Tuesday, August 19, 2008

Nice New York Times ad, IMHO

I finally got a look at the UUA's New York times ad about Knoxville and I like it.

It's nicely non-victimy in that its message is pretty much "we're going to keep doing what we're doing and if you like us you're welcome to join us and if you don't, oh well." I'd say this is a pretty good membership message in general. It's more or less the one that recruited me.

I hate it when we pander. The whole "We're the church for you, really, really, we are!" message bugs me and I get nervous when we start talking about recruiting certain demographics of people, even and perhaps especially when those demographics include me.

As I've mentioned before, my ideal church ad campaign is the one the methodists ran several years ago. It had a very similar sort of "we're doing awesome things over here. If you want to join us, our doors are always open" tone. I hope we can keep this tone for other ads.

Good stuff.

I've had some arguments with individuals, but on the whole I'm proud of my church and the UUA and how we've responded to this. For a church with some groups that really like to play the victim, there has been very little self-labeled victimization*. I haven't seen the UUA Washington office using the shootings to make political points. (And honestly, I really expected to.)

My faith in Unitarian Universalism as a concept never really flags. But I'm feeling a lot better about the UUA these days.**

CC

*But then, I'm pretty sure that the Knoxville church was targeted because it had been accepting and done good. (Either as far as homosexuality or as far as the ex-wfie is concerned, I tend to think the latter.) It's hard to feel like a victim when you know that the violence has just strengthened your resolve to keep doing good for other people. Victims make the violence (and indeed, themselves) the center of their experience. Non-victims take awhile to recognize what has happened, try to fix things, but ultimately move forward.

There's not much fixing to be done here in my opinion, though I get that that's what the "blame O'Reilly" folks are trying to do despite my huge disagreements with them.

Ultimately, we need to mourn those killed but move forward, and I think this ad is a perfectly reasonable step in this direction.

**Of course, it's easy to have faith in a theoretical ideal. Keeping faith in an organization made up of actual falliable people is harder.

32 comments:

Anonymous said...

It's nice to see you say something nice about the UUA for once.

Chalicechick said...

Yeah, that’s a fair point, I do tend to be awfully critical, mostly because the UUA often speaks for its members politically and I hate that, so I probably talk about the problems more than I talk about the good things. The good things are there, though.

Sinkford has made social justice a major part of his platform, and has spoken for me in ways I wish he hadn’t. My impression is that neither of the current candidates for UUA president are planning to make such a point of that, so I suspect I will have less to be critical about.

That said, I think most church members have complaints about their denominations. My parents were certainly never quiet about their issues with PCUSA.

Mostly, I calls them as I sees them, and this time, what I saw was good.

CC

Bill Baar said...

What's did Sinkford mean when he wrote we've greeted anger with love?

I for one will be a little more aware of stangers at Church... not ashamed to say I'll do a little profiling and any strange male perhapes acting a bit uncomfortable is someone I'll pay attention too.

I think that's a common sense reaction and not a hateful one... just smart especially as these events tend to create copycats.

Chalicechick said...

(((What's did Sinkford mean when he wrote we've greeted anger with love?)))

Well, for one thing the last guy to try something like this at a church was immediately killed by church members.

At the UU church, he wasn't even allowed to kill himself.

Also, you haven't seen really any hatred against the guy spring up among UUs. My church even prayed for him.

CC

Ps. This won't help, but the church members had guns in Colorado and the same number of people died and there was only one fewer wounding, so even if you aid your discomfort by packing a pistol it's unlikely to do any good.

Anonymous said...

A copy of the ad is taped to the glass entry door of Westside UU Church, Farragut, TN.

We at Westside appreciate the thoughts. Yes, we've had a few strangers show up at our services since July 27, but, a a member of the trauma team said, what happened that day is a once in a lifetime experience.

Concerning the invitation to people to attend UU services, what's the big deal? Around here, we get a constant flow of Jehovah's witnesses and Mormans knocking at our door. Today we received in the mail invitations to attend First Baptist Church; other churches in the area send cards to us too.

We have to get out of the mindset of repelling visitors. A UU church is not a closed club. Ournumbers have not even kept pace with the population growth in this country. We lost Lind Kraeger plus another member who died in June. We hope new people will show up at our door to keep our church alive.

Bill Baar said...

Regarding the Colorado shooting, my Churches Social Justice committee was prompted to come up a definition of violence that excluded the kind of violence used to subdue the Knoxville shooter.

They didn't want to call that violence because it meant we couldn't call ourselves non-violent.

I said the folks at Knoxville used violence (I'm glad they did) and the only difference between their violence and the violence used in the Colorado case you cite CC is the degree: both were violence.

