Since his original letter of grievance was deleted in 2003, it appears Robin Edgar has not provided a clear or complete description of his meeting with Ray Drennan on November 9, 1995. The account below is pasted together from three different sources, and should be the most complete account anywhere. There are minor continuity errors in his different retellings, but I did my best to smooth them out.
It is not clear how long they had been talking before this account begins, or what about.
When Rev. Drennan dismissed my religious beliefs, as informed by my revelatory religious experience, as being nothing but "silliness" and "fantasy" during our meeting of November 1995 when he tried to leave the meeting without having even dealt with the very reason that I had invited him to my apartment to explain and justify my beliefs by showingb him an exposition of images that illustrated my research into how total solar eclipses had influenced ancient humanity's religious beliefs I simply but firmly reminded him that the whole purpose of having the meeting in my apartment was to be able to show him the said exposition as a "visual aid" as it were that help to validate my beliefs. He reluctantly agreed to stay and proceed to express extreme skepticism about my beliefs as presented in the exposition of images in a sarcastic manner.
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..."
As I was explaining my beliefs and specifically speaking about my revelatory religious experience he rudely interrupted me by cutting in and sneeringly saying, "You mean your psychotic experience." I might add that he was quite literally in my face when he did this. Rev. Ray Drennan stands several inches taller than me but he stooped down a bit, cocked his head to the left a bit, and with a grimace of anger and contempt said what he said. If I remember correctly I did not immediately challenge that intolerant and abusive outburst but quite calmly continued to try to explain my beliefs to him.
I don't remember every single word of the "full sentence" or indeed paragraph that Drennan said when he angrily insisted that I must seek "professional help". That was an immediate follow-up to his brazen assertion that my revelatory religious experience was nothing but a "psychotic experience".
The next intolerant and offensive, to say nothing of abusive and malicious. . . thing that Rev. Ray Drennan did was to once again rudely interrupt me as I was telling him what Creation Day was all about by saying, "You mean your cult." When he said this I immediately responded by saying, "What do you mean by "cult" Ray?" I asked this question because the word "cult" has several levels of meaning and in and of itself is not necessarily intolerant and offensive. I knew from the contemptuous manner that Ray used the word that he meant it in the worst sense but I wanted to have him to either confirm that or back away from his intolerant and abusive outburst. He responded to my question by saying, "I mean a manipulative and secretive religious group." I don't remember my exact words in response to that but I do believe that I calmly but firmnly expressed my objection to his labeling of Creation Day as "your cult". This did not prevent Rev. Ray Drennan from hurling the four-letter 'C' word back at me twice as he was leaving my apartment. . .
Sources: 1, 2, 3
Friday, January 12, 2007
Sunday, October 29, 2006
Is Robin Edgar a liar?
I have accused Robin of lying, this is an explanation.
Short Version: Robin Consistently posts two or three word quotes from his conversation with Ray Drennan. Over a period of 10 months, I asked Robin for more context or a transcript a total of 9 times. At times, he agreed with me that context was important, but he did not even give me any full quotes. At other times, he said that I already had plenty of context. My request was shortened to "What did Drennan say?" Which I clarified as a request for full context at least 3 times. He said that he had posted full quotes from Drennan many times in the past, and that I was engaging in denial for claiming not to know. He then said that what Drennan said was 'all over the internet'.
There was no transcript or description with full quotes available anywhere that me or Robin could find.
To date, there still is none. (Oct 30,2006)
Robin acknowledges that the document that had provided a complete description was deleted in 2003, and that he always knew this.
The long Version:
Nov 26,2005 - I asked robin to tell his story simply and clearly.
Dec 16, 2005 - While trying to clarify Robin's case, I listed what quotes from Drennan I could find, and asked "what was said?"
Jan 26, 2006 - I asked:"I'd also like, to the best of your recollection, a transcription of the conversation where Drennan said 'your cult' and 'your psychotic experience' and such. Establishing context is very important."
Robin Cited his original letter of grievance, stating that it was detailed and provided plenty of context. He "whole-heartedly" agreed that context was very important, and stated that "That is precisely why" his original letter provided 20 pages worth of context. He linked to a google groups search, perhaps believing that the document was still available online.
Jan 30,2006 - Feb 6, 2006 - I said: "To date I have not even heard you once quote the full sentences Drennan used, to say nothing of the context. "
He Said:"Actually I have provided the full phrases that Rev. Ray Drennan used and the context that he used them in many times over. " Apparently in reference to his original letter.
June 17, 2006 - I called robin an ass, and list offenses he has made against the UCM.
