The Emerson Avenger

The Emerson Avenger is a "memory hole" free blog where censorship is scorned. This blog will "guard the right to know" about any injustices and abuses that corrupt Unitarian Universalism. Posters may speak and argue freely, according to conscience, about any injustices and abuses, or indeed hypocrisy, that they may know about so that the Avenger, in the form of justice and redress, may come surely and swiftly. . . "Slowly, slowly the Avenger comes, but comes surely." - Ralph Waldo Emerson

My Photo
Name:
Location: Montreal, Quebec, Canada

In 1992 I underwent a profound revelatory experience of God which revealed that the total solar eclipse "Eye of God" is a "Sign in the Heavens" that symbolizes God's divine omniscience. You may read about what Rev. Ray Drennan of the Unitarian Church of Montreal contemptuously dismissed as my "psychotic experience" here: http://revelationisnotsealed.homestead.com - This revelatory religious experience inspired me to propose an inter-religious celebration of Creation that would take place whenever a total solar eclipse took place over our planet. You may read about what Rev. Ray Drennan and other leading members of the Unitarian Church of Montreal falsely and maliciously labeled as a "cult" here: http://creationday.homestead.com - I am now an excommunicated Unitarian whose "alternative spiritual practice" includes publicly exposing and denouncing Unitarian*Universalist injustices, abuses, and hypocrisy. The Emerson Avenger blog will serve that purpose for me and hopefully others will share their concerns here. Dee Miller's term DIM Thinking is used frequently and appropriately on this blog. You may read more about what DIM Thinking is here - http://www.takecourage.org/defining.htm

Sunday, January 29, 2006

The Emerson Avenger Once Again Puts U*Us On The * About DIM Thinking Ministerial Fellowship Committee Complicity In Abusive U*U Clergy Misconduct. . .

I am once again going to put U*Us on the *. . .

Let's be democratic about this and hold a little straw poll vote.

As I have said before, my formal letter of grievance of February 14th, 1996, that UUA President John Buehrens arbitrarily dismissed as unworthy of any investigation but none-the-less forwarded to the UUA's Ministerial Fellowship Committee shared my concerns about Rev. Ray Drennan's clearly derogatory and openly hostile labeling of Creation Day as a "manipulative and secretive" cult, his quite literally "in your face" sneering assertion that my claimed revelatory experience was nothing but a "psychotic experience" and his angry insistence that I seek immediate psychiatric treatment, and his sneeringly derisive dismissal of my religious beliefs as nothing but "silliness and fantasy". This letter of grievance not only aired my grievances in considerably more detail than the above condensed version but pointed out how Drennan's conduct clearly violated UU principles and purposes. The official response to this letter of grievance from the Ministerial Fellowship Committee's Executive under the directorship of Rev. Diane Miller was to dismiss my grievances by saying that Rev. Ray Drennan's behavior, as I very accurately described it in my lengthy letter of grievance, "seemed to us to be within the appropriate guidelines of ministerial leadership."


Here are links to the UUMA's Code of Professional Practice and Guideliness for the Unitarian Universalist Ministry.

The Code of Professional Practice
for the Unitarian Universalist ministry

The UUMA Guidelines for the conduct of ministry
aka GUIDELINES for the UNITARIAN UNIVERSALIST MINISTRY

I think that it is safe to assume that either the latter or both of these documents are the "appropriate guidelines of ministerial leadership" that Rev. Diane Miller was referring to.

So here are my two questions that I am asking you to answer in my straw poll -

1. Do you believe that Rev. Diane Miller and the UUA's Ministerial Fellowship Committee was in fact justified in saying that Rev. Ray Drennan's conduct, as described above and in much more detail in my letters of grievance, is in fact "within the appropriate guidelines of ministerial leadership". A simple YES or NO answer will suffice but you may qualify your answer if you wish.

2. If your answer to the above question is NO (as I trust it will be in most cases, assuming any U*Us bother to excercise their "right of conscience" that is. . .) please answer the simple multiple choice question -

A - Rev. Diane Miller and the MFC Executive are apparently ignorant of the content of the UUMA's Guidelines and Code of Professional Practice

B - Rev. Diane Miller and the MFC Executive are probably lying

C - Rev. Diane Miller and the MFC Executive are apparently delusional

D - Other (Please specify)

I look forward to seeing the results of this straw poll.

Allah prochaine,

The Dagger of Sweet Reason

aka The Emerson Avenger

aka Robin Edgar


Here is the full text of the first letter that I received from the Rev. Diane Miller and the UUA's Ministerial Fellowship Committee in response to my initial letter of grievance which is a bit too long and detailed to post here.

This text is from an OCR scan of the actual letter -

Unitarian Universalist Association of Congregations

25 Beacon Street, Boston, Massachusetts 02108 Ministerial Fellowship
Committee

(617) 742-2100 FAX (617) 367-3237

April 25, 1996

Mr. Robin Edgar
15 rue Lafleur Apt. 11
Verdun, Quebec,
CANADA, H4G 3C3

Dear Mr. Edgar:

Your letter to President John Buehrens, along with various attached documents, was referred to me. You requested that your complaint be conveyed to the correct authorities within the Association. I serve as Director of Ministry and as Executive Secretary of the Ministerial Fellowship Committee (MFC), the body charged with oversight of ministers.

Your complaint was shared with the minister, which is a standard step in our procedures. It was then reviewed by me with the chairperson of the MFC. We did not see, in the volume of material you sent, that your complaint is within the purview of the MFC.

While we recognize that your expectations of ministry are not being met in your relationship with the Rev. Ray Drennan, we did not see cause to further investigate the minister's conduct. It seemed to us to be within the appropriate guidelines of ministerial leadership.

We hope that you will find ways to pursue your spiritual insights which you and others will find both satisfying and harmonious in the pluralist theological environment of these times.

Sincerely,

Diane Miller
MFC, Executive Secretary

copies:
The Rev. Ray Drennan
Krystyna Matula, President, Unitarian Church of Montreal
MFC Executive Committee


So, as you can see, the MFC (under Rev. Diane Miller's "oversight") "shared" my complaint with Rev. Ray Drennan, whatever that means, and then made no further investigation at all of my very serious grievances but chose instead to whitewash Rev. Drennan's clearly abusive misconduct by saying - "It seemed to us to be within the appropriate guidelines of ministerial leadership."