Regarding strangers: big reason anyone greets a stranger is to make them less strange.

We shake their hands, make physical contact, and I think instinctively size them up. We should.

I've belonged ot urban churchs in communities with significant crime so things like Church Directories with names of older members living alone were treated like classified documents.

Chalicechick said...

Minimal violence is still violence, sure. I don't need to be entirely anti-violence, only selectively so I suppose.

But given that they restrained the guy, not beat him up, I think it's safe to say that the violence was not in the spirit of anger, but of trying to keep him from killing people.

That's an interesting point about the church directories with old people. I'd never thought of that.

CC
who didn't imagine street thugs did much research, but you're right, they must.

Anonymous said...

Concerning the "violence" against the gunman in Knoxville, the three people who tackled him might have broken his arm in the process. His arm was in a sling when he appeared at his preliminary hearing. What is the alternative to subduing the gunman? Perhsps they could have appointed a committee to decide how to handle the situation.

The gunman had to stop and reload after firing three cartridges. Fortunately, he didn't know that the shotgun could easily be modified to fire five times.


About 76 additional shotgun cartridges were found with the gunman. His intent was to keep shooting until the police arrive and kill him.

This reminds me of when I was a Christian Scientist. They don't go to doctors, you know. One day, an older woman fell on the church steps and broke her hip. Other people picked her up, took her home, and prayed for her. One church member, who had been a medical nurse, offered to come and help. Her offer was refused because it was feared that she would have too many "medical" thoughts. But she knew she would be needed.

Sure enough,a couple of hours later she was called to come and help. The woman with the broken hip had to use the bathroom and no one knew how to get her to the toilet. So they had to call the person who had practical experience.

Sometimes we have to act.

Lisa Orange said...

CC, you put into words for me what was bugging me about some of the UU ads. They *do* border on pandering, if not cross the line. Some of the print ads seem like they're saying, "We'll be whatever you want us to be!" instead of giving a clear message of what we are. The one that said something like "Is God keeping you from going to church?" comes to mind.

PeaceBang said...

Thanks for the link, CC. I actually loved it. *dead faint*

Robin Edgar said...

I hate to say so but the post-Knoxville New York Times ad is every bit as pandering as most other UUA produced ads, if not more so in some ways. . . As CC somewhat unwittingly (but quite correctly) noted, this ad's main purpose is seeking to attract new members to the UUA. It is clearly intended to *recruit* people to the "tiny, declining, fringe religion" known as U*Uism by capitalizing on the Knoxville murders. Some other U*Us, including some U*U clergy, have shared their concerns about this questionable if not outright tasteless New York Times ad and have quite justifiably suggested that capitalizing on the Knoxville tragedy in this manner is "unseemly" and "exploitative."

The whole "stand on the side of love" slogan is pure unadulterated U*U BS when seen in the light how U*Us "stand on the side of love" in reaction to those people who dare to complain about clergy misconduct, including clergy sexual misconduct, and various other U*U injustices and abuses such as the anti-religious intolerance and bigotry that is found throughout the U*U World and is apparently even expressed in the "stump speech" of one of the candidates for next President of the UUA. UUA President Bill Sinkford hypocritically pretends that U*U prayers are "with the shooter", even though most U*Us don't engage in prayer of any kind let alone petitionary prayer on behalf of murderers. That U*U BS is incredibly cynical pandering to the U.S. public AFAIAC. Most Americans will interpret it as meaning that U*Us are actually praying for the gunman when, in reality, few if any U*Us are doing anything of the sort. In fact plenty of U*Us, including some U*U clergy, have expressed contempt if not hatred for the shooter. U*U prayers my U*U. . .

Where are President Sinkford's and other U*Us prayers for victims of clergy misconduct and other U*U injustices and abuses? President Bill Sinkford's fraudulent pretense that U*Us are praying for the deranged murderer reminds me of the time that Peacebang, aka Rev. Victoria Weinstein, called for prayers for a rapist in her congregation while apparently neglecting to call for any prayers for his traumatized victims. . . BTW U*Us can see how Rev. Victoria Weinstein is busily praying for the shooter, oops I mean the "hateful wack job". . . on her Peacebang blog here.

http://www.peacebang.com/2008/07/29/knoxville/

I am surprised that she hasn't publicly expressed her desire to kick him in the teeth or something. . .

