imagine, for
> example, a sign in front of *any* church today saying "This church's
> leaders abuse children", meaning they fill their heads with doctrinal
> nonsense. It's the same principle with the "fraud" signs.
Not at all. The Unitarian Church of Montreal, to say nothing of the
UUA, makes claims that are effectively fraudulent and it is a "fraud"
just in terms of calling itself a "church". Even Rev. Ray Drennan is
on public record as saying that it is "false advertising" to continue
to call it a "church". Most passers-by understand that I am not
talking about the legalistic definition of financial fraud but the
fraud of failing, indeed obstinately refusing to practice what it
preaches etc.
Main Entry: cal·um·ny
Pronunciation: 'ka-l&m-nE also 'kal-y&m-
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -nies
Etymology: Middle French & Latin; Middle French calomnie, from Latin
calumnia, from calvi to deceive; perhaps akin to Old English hOlian to
slander, Greek kElein to beguile
Date: 15th century
1 : a misrepresentation intended to blacken another's reputation
2 : the act of uttering false charges or misrepresentations
maliciously calculated to damage another's reputation
- ca·lum·ni·ous /k&-'l&m-nE-&s/ adjective
- ca·lum·ni·ous·ly adverb
My "CHURCH" OF FRAUD slogan is by no means a misrepresentaion or false
charge, I can back it up with plenty of evidence, thus it is not
"calumny" even though it does effectively damage the reputation of the
Unitarian Church of Montreal. What definitely is calumny is the
calculated and malicious labeling of Creation Day as a "cult" by Rev.
Ray Drennan, Frank Greene and John Inder. Similarly the repeated
labeling of me personally as "psychotic" "a nutcase" "crazy" "unwell"
and any numbere of other epithets for mentally ill by malicious UUs is
actual calumny. In fact it is the unprincipled, intoerant, hostile,
outright malicious and outrageously hypocritical behavior of Rev. Ray
Drennan and rather too many other Montreal UUs that is the "root
cause" of any blackening of the reputation of the Unitarian Church of
Montreal.
> >> It sounds like no one really liked the way the LRCS
> >> money was being used, and that most people really just took a "it
> >> was nice while it lasted" attitude about it.
>
> > Wrong. The way the LRCS money was used was in fact a misuse and abuse
> > of how it was intended to be used.
>
> Well, the guy who bequeathed it *migh* have objected, but we cannot
> know because he died. His daughter (grand-daughter?) did object,
> and the UUA's (and State of Pennsylvania's) lawyers basically wore
> her out (she was in her 90's). Definitely a bit heavy-handed for
> my taste. But keep in mind that the state government was unwilling
> to be a party to the original goals of the legator, so that was
> already a dead issue (so to speak).
Yes it seems to me that the UUA does its damndest to try to "wear out"
people who have legitimate grievances with the UUA. Regrettably for
the UUA I am nowhere close to being worn out...
Picket sign slogans rarely provide "context". In order to be effective
the slogan should not be more than about hal a dozen words at most. It
is clear from the reactions of passers-by that they know perfectly
well that I am not talking about financial fraud but about false and
misleading claims made by the "church". Context is provided by other
picket sign slogans, by written handouts that I often have available,
and by my own testimony when someone asks about the various slogans
which I happily explain to them.
> The fact remains that in some instances the UCM and the UUA and
> > CUC could quite justifiably be accused of "fraud" even in the narrower
> > legalisic definition and not just in terms of the fraudulent
> > manipulation of the LRCS charitable trust.
>
> Go for it, man. Find someone who was harmed by this act of fraud
> and convince them to take the UCM/UUA/CUC or whoever is nearby to
> court (I don't think that you would have any standing to do it
> yourself, but maybe you could convince a cop to start a criminal
> action).
As you know the Unitarian Church of Montreal is currently being
investigated by the Quebec Human Rights Commission for discrimination
and harassment of religious grounds. If it is found guilty it will
mean that many of its claims are effectively fraudulent in the broader
sense of the term and there will be no shortage of "context" in that
regard...
> BTW, I am continuing with this because I believe that you are an
> intelligent, rational individual.
Thanks. That's more than some UUs give me credit for. Do I seem
"psychotic" to you or otherwise seriously mentally ill?
> I believe that if you really
> understood that your sign means something different from what you
> intend, that you wouldn't display it.
Exactly. I carefully assess my picket sign slogans to determine if
they are justifiable before deciding to display them. I sometimes even
consult other people about them.
> And I really do believe that to the majority of people who might see it,
> they would think it could mean actual fraud in the usual, legal meaning of
> the word,
This is where you are mistaken. You forget that there are several
other picket sign slogans displayed at the same time and that even in
the quite limited "context" of those other slogans it is fairly
obvious that I am accusing the "church" of failing, indeed refusing,
to actually practice what it so insincerely preaches when I use the
word "fraud". Even without that context I think that most people would
see it that way. It is generally perceived as another way of accusing
the "church" of flagrant hypocrisy and other misrepresentation which
it is most definitely guilty of.
> and despite our discussion of the Holdeen business (which after
> all was one motivation for the CUC/UCM to *split* with the UUA),
I think you probaly have it ass backwards. My reading of the situation
is that the UUA pretty much dumped the CUC when its money laundering
services were no longer required because the UUA had managed to break
the trust...
> I don't believe that that is what you have intended the sign to
> mean.
It isn't. I have already repeatedly explained what I intend the sign
to mean and that is very much how the public interprets it.
> Another possibility would be to send the "fraud" sign
> down to the Tampa Bay community, where it could be used with
> considerably more precision.
I am not sure what you are talking about here. Election fraud? If so
that is a fine example of perfectly legitimate use of the word fraud
that does not involve any actual financial loss as you seem to insist
must be the case if the word fraud is to be used correctly... If
anything this argument supports my use of the word fraud in its
broader sense.
BTW Speaking of actual financial fraud I should have mentionned that a
small UU fellowship did get defrauded to the tune of about $25,000
when its minister participated in the well-known Nigerian fraud
scheme.
See - http://www.potifos.com/fraud/ for more info about this scam
The thing is that in order to be a victim of this particular type of
fraud scheme you pretty much have to engage in highly questionable
financial transactions that would constitute actual financial fraud in
and of themselves if they were real transactions rather than the false
pretenses of fraud artists...