The Silence Of The U*Us II - Clergy Sexual Misconduct
I can't help but notice that very few U*Us have posted comments to uugrrl's excellent 'Speaking Truth to Power' blog that is specifically dedicated to discussing "how Unitarian Universalists address clergy misconduct" or, more accurately. . . how the UUA, the Ministerial Fellowship Committee, and the U*U religious community more generally, abjectly fail to live up to the purported principles and purposes of U*Uism in their response to clergy misconduct. The complicit silence of the U*Us speaks volumes to me.
Comments
I do support her efforts, her ministry, I just don't know what to add. It's a difficult subject to talk about to begin with, I don't feel entirely comfortable piping in with mundane comments, even to encourage.
You quite evidently have no problem "piping in" with all manner of idiotic comments on this blog which deals with similarly difficult subject matter. Indeed at times The Emerson Avenger deals directly with U*U sexual misconduct and you have piped in with what others have called "wild-ass statements" and which I now think of as "wild-U*U statements".
I find it most interesting that spoke in general terms of the silence of the U*Us with respect to uugrrl's blog about UUA mishandling of clergy sexual misconduct, and in no way singled out anyone, yet a couple of U*U bloggers feel compelled to post their rather lame excuses for not any posting comments to the 'Speaking Truth To Power' blog.
I'm comfortable posting here because the part of my primate brain that determines my uneasiness identifies this as familiar territory. When I started posting here I had already had years to consider your story and I
was still exploring the UU blogosphere.
Indeed at times The Emerson Avenger deals directly with U*U sexual misconduct and you have piped in with what others have called "wild-ass statements"
That is false, I think you need to reword it.
and which I now think of as "wild-U*U statements".
You claim you don't attack UU's until they attack you, but you attack EVERY UU with your religious slurs.
I quite justifiably criticized U*Us for complicit silence in response to clergy sexual misconduct, to say nothing of other U*U injustices and abuses. U*Us, including U*U "religious professionals" quite regularly attack entire religious communities and even attack theistic religion more generally. In fact plenty of U*Us seem to pride themselves in belittling, maligning and ridiculing other religions and those who believe in God. If U*Us are going to dish it out they had better be prepared to take it. . . My poking fun at the U*U religious community as a result of CUC Executive Director Mary Bennett's U ass*to*risk U gaffe is nothing compared to the anti-religious intolerance and bigotry, or other offensive "insulting and defamatory language" spewed by some U*Us (again including U*U clergy) which is tacitly condoned, or even effectively endorsed, by U*U eh religious leaders and the vast majority of other U*Us. . .
In fact one of the very reasons that I have gone to town with Mary Bennett's asinine U*U "corporate identity" gaffe is because she expressed personal approval and admiration for Rev. Ray Drennan's anti-Christian, anti-Catholic, and more broadly anti-religious attack on Pierre Elliot Trudeau's Roman Catholic state funeral when I brought it to her attention in a phone call soon after it was published. If U*U clergy, and U*Us more generally, can sh*t all over other people's religious beliefs and practices with complete impunity, and even the approval and admiration of top level U*U "religious leaders" or administrators, they should not be surprised if it comes back to bite them in the ass aka U*U. This is especially valid when a top-level U*U leader, who has personally approved of the anti-religious intolerance and bigotry of an abusive U*U minister, so witlessly makes a complete ass out of the U*U religious community on her own asinine initiative. . .
If you find the U*U "corporate identity" to be offensive or even "obsecene"* I suggest that you take it up with CUC Executive Director Mary Bennett and the other dim*witted U*U leaders who so foolishly chose to affirm and promote the U*U world-wide. . .
:Two people explain why they behaved in a reserved manner, (Yes perhaps too reserved,) and you attack them again.
I just criticized their lame excuses. . .
:I'm comfortable posting here because the part of my primate brain that determines my uneasiness identifies this as familiar territory.
Woo-hoo! I had no idea that you were a U*U primate indrax. You must be moving up in the U*U World. ;-)
:When I started posting here I had already had years to consider your story and I was still exploring the UU blogosphere.
Well *considering* that you now claim to have had years to consider my story there is virtually no excuse for your DIM Thinking denial, ignorance and minimization of the U*U injustices, U*U abuses, and U*U hypocrisy that are the "root causes" of that "story" indrax.
::Indeed at times The Emerson Avenger deals directly with U*U sexual misconduct and you have piped in with what others have called "wild-ass statements"
:That is false, I think you need to reword it.
I don't think so indrax. To use a phrase that Rev. Ray Drennan seems to be quite fond of, it is "true enough". . . Other people have referred to other statements made by you in the past as "wild*ass statements". I quite justifiably consider some of your responses to my posts about sexual misconduct committed by U*Us to be "wild*ass statements". So, at least in my opinion, you have indeed piped-in to some of my posts about U*U sexual misconduct, to say absolutely nothing of many of my other posts. . . with foolish statements that fit the description "wild*ass statements" that other people have previously used to describe the online ravings of the indrax troll aka James Andrix.
::and which I now think of as "wild-U*U statements".
:You claim you don't attack UU's until they attack you, but you attack EVERY UU with your religious slurs.
Your mixing apple's with oranges indrax. I do generally refrain from attacking individual U*Us unless they attack me first but, in that U*U religious leaders, top-level U*U administrators, and U*Us more generally have tacitly condoned or even outright endorsed "religious slurs" hurled at others by U*U clergy and U*U lay leaders etc. I feel that it is justifiable to poke a bit of fun at UUs when they make U*Us out of themselves, especially when the dim*thinking U*U administrator who so witlessly made U*Us out of UUs has herself approved of "religious slurs" spouted by the intolerant and abusive "Humanist" U*U minister Rev. Ray Drennan. . .