Here is my two page response to Rev. Diane Miller's initial dismissive letter -

Robin Edgar
15 Lafleur apt. 11
Verdun, Quebec
Canada, H4G 3C3

Rev. Diane Miller,
Director of Ministry
Unitarian Universalist Association

Friday May 10, 1996

Dear Rev. Miller,

This is to acknowledge receipt of your letter dated April 25,1996. In this letter you stated that you "did not see" that my formal complaint about Rev. Drennan's unprofessional and demeaning conduct towards me was "within the purview of the MFC" yet it is President John Buehrens who was personally responsible for delivering my complaint of unprofessional conduct to you. Why would President Buehrens refer my complaint to you, the Executive Secretary of the Ministerial Fellowship Committee, if it was not clearly within the range of authority and responsibility of the MFC to deal with such complaints? I must admit that I was somewhat skeptical that my serious complaint about Rev. Drennan's deplorable conduct would be responsibly dealt with by a committee whose name states that is devoted to ministerial "fellowship" given the common definition of the word "fellowship". It is quite regrettable that your response to my complaint would indicate that my skepticism was well founded.

Your statement that Rev. Ray Drennan's conduct "seemed to us to be within the appropriate guidelines of ministerial leadership" is rather disturbing. It gives every appearance of being an attempt to "whitewash" Rev. Drennan's unprofessional and demeaning conduct towards me and, quite frankly, it invites a sardonic and sarcastic response. In the interests of maintaining a civil relationship with you and in an effort to live up to the stated principles of our chosen faith I will, for the time being, resist the temptation to provide such a response. I will, however, say the following - the letter of complaint addressed to the Board of the Unitarian Church of Montreal dated Wednesday February 14, 1996, contains an accurate and unembellished description of Rev. Ray Drennan's comportment towards me. Those statements attributed to Rev. Drennan in the said letter that are contained within quotation marks are as close to word for word transcripts of what was said to me by Rev. Drennan as is humanly possible, and my descriptions of the manner and/or tone of voice in which these statements were made are totally reliable.

The statements attributed to Rev. Drennan are not fabrications nor are they in any way the products of a deluded "psychotic" mind as some people might have you believe. If Rev. Ray Drennan has denied making any of these statements he is, to put it succinctly, lying. If he does not deny making these statements then I do not see how his deplorable comportment towards me could be considered to be "within the appropriate guidelines of ministerial leadership."

There are several aspects of Rev. Drennan's unprofessional and demeaning conduct that are of considerable concern to me but the most important and potentially damaging to me are the following:

1. Rev. Drennan has described my religious activities as a "cult" and he has clearly qualified his use of this word by saying that he means "a manipulative and secretive religious group". Besides being false this allegation is potentially extremely damaging to my reputation, within and outside of the Unitarian Church of Montreal, and could make it next to impossible for me to engage in interfaith activities should it spread beyond our congregation. While it is true that this damaging allegation was made during a private meeting between myself and Rev. Drennan and there were no other witnesses to this it does not change the fact that I cannot allow Rev. Drennan, or anyone else, to make such false and damaging statements about me without demanding a retraction and an apology. It is also clear from Rev. Drennan's repeated assertion that he is the "first one being honest" with me, and the "only one being honest" with me, that this and a number of other false and damaging rumours about me are circulating within the Board and Executive of the Unitarian Church of Montreal. I would be the first to say that it is likely to be only a small minority of people who share, and apparently genuinely believe, these damaging rumours but they are in highly influential positions within our congregation. These deplorable rumours, and other hear say and innuendo about me, may have already played a role in the Board's refusal to allow Creation Day to be celebrated in Channing Hall for a second time in October of 1995. Surely it is not possible that it is actually "within the appropriate guidelines of ministerial leadership" for a Unitarian Universalist minister to make false and potentially extremely damaging allegations about a member of his or her congregation.

2. Rev. Drennan has described my revelatory religious experience as "your psychotic experience" which, besides completely denying the validity and truthfulness of my revelatory experience, clearly implies that I am suffering from a severe form of mental illness. I suggest that you look up the definition of the word "psychotic" or "psychoses" in a good dictionary or encyclopedia of psychology before you decide that Rev. Drennan's clearly hostile labelling of my revelatory experience as "your psychotic experience" is "within the appropriate guidelines of ministerial leadership." It is clear to me that Rev. Drennan fancies himself to be qualified to make such a diagnosis but I would not insult amateurs of any variety by describing his repeated misguided attempts to psychoanalyze me as "amateurish". I will say that these attempts were unprofessional in the extreme, not only in terms of Rev. Drennan's role as a minister in the Unitarian Universalist church, but also in terms of someone who apparently has formal training in the domain of family therapy.

The potentially damaging nature of Rev. Drennan's allegation that I am suffering from psychoses compelled me to seek out a qualified psychiatrist who could determine whether or not this was in fact the case. I saw Dr. Levitan of the Queen Elizabeth hospital outpatient clinic on two occasions during which I provided him with a detailed description of my revelatory religious experience as well as most of the claims that arose from it. He found that "no traces of psychoses are evident" and referred to me as "obviously sane" during our first meeting and asked me if I wanted him to send a letter thanking Rev. Drennan for sending a "perfectly sane person" to see him at the conclusion of our second meeting. Dr. Levitan saw absolutely no reason for me to see him for any further analysis or therapy and it was abundantly clear that he was not particularly impressed with Rev. Drennan's skills in the domain of psychiatry.

As a final note I will say that while I most certainly appreciate Dr. Levitan's confidence in my overall sanity I am not sure that I would even refer to myself as being "perfectly sane"; however, I would say to you, as I said to him, that I am as sane as anyone who has had a direct revelatory experience of God can be expected to be under the circumstances and I have good reason to believe that I am considerably more sane and rational than a number of those people who claimed profound revelatory religious experiences in the past.

3. Rev. Drennan scoffingly referred to the claims arising from my revelatory religious experience as "silliness and fantasy" before I could even begin to explain the exposition which illustrates, and thus serves to validate, most of my claims. He also made several other sarcastic and derisive comments about my revelatory religious experience and the claims with arose from it throughout our meeting of Thursday November 9, 1995, as well as on other occasions. I will spare you any further details (most of which are already contained in my letter of February 14) but I will ask you if it is genuinely "within the appropriate guidelines of ministerial leadership" for a Unitarian Universalist minister to openly mock, ridicule, and deride the deeply held personal religious beliefs of a member of his or her congregation regardless of the minister’s privately held opinion of their validity? I would hope that this is not the case, yet this is what your letter would indicate if taken at face value.