Excuse me for being rude but President Sinkford, various other UUA officials, plenty of other U*U clergy, and any number of individual U*Us have done fuck all to work for justice and to try to heal the wounds caused by clergy misconduct committed by U*U ministers as well as deep and still festering wounds caused by various other internal U*U injustices and abuses. Just what have UUA President Bill Sinkford, the UUA's departments of ministry and congregational services, implicated U*U "churches" and individual U*Us done to work towards providing genuine justice, equity and compassion to victims of clergy misconduct and other U*U injustices and abuses so that they might find some "peace and reconciliation"? Not bloody much as far as I can see. . . Au contraire, some of these U*Us have apparently worked quite hard to delay and deny justice, prevent accountability, and have obstinately refused to do those things necessary to achieve genuine "peace and reconciliation." President Bill Sinkford is yet another Unitarian*Universalist fraud and hypocrite, as is the UUA as an institution. This NYT ad is every bit as false and fraudulent as most other UUA produced ads and it significantly raises the ante in the boorish tastelessness department by ghoulishly attempting to capitalize on the Knoxville murders.

If you like this ad so much CC why don't you make a substantial donation to help pay for it?

http://www.uua.org/giving/donatenow/117790.shtml

Donate *now* to the not so sacred Knoxville cash-cow, as the URL says. . .

Chalicechick said...

Actually, if the UUA were to assure me that donations would be supporting ads like this one, I would donate.

I find your seeming amazement that the UUA is trying to recruit more members a little confusing. Why wouldn't we want to spread UUism's good news?

I don't see it as unseemly to want to tell people who we are and where we stand and invite them to join us if they are interested.

And indeed, just about every religion puts out statements when there is a major tragedy. September 11 saw responses from churches from the Baptists to the AUA, and yes, most of them had "here's our response to this tragedy and if you like our response please feel free to join us" as a general theme.

I don't know what "most UUs" did in regards to praying for the shooter, though I'm not going to assume like you did. I know one of the larger churches in the faith prayed for him because I was sitting in it when it happened. I know I prayed for him, in my way, and I know that when I wrote about praying for him, nobody gave me any trouble about it.

(It could be argued Sinkford made the same mistake you did and went a little far in assuming he knew what "most UUs" did. If so, at least he wasn't speaking for me politically.)

And finally, thinking somebody is a hateful whack job and praying for them is not at all mustually exclusive.

Some of us pray for you all the time.

CC
who is partially kidding on the hateful whackjob part, though you do have your moments, but not on the prayers.

Anonymous said...

I don't know who Robin Edgar is or what his/her problem is. From reading the above comment, a person would get the idea that UU ministers spend much of their time raping and buggering people. I'm sure there have been problems, as there are problems in other churches, but it certainly is not endemic in UUism.

Robin gives the impression that the UUA leadership consists of a bunch of money grubbing, power seeking malcontents. The Tuesday evening following the shooting, Rev. Sinkfort spent the entire evening with us at Westside UU Church listening to our stories and offering emotional support. He lacked the ability to raise the dead, however.

I don't know how much money was raised or will be needed for those who were wounded, but I do know one thing: My wife was a clinical department head in a local hospital here and she estimates that Joe Barnhart's daughter has probably incurred medical expenses of well over $500,000 so far. A woman from TVUUC has probably incurred a similar amount of charges.

Robin Edgar said...

:Actually, if the UUA were to assure me that donations would be supporting ads like this one, I would donate.

Well the UUA web page that I provided a URL for is doing just CC, so feel free to go ahead and make a substantial donation to support UUA false advertising.

:I find your seeming amazement that the UUA is trying to recruit more members a little confusing.

There is no such "amazement" on my part at all CC. I have been telling U*Us for years that U*Uism is both "tiny" and "declining" to use Rev. Peter Morales' more recent words that validate my "prophecy" about U*Uism. I am perfectly aware why U*Us are so desperately recruiting new members. My comment was about the tastelessness and boorishness of exploiting the Knoxville shootings to this end. . .

:Why wouldn't we want to spread UUism's good news?

As my comment pointed out, much of the alleged "good news" of U*Uism presented in that NYT ad, to say nothing of much other U*U publicity and marketing, is highly misleading, and even outright fraudulent, U*U BS.

:I don't see it as unseemly to want to tell people who we are and where we stand and invite them to join us if they are interested.

Neither do I as a rule except of course when what U*Us tell people is false and fraudulent or ghoulishly exploiting a tragedy. . .

:And indeed, just about every religion puts out statements when there is a major tragedy.

Putting out public statements about tragedies, and shamelessly exploiting a tragedy to enhance the UUA's ongoing national marketing campaign are two rather different things CC.

:September 11 saw responses from churches from the Baptists to the AUA, and yes, most of them had "here's our response to this tragedy and if you like our response please feel free to join us" as a general theme.

Oh really? Please do provide examples of the New York Times ads that various religious groups ran recruiting new members following 9-11.