June 19,2006 - Sept 26, 2006 -
I said:"I spend most of my time here asking you for more information"
Robin, after having answered none of the above requests, said:"Correct and I have provided plenty. You have more than enough information available to you to wotk with."
At this point, I became very angry.
On my own blog, on Sept 04, 2006:I asked "What did Drennan say?"
Robin Responded:"You know very well what Rev. Ray Drennan said. It is repeated in every letter of grievance that I have written about it and is now spread all over the internet."
I replied that it is not, that Robin was quoting words without context, and That I did not know what Drennan actually said.
Robin responds on Sept 05,2006: "I have in fact provided the full phrases and sentences that Rev. Drennan spoke to me many times over, as well as the context that he spoke them in. You are apparently engaging in a certain amount of denial and ignorance yourself here. You know what he said and that it was clearly intolerant, bigoted and abusive to say nothing of hostile and malicious."
In the previous thread back on Robin's blog, on Sept 07, 2006, Robin quotes Drennan as saying "you mean your psychotic experience." Apparently for the first time since 2003. I ran a Google web search shortly afterwards and found no examples whatsoever of that phrase. By the time I replied, Google had indexed the thread itself.
On Sept 20, 2006, I replied:
Sept 26,2006 - I repeated "What did Drennan say?" Three different times, in bold. No response.
Sept 29, 2006 -I asked "What did Drennan say?" Robin responds with a link to a lecture by Drennan. I questioned that he "can't link to one place where you've supposedly transcribed the conversation?"
Sept 29,2006 - Oct 17, 2006 - I again asked "What did Drennan say?" and Robin Said:
Oct 14, 2006 - Robin Said, in previous thread, in response to 'linking to a transcription':"That's correct. I cannot link to a document that is not posted to the internet at the moment. . ."
Short Version: Robin Consistently posts two or three word quotes from his conversation with Ray Drennan. Over a period of 10 months, I asked Robin for more context or a transcript a total of 9 times. At times, he agreed with me that context was important, but he did not even give me any full quotes. At other times, he said that I already had plenty of context. My request was shortened to "What did Drennan say?" Which I clarified as a request for full context at least 3 times. He said that he had posted full quotes from Drennan many times in the past, and that I was engaging in denial for claiming not to know. He then said that what Drennan said was 'all over the internet'.
There was no transcript or description with full quotes available anywhere that me or Robin could find.
To date, there still is none. (Oct 30,2006)
Robin acknowledges that the document that had provided a complete description was deleted in 2003, and that he always knew this.
The long Version:
Nov 26,2005 - I asked robin to tell his story simply and clearly.
Dec 16, 2005 - While trying to clarify Robin's case, I listed what quotes from Drennan I could find, and asked "what was said?"
* "silliness and fantasy"Dec 08, 2005 - I offered to help robin, and asked a series of questions, including:
* "your psychotic experience"
* in immediate need of "professional help."
* "your cult."
* "I mean a manipulative and secretive religious group."
I note that most of these are not sentences, and lack context. What was said?
I have a simple, clear, list of questions:He referenced his Letter of Discontent post.
1: What the hell are your grievances?
2:What happened?
3:When did it happen?
4:Where?
5:And in what context?
(In 1-5 I'm looking for a clear timeline.)
Jan 26, 2006 - I asked:"I'd also like, to the best of your recollection, a transcription of the conversation where Drennan said 'your cult' and 'your psychotic experience' and such. Establishing context is very important."
Robin Cited his original letter of grievance, stating that it was detailed and provided plenty of context. He "whole-heartedly" agreed that context was very important, and stated that "That is precisely why" his original letter provided 20 pages worth of context. He linked to a google groups search, perhaps believing that the document was still available online.
Jan 30,2006 - Feb 6, 2006 - I said: "To date I have not even heard you once quote the full sentences Drennan used, to say nothing of the context. "
He Said:"Actually I have provided the full phrases that Rev. Ray Drennan used and the context that he used them in many times over. " Apparently in reference to his original letter.
June 17, 2006 - I called robin an ass, and list offenses he has made against the UCM.
June 19,2006 - Sept 26, 2006 -
I said:"I spend most of my time here asking you for more information"
Robin, after having answered none of the above requests, said:"Correct and I have provided plenty. You have more than enough information available to you to wotk with."
At this point, I became very angry.
Ok, listen up. This pisses me off.Robin makes no response to this.
I can't work with shit. Ya know why? Because you won't tell me what the hell drennan said.
