Final Report as an Ally
Robin Edgar's case has concerned me since I read his posts on beliefnet several years ago.
About a year ago, shortly after I entered the UU blogosphere, I started frequenting Robin's blog, which started up around that time. I noticed quickly that he seemed hostile to Unitarian Universalism, but I offered to help Robin because I have a philosophy that despite whatever conflicts people have, their core goals and values can ultimately be compatible. In particular, I would like to see him become a valuable member of the UCM, and UUism as a whole.
Mr. Edgar is intelligent, passionate, and prolific, It is a shame that this conflict has gone on as long as it has. Robin could be an asset to the UU community, instead of a thorn.
The UCM should not cut off the possibility of dialog with Robin, or his reinstatement. It should state the conditions under which it will enter into dialog. It is not consistent with UU principles that anyone be eternally cut off from fellowship.
The UCM needs to address this issue publicly. The wider UU community deserves to have both sides voiced. Their silence reflects badly on the UCM and UUism as a whole.
The posts by an anonymous UCM member to Robin's blog do not serve this role.
Robin needs to stop being an ass.
posted by indrax @ 4:14 PM
21 comments
21 Comments:
How have your conversations with Robin gone? Have they gotten anywhere?
If not, why do you think people Robin is angry at trying to open up a dialogue would be any more effective?
A dialogue involves Robin listening, not preparing his next retort in his head as he lets the other person talk, but truly listening. Does he seem capable of that to you?
Robin often appears extremely bitter and obsessed with the issues at his UU church. He needs to move on for his own sake.
A dialogue involves Robin listening, not preparing his next retort in his head as he lets the other person talk, but truly listening. Does he seem capable of that to you?
He is capable of it. I think him demostrating that capability should be part of the UCM's criteria for re-opening dialog. No one is under obligation to deal with Robin has he behaves now, but I think a UU church has an obligation to re-evaluate people once they behave acceptably.
I know you've said (if it was the same you, too many anons!) that robin has agreed to things an gone back on them, but that just mean you set the conditions more carefully, not that you close things off forever.
There must be a path of redemption.
Even Jesus wanted people to be sorry before he forgave them.
To be redeemed, one has to take steps toward redemption, not continually insult the people who want to help you.
What steps has Robin taken?
I'm quite fond of Robin, and think he would be a tremendous asset if there were a reconciliation. The only reason I don't post on his blog or his case is that there's nothing new to say at this point.
I don't think anything you're saying is contradicting anything I'm saying.
Well this is a post that I can actually work with. And the commentary too. . .
:I noticed quickly that he seemed hostile to Unitarian Universalism
Your perception is distorted Indrax I am not in fact "hostile to Unitarian Universalism". If you read my posts properly what I am "hostile" towards (if I am indeed "hostile" towards anything. . .) is U*U injustices, U*U abuses and U*U hyprocrisy. Or stated in slightly different terms. I am allegedly "hostile" towards (I would say justifiably contemptuous of and indignant towards. . .) U*Us who perpetrate and/or perpetuate internal U*U injustices and abuses, DIM Thinking U*Us who Deny, Ignore and Minimize U*U injustices and abuses, and U*U hypocrites.
:but I offered to help Robin because I have a philosophy that despite whatever conflicts people have, their core goals and values can ultimately be compatible.
My core goals and values, including BTW my alleged "hostile" attitude towards injustices, abuses and hypocrisy, U*U or otherwise. . . are fully compatible with the purported principles and purposes of U*Uism.
:In particular, I would like to see him become a valuable member of the UCM, and UUism as a whole.
Then may I suggest that you stop doing foolish things that are counterproductive to achieving that stated goal Indrax? Such as falsely accusing me of "public lies". . .
:Mr. Edgar is intelligent, passionate, and prolific,
That is quite evident from my posts here there and everywhere. Thanks for the compliment.
:It is a shame that this conflict has gone on as long as it has.
I dare say that I have been saying that for several years now. Indeed it is a shameful episode in U*U history. One that would have been entirely avoidable if Montreal U*Us, Boston U*Us and U*Us more generally had made a modest effort to actually practice what they so insincerely preach rather than repeatedly flagrantly flaunting their purported principles and purposes and other proclaimed ideals and policies. . .
:Robin could be an asset to the UU community, instead of a thorn.