:I don't know what "most UUs" did in regards to praying for the shooter, though I'm not going to assume like you did.

I am not assuming CC. It is a well known fact that U*Us rarely pray in any traditional sense of the word so it is just plain fraudulent for UUA President Bill Sinkford to publicly pronounce that U*U "prayers are also with the shooter, that he may find
peace and reconciliation." Maybe a small minority of U*Us did engage in such prayer but it is false and fraudulent for President Bill Sinkford to pretend in this UUA ad aka UUA *marketing* that all or most U*Us are praying for the shooter. Of course that is no less false and fraudulent than some of the other claims he makes in it. . . In any case my main point was that President Sinkford is a hypocrite because he pretends that U*Us are praying for the gunmen while he and other U*Us do fuck all for victims of various injustices and abuses committed by U*U clergy and U*U "churches". Why aren't President Sinkford's and other U*Us' prayers with the victims of U*U clergy misconduct and other U*U injustices and abuses CC? Why is it that President Bill Sinkford and other U*Us in positions of authority and responsibility, such as the U*U ministers in the MFC and UUMA etc., not only do not pray for victims of U*U clergy misconduct and other U*U injustices and abuses but abjectly fail and even obstinately refuse to work for justice that might bring "peace and reconciliation"? Indeed why is it that U*Us actively strive to delay and deny justice to victims of injustices and abuses committed by U*Us, including U*U clergy and UUA officials?

:I know one of the larger churches in the faith prayed for him because I was sitting in it when it happened.

Oh no doubt a few U*U ministers made a public display of praying for the shooter during commemorative services but how many U*Us really did pray for the gunman CC? U*Us are past masters at fraudulent religious pretense that is not backed by actual practice.

:I know I prayed for him, in my way, and I know that when I wrote about praying for him, nobody gave me any trouble about it.

I must have missed that blog post but my point stands. It is exceedingly unlikely that more than a small minority of U*Us actually prayed for the gunman in any sincere and meaningful manner. Even if many U*Us did pray for him my point about the lack of prayers and lack of principled and responsible action on behalf of victims of clergy misconduct and other injustices and abuses committed by U*Us still stands.

:(It could be argued Sinkford made the same mistake you did and went a little far in assuming he knew what "most UUs" did.

It could be argued that President Sinkford is a liar, fraud, and hypocrite. . . AFAIAC it is far more likely that he is fraudulently saying "the right thing" for PR and marketing purposes knowing full well that U*Us aren't praying at all, let alone praying with or for the gunman, than assuming that U*U really are praying with the gunman. After all, he of all U*Us is in a position to know better, especially considering the hostile response of many "Humanist " U*Us to his call for more "language of reverence" a few years back. . .

:If so, at least he wasn't speaking for me politically.)

Indeed not, he was just speaking for U*U publicity. . .

:And finally, thinking somebody is a hateful whack job and praying for them is not at all mustually exclusive.

If you describe someone as a "hateful whack job", or otherwise express disdain and contempt for them, (to say nothing of hate for them) as many U*Us have done. . . it is rather unlikely that you will be praying for them in any meaningful way.

:Some of us pray for you all the time.

You know it's slanderous cheap shots like that, which only serve to propagate U*U libel and harm my ability obtain genuine justice and equity from U*Us, that give me very good reason to "out" you CC.

:who is partially kidding on the hateful whackjob part, though you do have your moments, but not on the prayers.

So evidently you are partially serious about the "hateful whackjob" part CC. Well guess what? I am partially serious about getting around to outing you to dissuade you from engaging in such slander or at least making sure that your real name is associated with your slander and libel. Maybe you can save me the trouble by "outing" yourself in the next few days, kind of like Peacebang did after I outed her. I find it most ironic that describing me as a "hateful whackjob" is itself a something of a *hateful* act. I have been very patient and lenient and forgiving in the past but I think that my patience and lenience with you just ran out CC.

Chalicechick said...

I'm still going to be praying for you, Robin.

That you either missed this part or that you didn't think it was worth commenting on speaks much, and it only makes me sadder for you.

Also, I'm pretty sure you would have teased me in exactly the same way if I had given you that setup.

Are you saying you would have let that opportunity to have a little fun at my expense pass?

CC
who has linked to things with her real name within the very recent past, for what it's worth, so she's not sure exactly what you're expecting in the "outing herself" department.

Robin Edgar said...

:Anonymous said... I don't know who Robin Edgar is or what his/her problem is.

Then perhaps you would be well advised to enter into an ever so U*U free and responsible search for the truth and meaning of who I am and what my problem is oh so anonymous U*U.