You throw around little fucking phrases, but never give me any fucking context. You refuse to quote me or even paraphrase one fucking sentence he said. This conversation is absofuckinglutely central to this conflict and you won't shed one fucking ray of light on it. For ten fucking years you've been bitching about this and as far as I know you've never told anyone what he really fucking said.
What did he say Robin? What did you say? If I don't have any fucking context then I can't fucking work.
On my own blog, on Sept 04, 2006:I asked "What did Drennan say?"
Robin Responded:"You know very well what Rev. Ray Drennan said. It is repeated in every letter of grievance that I have written about it and is now spread all over the internet."
I replied that it is not, that Robin was quoting words without context, and That I did not know what Drennan actually said.
Robin responds on Sept 05,2006: "I have in fact provided the full phrases and sentences that Rev. Drennan spoke to me many times over, as well as the context that he spoke them in. You are apparently engaging in a certain amount of denial and ignorance yourself here. You know what he said and that it was clearly intolerant, bigoted and abusive to say nothing of hostile and malicious."
In the previous thread back on Robin's blog, on Sept 07, 2006, Robin quotes Drennan as saying "you mean your psychotic experience." Apparently for the first time since 2003. I ran a Google web search shortly afterwards and found no examples whatsoever of that phrase. By the time I replied, Google had indexed the thread itself.
On Sept 20, 2006, I replied:
HOT DAMN! That is a Sentence!Robin did not respond.
Thank you, that's a start.
But wait, That phrase isn't found Anywhere else on google.
But I DID find, ON MY OWN DAMN BLOG:
The Emerson Avenger said...
I have in fact provided the full phrases and sentences that Rev. Drennan spoke to me many times over, as well as the context that he spoke them in. You are apparently engaging in a certain amount of denial and ignorance yourself here....
So I ask you, What the fuck?
Now I'll admit that your description of this exchange does sound familiar, so maybe I saw it on Bnet years ago. I thought it might be in the documents you sent me, but I couldn't find it.
The point is, this information is not readily available, you said it was, and you belittled and insulted me because I asked for it.
That makes you an Ass.
Again.
...
Bottom Line:What did Drennan say?
Sept 26,2006 - I repeated "What did Drennan say?" Three different times, in bold. No response.
Sept 29, 2006 -I asked "What did Drennan say?" Robin responds with a link to a lecture by Drennan. I questioned that he "can't link to one place where you've supposedly transcribed the conversation?"
Sept 29,2006 - Oct 17, 2006 - I again asked "What did Drennan say?" and Robin Said:
If you bothered to actualy listen to what I say Indrax you would know perfectly well what Rev. Ray Drennan said that I am objecting to. You are the only individual on this planet who has pretended not to know what Rev. Drennan said after having been provided with documents that clearly state the intolerant, demeaning, hostile and abusive words that that Rev. Ray Drennan said to me. It is all over the internet. I repeat, just in case you are still not listening to me, that in theAt which point, (Sept 29) I said that something he had said was a lie, I later clarified:
whole decade long span of this conflict NOBODY, other than you, has ever asked me, "What did Drennan say?" after having being told what Rev. Ray Drennan said or having been provided with letters or other documents that clearly stated what Rev. Ray Drennan said to me. Everybody in the U*U world, and the real world, who is reasonably well informed about this conflict knows very well what Rev. Ray Drennan said to me.
You said that Drennan said "you mean your psychotic experience.".The rest of the thread is too convoluted for me to summarize now, and mostly consists of hair splitting.
You also said that what Drennan said was 'all over the internet'.
One of those is a lie.
Google, at least, cannot find "you mean your psychotic experience" anwhere but on very recent posts of yours. None of the documents you sent me contain the phrase either, nor anything approaching a clear description of the conversation.
The only document I know of which you claim IS specific, is your 20+ page complaint, which you have not posted.
You say you've posted these things repeatedly, but you never link to them.
Oct 14, 2006 - Robin Said, in previous thread, in response to 'linking to a transcription':"That's correct. I cannot link to a document that is not posted to the internet at the moment. . ."
The Short Short Story
Robin Edgar claims that he is a victim of persecution and intolerance by Unitarian Universalists.
This is my attempt to organize and document what has really happened, and determine what it means.
This is my attempt to organize and document what has really happened, and determine what it means.
Who can post here?
Most posts here are for reference, and comments will be disabled by default. Backlinks are enabled, so if you must respond to a post, you can do it that way.
For the posts that have comments enabled, I have disabled anonymous posting. This is mainly because a number of people want anonymity, and this can make discussions confusing. If you want anonymity, it's not that hard to create a second blogger account.
I also have comment moderation turned on. This means that all comments are reviewed by me before they appear. I will delete, or simply not approve, any post at any time for any reason.
