Wednesday, August 20, 2008

Robin Edgar's good idea.

Robin wrote in response to my post about the UUA ad: If you like this ad so much CC why don't you make a substantial donation to help pay for it?

So I did. And you can too by clicking on this link.

Ok, what's "substantial" for me isn't going to buy any ads on its own, but I gave enough that I thought twice about giving that much.

FWIW, the UUA is finally taking American Express and you get a nifty thank-you note immediately after you donate. You also get a chance to send them comments. I made it clear in my comment that the non-pandering tone was a major reason that I was donating and that further ads with a similar message would elicit further donations from me.

So, yeah, if you like this ad and want to see more ads like it, send the UUA a bit of change to let them know they did a good job. Even if you can only give five bucks, you're contributing to their fundraising numbers and letting them know that their ad got a response from the membership.

CC
who worked in political fundraising for a bit.

18 comments:

Lois said...

Great idea. The UUA just got fifty dollars from me.

They are going to owe Robin a big thank you!

Little Warrior's Mom said...

Save the thank you note for tax time. Most non-profits are going to this type of thing for that purpose.

Anonymous said...

Happy to contribute to TWO worthy causes!

Chalicechick said...

To the person who wrote me to tell me that she planned to donate, but didn't want to say so here, I thank you and I admire your restraint.

CC

Joel Monka said...

As soon as we return home the contents of my offering bowl will be sent to this cause.

fausto said...

I'm traveling too, but will do same as Joel when I return home!

ms. kitty said...

Done. Thanks for the idea.

PeaceBang said...

Love this idea!! Tomorrow is payday, so you can count me in.

Robin Edgar said...

Well that's putting your money where your mouth is but, above and beyond that. . . it is supporting UUA advertising that is highly misleading, even outright fraudulent in some ways, and which shamelessly exploits the Knoxville tragedy for UUA publicity and marketing purposes. Congratulations on showing your true U*U colors.

Anonymous said...

It was your idea.

Chalicechick said...

Well, Robin, if people see it your way, they will indeed by turned off by the ad. If people see it my way, they will like the ad and be intrigued.

I'd say it's unlikely that the ad mentioning Knoxville specifically will run again, because the story is cold. I'm inclined to support ads like it, however.

Robin Edgar said...

Even if one removes any and all reference to the Knoxville shootings from that New York Times ad it still contains a number of statements that are highly misleading and effectively fraudulent, in that UUA President Bill Sinkford and other UUA administrators are perfectly aware that some of the claims made in that ad are not truthful. If you want to financially support false and fraudulent advertising produced by the UUA in its desperate efforts to "grow" the "tiny, declining, fringe religion" known as U*Uism that is your choice. I think it's a poor choice and it would have been better to send your money to the victims of the shooting than the incompetent, corrupt, and stunningly hypocritical administration at 25 Beacon Street.

Chalicechick said...

I don't know. Even if the UUA itself has acted in unjust ways, if you had to be perfectly just yourself to work for justice, nobody could do it because every person and every organization is unjust sometimes.

I believe the UUA when they say they are working for justice. I don't think they've achieved justice within their own organization necessarily, but I've never seen an organization that was totally just so that doesn't bother me so much*. They certainly work for justice in ways that I think are wrong sometimes, but when they do things in the right way, I like to encourage it.

And I do see "We're doing awesome things over here, and our door is open if you want to join us" as a great recruiting message for a church.

Loved it when the Methodists did it, love it now.

CC

*Indeed, my impression is that much of CSM comes down to two people who have different accounts of the same incident and no witnesses. Arguably, justice isn't even possible as there's no way to tell what really happened.

I've mentioned before that in a church near the one where I grew up, there was an incident where a female minister was accused of having sex with a member of the congregation in her office. Thank Goodness the woman who claimed to have walked in on the act (who hated female ministers) on a date when the man that the minister was supposedly having sex with was out of town!

