Rev. Charles Eddis
' CUC produced pamphlet entitled 'What Unitarians Believe', or maybe 'What Do Unitarians Believe?', is counted amongst the highly misleading, if not outright fraudulent. . . false advertising that caused me to choose the fate of joining the Unitarian Church of Montreal and greater Unitarian Universalist religious community, assuming of course that the word "greater" can be properly used to describe The Tiny Declining Fringe Religion™
aka The U*U Movement™
. This effectively fraudulent and now effectively *obsolete* U*U tract
has been republished by the CUC, even after much of the information it contains has been proven to be either outdated or false by the words and actions of Unitarian*Universalist U*Us, including Canadian Unitarian Council co*founder, former CUC President, and current UCM minister emeritus Rev. Charles Eddis
himself BTW. . . and other facts, information, and evidence that contradicts what is claimed in this U*U false advertising. The latest version of this obsolete religious propaganda is entitled 'What Do Unitarians And Univeralists Believe?' aka 'What Do U*Us Believe
So how is this U*U religious propaganda false and fraudulent and outdated U*Us ask?
Let me count the ways. . .
1. Unitarians are people who want a straightforward, practical, ethical religion.
Montreal Unitarians, including several ministers of the Unitarian Church of Montreal starting with Rev. Charles Eddis
himself and proceeding through Rev. Ray Drennan, Rev. Peter Boulatta and Rev. Diane Rollert have been far from straightforward and practical, but more importantly *ethical* in *practicing* their religion with me and/or other people. If I left out one U*U minister of the Unitarian Church of Montreal it is because there is little or no reason for me to add Christian Unitarian minister Rev. David B. Parke, who was the interim minister of the Unitarian Church of Montreal when I decided to join it in December 1993, to that list. Likewise a whole lot of other Unitarians aka Unitarian*Universalists aka U*Us, including plenty of other U*U clergy and top level UUA administrators and UUA Trustees, have been anything but straightforward, practical, and ethical in their dealings with me and other people. If Unitarians were *really* people who want a straightforward, practical, ethical religion they would try harder to actually be straightforward, practical, and ethical.
2. The word "Unitarian" comes from the emphasis Unitarians four centuries ago put on the unity of God, in contrast to the Christian belief in the Trinity, God in three persons.
The key phrase here being "four centuries ago". . . i.e. *outdated*
Yes, the information is factually correct, but it is misleading to God believing people who believe in the unity of God but are then treated with disrespect, hostility, and contempt by the "fundamentalist atheist" faction of "Humanist" U*Us at the Unitarian Church of Montreal and any number of other Unitarian "churches" in Canada and the U.S.A., to say nothing of elsewhere in the so-called U*U World.
3. While Unitarianism was known by others primarily for its denial of one Christian doctrine, it was from the first much broader. It was a comprehensive programme for religious reform, rooted in humanism and the radical Reformation. It was as much a spirit as a programme. It stressed free intellectual inquiry, freedom, tolerance, and ethical living.
Notice Rev. Charles Eddis' use of the past tense here. . . Yes, perhaps once upon a time Unitarianism *stressed* free intellectual inquiry, freedom, tolerance, and ethical living. Now intolerant and abusive U*Us at the Unitarian Church of Montreal and other U*U "churches" go out of their way to *stress* people who are engaged in free inquiry, seeking and trying to exercise freedom, trying to promote tolerance and ethical living. Many of the "Unitarians" I know do their damnedest to suppress free intellectual inquiry of various kinds, and trample all over freedoms that Canadians and Americans have fought major wars to try to defend. "Unitarians" themselves engage in or condone various forms of intolerance and bigotry, most ironically including (but not limited too. . .) the anti-religious intolerance and bigotry that I and far too many other God believing people aka bona fide *Unitarians* have encountered in too many so-called Unitarian "churches"
4. Unitarian views have evolved under the impact of science, philosophy, and the encounter of the world religions. Today there are some Unitarians who describe themselves as universal theists and others who call themselves humanists. Many feel uncomfortable with labels, whether Christian or other.
That's funny. I seem to recall "Unitarians" very comfortably labeling me as a "crazy" psychotic" "nutcase" and Creation Day as a "cult". . .
5. If you ask Unitarians just what they believe, you may find them stumped for a short answer.
Allow me to help "Unitarians" out
with that Chuck. . .
Or would that be allow me to "out" outrageously hypocritical "Unitarians" including you Rev. Charles Eddis?
When was the last time that you looked at yourself in The Mirror
6. If you were to conclude from this, and from our diversity and our freedom, that we don't know what we think, or that one can believe anything one likes and be a Unitarian, you would be mistaken.
Really Chuck? Are you quite sure about that? From what I can see, and I can see quite a bit, albeit not nearly as much as God can see. . . there is absolutely minimal racial and ethnic diversity in the Canadian and American "Unitarian" "church". And. . . in my own personal experience and observation, there are no shortage of "Unitarians" aka U*Us who can and quite regrettably *do* believe anything one likes.
Am I mistaken in believing that Rev. Ray Drennan
, Frank Greene
, and John Inder
who ALL believe that Creation Day is a cult are still Unitarians? What about all those delusional, if not paranoid, "Unitarians" who apparently believe that I am a "crazy" "psychotic" "nutcase", and even "a dangerously deranged psycho/sociopath whose antagonistic and aggressive threats against others should be sufficient enough to commit him involuntarily to a mental institution"? What about *those* "Unitarians" Chuck? Well I guess the "less than anonymous" "Unitarian" aka U*U who libeled me as a "a dangerously deranged psycho/sociopath" probably doesn't believe that any more, most likely being dead and all. . . right Chuck?