:From reading the above comment, a person would get the idea that UU ministers spend much of their time raping and buggering people.

Right. . . Maybe in your own mind oh so anonymous one. I don't believe I even mentioned rape or buggery committed by U*U ministers, to say nothing of U*U lay people, although I certainly could do so if you would like.

:I'm sure there have been problems, as there are problems in other churches, but it certainly is not endemic in UUism.

Did I suggest that clergy sexual misconduct was endemic in U*Uism? I think not. What *is* endemic in U*Uism however is extreme reluctance, abject failure and even obstinate refusal to hold U*U ministers who are guilty of various forms of clergy misconduct, and not just clergy sexual misconduct, when it does occur. While clergy sexual misconduct may not be "endemic" in the U*U World U*Us should not delude themselves into thinking that there is significantly less clergy sexual misconduct than in other denominations or that the UUA, and the individual U*U congregations where clergy sexual misconduct takes place, do a better job of dealing with it when it does occur. Indeed there is evidence that "other denominations have done better" than the UUA when it comes to responding to clergy sexual misconduct in a responsible manner that provides real restorative justice rather than leaving victims of clergy sexual misconduct committed by U*U ministers "lonely, confused, afraid, angry and betrayed. Un-ministered to," as the UUA has done in the past and apparently continues to do. . .

:Robin gives the impression that the UUA leadership consists of a bunch of money grubbing, power seeking malcontents.

Well I guess that's the impression that you received anyway. Interestingly enough that was not the impression I was trying to give. If that's what you got though you might want to give some consideration to how you got that impression.

:The Tuesday evening following the shooting, Rev. Sinkfort spent the entire evening with us at Westside UU Church listening to our stories and offering emotional support. He lacked the ability to raise the dead, however.

Apparently President Sinkford does not lack the ability to attempt to raise new U*U membership levels from the dead as it were. . .

:I don't know how much money was raised or will be needed for those who were wounded, but I do know one thing: My wife was a clinical department head in a local hospital here and she estimates that Joe Barnhart's daughter has probably incurred medical expenses of well over $500,000 so far. A woman from TVUUC has probably incurred a similar amount of charges.

Seems to me that you could run quite a few full page false advertisements for U*Uism in the New York Times for that amount. . . Maybe the money the UUA spent on advertising could have been better spent helping the victims pay their medical bills but I guess that is about as likely to happen as the UUA setting up a charitable fund to compensate victims of U*U clergy misconduct for their legal expenses, let alone their pain and suffering. Actually I wouldn't put it past that UUA to try to unethically divert funds from any such charitable trusts if they actually existed considering how it has unethically manipulated charitable trusts in the past. . .

Robin Edgar said...

I meant to say -

What *is* endemic in U*Uism however is extreme reluctance, abject failure and even obstinate refusal to hold U*U ministers who are guilty of various forms of clergy misconduct, and not just clergy sexual misconduct, *accountable* when it does occur.

Chalicechick said...

Yeah, I figured that's what you meant.

Check your email. You totally fooled me.

CC

Joel Monka said...

I'm another UU who prays, Robin. I prayed for the shooter. I pray for UUs who don't pray, and I pray for you.

I'm not sure how effective outing CC would be, since there can't be more than three Chalicesseurs who don't know her name- and she'd tell them if they asked. But I guess if you own a hammer, every issue looks like a nail. Don't worry. I'm not petty enough to retaliate by publishing your address and phone number.

Chalicechick said...

Eh, don't bother Joel, Robin's address is hard to find. I send wedding invitations to two different addresses and they both came back...

CC

Robin Edgar said...

:I'm still going to be praying for you, Robin.

Maybe you should pray for yourself and all other U*Us who slander and defame people while you are at it CC. You might want to pray for UUA President Sinkford and all those UUA officials who quite regularly lie about U*Uism and abjectly fail and obstinately refuse to provide genuine restorative justice to victims of U*U clergy misconduct and other U*U injustices and abuses.

:That you either missed this part or that you didn't think it was worth commenting on speaks much, and it only makes me sadder for you.

You really are too funny CC. Do you think that I read every single blog post that you write? There are dozens of your blog posts that I have never read or even known about, if not hundreds. What a terrible crime I somehow failed to read one of your blog posts. It must be because I am such a hateful whackjob or something. How tragically sad. . .

:Also, I'm pretty sure you would have teased me in exactly the same way if I had given you that setup.

What setup? And who said I am teasing you CC?

:Are you saying you would have let that opportunity to have a little fun at my expense pass?

I expect that I have let dozens, if not hundreds, of opportunities to have a little fun at your expense pass CC.