Think of this more as a wiki than a blog. If you want to know what changes on the site over time, subscribe to the RSS feed. If you want to make a permanent statement, get your own blog. The primary purpose of this site is reference; It needs to be consise, not conversational. That said, comments and input are welcome.
...But not from Robin.
Robin is many things, but he is not generally concise. Any information he wants to provide, he can provide via his blog or through email. If he is considerate, he will save me the trouble of deleting his posts.
For the posts that have comments enabled, I have disabled anonymous posting. This is mainly because a number of people want anonymity, and this can make discussions confusing. If you want anonymity, it's not that hard to create a second blogger account.
I also have comment moderation turned on. This means that all comments are reviewed by me before they appear. I will delete, or simply not approve, any post at any time for any reason.
Think of this more as a wiki than a blog. If you want to know what changes on the site over time, subscribe to the RSS feed. If you want to make a permanent statement, get your own blog. The primary purpose of this site is reference; It needs to be consise, not conversational. That said, comments and input are welcome.
...But not from Robin.
Robin is many things, but he is not generally concise. Any information he wants to provide, he can provide via his blog or through email. If he is considerate, he will save me the trouble of deleting his posts.
Saturday, October 28, 2006
Open Questions
Who can post here?
What are Robin's Accusations against Drennan?
What did Drennan suposedly say?
What does Drennan say he said?
Were Drennan's words or attitude improper, and if so how?
How did the UCM respond to Robin's claims? Was this proper?
Was there anything improper about the UCM's rejection of a second creation day?
How was creation day recieved by the UCM?
Is Robin religiously intolerant?
How was Robin involved in the Church when he was a memeber?
Did Unitarians Fail to "Validate" his revelation?
Is Robin Credible?
Is Robin Crazy?
Is Robin Amoral?
Is Robin trying to hammer his practice into UUism?
What IS wrong with Robin?
When did Robin decide that indrax was unhelpful?
Why was indrax mean to Robin?
What is the UCM's stance on Robin?
Does the UCM have a Procedure for reinstating Robin?
Why exactly did the UCM expell Robin?
What was the UCM Procedure for expulsion? Was it followed?
Is Robin a Spammer?
What other cases of UU abuse are there?
Is UU abuse systemic?
Was anything that happened in violation of Canadian Law?
What are Robin's Accusations against Drennan?
What did Drennan suposedly say?
What does Drennan say he said?
Were Drennan's words or attitude improper, and if so how?
How did the UCM respond to Robin's claims? Was this proper?
Was there anything improper about the UCM's rejection of a second creation day?
How was creation day recieved by the UCM?
Is Robin religiously intolerant?
How was Robin involved in the Church when he was a memeber?
Did Unitarians Fail to "Validate" his revelation?
Is Robin Credible?
Is Robin Crazy?
Is Robin Amoral?
Is Robin trying to hammer his practice into UUism?
What IS wrong with Robin?
When did Robin decide that indrax was unhelpful?
Why was indrax mean to Robin?
What is the UCM's stance on Robin?
Does the UCM have a Procedure for reinstating Robin?
Why exactly did the UCM expell Robin?
What was the UCM Procedure for expulsion? Was it followed?
Is Robin a Spammer?
What other cases of UU abuse are there?
Is UU abuse systemic?
Was anything that happened in violation of Canadian Law?
Timeline
This is very much under construction, for now it is a list of events I want to pin down, I'll add dates and references as I find them. I also realize that it is huge and unruly in the section covering my conversations with Robin, that is mainly for my own notes, it should get prettier as I build the rest of the site.
Early 1992 - Robin has revelatory experiences.
Late 1993? - Robin joins UCM.
Robin Experiences Atheist UU Hostility.
Robin requests use of church for First Creation Day.
First Creation Day.
UCM has interim Minister Rev. David B. Parke
Drennan Becomes UCM Minister
Robin Requests Second Creaton day.
Second Creation Day rejected.
Robin requests meeting with Drennan.
Thursday, November 9, 1995 - Robin Meets with Drennan.
Feb 14th, 1996 - Date of Robin's first letter of grievance.
Sunday April 21, 1996 - Robin criticizes Drennan during joys and concerns
April 25, 1996 - Letter from Diane Miller, MFC Executive Secretary, in response to a letter from Robin to UUA President Buehrens.
May 6, 1996 - UUA President Buehrens Responds to a letter from Robin.
May 15, 1996 - Robin replies back to Buehrens in another letter.