What about Rev. Diane Rollert, current minister of the Unitarian Church of Montreal, whose irrational "near-death fears" are "always brought out"
when she gets on an aircraft or receives an email
from the dreaded Emerson Avenger seeking dialogue with her? Is *she* still a "Unitarian" Chuck? Do tell. . . I dare say that you are the one who is *mistaken* if you really believe that a person cannot be a "Unitarian" and pretty much "believe anything one likes" including a whole lot of incredibly ignorant, stupid, and harmful things. . .
7. In spite of appearances, we are remarkably united in our basic values and beliefs.
Right. . .
Basic values and beliefs like I am psychotic and Creation Day is a cult Chuck?
Forgive the sarcasm. . .
Let's talk about the *actual* claimed "basic values and beliefs" that you and no shortage of other "Unitarians" aka U*Us have repeatedly disregarded and/or made a total mockery of via your hypocritical words and actions, or indeed your abject failure and/or obstinate refusal to speak words that need to be spoken, and take actions that need to be taken. . . in order to *genuinely* honor and uphold "Unitarian" aka Unitarian*Universalist principles
and other claimed U*U ideals
8. I have never met a Unitarian who did not accept the findings of science. I have never met a Unitarian who did not believe in evolution. I have never met a Unitarian who did not affirm the importance of this life, of living well in the here and now, as opposed to preparing now for a life to come. Unitarians hold that living well now is the only possible preparation for whatever may come after death - if anything.
So just how do you and other "Unitarians" define "living well" Chuck?Like this
maybe? How about this
? How does "Unitarian" U*Us crapping all over other people's desires and efforts to live well fit in with "Unitarians" living well Chuck? How does "Unitarians" knowingly and willfully obstructing other people's efforts to live well align with "living well in the here and now"?
9. I have never met a Unitarian who did not feel a sense of personal responsibility for how he or she lived his or her life, and for what happened to society and the world.
ROTFLMU*UO! I have met dozens if not hundreds of "Unitarian" U*Us who quite evidently DO NOT feel a sense of personal responsibility for how he or she LIVES his or her life, and for what happened to U*U society and the U*U World, let alone the *real* world Chuck. Hell you are one of them Rev. Eddis. . . How much personal responsibility have you taken for *your* role in the big fat U*U fiasco that is known as the 'Pathologizing Fiasco
' as it were? How much personal responsibility have you taken for your grossly negligent response to my letters of grievance about Rev. Ray Drennan's intolerant and abusive attack on me and his *ahem* obstinate refusal to accept any personal responsibility for how he lived his life with me, to say nothing of the rest of the congregation of the Unitarian Church of Montreal or his estranged children?
Where has Rev. Victoria Weinstein aka Peacebang accepted the slightest personal responsibility for her insulting and defamatory, or otherwise verbally abusive, attacks on people Chuck? Why didn't the UUA and its very aptly named Ministerial *Fellowship* Committee take *responsible* steps to ensure that Rev. Ray Drennan and Rev. Victoria Weinstein faced a modicum of *accountability* when I complained about their insulting and defamatory language directed at me and other people?
When did Rev. Diane Miller ever accept the slightest personal responsibility for her grossly negligent and effectively complicit failure, if not outright refusal. . . to ensure that Rev. Ray Drennan either took personal responsibility for how he lived his life with me by retracting his insulting, intolerant, bigoted, abusive, hostile, and outright malicious words, or faced some real accountability from the MFC for refusing to do so? When will Rev. Diane Miller
accept personal responsibility for *pretending* that Rev. Ray Drennan's demeaning and abusive verbal attack on me was "within the appropriate guidelines of ministerial leadership
When will Rev. Dr. Tracey Robinson-Harris
and Rev. Beth Miller
accept personal responsibility for being a pair of crazy asshats
who turned willfully blind eyes
, to say nothing of corpse-cold Unitarian hearts
. . . toward my formal unbecoming conduct complaint about Rev. Victoria Weinstein's "sodomy fantasy"
obscenely imagining a U.S. senator "anally impaled on the Statue of Liberty's torch", as well as other insults, defamation, and verbal abuse that she subjected people to on her PeaceBang blog? You and no shortage of other outrageously hypocritical U*U clergy quite evidently don't know the meaning of the term "personal responsibility" do you Reverend Eddis?
BTW Maybe one day you and other Canadian Unitarian Council leaders can get around to accepting some personal responsibility for that "money laundering" operation (as it were) that you were quite evidently aware of
, if not *personally* involved in, when the CUC redirected money from charitable trusts that was supposed to be spent outside of the U.S.A. back to the coffers of the UUA in Boston. . . How did that little scheme work again Chuck?
Oh ya. . .
"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."
Just how *ethical* was that little financial arrangement between the CUC and UUA Reverend Eddis? It doesn't look all that ethical to me. . . Where was the money from the Liberal Religious Charitable Society actually supposed to go? Certainly not right back to the coffers of the UUA according to the *restrictions* on it eh Chuck? One person has assessed that situation as a "betrayal" of the Liberal Religious Charitable Society trust if my memory serves me well. . . Is that how "Unitarians" go about living well in the here and now Charles?
More later. . .
This post will evolve and have more links added to it over the next little while.
I may also create a second brand-spanking new Emerson Avenger blog post to deal withe the rest of Rev. Charles Eddis' *obsolete* fraudulent Unitarian*Universalist religious propaganda.
If so I will link to it from here.
* WARNING! Big Fat U*U PDF file. . . :-)
Labels: Chuck Eddis, false advertising, Minister Emerituis Charles Eddis, rev. charles eddis, U*U propaganda, Unitarian Church of Montreal