:who has linked to things with her real name within the very recent past, for what it's worth, so she's not sure exactly what you're expecting in the "outing herself" department.

How about a blog post on this blog that clearly says that the Chaliceblog is the blog of D.C. area U*U blogger (insert your real name here). Or, even better, you could provide your real name in your blog profile at the top of every page like I do. Then when you slander and defame people, or otherwise say harmful and damaging or just plain stupid things, you can take credit where credit is due. . .

Chalicechick said...

Robin, I didn't mean that you missed a post on my blog, I meant that you missed that I had said I was praying for you.

But again, as per my email, I'm pretty sure you were messing with me with that whole post anyway, given that you have a long history of teasing me, it stands to reason that you wouldn't be that offended when I teased you back.

CC

Robin Edgar said...

The ever so brilliant Joel Monka said, "I'm not sure how effective outing CC would be, since there can't be more than three Chalicesseurs who don't know her name- and she'd tell them if they asked."

Um. . . I was thinking in terms of all those non-"Chalicesseurs" who don't know her name Joel. I do believe that if ChaliceChick's real identity was closely tied to her real name that she mighty be somewhat less inclined to slander and defame people, or otherwise say harmful and damaging or stupid things. Then again I could be wrong. . . But, in any case, at least anyone who wanted to know who was responsible for the insulting and defamatory, or otherwise harmful and stupid, things that ChaliceChick spouts here and elsewhere on the internet would be able to identify her. The principle is the same as expecting people to post using their real names on my blog even though many do not.

:But I guess if you own a hammer, every issue looks like a nail.

Tell that to the moronic U*U tin-pot terrorist Mona "The Hammer" Shaw Joel. . .

:Don't worry. I'm not petty enough to retaliate by publishing your address and phone number.

Here's my phone number Joel. Feel free to give me a call.

514-266-7305

As far as my address goes you can obtain it from the Unitarian Church of Montreal. I am sure that they would be all too happy to provide to a U*U who has not so subtly hinted at driving up here and physically assaulting me, or worse. . . in the past.

Chalicechick said...

Wait, so my name is really easy to find, but you think I should make it even EASIER?

Awww, come on!

What's the challenge in that?

CC

Anonymous said...

Dear CC and Robin Edgar ~

Time out! The boundaries of decency have been stepped across, IMHO.

I'm an ex-blogger (I was so bad at it that I had to quit :), and remember well the time that you, Robin, used one of my blog postings to unleash your un-dealt-with anger, and to reopen your unresolved wounds which UU'ism somehow gave you long ago.

Now I see I wasn't the only one. Here's another blogger's take on it:
http://cuumbaya.blogspot.com/2006/10/tragedy-of-robin-edgar.html

Robin, I'm guessing that your anger stems from an occasion on which a congregation stood up to you and set limits around this destructive behavior. Let us be. Please STOP HIJACKING thoughtful blogs so that you can air your invectives and your arrogance.

ChaliceChick, dear heart, you've been as tolerant as anyone can be expected to be. Cut this guy off, please.

Robin Edgar said...

:Anonymous said... Dear CC and Robin Edgar ~ Time out! The boundaries of decency have been stepped across, IMHO.

No kidding oh so Anonymous U*U. CC and other U*Us, such as Peacebang just for starters. . . are quite regularly step across the boundaries of decency. Personally I think that the UUA stepped across the boundaries of decency in exploiting the Knoxville shooting for shameless publicity and marketing purposes.

:I'm an ex-blogger (I was so bad at it that I had to quit :), and remember well the time that you, Robin, used one of my blog postings to unleash your un-dealt-with anger, and to reopen your unresolved wounds which UU'ism somehow gave you long ago.

Actually I deal with any anger I may have by expressing it, sometimes on blogs. I've heard it's the healthy thing to do. . . If my anger at U*U injustices, abuses and hypocrisy is un-dealt-with it has everything to do with U*Us obstinately refusing to practice what they preach and provide some genuine justice for victims of U*U injustices and abuses. For the record U*Us have not ever refrained from saying and doing things that would provoke anger in many people. There is hardly a month that goes by that U*Us have not said or done something that would provoke anger in someone. I am actually very slow to anger, and my anger is well controlled compared to that of many other people. All the more reason for me to take offense when ChaliceChick and other U*Us have the gall to suggest that I am a "hateful whackjob" like the guy who shot U*Us in Knoxville Tennessee. I have been fighting that kind of U*U slander since the day that Rev. Ray Drennan labeled me as "psychotic" to say nothing of well prior to that when the fundamentalist atheist "Humanist" President of the Unitarian Church of Montreal Frank Greene snidely insinuated a link between Creation Day and the notorious Solar Temple cult within a few weeks of the mass suicides. . .