I will cite a few other examples of how Rev. Ray Drennan's conduct towards me can, in my own opinion, hardly be considered to be "within the appropriate guidelines of ministerial leadership" however the foregoing three points should be enough to persuade you to reconsider your response to my formal complaint about what I have very good reason to consider to be extremely unprofessional, demeaning, and abusive comportment towards me by Rev. Ray Drennan. I will add that your response gives the impression that Unitarian Universalist ministers are not subject to the guidelines of stated Unitarian Universalist principles. I have already pointed out how Rev. Ray Drennan's comportment towards me makes a complete mockery of most of the "Seven Principles" which Unitarian Universalists covenant to affirm and promote" but I would like to remind you of a little red pamphlet titled "What do Unitarian Universalists believe?". This pamphlet begins by stating, "We believe in freedom of religious expression. All individuals should be encouraged to develop their own personal theology, and to present openly their religious opinions without fear of censure or reprisal." It should be obvious that Rev. Ray Drennan's harshly critical and vehemently disapproving, to say nothing of demeaning, response to my effort to openly present my personal theology to him, a personal theology which is based on direct personal experience of God synthesized with considerable meditation, deliberation, and research, clearly constitutes severe and unjustified censure of my religious opinion.

This little pamphlet then goes on to say that, "We believe in the toleration of religious ideas. All religions, in every age and culture, possess not only an intrinsic merit, but also potential value for those who have learned the art of listening." Rev. Ray Drennan's behaviour is demonstrably intolerant of the religious ideas that I presented to him in spite of the fact that virtually all these religious ideas have clear precedents in the religions of this and other ages and in our own and other cultures as the exposition of pictures which I showed him clearly demonstrates. Rev. Ray Drennan's labelling of my religious ideas as "silliness and fantasy" before I had even begun to explain them to him and his repeated interruption of my presentation with negative, derisive, and mocking comments would tend to indicate that he has not yet learned the art of listening and it is quite evident that be had absolutely no interest in recognizing either the intrinsic merit or the potential value of the religious ideas that I presented to him.

This small pamphlet goes on to say, "We believe in the never-ending search for Truth. (Please note the capital T) If the mind and heart are truly free and open, the revelations which appear to the human spirit are infinitely numerous, eternally fruitful, and wondrously exciting." Rev. Ray Drennan's negative and demeaning comportment towards me clearly indicates that neither his mind nor his heart is truly free and open to the revelation which appeared to my spirit and his commitment to the "never-ending search for Truth " is called into question by his attitude towards the truths that I have tried to present to him. It is true that he is not the only Unitarian Universalist minister who has failed-in this regard but he is the only one who has launched a personal attack on me and has openly mocked and ridiculed my claim of a revelatory religious experience.

I could go on to point out to you a number of other ways in which Rev. Ray Drennan's unprofessional and demeaning comportment towards me violates the stated beliefs, principles, and ideals of the Unitarian Universalist Association, and I will do so in future if I should find it necessary; however, it should now be within your capacity to clearly perceive how Rev. Drennan's deplorable conduct is damaging not only towards me but to the ability of the Unitarian Universalist Association to credibly present itself as a religious community which believes in freedom of religious expression and which, in Rev. Drennan's words, "honours diversity of theology".

To bring you up to date with my case you should be aware that on Sunday, April 21, 1996 I brought this regrettable matter to the attention of our congregation as a whole during the "Sharing Joys and Concerns" segment of the Sunday service. I can assure you that it was not a "joy" by any means to have to stand up in front of the congregation and be obliged to inform them about Rev. Ray Drennan's deplorable conduct towards me. I handed out a two-page letter to concerned members of the congregation after this and subsequent services. (I am enclosing a copy of this letter for your perusal.) You should also be aware that I warned the Board of our church that I would take such a step if Rev. Ray Drennan refused to volunteer a formal apology to me. A copy of my letter addressed to President Krystyna Matula, which was read during April's Board meeting, is also enclosed. Perhaps the Board thought that I was bluffing and that I would not have the nerve to bring such damaging allegations about myself to the attention of the congregation as a whole because, needless to say, Rev. Drennan did not apologize nor has he offered any form of apology to date. This obstinate refusal on the part of Rev. Drennan to apologize to me in any way, shape, or form, for his demeaning and damaging comportment towards me is quite disturbing, and may be seen as unprofessional behaviour in itself.

One former Board member, who is involved in human rights issues offered to act as a mediator between me and Rev. Drennan in this matter. I readily accepted this person's offer however Rev. Drennan turned it down. No further progress has been made in this matter since my announcement to the congregation on April 21 and I have had no further communication with Rev. Ray Drennan or the Board.

I expect Rev. Ray Drennan to either confirm the truthfulness of my grievances about his comportment towards me or formally deny them. If Rev. Drennan confirms that my grievances about his comportment towards me are, to use his own terminology, "true enough" then I must insist that he formally retract his demeaning and damaging statements about me and deliver a formal apology to me and that he must do this before the congregation of the Unitarian Church of Montreal during an upcoming Sunday service at which I am present. I must also insist that he provide me with a written copy of his retraction and apology for my personal records. This is the first and most essential step that he must take if he wishes to move towards reconciliation and healing in this regrettable affair.

Should Rev. Drennan choose to deny the essential truthfulness of my description of his comportment towards me, something that would be highly inadvisable, then I will have to take steps to pursue this matter further; steps that ultimately will not reflect well on him or on the Unitarian Universalist religious community in general should it continue to fail to respond to my serious grievances about Rev. Ray Drennan's unprofessional and demeaning comportment towards me in a manner that may clearly be seen to live up to both the letter and the spirit of clearly stated Unitarian Universalist principles. This is, after all, "a matter of principle" in every sense of the word and I must inform you that because I know that I am right and, more particularly, because I know that I have been wronged, I will not let this matter rest until I have made every effort to ensure that justice is done and peace is restored.

Sincerely,

Robin Edgar


Here is Diane Miller's self-described "wise" response -

Unitarian Universalist Association of Congregations

25 Beacon Street, Boston, Massachusetts 02108
Ministerial Fellowship Committee

(617) 742-2100 FAX (617) 367-3237

May 20, 1996

Mr. Robin Edgar
15 Lafleur Apt. 11
Verdun, Quebec
CANADA, H4G 3C3


Dear Mr. Edgar,

I regret to learn that you have chosen to escalate the strife between you and the Minister and the Board of your church by voicing your complaint during a worship service and handing out a two page letter to the worshipers on more than one occasion.