UCM DBC Established
Jan 19, 1997 - Robin Meets with UCM DBC. "your grievance with Rev. Drennan had been considered at all levels of the denomination and that the matter was closed."..."The discussions that you had with me were with my permission and were not disruptive." - John Inder, DBC Chair
April 23, 1997 - Drennan send apology letter.
Mar 09,1997 - Robin describes his experience in CUUPS newsletter.
Robin Distributes Letters in Church
Oct 06, 1997 - Robin distributed letter in board mailboxes 'and phone calls to several people'.
"I will not accept an official apology from Rev. Drennan at this time"...
Nov 09, 1997 - Robin's church attendance suspended for 6 months
May 09, 1998 - Robin's attendance reinstated
Letters Mailed
More Letters mailed and Distributed
Spring 1998 - Robin Pickets UCM
Robin 'Spits in Water Ceremony bowl'
November 1999 - Robin Permanently Expelled
Robin Posts his Complaints on the Internet
May 2000 - Protest in Boston
December 2000 - Robin Arrested
Robin Posts 20+ page 'letter of grievance' on free web host
April 2003 - Letter of grievance deleted when web host ends service
Spring 2003 - Robin is diagnosed with mild depression and takes Celexa for 3 months
Robin Kicked off Beliefnet
Oct 30 2005 - Robin Starts The Emerson Avenger Blog
Oct 31,2005 - Robin's Letter to editor regaring UCM ad.
From here, I will link to every conversation I have had with Robin on his blog, and what I can find elsewhere.
Nov 02,2005 - indrax posts to TEA for the first time
Nov 12, 2005 - indrax:I'd like to hear more about the eye of God.
Nov 18, 2005 -Nov 24, 2005 - indrax:What is your system of morality/ethics/whatever?, broken promise to respond.
Nov 26,2005 - Surely I need not enumerate them. -actually it would help
Nov 30, 2005 - Blogger comment notification, second broken promise, low priority
Dec 01, 2005 - Dec 4, 2005 - Spock, atheists, validation, context.
Dec 04, 2005 - indrax: I agree that there is an underlying ultimate reality, independent of belief.
Dec 16, 2005 - Letter of Discontent - indrax: I note that most of these are not sentences, and lack context. What was said?
Dec 05,2005 - Robin banned from FUUSE
Dec 08, 2005 - Golden Rule, Moral Vacuity
Dec 08, 2005 - Offer of help, many unanswered questions including 'What happened?', link to 'Letter of Discontent'
Dec 09, 2005 - Blog layout suggestions.
Dec 12, 2005 - Validation
Dec 12, 2005- Jan 26, 2006- Robin accepts but ignores his responsibility to heal himself and others. link to other discussion
Dec 13,2005 - Is UUism the Macdonald's of religion? indrax:No , challenge on google links.
Dec 13, 2005 - Quotation mark searches
Dec 14,2005 - Dec 21,2005 - google link reply indrax: post a blow by blow TEA: I'll get around to it soon. broken promise. There is a blow by blow spread all over the internet. Few UU's cared. (about the original letter) Tired of repeatedly posting. (???)
Dec 14,2005 - Origin of 'U*U', 'wind breaking news'
Dec 16, 2005 - indrax asks for suggestions on conflict resolution policy
Dec 16, 2005 - Overt use of U*U as anal imagery, calls a random UU's choice ignorant and stupid.
Dec 18, 2005 - indrax: So, to further translate your post, You made a snow-questionamark pointing at the UCM. Right? I love the pics though.
Dec 19, 2005 - Biblebookworm is confused, Robin does not insult her.
Jan 6, 2006 - Knock knock. (seeing if he was active again after the holidays.) World Day of conscience.
Jan 20,2006 - indrax recomends robin participate in CC's 'improve UUism' contest, he suggests ending our hypocrisy.
Jan 24, 2006 - Robin's Goals, communication with Sinkford
Jan 26, 2006 - First post by 'anonymousUU'
Jan 26,2006 - Robin's rebuttal to anonymousUU
Jan 26, 2006 - indrax suggests better web design, asks for transcript and context. Robin agrees that context is important, cites past chronologies with no results. "The blog format does not allow for this" [good web design?] He offers 'all the files that you need'. 'hammering' self-identify
Jan 28,2006 - indrax asks anonymous UU and Robin for private dialogs.
Jan 28,2006- June 4, 2006 Robin and I exchange emails. Also, this on the 28th. Note:This causes some overlap with the rest of the timeline, I will break up the emails more later.