* yes, at least one Canadian U*U has publicly expressed their opinion that Mary Bennett's "U asterisk U" aka U*U is "obscene". I dare say that I can think of a few other things U*U that can quite justifiably be described as "obscene", not the least of them being Rev. Victoria Weinstein's well publicized "sodomy fantasy" involving the Statue of Liberty's torch and a U.S. senator. And that's just for starters. . .
So you admit that you lump the entire group together and are willing to insult people you've had no interactions with based solely on there religion.
I just criticized their lame excuses. . .
Justify your use of the word lame.
For that matter, justify your use of the word excuse. I gave no excuse.
What do judge a valid 'excuse'?
Do you see into people's hearts?
Well *considering* that you now claim to have had years to consider my story there is virtually no excuse for your DIM Thinking denial, ignorance and minimization of the U*U injustices, U*U abuses, and U*U hypocrisy that are the "root causes" of that "story" indrax.
I saw problems with your story even then, you've done little fix them.
::Indeed at times The Emerson Avenger deals directly with U*U sexual misconduct and you have piped in with what others have called "wild-ass statements"
:That is false, I think you need to reword it.
I don't think so indrax. To use a phrase that Rev. Ray Drennan seems to be quite fond of, it is "true enough". . . Other people have referred to other statements made by you in the past as "wild*ass statements". I quite justifiably consider some of your responses to my posts about sexual misconduct committed by U*Us to be "wild*ass statements". So, at least in my opinion, you have indeed piped-in to some of my posts about U*U sexual misconduct, to say absolutely nothing of many of my other posts. . . with foolish statements that fit the description "wild*ass statements" that other people have previously used to describe the online ravings of the indrax troll aka James Andrix.
Much better, but note that that's not what you said the first time. Perhaps this was just a grammar nit, but Thank You for rewording it.
Too bad that you can't identify who it was that called my statements 'wild-ass' without revealing yourself to be a hypocrite yet again.
Your mixing apple's with oranges indrax. I do generally refrain from attacking individual U*Us
Generally?? You must mean other than referring to their religion with a string you adopted because it resembles an ass.
You can't use a slur to insult a group and pretend you're not insulting the individuals in the group.
The fact that Montreal U*Us are once again desperately seeking to obtain a court injunction to end my protest via the route of trumped up criminal charges that misuse and abuse the Canadian Criminal Code in order to trump my civil right to peacefuil public protest as guaranteed by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms * even after the public relations disaster resulting from the first false arrest on trumped up criminal charges of December 2000 * illustrates just how desperate Montreal U*Us are.
DIM Thinking U*Us like to use the bon mot -
"The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results."
to pretend that I am some kind of insane nutcase for steadfastly protesting for so long but in fact it is U*Us who are far more guilty of "doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results" than I am. I have repeatedly pointed out that I am getting a good many, albeit not all (yet). . . of the results that I expect from my ongoing public protest activities. U*Us are most definitely not getting "different results" by walking past my picket signs over and over for close to a decade now. Likewise U*Us are not getting "different results" by calling in bogus complaints to the Montreal police force for close to a decade now. Montreal Unitarian U*Us did not get "different results" from expelling me from their alleged Unitarian Church "over and over" and finally permanently expelling me which translates to "over and over" ad nauseum. . . Do Montreal Unitarian U*Us really believe that they will obtain "different results" by having me arrested on flimsy bogus trumped up criminal charges once again? I am very confident that Montreal Unitarians will not obtain "different results" from these previous results of this previous false arrest and indeed malicious prosecution of yours truly. . . I look forward to successfully defending myself against these new bogus criminal charges, and any other idiotic legal proceedings or other measures that Montreal's desperate U*Us attempt in their deeply misguided and outrageously hypocritical efforts to misuse and abuse "state" laws in order to impose Unitarian "church" censorship on my perfectly legitimate public protest against U*U injustices, abuses and hypocrisy. Believe me I am going to have a field day with this latest episode of U*U insanity. . .
I have no intention whatsover of ending my protest before the summer of 2008 at the very earliest, unless of course Montreal U*Us come to their senses and agree to negotiate a settlement that genuinely lives up to currently fraudulent U*U claims to affirm and promote justice, equity and compassion in human relations.
Montreal Unitarians aka Montreal U*Us have *at minimum* one full year of public protest, and most likely significantly escalated public protest. . . in front of them if they fail to come to their senses and throw in the proverbial towel between now and next summer. I am seriously considering sending Montreal U*Us a nice clean white towel with instructions for use accompanying it.
1. Attach to a pole and wave vigorously uin front of the Unitarian Church of Montreal to signal unconditional surrender.
2. Throw it in.
3. Make good use of it to clean up the disgusting mess that Montreal U*Us are collectively and individually responsible for creating. . .
To paraphrase Winston Churchill -
We shall go on to the end, we shall fight in Montreal, we shall fight on the seas and oceans of U*U hypocrisy, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength against the fetid air of U*U "pure wind", we shall defend our Island, whatever the cost may be, we shall fight with the bitches*, we shall fight on the coffee grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender. . .
*Sorry U*Us but I just could not resist that bitching pun. See definitions 3. and 6. ;-)
This post conforms to The Emerson Avenger's "do unto U*Us as they do unto others" policy.