You clearly feel wronged. That is unfortunate. However, taking comments made in a private conversation and publicizing your demand for an apology, you have made very serious public charges against the Reverend Mr. Drennan. In my opinion, and that of the Ministerial Fellowship Committee, his comments as quoted by you do not warrant the description of "extremely unprofessional and demeaning" responses.

I am glad to hear that you were evaluated as "perfectly sane" by a psychiatrist. I am also glad you have had the profound experience of revelation and a direct experience of God. I am further glad to know you have thought so deeply about the principles of Unitarian faith.

These facts do not, however, justify your demands. The CUC, the UUA, and the Montreal congregation have no obligation to support, promote, study or approve of your religious perceptions in the course of their institutional work or as individuals.

I cannot think of any example of a mystic, a prophet, or a religious leader who evidenced intractable anger at not being understood, as you seem to be doing. I would hope that a direct experience of God might direct your energy away from this dispute toward profound concerns.

Your letter confirms to me the wisdom of the MFC's decision to close your complaint.


Sincerely,

Diane Miller
Executive Secretary to the MFC
and Director of Ministry

copies:

Revs. Marjorie Skwire and Gene Pickett, MFC
The Rev. Ray Drennan, Minister
Ms. Krystyna Matula, Board President


I never responded to this final official brush off by Rev. Diane Miller and the Ministerial Fellowship Committee preferring to try to obtain justice at the congregational level. I think that these three letters should provide more than enough "context" for you all to be able to make an informed decision about the self-described "wisdom" of Rev. Diane Miller's and the MFC Executive's response to my totally legitimate and very serious grievances about Rev. Ray Drennan's abusive clergy misconduct.

Please excercise your "right of conscience" by submitting your "votes" and any related comments.

17 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

In reponse to question #1 - not enough info. It's only fair to hear both sides of a disagreement, I am sure Miller, Beuhrens, etc. talked to Drennan and not just accepted your side of the story as the whole truth.

Sunday, January 29, 2006 1:55:00 pm  
Blogger The Emerson Avenger said...

:Anonymous said... In reponse to question #1 - not enough info.

There is actually more than enough damning information in those two letters from the UUA's Ministerial Fellowship Committee, as represented by Rev. Diane Miller, for U*Us to enter into a free and responsible search for the truth of what I said and the meaning of what Rev. Diane Miller said if you catch my drift. . .

:It's only fair to hear both sides of a disagreement,

I agree wholeheartedly with that principle. The fact of the matter is that Unitarian*Universalists aka U*Us have repeatedly abjectly failed, and indeed obstinately refused. . . to apply that principle of determining truth and justice in this conflict. It should be clear from the two letters from Rev. Diane Miller that she and the MFC made absolutely no attempt to contact me and speak with me before rejecting my very serious grievances. Had they done so I would have been in a position to expose any lies or obfuscation that Rev. Ray Drennan engaged in.

:I am sure Miller, Beuhrens, etc. talked to Drennan

Rev. Diane Miller specifically says that she "shared" my complaint with Drennan. She even states that the MFC "did not see cause to further investigate the minister's conduct." She and the MFC Executive thus quite incompetently at best, and quite complicitly at worst, failed or refused to responibly investigate my complaint further by entering into direct communication with me and asking me appropraite questions etc. prior to arbitrarily and callously dismissing my very serious complaint about Rev. Ray Drennan's behaviour that clearly was intolerant, angry, malicious, hostile, demeaning and outright abusive as described in detail in my lengthy my original letter of grievance of February 14, 1996 and as described again in my letter to Diane Miller that is reproduced above.

:and not just accepted your side of the story as the whole truth.

It is beside the point whether or not my story is "the whole truth" all that matters is if what I am claiming is true at all. . . If Rev. Ray Drennan did in fact behave as I described his "disruptive and aggressive" behaviour, to say nothing of those other very appropriate words that I have used to describe his "inappropriate" behaviour, in my letters of grievance then Rev. Diane Miller and the Ministerial Fellowship Committee failed miserably, indeed point-blank refused, to do its job properly.

One of the most damning elements of Rev. Diane Miller's letters is that she actually has the sincere ignorance and indeed conscientious stupidity to declare that Rev. Ray Drennan's behaviour, as described by me in my letters of grievance. . . "seemed to us to be within the appropriate guidelines of ministerial leadership" and that in her opinion, and that of the Ministerial Fellowship Committee, Rev. Ray Drennan's comments as quoted by me. . . "do not warrant the description of "extremely unprofessional and demeaning" responses." Need I say more? Need I point out to you and others U*Us that this is not only "whitewashing" but an effective endorsement of Rev. Ray Drennan's intolerant, malicious and abusive comments.

It is due in no small measure to this complicit endorsement of Rev. Ray Drennan's demeaning and abusive clergy misconduct by Rev. Diane Miller and the UUA's Ministerial Fellowship Committee that this conflict is still unresolved in an manner that even remototely lives up to U*U claims to affirm and promote justice, equity and compassion in human relationships.

Allah prochaine,

The Dagger of Sweet Reason

aka The Emerson Avenger

aka Robin Edgar

Sunday, January 29, 2006 2:39:00 pm  
Blogger indrax said...

At this point, I'd have to vote yes. I do not see anything in those guidelines which would prohibit Rev. Drennan's treatment of you, as you describe it.
Maybe I missed something.

Also, the second document contains the first.

Monday, January 30, 2006 2:27:00 am  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

My vote is "This happened 10 years ago. Time to move on, put this behind you, and do something positive."

Monday, January 30, 2006 10:46:00 am  
Blogger The Emerson Avenger said...

You disappoint me Indrax. Please read the UUMA Guidelines for the conduct of ministry again and then try to claim that Rev. Ray Drennan's intolerant, demeaning, hostile, malicious and abusive "disruptive behaviour" towards me was "within" either the letter or the spirit of those offficial UUMA Guidelines for the conduct of ministry. Rev. Ray Drennan's "inapproriate" and "aggressive" "disruptive behaviour" towards me very clearly made a complete mockery of the ideals and principles that are expressed in the introduction section to these guidelines, to say nothing of more specific guidelines for ministry. I don't even have to refer to The Code of Professioanl Practice aka The Code of Ethics of the UUMA to blow Rev. Diane Miller's ridiculous assertions right out of the water. . .