Jan 30,2006 - Feb 6, 2006 Exercising conscience, disappointing Robin, make a case, telling anonymous not to spam, "the day that I think that you are attacking me you will know it." Full Sentences. Not secretive
May 03,2006 - It is Unitarians who require enlightenment about the "mysterious and wonderful" ways that God works in the world but they have chosen to not only obstinately ignore my revelation about the "mysterious and wonderful" ways that God works in the world but have chosen to maliciously insult and attack my revelation and vision with damaging slanderous allegations and then have gone on to punish me for seeking justice and appropriate redress.
April 22, 2006 - indrax: So what happened next?
June 15, 2006 - indrax: So, when are you going to start working towads reconciliation?And don't tell me you are, because you are quite obviously not.
June 17, 2006 - indrax calls robin an ass.
June 19,2006 - Sept 26, 2006 -
I'd like to see the Drennan article that prompted this.
Three sentences. (asking for reconciliation/dialog without insulting)
'not sure' if indrax has asked about conflict resolution practices. (see Dec 16,2005)
Because you won't tell me what the hell drennan said.
Much swearing.
Show humanity.
List of ignored requests.
I will never discuss private communications on this matter without express consent.
indrax suggest blog carnival participation. 'Purpose'
"[it should be just fine] to "pester" U*Us about U*Uism's failings,
No, no, no, no, no. Were you raised by wolves?!?"
combative victim blaming
I'm smart, stubborn, and commited to making you a member of the UCM, maybe you should step back and look at what I'm saying.
I'm not being combative. Not even close. I'm still on your side.
AnonymousUU's second original post.
Damnit robin. when you say 'U*Us' you paint with too broad a brush.
caught drennan lying?
the myth I once heard that alleges that I spat in the water ceremony bowl. That one actually has a small basis of truth to it but grossly distorts what actually happened.
My favorite technique is to make these verbally abusive people, and those who support them. . . chow down on their own abusive words.
I will get around to providing a copy of my original letter of grievance
sept 20:Bottom line: What did Drennan say?
"you mean your psychotic experience."
HOT DAMN! That is a Sentence!
Thank you, that's a start.
But wait, That phrase isn't found Anywhere else on google.
I have in fact provided the full phrases and sentences that Rev. Drennan spoke to me many times over, as well as the context that he spoke them in. You are apparently engaging in a certain amount of denial and ignorance yourself here....
So I ask you, What the fuck?
Now I'll admit that your description of this exchange does sound familiar, so maybe I saw it on Bnet years ago. I thought it might be in the documents you sent me, but I couldn't find it.
The point is, this information is not readily available, you said it was, and you belittled and insulted me because I asked for it.
That makes you an Ass.
Again.
I ask Robin what he expects in terms of 'validation', no answer.
Aug 20, 2006 - spammer
Aug 18,2006 - POW Post on indrax's blog 'Robin edgar just got thrashed' referencing anonymous's new post. Robin gives assignment.
Sept 04, 2006 - Robin responds to 'POW', indrax notes that he missed the last line , that the most useful information usually makes one's own job harder.
Sept 07,2006 - Don't reject Dialog, indrax is unimportant, robin is an asshole idiot, indrax offers committee, mediator?no, representative, yes. Who are you dialoging with? Keeping all this in mind, do you want my help, or not?
Sept 11,2006 - sept 26,2006 I'd really like an answer to that last question I asked. Do you think Schizophrenia is a good thing? indrax is still helping. I'd really like an answer to that last question I asked. pithy seven word zingers. indrax's obvious anger and frustration. U*Us PERVERT JUSTICE? communication: what Robin thinks others will interpret. Dim Thinking insults. I denied that you had told me what Drennan said, and it seems that I was right.
I am ignorant of a great many things, because you willfully refuse to answer my questions. Pity. What's obvious? evil fuckball. crazy behavior. robin admits some faults. chopping and reframing. Anyone who calls me "crazy" because of "the religious revelation itself" is guilty of some serious DIM Thinking. I am still waiting for U*Us to make a "good start" when it comes to admitting their serious faults and failings. . . Chopping, reframing, and spin. previously established her tone. snidely. room to disagree. her attitude was that "schitzophrenia is a terrible thing." DIM Fuck You. What did Drennan say? You can be pretty sure I can be sure? How can I be sure? Because you know? The internet is aware of UCM Rumors. There's that sentence again. Got any more? Actually if the entire religion turns a blind eye to the religious intolerance... ,
Sept 26, 2006 - Oct 17, 2006 the greater U*U religious community that for over a decade now has done absolutely nothing to promote justice, equity and compassion in human relations with yours truly. . . indrax calls robin impatient
Sept 28, 2006 - Do you want my help or not? no response.