I don't know how a system that would be perfectly just to victims and would keep situations like the one I've described from destroying innocent lives would even work.

By comparison, lobbying congress to stop a war seems much easier.

Robin Edgar said...

CC said- "*Indeed, my impression is that much of CSM comes down to two people who have different accounts of the same incident and no witnesses. Arguably, justice isn't even possible as there's no way to tell what really happened."

There are usually ways of founding out what really happened when two people are giving differing accounts of the same incident that had no other witnesses CC. Courts of law do it all the time. My main complaint against the UUA and its ever so aptly named Ministerial *Fellowship* Committee is that they either made virtually no effort to determine "what really happened" between me and Rev. Ray Drennan, or worse. . . knew perfectly well what really happened but chose to pretend that Rev. Ray Drennan's insulting and defamatory anti-religious intolerance and bigotry was "within the appropriate guidelines of ministerial leadership". Neither the MFC nor the Unitarian Church of Montreal ever properly investigated my complaint against Rev. Drennan and both effectively condoned or even endorsed his anti-religious intolerance and bigotry and not just that which was directed at me. . . I have reasonable grounds to believe that the UUA and MFC, and implicated U*U congregations do handle CSM complaints any better than they handled my serious complaint about Rev. Ray Drennan's non-sexual clergy misconduct.

The New York Times ad reeks of false advertising when one knows just how unjustly, inequitably and uncompassionately the UUA and MFC have responded to complaints about clergy misconduct, including clergy sexual misconduct, and various other U*U injustices and abuses. It is full of falsehoods, if not bald-faced "big lies", that UUA President Bill Sinkford and other UUA officials know to be untruths. You and everyone else here who donated money for that fraudulent New York Times ad are supporting UUA false advertising and lies.

Robin Edgar said...

Needless to say I meant to say - I have reasonable grounds to believe that the UUA and MFC, and implicated U*U congregations do *not* handle CSM complaints any better than they handled my serious complaint about Rev. Ray Drennan's non-sexual clergy misconduct.

Chalicechick said...

Does an organization have to be perfectly just for it to be OK for it to claim that it is working for justice?

My answer is no. I'd say that even if you're not perfectly just within your organization, you can still say you're working for justice if you are in other areas.

If Greenpeace doesn't recycle, for example, that's suboptimal, but they can still say they work for a cleaner planet.

I'd say "let he who is without sin cast the first stone" applies well here, we've all been unfair sometimes and if you had to be perfectly fair to work against unfairness, no one would ever do it.

CC

Robin Edgar said...

More DIM Thinking CC, with the emphasis on Ignorance and Minimization of the UUA's and implicated U*U "church"'s negligent and effectively complicit mishandling of clergy misconduct complaints, to say nothing of various other U*U injustices and abuses. The abject failure and indeed obstinate refusal of the UUA, its Ministerial Fellowship Committe, and individual U*U "churches" to provide genuine restorative justice to victims of clergy misconduct or other U*U injustices goes well beyond being imperfect. The UUA has repeatedly proven itself to be chronically unready, obstinately unwilling, and apparently even pathologically unable to provide anything even remotely resembling justice to victims of clergy misconduct. President Sinkford declares that, "We are called by our faith to
help heal our world." Yet he and other UUA officials in positions of influence, authority and responsibility, do nothing or next to nothing to heal the wounded U*U World of lingering wounds that were inflicted by incompetent and abusive U*U clergy and lay leaders. He proclaims that, "We will meet hatred with
love." But he and other U*Us can't even respond to victims of U*U injustices and abuses with anything even remotely resembling love. He promises that U*Us will "continue to work for justice" but he and other U*Us obstinately refuse to lift a finger to work for justice when it comes to certain U*U injustices and abuses. Unitarian*Universalists
stand on the side of love my U*U.

Chalicechick said...

Again, there is some injustice in every organization, and I'm not at all convinced that it is false advertising when an organization that commits some injustices and works to end others says that they are trying to heal the world.

CC