Monday, January 30, 2006 11:57:00 am  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The withdrawal of Mr. Edgar’s membership from the Unitarian Church of Montreal was not motivated by his religious beliefs, but by his disruptive and aggressive behavior towards the members of this congregation. His inappropriate behaviour has continued for more than ten years. Seven years ago he was brought before a Disruptive Behavior Committee, where over the next three years attempts were made to have him moderate his unacceptable behaviours. He would agree to proposed solutions and then go on as before. He was repeatedly warned that failure to comply with what he had agreed to do would result in serious consequences. Over this period, he was suspended from participation in Church life for six months. Unfortunately, upon his return his behaviour worsened , and he was suspended for an additional year. Again when he returned, his inappropriate behavior continued. Finally in November 1999, at a meeting of the full congregation, during which he spoke on his own behalf, a congregational vote was taken and his membership was revoked. This decade long process, during which sincere attempts were made by the congregation to negotiate a solution, ended when it became that he had no intention of ceasing his disruptive and aggressive behaviours. It should be noted that Reverend Ray Drennan did apologise, in person, on more than one occasion. However, this did not meet with Mr Edgar’s satisfaction. Mr. Edgar has redressed his grievances to whomever he has saw fit, be it the UAA, CUC, etc., and his complaint to the Quebec Human Rights Commission in 2002 was summarily dismissed as being without merit. Mr Edgar continues to picket the church in the futile belief that the Church will act. Reverend Drennan is no longer the minister as he left to follow his own life’s journey; and the church has simply moved on.

Monday, January 30, 2006 2:30:00 pm  
Blogger The Emerson Avenger said...

This is now the fourth time that anonymous U*U has posted the above U*U BS in an effort to deny and discredit the legitimacy of my grievances. It is quite ridiculous for anonymous U*U to keep reposting this U*U BS when I already demonstrated just what BS it really is in my point by point rebuttal (aka * by * reU*Ual) a few days ago. . . Please forgive me for using the words "silliness" and "fantasy" to describe this U*U BS butt. . . as my point by point rebuttal of this U*U BS clearly demonstrates, it is highly delusional institutional denial that is chock full of sincerely ignorant DIM Thinking and disinformation and thus can be quite properly described as a U*U "fantasy". Simililary this U*U BS can be correctly described as "silliness" in its own right but it clearly and unequivocally constitutes U*U "silliness" to continue to post the exact same U*U BS when it has already been discredited and disproven by my previous point by point rebuttal. All this does is publicly demonstrate the sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity of not only anonymous U*U but also the Unitarian Church of Montreal and the greater U*U religious community which engages in or condones this DIM Thinking attempt at institutional denial of U*U injustices, U*U abuses and U*U hypocrisy.

Allah prochaine,

The Dagger of Sweet Reason

PB2U*Us

Monday, January 30, 2006 5:31:00 pm  
Blogger indrax said...

Robin: If you have a case to make, make it, because I'm not seeing it.

Anonymous #3:
Repitition is not the answer.
indraxblog@gmail.com

Tuesday, January 31, 2006 12:24:00 am  
Blogger The Emerson Avenger said...

anonymous U*U is now up to his or her (most probably his) 8th sincerely ignorant and conscientiously stupid reposting of U*U BS. I guess anonymous U*U believes the old saying that if you repeat a lie often enough it becomes accepted as truth. Par for the course for many of the U*Us I have the misfortune to know. . .

Oh Brother Bootknife of Quiet Contemplation,

Please do me the honour of quietly contemplating these very simple and straightforward questions. . .

How does Rev. Ray Drennan's intolerant, insulting, and outright hostile and abusive haviour, as it is clearly described in my letters of grievance - speak to the world in words and actions of right, beauty, peace and goodwill?

How does it - encourage and support me or others who were interested in celebrating Creation Day?

How does it - share in a religious pilgrimage of mutual care, forbearance, self-discipline and a desire to serve the common good?

How does it - nurture spiritual growth for me and for others?

How does it - preach and teach the truth as she or he sees it without fear of any person and with respect for all persons?

How does it - enable others to provide occasions - personal and institutional - conducive to the spiritual and intellectual growth of the people of the congregation and to their power for social good?

In what manner does it - provide the agency or means of counsel and comfort?

How does it - reflect honesty, forthright love and service with and for the congregation?

Need I ask more? Those questions are just those that arise from the introduction segment. . . There are plenty of other such rhetorical questions that I could pose to you and other U*Us. . . I am honestly disappointed and even quite saddened that it should be necessary to do so.

Allah prochaine,

The Dagger of Sweet

PB2U*Us

Tuesday, January 31, 2006 10:15:00 pm  
Blogger indrax said...

Boot Knife of Quiet Reflection :-)

I think you are taking a very strict legalistic interpretation of an introduction to guidelines for unitarians. That is a mistake.

His words may or may not do any of those things. Asking me still more questions is not making a case.

If you wish, you could assert that his words do not 'share in a religious pilgrimage of mutual care, forbearance, self-discipline and a desire to serve the common good', and then explain why.

Even with that, failing to fulfill such guidlines is a seperate issue from violating them. I tie my shoes, and that fulfills none of those aspirations, but it does not violate "the appropriate guidelines of ministerial leadership".

In order to counter Rev. Diane Miller's statement, you would need to show that Rev. Drennan's actions are prohibited by the guidelines.
Given these documents, I don't think there is a case.
There is the broader question of whether his words violated what the guidelines should be. Unfortunately, I think this would be dificult to codify.

Should a Minister be allowed to refer people to psychological counseling?
Should a Minister be allowed, in a private meeting, to offer "honest" opinions of a persons beliefs?
Should a Minister be allowed, in private, to be critical of a person's behavior?
How would guidelines distinguish between acceptable and unacceptable modes of these actions?

Thursday, February 02, 2006 10:02:00 am  
Blogger The Emerson Avenger said...

:Boot Knife of Quiet Reflection :-)

Oops. . . Please accept my humblest apologies for getting your Unitarian Jihad name wrong. I actually did verify it but then forgot to correct it. . .

:I think you are taking a very strict legalistic interpretation of an introduction to guidelines for unitarians. That is a mistake.

Not at all. I am just making it abundantly clear via the use of rhetorical questions that Rev. Ray Drennan's behaviour, as described in my letters of grievance that Rev. Diane Miller had in her possession, most certainly was not "within" the guidelines of ministerial conduct as she asserted in her responses to my complaints.

:His words may or may not do any of those things.

Wrong they definitely are not "within" either the letter or the spirit of those very clearly stated guidelines.