Robin could indeed be an asset to the U*U community but U*Us apparemtly much prefer to have me as a thorn. . . I will remain a thorn in the side of U*Uism until such a time as U*Us decide that they would rather have me as an asset than a liability. . . BTW The real "thorn" in this matter is one Rev. Ray Blackthorn and those incredibly foolish U*Us who support him. Yes, according to Google the name Drennan means 'Blackthorn'. . .
:The UCM should not cut off the possibility of dialog with Robin, or his reinstatement.
But that is exactly what they did from the earliest stages of this conflict and that is exactkly why it has dragged on for over a decade now because U*Us have obstinately refused to enter into dialogue with me inspite of my repeated requests and indeed justifiable demands that they do so. Montreal Unitarians and U*Us more generally not only cut off dialogue with me but have gone to extreme lengths to censor and suppress my perfectly legitimate criticism and dissent.
:It should state the conditions under which it will enter into dialog.
It should enter into dialogue with me all but unconditionally after all the crap that I have had to put up with from it. . . I dare say that I have a right to set some conditions about how U*Us "dialogue" with me. Starting with avoiding words like "cult" "psychotic" and "silliness and fantasy" to say nothing of "public lies" Indrax. . .
:It is not consistent with UU principles that anyone be eternally cut off from fellowship.
Needless to say I agree. Believe it or not only yesterday I discovered that U*Us have procedures in place to "reintroduce" convicted pedophiles to U*U congregations but big bad Robin Edgar who is only guilty of exposing and denouncinbg U*U injustices, abuses and hypocrisy has in fact been "eternally cut off from fellowship" by Montreal U*us. . . No process for appeal was ever provided and the whole process for permanently expelling me from the Unitarian Church of Montreal was seriouysly flawed from its inception and can perfectly justifiably be described as a kangaroo court style Stalinistic "show trial" disguised as a "special congregational meeting".
:The UCM needs to address this issue publicly.
Absolutely. As do the UUA and CUC and whoever is currently responsible for disciplining abusive U*U clergy and ensuring that U*U congregations are "Safe Congregations". The Unitarian Church of Montreal has repeatedly and flagrantly violated the conditions set forth for being a "Safe Congregation" and this has been condoned by both the UUA and CUC hence my UNSAFE SECT? picket sign slogan that Philocrites aka Chris Walton recently semi-endorsed. . .
:The wider UU community deserves to have both sides voiced.
The wider UU community has repeatedly censored and suppresed my voice. My voice has been permanently banned from UUA sponsored mailing lists and internet forums. . . Montreal U*Us have maintained a policy of all but complete silence in this matter except when they engage in transparent institutional cover-up and denial. . .
:Their silence reflects badly on the UCM and UUism as a whole.
Indeed it does.
:The posts by an anonymous UCM member to Robin's blog do not serve this role.
But do serve the role of DIM Thinking institutional cover-up and denial. . .
:Robin needs to stop being an ass.
So do you Indrax, and a whole lot of other U*Us. I will quite happily be an ass as long as U*Us choose to be asses. . .
BTW Indrax you and other U*Us really shouldn't throw the word "ass" around when the U*U corporate identity so closely resembles an ass, even when the sphincter that was so generously provided by CUC Director Mary Bennett is removed from it. . . ;-)
'Why Not A Star?' I'll tell U*us why. . .
RONFLMU*UO
Correction - ROTFLMU*UO
""A dialogue involves Robin listening, not preparing his next retort in his head as he lets the other person talk, but truly listening.""
:At 4:58 PM, October 17, 2006, Anonymous said...
:How have your conversations with Robin gone? Have they gotten anywhere?
In spite of Indrax's serious mistakes mu conversations have gone a hell of a lot further than with outrageously hypocritical Montreal U*Us or UUA and CUC officials. . .
:If not, why do you think people Robin is angry at trying to open up a dialogue would be any more effective?
Robin isn't really so much "angry" as "even". . . Even in terms of being "even tempered". . . To say nothing of "erudite". If Montreal U*Us made a real attempt to open dialogue they would quickly discover that in a very even tempered reasonable and rational manner I could lay out their outrageous hypocrisy and shameful injustices and abuses before them and that is exactly why they obstinately refuse to enter into dialogue with me, because they do not want to face thge truth that they are primarily of not exclusively responsible for their own "misfortunes". . .