:Now I see I wasn't the only one. Here's another blogger's take on it: http://cuumbaya.blogspot.com/2006/10/tragedy-of-robin-edgar.html

And my point-by-point rebuttal of Joel Monka's victim blaming U*U BS may be read in the comments section of that DIM Thinking blog post.

:Robin, I'm guessing that your anger stems from an occasion on which a congregation stood up to you and set limits around this destructive behavior.

Wrong. actually it was me who stood up to intolerant and abusive U*U bigots like Rev. Ray Drennan and Frank Greene and set limits around their destructive behavior, just as I am setting limits around CC's destructive behavior here. My protest against U*U injustices, abuses and hypocrisy is all about setting limits on the destructive behavior of outrageously hypocritical U*Us. Guess all you want oh so anonymous U*U but a free and responsible search for the truth and meaning behind my protest against U*U injustices, abuses and hypocrisy will show that your guessing is nothing but self-serving delusional thinking.

:Let us be.

I will let U*Us be when U*Us responsibly acknowledge the destructive behavior that they are responsible for perpetrating and-or perpetuating, not before. The sooner that U*Us get around to confessing their sins and holding the people most responsible for my grievances accountable for their destructive behavior the sooner I will ease up on U*Us a bit. Unfortunately however, thanks to U*U intransigence in responding to my own and other people's serious grievances about diverse injustices and abuses I am unlikely to ever ignore U*U injustices and abuses that come to my attention.

:Please STOP HIJACKING thoughtful blogs so that you can air your invectives and your arrogance.

My invectives are entirely justified by the destructive behavior of U*Us and my alleged arrogance pales in comparison to the arrogance of the U*Us aka the hubris of the U*Us. . .

:ChaliceChick, dear heart, you've been as tolerant as anyone can be expected to be. Cut this guy off, please.

That's right. Censor and suppress the critic so U*Us don't have to consider the possibility that he or she might have good reason to criticize U*U injustices, abuses and hypocrisy. That is par for the course for many U*Us. See no U*U evil, hear no U*U evil, and God forbid that U*Us should allow anyone to speak openly about U*U evils.

Chalicechick said...

Ok, first of all, I never intended to draw an actual parallel between you and the Knoxville shooter. I'm still not entirely certain you're not responding this way just to mess with me, but whether you are or not, I totally apologize for saying something that could be taken that way. I saw an opening for a cheap shot and I took it, but I was trying to be funny, in again, I think much the same way you would have insulted me had you seen a similar opportunity.

I think if it were in your nature to have done anything violent, you would have done it long before now and I have total confidence that you don't mean to hurt anyone physically. (If it were in my nature to accuse you of shooting people, I probably would have done it before now, too, and I never have.)

And, no, I'm not going to kick any of your posts in this thread so far. I don't really think it is possible to "censor" you in any real way because your ideas are so very much out there all over the internet where anybody can find them easily.

Besides, your posts this time have been more or less on topic and I've appreciated that. I don't agree with you, but if agreeing with me totally were a requirement of posting, it would be pretty empty around here.

CC

Robin Edgar said...

Indeed it would. . . Like a fair number of U*U blogs whose comment sections are remarkably empty largely because the U*Us who own those blogs censor and suppress critical posts.

:Ok, first of all, I never intended to draw an actual parallel between you and the Knoxville shooter.

No of course not CC. You just used the exact same words that Rev. Victoria Weinstein aka Peacebang used to describe Jim Adkisson (i.e. "hateful whackjob") to describe me. . .

:I'm still not entirely certain you're not responding this way just to mess with me,

Let' s see now. I have spent more than a decade fighting U*U slander and defamation that paints me as a "hateful whackjob", or "psychotic" cultist. . . and you think I am just messing with you when I object to your reinforcement of that U*U slander and defamation.

:but whether you are or not,

I was not and am not.

:I totally apologize for saying something that could be taken that way.

Could be taken that way CC? What other ways could "hateful whackjob" be taken when it is the exact phrase that the ever so "Christian" U*U minister Rev. Victoria Weinstein used to describe Jim Adkisson? Even if one completely disassociates Jim Adkisson from that phrase, do you really believe that people will interpret your labeling me as a "hateful whackjob" in anything other way than an extremely negative one that propagates the U*U slander that I am insane?

:I saw an opening for a cheap shot and I took it,

Indeed you did. Not for the first time by any means.

:but I was trying to be funny,

So who's laughing CC? I don't see anyone commenting in a way that interprets your alleged "cheap shot" in a humorous manner.