:Asking me still more questions is not making a case.

Yes it is because they are all rhetorical questions. The very obvious answer to them that the vast majority of people will agree with is that Rev. Ray Drennan's behaviour was by no means within those stated guidelines.

:If you wish, you could assert that his words do not 'share in a religious pilgrimage of mutual care, forbearance, self-discipline and a desire to serve the common good', and then explain why.

I do assert that via the rhetorical questions and there really should be no need to explain why to adults with moderate intellgence and a modicum of conscience. I am not terribly concerned with trying to convince the small minority of people, U*Us or otherwise, who just don't get it. I have better things to do with my time right now. Indeed I have already wasted too much time on this matter in the last few weeks when it would be better spent on other things. . .

:Even with that, failing to fulfill such guidlines is a seperate issue from violating them.

I disagree, and in any case Rev. Ray Drennan's intolerant, insulting and outright hostile and abusive "disruptive behaviour" towards me quite obviously did violate at least some of these guidelines.

:I tie my shoes, and that fulfills none of those aspirations, but it does not violate "the appropriate guidelines of ministerial leadership".

No comment. . .

:In order to counter Rev. Diane Miller's statement, you would need to show that Rev. Drennan's actions are prohibited by the guidelines.

Not at all. I only need to show that Rev. Drennan's words and actions were not "within" these guidelines as was asserted by Rev. Diane Miller. I do believe that I have already successfully done that however even doing that should not really be necessary since most people can easily figure it out for themselves. . .

:Given these documents, I don't think there is a case.

Given these documents I have already demonstrated that Rev. Ray Drennan's words and actions clearly and unequivocally were not "within" either the letter or the spirit of the "guidelines" for ministerial leadership that they express clearly in writing.

:There is the broader question of whether his words violated what the guidelines should be.

Not at all. Rev. Drennan's words and actions as described by me made a complete mockery of many of these existing guidelines as they are clearly expressed.

:Unfortunately, I think this would be dificult to codify.

I don't, and it is quite unnecessary anyway. Rev. Ray Drennan's clearly "aggressive" and "inapproproriate" "disruptive behaviour" towards me was by no means "within" the "appropriate guidelines for ministerial leadership" as alleged by rev. Diane Miller.

:Should a Minister be allowed to refer people to psychological counseling?

Of course but that is not quite what Rev. Ray Drennan did is it? He contemptuously dismissed my revelatory religious experience as "your psychotic experience" and angrily insisted that I was in dire and immediate need of professional help. . .

:Should a Minister be allowed, in a private meeting, to offer "honest" opinions of a persons beliefs?

Not if those "honest" opinions of another person's beliefs are symptomatic of religious intolerance and bigotry or other forms of prejudice and oppression etc. as was the case. . . Imagine if the victim was a black person trying to explain his "Black Pride" and the minister contemptuously responded by saying "you mean your racial inferiority" and contemptuously described his Kwanzaa celebration as "you mean your (insert N-word here) cult". . . Imagine if the victim was gay and was trying to explain his beliefs about homosexuality and the minister dismissed everything that he was saying as being nothing but "silliness and fantasy" and followed this up by labeling his homosexuality as "you mean your mental illness" and angrily insisting that he must immediately seek "professional help" to "cure" him of his homosexuality. . . etc. etc. etc.

:Should a Minister be allowed, in private, to be critical of a person's behavior?

Within reason. Interestingly enough Rev. Ray Drennan was not really critical of any "behaviour" on my part, other than the fact that I had submitted a grievance to the Board about the anti-democratic manner in which they banned Creation Day from being celebrated in the UCM. There was no "behaviour" on my part for him to be critical of at the time. . .

:How would guidelines distinguish between acceptable and unacceptable modes of these actions?

The guidelines for ministerial leadeship as written provide more than adequate general "guidelines" as to what are acceptable modes of behaviour for U*U ministers. U*U ministers and the UUA officials who have "oversight" over ministry should have the intellignce and the conscience required to determine the specifics of what constitutes acceptable and unacceptable behaviours without needing to create a huge list of more specific guidelines. It is obvious to most people of intelligence and conscience that Rev. Ray Drennan's behaviour, as I described it, not only is not "within" many of these clearly stated guidelines but clearly and unequivocally disregards and outright violates either the letter or the spirit of many of these guidelines as they were stated at the time.

Allah prochaine,

The Dagger of Sweet Reason

PB2U*Us

Thursday, February 02, 2006 2:55:00 pm  
Blogger indrax said...

Forgive me, I must be endowed with below average intelligence. I still do not see a case.

I chose the term [critical of] 'behavior' because it was the best generalization I could find for an allegation of being 'manipulative and secretive'. If a minister believes a person to be acting in manipulative or secretive ways, how does he address it?

How are those honest opinions "symptomatic of religious intolerance and bigotry or other forms of prejudice and oppression"? He said what he said, address that, not racial and sexual analogies.

How would you tell someone that you think they're crazy?

Monday, February 06, 2006 5:54:00 am  
Blogger The Emerson Avenger said...

:Forgive me, I must be endowed with below average intelligence. I still do not see a case.

I am fully confident that most people can and do see the case very clearly.

:I chose the term [critical of] 'behavior' because it was the best generalization I could find for an allegation of being 'manipulative and secretive'.

The allegation was that Creation Day was a "cult". . . When I immediately challenged Drennan to qualify exactly what he meant by that word which was obviously a contemptuous slur judging by the sneering tone of voice in which he uttered that allegation he responded by saying "I mean a manipulative and secretive religious group." He made little or no direct specific accusations of me being either manipulative or secretive. Ironically in my original letter of grievance I pointed out how the Unitarian Church of Montreal had behaved in a 100% secretive manner and highly manipulative manner in banning Creation Day from being celebrated in the church for a second time. . .

:If a minister believes a person to be acting in manipulative or secretive ways, how does he address it?

Cautiously and politely, after first making quite certain that the person is in fact acting in manipulative or secretive ways. . . Their was absolutely nothing secretive about Creation Day nor was there any real manipulative behaviour on my part. Au contraire it was Drennan and the other "fundie" atheist bigots who clearly acted in ways that were both secretive and highly manipulative in their opposition to my religious initiatives. Most ironically Rev. Drennan's intolerant and abusive attack on me was done during a private meeting with me and thus quite secretive and it was most certainly emotionally and psychologically manipulative. N'est-ce pas?

:How are those honest opinions "symptomatic of religious intolerance and bigotry or other forms of prejudice and oppression"?