Sept 29, 2006 - Oct 14,2006 - Do you want my help or not? What did Drennan say? ...you can't link to one place where you've supposedly transcribed the conversation? That's correct. I cannot link to a document that is not posted to the internet at the moment. . .
Sept 29,2006 -???? - you should listen, UU's should listen. Do you want my help? What did Drennan Say? It is all over the internet. indrax has done more harm than good. Something you've said is a lie. The last time I checked I wasn't getting angry I was getting even. . . Nobody has ever asked what drennan said after having been told. :Who has been told? Where are these letters and documents? You were sent a computer file. very few people other than me bother to chime in about anything you have to say in this matter. it may well be that "everyone who is informed here is so against you that they won't concede a minor point.)" the vast majority of U*Us do not want to be "well informed" about "this", Google, at least, cannot find "you mean your psychotic experience" anwhere but on very recent posts of yours. I already made it clear that your alleged "help" is neither needed nor wanted. (as of Oct 1, 2006) 20+ page complain letter is only more lengthy and detailed. It is no more "specific". As you wish, my offer is rescinded, Well you have my permission to publish anything that I have written about this dispute in whole or in part. You know perfectly well that that by enclosing a phrase like that in quotation marks limits the amount of search engine results Yes, it limits results to pages where those words all apear in that order, together, as one would expect them to if you had fully quoted Drennan anywhere that google searches. no such description exists anywhere google can find it. I can very truthfully and very accurately accuse U*Us of a considerable number of very public lies and back up my accusations with plenty of evidence. including this onedating back to 2003. So please forgive me Indrax for characterizing your assertion that "no such description exists anywhere google can find it" as a "public lie". . . our meeting of November 1995 when he tried to leave the meeting without having even dealt with the very reason that I had invited him to my apartment...You don't need any more context than you already have. You've got loads of context. If I accused you of DIM Thinking it was because you were engaging in some form of what Dee Miller calls DIM Thinking. Quite frankly right here and right now I am going to accuse you of dim thinking because I have had it up to here with your anal retentive stupidity over what Rev. Ray Drennan said to me. No I don't. What is "essential" is "all over the internet".
Oct 12, 2006 - Shawn Anthony leaving UUism, CUC, UCM membership numbers
Oct 27,2006 - my side of the story is very truthful, very accurate, and backed by lots of documentary evidence, including sworn testimony from my criminal trial. . . Whose testimony? Got Transcripts?
Oct 01, 2006 - Robin says my help is not wanted.
Oct 09, 2006 - indrax starts making this timeline
Early 1992 - Robin has revelatory experiences.
Late 1993? - Robin joins UCM.
Robin Experiences Atheist UU Hostility.
Robin requests use of church for First Creation Day.
First Creation Day.
UCM has interim Minister Rev. David B. Parke
Drennan Becomes UCM Minister
Robin Requests Second Creaton day.
Second Creation Day rejected.
Robin requests meeting with Drennan.
Thursday, November 9, 1995 - Robin Meets with Drennan.
Feb 14th, 1996 - Date of Robin's first letter of grievance.
Sunday April 21, 1996 - Robin criticizes Drennan during joys and concerns
April 25, 1996 - Letter from Diane Miller, MFC Executive Secretary, in response to a letter from Robin to UUA President Buehrens.
May 6, 1996 - UUA President Buehrens Responds to a letter from Robin.
May 15, 1996 - Robin replies back to Buehrens in another letter.
UCM DBC Established
Jan 19, 1997 - Robin Meets with UCM DBC. "your grievance with Rev. Drennan had been considered at all levels of the denomination and that the matter was closed."..."The discussions that you had with me were with my permission and were not disruptive." - John Inder, DBC Chair
April 23, 1997 - Drennan send apology letter.
Mar 09,1997 - Robin describes his experience in CUUPS newsletter.
Robin Distributes Letters in Church
Oct 06, 1997 - Robin distributed letter in board mailboxes 'and phone calls to several people'.
"I will not accept an official apology from Rev. Drennan at this time"...
Nov 09, 1997 - Robin's church attendance suspended for 6 months
May 09, 1998 - Robin's attendance reinstated
Letters Mailed
More Letters mailed and Distributed
Spring 1998 - Robin Pickets UCM
Robin 'Spits in Water Ceremony bowl'
November 1999 - Robin Permanently Expelled
Robin Posts his Complaints on the Internet
May 2000 - Protest in Boston
December 2000 - Robin Arrested
Robin Posts 20+ page 'letter of grievance' on free web host
April 2003 - Letter of grievance deleted when web host ends service
Spring 2003 - Robin is diagnosed with mild depression and takes Celexa for 3 months
Robin Kicked off Beliefnet
Oct 30 2005 - Robin Starts The Emerson Avenger Blog
Oct 31,2005 - Robin's Letter to editor regaring UCM ad.