:A dialogue involves Robin listening, not preparing his next retort in his head as he lets the other person talk, but truly listening. Does he seem capable of that to you?
Excuse me Anonymous U*U but it is Montreal U*Us who have repeatedly demonstrated their obstinate unwillingness, their pathetic unreadiness, and their chronic inablity to truly "listen" to me for over a decade now. Don't accuse me of failing to listen when U*Us have demonstrably not only failed to listen to me but have gone to extreme lengths to silence and suppress me for several years now. I am going to post in this thread one of mu earliest letters of grievance that was addressed to Montreal U*Us over a decade ago and I expect you to damn well "listen" to what I have to say in it instead of willfully ignoring it and trying to suppress it for over a decade as Montreal U*Us clearly and unequivocally have done. . .
Here is the full text of my first letter of grievance addressed to congregants of the Unitarian Church of Montreal after previous letters of grievance filed with the UCM's Board, the UUA, and the CUC, were dismissed.
Robin Edgar
15 Lafleur apt. 11,
Verdun, Quebec,
Canada, H4G 3C3
Sunday April 21, 1996
Dear Fellow Member of the Unitarian Church of Montreal,
It is with great regret that I must inform you of the extremely unprofessional and demeaning response of Rev. Ray Drennan to my claim of a revelatory experience of God. Since arriving in Montreal as the settled minister of our church Rev. Drennan has displayed an intensely negative and even hostile attitude towards my claim of a revelatory religious experience and he has refused to cooperate in any way with my efforts to ensure that my claims are seriously responded to by the Unitarian Universalist religious community. During a meeting in September of 1995 it was implicit in a number of Rev. Drennan's responses to my claims that he questioned my sanity and, on the basis of what I had told him during this initial meeting, he said that he felt I was in need of "professional help".
On Thursday November 9th, 1995, Rev. Drennan met with me in my apartment so that I could brief him in more complete detail about my experience and the claims which arose from it. The reason that the meeting was held in my apartment was so that I could show Rev. Drennan an exposition which clearly illustrates how the total solar eclipse distinctly resembles the pupil and iris of a "cosmic eye" and how this fact and other symbolic aspects of this celestial phenomenon has had a tremendous impact on human religious belief. Throughout this meeting Rev. Drennan's comportment towards me was negative, hostile, sarcastic, and demeaning. Before I could even begin to explain my exposition to him he dismissively referred to my claims as "silliness and fantasy". When I attempted to explain
my claims via the exposition Rev. Drennan repeatedly interrupted my discourse with negative and insulting comments such as, "So you're God's messenger and
you're here to tell all the world's religions that they're wrong..." At one point during our meeting Rev. Drennan derisively referred to my claimed revelatory religious experience as, "your psychotic experience" and he angrily insisted that I was in dire need of immediate psychiatric help. Later in our meeting he referred to my religious activities which have been inspired by my experience such as Creation Day as "your cult" in a tone which was clearly hostile. When I asked him to elaborate on what he intended by his use of the word "cult" he said that he meant a cult in the sense of "a manipulative and secretive religious group".
Rev. Ray Drennan has obstinately refused to retract these false, demeaning, and damaging allegations about me or to apologize to me for making them, insisting that he was "only being honest" with me. I have seen fit to file formal grievances concerning Rev. Drennan's
unprofessional and abusive comportment towards me with the Board of our church, the Canadian Unitarian Council in Toronto, as well as
(page break 1)
the Unitarian Universalist Association in Boston in the hope that they might persuade Rev. Drennan to issue a formal apology to me. The presidents of both the C.U.C. and the U.U.A. have made it quite clear to me that they consider this to be a congregational matter, although Dr. John Buehrens has forwarded my complaint to the head of the U.U.A.'s ministerial fellowship committee for review. Regrettably, the Board of our church has decided to attempt to sweep this deplorable matter under the carpet so I am now bringing it to the attention of our congregation myself since I in no way consider the response of the Board of the Unitarian Church of Montreal to be one which affirms or promotes justice, equity or compassion towards me. Rev. Ray Drennan's insulting and demeaning remarks about my claim of a revelatory experience of God and his
false and damaging allegations about me in no way serve to either affirm or promote my own inherent worth and dignity, nor do they in any way affirm or promote acceptance of me or serve to encourage my own or anyone else's spiritual growth. If the leaders of our religious community are not willing to affirm and promote peace, liberty, and justice within our own religious community how can they possibly expect to undertake to do this with any amount of credibility in
terms of the much larger "world community"? Rev. Drennan's unprofessional, demeaning, and damaging response to my claim of a revelatory religious experience and the failure of the Board of our church to respond "in responsibility" to this matter displays a distinct lack of respect for the interdependent web of existence of which we are a part. Rev. Ray Drennan's remarks are not only insulting and damaging to me but also to anyone who is associated with me and my efforts to ensure that my revelatory experience is responded to
"in responsibility" by the religious community, and to anyone involved in the celebration of Creation
Day. Furthermore, Rev. Drennan's remarks are extremely insulting to anyone who has claimed a revelatory experience of God now or in the past and thus, by
extension, they serve to demean the theistic religious traditions of the world which affirm both revelatory and prophetic experiences of God. Above and beyond
this, Rev. Drennan's negative, sarcastic, and mocking response to my claims regarding my revelatory religious experience ultimately insults the Creator of the interdependent web of all existence of which we are a part.