I have already shown that many times over. . . Most people of intelligence, sensitivity and conscience can see right away how Rev. Ray Drennan's allegedly "honest" opinions are most certainly "symptomatic of religious intolerance and bigotry or other forms of prejudice and oppression" and don't require me having to explain it to them.

:He said what he said, address that, not racial and sexual analogies.

I have addressed "that" for about a decade now and it is perfectly legitimate to draw very parallel analogies of racial or sexual intolerance and oppression for people who can't seem to "get" "that". . . The analogies I drew were valid.

:How would you tell someone that you think they're crazy?

For starters you should not do so unless there is some very strong evidence that they are in fact crazy. . . There are however fairly civil and indeed compassionate ways of telling people that you believe that they have a mental health problem. It is abundantly obvious that Rev. Ray Drennan was neither civil nor compassionate. Au contraire he was clearly contemptuous, hostile and abusive.

I am going to have to devote most of my energies to other more important matters for the next month or two. Further discussion with you will be limited, especially since you seem to be incapable of seeing and acknowledging the obvious wrongfulness and harmfulness of the obvious injustices, abuses and hypocrisy that I and indeed others have been subjected to by Rev. Ray Drennan and rather too many other U*Us. I will retun to the fray in April if the fray is still ongoing as is likely to be the case barring any unforeseen miracles. . .

Allah prochaine,

The Dagger of Sweet Reason

PB2U*us

Monday, February 06, 2006 1:02:00 pm  
Blogger indrax said...

I am not attacking you Robin, I am asking you to be rigorous. The intelligent people at the UUA have reviewed your case and found it lacking. If you believe they are biased you have to make your case all that much stronger.

Bobby comes you you and says:
"Johnny said mean things to me.
The rules say not to be mean.
You must punish johnny."

How do you react to that?

Or Bobby says:
"Johnny said mean things to me.
The rules say not to be mean.
I told teacher she must punish Johnny.
Teacher said Johnny was not being mean.
You must punish both Johnny and Teacher."

Has Bobby convinced you that Teacher has acted wrongly?

Monday, February 06, 2006 2:06:00 pm  
Blogger The Emerson Avenger said...

:I am not attacking you Robin,

I am quite aware of that and I have not accused you of attacking me. Be assured that the day that I think that you are attacking me you will know it. . . ;-) N'est-ce pas?

:I am asking you to be rigorous.

I am quite aware of that too. I am simply saying that it should not really be necessary for me to be any more rigorous than I have been many times in the past and right now I have better things to do with my time than spend hours repeating my well-documented rigourous criticism and dissent of the past decade or so. I will happily be more rigorous in April. . .

:The intelligent people at the UUA have reviewed your case and found it lacking.

The not so intelligent people at the UUA have rather half-heartedly, to say nothing of half-assedly. . . reviewed my case and found lame excuses to pretend that it is lacking when it most clearly is not lacking at all. This is obvious enough just from my correspondence with Rev. Diane Miller but it only becomes increasingly evident on reading various other documents.

:If you believe they are biased you have to make your case all that much stronger.

They clearly are biased and most intelligent people of conscience can quite readily deduce that just from reading my correspondence with Rev. Diane Miller. The sincere ignorance of her heavily biased institutional denial is glaringly evident in both of her letters.

:Bobby comes you you and says:
"Johnny said mean things to me.
The rules say not to be mean.
You must punish johnny."

:How do you react to that?

By responsibly investigate the complaint and then taking appropriate action, punitive or otherwise. . . Don't forget that in the early stages of this dispute I was only asking for an official apology and retraction of the "mean things" that Ray said to me. Unfortunately neither the Unitarian Church of Montreal nor the UUA's Ministerial Fellowship Committee initiated a genuinely responsible investigation of my grievances nor did they take any appropriate action. Down the road a bit the Unitarian Church of Montreal then began to punish me quite harshly for refusing to drop my perfectly legitimate grievances. . .

:Or Bobby says:
"Johnny said mean things to me.
The rules say not to be mean.
I told teacher she must punish Johnny.
Teacher said Johnny was not being mean.
You must punish both Johnny and Teacher."

:Has Bobby convinced you that
Teacher has acted wrongly?

Nope. But I am not the "Bobby" of your overly simplistic poor analogy. I have in fact already presented plenty of strong evidence that both "Johnny" aka Rev. Ray Drennan, and "Teacher" aka Rev. Diane Miller and the MFC et al. . . have in fact "acted wrongly". The correspondence and other information in the post above provides more than enough concrete evidence for most people of intelligence and conscience to be able to freely and responsibly assess for themselves and come to the conclusion that I am justified in accusing them of having "acted wrongly". It really should not be necessary for me to guide or otherwise influence intelligent people of sensitivity and conscience to that fairly straighforward conclusion.

This material was posted to Beliefnet years ago. Very few U*Us voted in my straw poll, presumably because they understood that I was justified and they could not with integrity vote that the MFC acted properly. Almost every single one of the half-dozen or so UUs that did vote in my straw poll voted in my favor, and some of them strongly condemned the obvious effectively complicit institutional denial of Rev. Diane Miller. Most non-UUs provided with the above information, who have no vested interest in covering U*Uism's U*U. . . will not require any further argumentation or justification from me to concur that Rev. Ray Drennan, the Unitarian Church of Montreal and the UUA's Ministerial Fellowship Committee "acted wrongly". . .

Allah prochaine,

The Dagger of Sweet Reason

PB2U*Us

Monday, February 06, 2006 4:27:00 pm  
Blogger indrax said...

Ok, there are some standards of argumentation I think we need to cover.

Saying something does not make it so. You say they were negiligent. You say Drennan was sneering. You say you were not agressive and innapropriate.

To date I have not even heard you once quote the full sentences Drennan used, to say nothing of the context.

You say you are not manipulative, you say you are not secretive. I don't even know if creation day constitutes a 'group'. You say you have been found not-psychotic by a doctor.

Saying you don't have time, or that you have already made a case, or that it should be obvious, is not making a case, they are distractions.

Using highly emotive adjectives does not show that they are appropriate. Simply being in a private minesterial meeting with somone does not constitute 'secretive'. Did the UCM 'ban' creation day or did they simply say you could not use the church? Do they not have this right? They let you have it once, why did they decide not to let you have it again?