:I think much the same way you would have insulted me had you seen a similar opportunity.

I don't think I have come anywhere close to doing what you did here CC. Accusing you of engaging in DIM Thinking when you clearly Deny, Ignore or Minimize U*U injustices, abuses and hypocrisy is not even intended as an "insult" it is simply a truthful and accurate description of your own and other DIM Thinking U*Us' behavior as defined by Dee Miller. Come to think of it. . . Labeling me as a "hateful whackjob" fits that description very well. The best way that you and other DIMM THinking U*Us can avoid such alleged "insults" is to refrain from saying things or doing things that justify me accusing you of DIM Thinking.

:I think if it were in your nature to have done anything violent, you would have done it long before now and I have total confidence that you don't mean to hurt anyone physically.

To bad that Rev. Diane Rollert, to say nothing of other paranoid U*Us, don't have the brains to figure that out. Of course, maybe Rev. Rollert knows full well that her claims to have "reasonable grounds" to fear that I will commit a "serious personal injury offense" against her are just cynical (and perjurious. . .) U*U BS that was primarily intended to force a year long suspension of my peaceful public protest against U*U injustices, abuses and hypocrisy in front of the Unitarian Church of Montreal. You were perfectly aware of this U*U BS yet decided to effectively endorse it by labeling me with the same phrase that Peacebang used to label Jim Adkisson.

:(If it were in my nature to accuse you of shooting people, I probably would have done it before now, too, and I never have.)

It would be kind of idiotic to accuse me of shooting people when I have not so much as slapped someone in the course of this conflict CC. I am not sure that I would put it past you to snidely suggest that I might shoot U*Us though. Heck, some U*U clergy seem to be doing just that CC. . .

:And, no, I'm not going to kick any of your posts in this thread so far. I don't really think it is possible to "censor" you in any real way because your ideas are so very much out there all over the internet where anybody can find them easily.

Well, as Rev. Victoria Weinstein aka Peacebang and Rev. Kit Ketchum aka Ms. Kitty and other U*U clergy know, any post that I submit to a U*U blog that is or "memory-holed" by the blog owner stands a very good chance of being reproduced on The Emerson Avenger blog and in a way that it will be closely associated with their real name and will achieve a high ranking in Google searches on their name.

:Besides, your posts this time have been more or less on topic and I've appreciated that.

My comments are always "more or less on topic" when it come to the general theme of the content of the blog post. That does not stop many U*Us, especially U*U clergy it seems, from censoring and suppressing my critical comments but I can't help but notice that some U*Us seem increasingly open to posting my critical comments to their "moderated" blogs or refraining from "memory holing" comments I successfully submit to their unmoderated blogs. In fact, within the last year or two, a reasonable number of U*U ministers have refrained from censoring and suppressing my legitimate criticism of U*U injustices, abuses and hypocrisy, which only serves to make those U*U ministers who do insist upon censoring and suppressing my critical comments look like the cowardly hypocrites that they quite evidently are.

If you post a better worded apology that clearly and unequivocally acknowledges the wrongfulness and harmfulness of labeling me as a "hateful whackjob", especially in light of perpetuating U*U stereotypes aka U*U slander about me, in a fresh blog post that "Chalisseurs" will see I will graciously accept it. Like Rev. Kit Ketchum you can set a public example that U*Us' in Montreal and Boston (to say nothing of elsewhere in the U*U World. . .), whose apologies for various insults or other injustices and abuses are long overdue, might do well to follow.

Chalicechick said...

I'm sorry my apology didn't meet your standards, Robin. It was sincere.

CC

Anonymous said...

You don't have anything to apologise for CC.

You tell Robin that you're "half kidding" right in the post. The other half of the sentence is about how you're praying for him. It's obvious that the insult is a joke and if Robin can't see that it is his failing, not yours.

Lois said...

Click here

He cries and cries in this thread because CC insults him, even though she says she's kidding, but he's really cruel and nasty to people all the time for no reason and he assumes that a smiley face means he's not being mean.

He can dish it out, but he can't take it.

Chalicechick said...

Can we give it a rest?

I realize you're defending me, and thank you, but as far as I'm concerned that's really not relevant.

It's true Robin has no objection to hurting other people's feelings as far as I can tell, but I still don't want to hurt his, and when I did I felt bad about it and apologized.

I don't let other people dictate my behavior. Just because someone is rude to me, that doesn't mean I'm rude to them. If I am always reacting to other people and their rudeness makes me be rude, then they control me. I don't want that.

If I'm teasing and someone else gets their feelings hurt, I stop and I apologize.

It's just that simple.

CC
who has never closed down a thread, but is seriously tempted to close down this one.