I hereby appeal to you to help to ensure that my grievances about Rev. Ray Drennan's demeaning and damaging comportment towards me, as well as some grievances that I have about the church Board's treatment of me, are responsibly dealt with by our congregation in a manner that may clearly be seen to live up to both the letter and the spirit of our Unitarian Universalist principles. A sincere and formal apology made to me by Rev. Drennan would be a step towards promoting acceptance, respect, peace, and justice in our community.
Sincerely,
Robin Edgar
See, he can't even listen respectfully and take advice. Whenever his name is mentioned, he feels the need to defend himself. He's not a blogger, and calling him a thorn is justifying his hostile attitudes. I've dealt with middle schoolers that are more forgiving and willing to move on in more extreme situations than he is.
Reply Robin...reply away...but Indrax is right, you are being an ass...but I think it might be a chronic condition.
:Anonymous said...
Robin often appears extremely bitter and obsessed with the issues at his UU church. He needs to move on for his own sake.
No I don't need to "move on" for my own sake Anonymous U*U. Au contraire. . . U*Us need to responsibly address, and indeed responsibly redress. . . the "root causes" of my alleged bitterness and my alleged obsession with serious "issues" that are by no means limited to a single Unitarian "Church" in Montreal but extend to the highest levels of the UUA and CUC and the greater U*U "religious community".
Just because a criticism is true of UUs doesn't make it not true of you, Robin.
If Indrax has an issue with you, saying other people have that problem too doesn't make Indrax wrong.
:5:13 PM, October 17, 2006
::indrax said...
A dialogue involves Robin listening, not preparing his next retort in his head as he lets the other person talk, but truly listening. Does he seem capable of that to you?
:He is capable of it.
Indeed I am fully capable of "it" and that is precisely what U*Us fear. . .
:I think him demostrating that capability should be part of the UCM's criteria for re-opening dialog.
That capability has been demonstated time and time again. Where have U*Us, especially Montreal U*Us and the UUA and CUC demonstrated any "capability" to enter into genuine dialogue with yours truly? The simnple answer is they have refused to do so because they know that any genuinely open and honest dialogue with me will ultimately lead to U*Us having to admit that they have royally fucked up in their inhuman relations with me for over a decade now. . .
:No one is under obligation to deal with Robin has he behaves now,
That's funny because I was ready, willing and able to "deal with" Rev. Ray Drennan, Frank Greene and other intolerant and abusive U*Us who falsely and maliciously labeled Creation Day as a "cult" and disparaged my monotheistic religiouys beliefs as being nothing but "silliness and fantasy" etc. etc. etc. In fact U*Us do have a moral and ethical obligation to "deal with" me as I behave now because they are largely responsible for how I behave now. In any case my behaviour is no more unreasonable or offensive than a wholer lot of U*Us who speak out against external injustices, abuses and hypocrisy. In fact one of my time honoured techniques for exposing U*U offensiveness and hypocrisy is to use their own words against them. Before U*Us accuse me of being offensive they would be wellm advised to check to see if I am not simply adapting the offensive words expressed by U*Us to my own purposes in order to expose U*U offensiveness. . .