You consistently blame the board, various committees, individuals, the UUA, the QHRC. But it was in a congregational meeting that you were expelled from the UCM, was it not? and by what majority was this done? These were people who had dealt with you for years. How many Unitarians decided it was time for you to leave the Unitarian Church of Montreal?

I look forward to April.

Monday, February 06, 2006 6:52:00 pm  
Blogger The Emerson Avenger said...

:Ok, there are some standards of argumentation I think we need to cover.

If you wish.

:Saying something does not make it so.

I agree 100% unfortunately rather too many U*Us do not understand this principle, including Rev. Ray Drennan and Rev. Diane Miller just for starters. . .

:You say they were negiligent.

Correct and there is plenty of documentary evidence supporting that claim.

:You say Drennan was sneering.

Correct. He came into the meeting in an angry mood and he was sarcastic, contemptuous and otherwise insulting, hostile and abusive throughout the meeting from start to finish. Definitely someone who could benefit from some anger management therapy.

:You say you were not agressive and innapropriate.

Correct. Not during my meetings with Drennan nor during church services. OTOH Rev. Ray Drennan definitely behaved in a manner that could be properly described as both inappropriate and aggressive on more than one occasion. He also behaved in an aggressive and inappropriate manner with other people. What the Unitarian Church of Montreal calls "aggressive" and "inappropriate" "disruptive" behaviour on my part is my calm and peaceful distribution of letters of grievance to church members following church services as is clear from the documentation but for some reason they have obstinately refused to acknowledge that Rev. Ray Drennan's behaviour towards me was far more appropriately described as "inappropriate" "aggressive" "disruptive behaviour". Why do you suppose I filed a complaint against him with the UCM's so-called "Disruptive Behaviour Committee" if not to expose the outrageously hypocritical double standards that they were exercising? It sure wasn't because I had any realistic expectation that they would actually act on it. N'est-ce pas?

:To date I have not even heard you once quote the full sentences Drennan used, to say nothing of the context.

Actually I have provided the full phrases that Rev. Ray Drennan used and the context that he used them in many times over.

:You say you are not manipulative, you say you are not secretive.

I am definitely far from secretive and I am no more manipulative than most of the U*Us I know, indeed far less so. . .

:I don't even know if creation day constitutes a 'group'.

I agree. It does not constitute a single religious group per se which just makes it all the more ridiculous for Rev. Drennan to maliciously label Creation Day as "your cult" and qualify that damaging slur by saying that he meant a "manipulative and secretive religious group". . . By definition an inter-religious celebration cannot be a "cult" which just makes it all the more foolish for Drennan to refuse to retract his idiotic intolerant and abusive "hate speech". . .

:You say you have been found not-psychotic by a doctor.

Correct. In fact I have seen several mental health professionals at various times and for various reasons since my profound revelatory religious experience of January 1992 and none have found me to be suffering from any serious mental illness. I was diagnosed with a moderate depression in the spring of 2003 and took a minimal dose of Celexa for about three months. I dare say that in no small measure conscienceless U*Us are at least in part responsible for that depression. . .

:Saying you don't have time, or that you have already made a case, or that it should be obvious, is not making a case, they are distractions.

No. It is a fact that I have more than made the case in the past, many times over, and indeed it IS obvious to most people who bother to look into the facts. I can make the case again in "rigorous" detail just for you but as you well know I do have other important priorities at the moment. Making the case just for you is in fact a "distraction" from my higher priorities for the next couple of months or so. . .

:Using highly emotive adjectives does not show that they are appropriate.

You mean uing highly emotive adjectives like "psychotic" "cult" "aggressive" "disruptive behaviour" "nuts" "crazy" "sick" "unwell" etc. etc. ad nauseum? I couldn't agree more. . . They are by no means appropriate and that is why I am protesting against them in front of the Unitarian Church of Montreal and on the interconnected web of the internet.

:Simply being in a private minesterial meeting with somone does not constitute 'secretive'.

You wouldn't say that about a minster sexually harassing a congregant during a private minesterial meeting now`would you? It most certainly was secretive compared to behaving the same way inb full view of the congregation. N'est-ce pas? In any case the Board meeting during which Creation Day was barred from being celebrated in the UCM most certainly was both secretive and manipulative. So much so that there is no mention in the official minutes of that meeting indicating that Creation Day was discussed or voted upon. .. .

:Did the UCM 'ban' creation day or did they simply say you could not use the church?

What's the difference? They couldn't ban it outright could they? They did ban it from being celebrated in the UCM in a totally secretive "in camera" segment of the October 1995 UCM Board meeting that I was physically barred from attending. . . Less than a month later Rev. Ray Drennan was calling Creation Day "your cult" to my face. Coincidence? I think not. . .

:Do they not have this right? They let you have it once, why did they decide not to let you have it again?

Good question. Because the meeting was totally secretive I have no idea what the ostensible reasons for not allowing Creation Day to be celebrated again in the UCM were. I do know what Rev. Ray Drennan said to me less than a month later though and have no reason to believe that there is no connection. . .

:You consistently blame the board, various committees, individuals, the UUA, the QHRC.

Correct because they are indeed blameworthy as the pertinent documentation clearly shows. . .

:But it was in a congregational meeting that you were expelled from the UCM, was it not?

Correct.

:and by what majority was this done?

About 77 to 3. . .

:These were people who had dealt with you for years.

Not really most were people who has willfully ignored me for years. . .

:How many Unitarians decided it was time for you to leave the Unitarian Church of Montreal?

As I said about 77 sincerely ignorant and conscientiously stupid ones who foolishly allowed themselves to be manipulated by their leaders. . . The whole process was very carefully manipulated in favor of the UCM leadership. The "President" of the meeting was Frank Greene who had called Creation Day a "cult" in the past and had even made a tasteless "joke" that snidely insinuated a link between Creation Day and the notorious "Solar Temple" suicide cult when I was organizing the first celebration of Creation Day in the fall of 1994. Everything is very well documented now. The UCM even disregarded and flaunted its own bylaws in its anti-democratic manipulation of due process and this too is very easy to demonstrate via existing documents that are open to scrutiny. . .

:I look forward to April.

As do I. . . September should be very interesting to when the new settled minister discovers he has a serious problem on his or her hands because the UCM ignored my letters of last spring that made it clear that my protest would continue if they failed to subject Rev. Ray Drennan to accountability before he left their sinking U*U "Ship of Fools" like the cowardly rat that he is. . .

Allah prochaine,

The Dagger of Sweet Reason

PB2U*Us

Monday, February 06, 2006 9:51:00 pm  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home