:but I think a UU church has an obligation to re-evaluate people once they behave acceptably.
AFAIAC the U*U church has an obligation to re-evaluate people even if they do not behave "acceptably" according to U*U criteria if they have serious grievances against the U*U "church". The flip side of that coin is that U*Us also have a moral and ethical obligation to evaluate and re-evaluate people and indeed whole U*U congregations who have behaved, and continue to behave, unacceptably. . . That would include Rev. Ray Drennan, the Board and congregation of the Unitarian Church of Montreal, former UUA President Rev. Dr. John Beuhrens, former Ministerial Fellowship Committee director Rev. Diane Miller and a whole bunch of other outrageously hypocriotical U*Us who have behaved rather less than acceptably towards yours truly and indeed other victims of their injustices, abuses and hypocrisy. . .
:I know you've said (if it was the same you, too many anons!) that robin has agreed to things an gone back on them,
That's U*U BS in any case. I categorically deny ever having "gone back" on things that I had agreed to, even things that I never should have had to agree to because those agreements were made under duress. The sad fact of the matter is that U*Us, Montreal Unitarians and otherwise, have repeatedly and flagrantly "gone back" on their own purported "covenants" (i.e. solemn promises) in their rather inhuman human relations with me and I can back that claim up with plenty of evidence. . . I hereby challenge Anonymous U*U to present evidence that supports his or her allegations that I have "gone back" on any "promises" I have allegedly made to U*Us. Indeed I challenge Anonymous U*U to present evidence that I ever made any promises of any kind to U*Us. . .
:but that just mean you set the conditions more carefully, not that you close things off forever.
Exactly. . . but they chose to do the latter. Also U*Us have set unacceptable conditions that clearly and unequivocally disregard and violate U*U principles and purpose and I don't feel the slightest obligation to adhere to "conditions" that violate U*U principles.
:There must be a path of redemption.
It's not me who needs "redemption" so much as U*Us. . . It is the Unitarian Church of Montreal, Rev. Rau Drennan and various other U*Us who are guilty of various offenses, the UUA and its negligent and complicit Ministerial Fellowship Committee, and a whole lot of hypocritical U*Us on the internet who need to start taking steps on the path of redemption but so far they have obstinately refused to acknowledge the slightest wrong-doing towardsd me or anyone else for that matter. . .
:6:32 PM, October 17, 2006
:Anonymous said...
Even Jesus wanted people to be sorry before he forgave them.
:To be redeemed, one has to take steps toward redemption, not continually insult the people who want to help you.
Well said Anonymous U*U, at least up to this point. . . I agree 100% with what you have said up until now and ask you and all other U*Us -
What steps has Rev. Ray Drennan taken towards redemption beyond continually insulting me? Even his sorry excuse for an apology was little more than a very thinly veiled insult as I pointed out to him and my fellow U*Us.
What steps has the Unitarian Church of Montreal taken to seek redemption for its obvious injustices, abuses and hypocrisy?
What steps has the UUA and its negligent and complicit Ministerial Fellowship Committee taken to seek redemption in this matter?
None whatsoever I am afraid. U*Us are going to apologize to me for their injustices, abuses and hypocrisy long before I even contemplate apologing to U*Us for perfectly justifiably exposing and denouncing U*U injustices, abuses, and hypocrisy.
Joel Monka said: I'm quite fond of Robin, and think he would be a tremendous asset if there were a reconciliation.
The key word being "if". . .
:The only reason I don't post on his blog or his case is that there's nothing new to say at this point.
You may be half right Joel but that should not prevent you from saying something old and timeless. . . After all, all those who don't learn from history are bound to repeate it.
:Bart said... See, he can't even listen respectfully and take advice.
Actually I can and usually do listen respectfully and take advice. I can present a whole lot of well documented evidence that Rev. Ray Drennan, the Board and congregation of the Unitarian Church of Montreal, the UUA and its Ministerial Fellowship committee and a whole lot of other U*Us I know can't even listen respectfully to me and take my very good advice. . .
:Whenever his name is mentioned, he feels the need to defend himself.
Wrong. Whenever U*Us attack me or seek to discrdit me I feel the need to defend himself and usually do so quite vigorously. . .
:He's not a blogger,
The last time I checked my blogger.com profile page recorded over 1000 page views. I am as much of a blogger as most other U*U bloggers and more of a blogger than some of them.
:and calling him a thorn is justifying his hostile attitudes.
So perhaps Indrax, to say nothing of other people, U*U or otherwise. . . understands that most if not all of my alleged "hostile" attitudes are in fact highly justified by the actual intolerance, injustices, abuses and outrageous hypocrisy that I have encountered in the U*U "religious community".
:I've dealt with middle schoolers that are more forgiving and willing to move on in more extreme situations than he is.
You know middle schoolers who were intolerantly and offensively labeled as "psychotic" and falsely and maliciously accused of belonging to a "cult" by their teacher and were then permanently expelled from their school for daring to air their legitimate grievances to the principal, school board, and their fellow classmates? ROTFLMU*UO
:Reply Robin...reply away...but Indrax is right, you are being an ass...but I think it might be a chronic condition.
Only because being outrageously hypocritical asses is a "chronic condition" of most of the U*Us I have the misfortune to know Bart, and that includes you if you happen to be a U*U. . .
Just because a criticism is true of UUs doesn't make it not true of you, Robin.
If Indrax has a problem with you, saying other people have that problem too doesn't make Indrax wrong.
If you are referring to the fact that Indrax repeatedly called me an "ass" I don't believe that I in any way denied being a bit of an "ass". I just made it clear that the main reason that I am being a bit of an "ass" is because most of the U*Us I know insist on being ignorant and abusive "asses" towards yours truly to say nothing of a whole bunch of other people. . . BTW As I said in this recent post to my Emerson Avenger blog U*Us really should think twice before labeling me or anybody else as an "ass".
U*Us to U*Us. . .
Dust to dust. . .
ROTFLMU*UO
I didn't specifically mean then, though that's one example. I mean that you very frequently respond to criticism by saying that UUs have the same problem as if two wrongs make a right. If you've ever known a UU who had a bad quality, that apparently gives you carte blanche to have the same quality.
It's not a very mature attitude. (I know, I know, sometimes UUs are immature, so that makes it OK.)
:Anonymous said...
:I didn't specifically mean then, though that's one example.
Indeed it is. Just one little one. . .
:I mean that you very frequently respond to criticism by saying that UUs have the same problem as if two wrongs make a right.
Actually that is comparatively rare but I do not in fact do so in order to make "two wrongs make a right". Au contraire, after having encountered repeated denial by U*Us that their own behaviour is in fact offensive, hostile and abusive etc. etc. I have decided to adopt a policy of returning offense for offense precisely in order to get those U*Us to realize, and indeed acknowledge. . . that their behaviour towards me is in fact offensive, hostile and abusive.
:If you've ever known a UU who had a bad quality, that apparently gives you carte blanche to have the same quality.
Not at all. If U*Us attack me or others and refuse to acknowlege their offensiveness and abusiveness and modify their behaviour I do believe that it is justifiable to subject them to the same treatment, usually by making them chow down on their very own words. . . For years U*Us refused to acknowlege that Rev. Ray Drennan's labeling of my revelatory religious experience as "your psychotic exerience" and Creation Day as "your cult" was in any way offensive or abusive. In fact they all but rubber-stamped his demeaning and abusive clergy misconduct, to say nothing of the demeaning and abusive behaviour of other U*Us. . . But when after two years of obstinate refusal by U*Us, Montreal Unitarians and otherwise, to acknowledge their own intolerant, offensive and abusive behaviour towards me I decided to protest this anti-religious intolerance and abuse by displaying picket signs saying -\
"CHURCH" OF THE "PSYCHOTIC" REACTION
and
"CULT" IS A FOUR-LETTER WORD
they very soon too to accusing me of "abhorrent" behaviour and some even went so far as accusing me of "hate speech" "hate crime" and "terrorist acts". . . Looks like I managed to expose the reality of their own "hate speech" and outrageous hypocrisy by feeding their own words right back to them on my picket signs. . . Right? Please be assured that their is a method to any apparent "madness" on my part.
:It's not a very mature attitude. (I know, I know, sometimes UUs are immature, so that makes it OK.)
See above. In fact I am only exposing and denouncing the very immature attitudes of U*Us, Montreal Unitarians and otherwise, by making them chow down on their own demeaning and abusive words. I don't consider do so to be immature at all.
Post a Comment
<< Home