From here, I will link to every conversation I have had with Robin on his blog, and what I can find elsewhere.
Nov 02,2005 - indrax posts to TEA for the first time
Nov 12, 2005 - indrax:I'd like to hear more about the eye of God.
Nov 18, 2005 -Nov 24, 2005 - indrax:What is your system of morality/ethics/whatever?, broken promise to respond.
Nov 26,2005 - Surely I need not enumerate them. -actually it would help
Nov 30, 2005 - Blogger comment notification, second broken promise, low priority
Dec 01, 2005 - Dec 4, 2005 - Spock, atheists, validation, context.
Dec 04, 2005 - indrax: I agree that there is an underlying ultimate reality, independent of belief.
Dec 16, 2005 - Letter of Discontent - indrax: I note that most of these are not sentences, and lack context. What was said?
Dec 05,2005 - Robin banned from FUUSE
Dec 08, 2005 - Golden Rule, Moral Vacuity
Dec 08, 2005 - Offer of help, many unanswered questions including 'What happened?', link to 'Letter of Discontent'
Dec 09, 2005 - Blog layout suggestions.
Dec 12, 2005 - Validation
Dec 12, 2005- Jan 26, 2006- Robin accepts but ignores his responsibility to heal himself and others. link to other discussion
Dec 13,2005 - Is UUism the Macdonald's of religion? indrax:No , challenge on google links.
Dec 13, 2005 - Quotation mark searches
Dec 14,2005 - Dec 21,2005 - google link reply indrax: post a blow by blow TEA: I'll get around to it soon. broken promise. There is a blow by blow spread all over the internet. Few UU's cared. (about the original letter) Tired of repeatedly posting. (???)
Dec 14,2005 - Origin of 'U*U', 'wind breaking news'
Dec 16, 2005 - indrax asks for suggestions on conflict resolution policy
Dec 16, 2005 - Overt use of U*U as anal imagery, calls a random UU's choice ignorant and stupid.
Dec 18, 2005 - indrax: So, to further translate your post, You made a snow-questionamark pointing at the UCM. Right? I love the pics though.
Dec 19, 2005 - Biblebookworm is confused, Robin does not insult her.
Jan 6, 2006 - Knock knock. (seeing if he was active again after the holidays.) World Day of conscience.
Jan 20,2006 - indrax recomends robin participate in CC's 'improve UUism' contest, he suggests ending our hypocrisy.
Jan 24, 2006 - Robin's Goals, communication with Sinkford
Jan 26, 2006 - First post by 'anonymousUU'
Jan 26,2006 - Robin's rebuttal to anonymousUU
Jan 26, 2006 - indrax suggests better web design, asks for transcript and context. Robin agrees that context is important, cites past chronologies with no results. "The blog format does not allow for this" [good web design?] He offers 'all the files that you need'. 'hammering' self-identify
Jan 28,2006 - indrax asks anonymous UU and Robin for private dialogs.
Jan 28,2006- June 4, 2006 Robin and I exchange emails. Also, this on the 28th. Note:This causes some overlap with the rest of the timeline, I will break up the emails more later.
Jan 30,2006 - Feb 6, 2006 Exercising conscience, disappointing Robin, make a case, telling anonymous not to spam, "the day that I think that you are attacking me you will know it." Full Sentences. Not secretive
May 03,2006 - It is Unitarians who require enlightenment about the "mysterious and wonderful" ways that God works in the world but they have chosen to not only obstinately ignore my revelation about the "mysterious and wonderful" ways that God works in the world but have chosen to maliciously insult and attack my revelation and vision with damaging slanderous allegations and then have gone on to punish me for seeking justice and appropriate redress.
April 22, 2006 - indrax: So what happened next?
June 15, 2006 - indrax: So, when are you going to start working towads reconciliation?And don't tell me you are, because you are quite obviously not.
June 17, 2006 - indrax calls robin an ass.
June 19,2006 - Sept 26, 2006 -
I'd like to see the Drennan article that prompted this.
Three sentences. (asking for reconciliation/dialog without insulting)
'not sure' if indrax has asked about conflict resolution practices. (see Dec 16,2005)
Because you won't tell me what the hell drennan said.
Much swearing.
Show humanity.
List of ignored requests.
I will never discuss private communications on this matter without express consent.
indrax suggest blog carnival participation. 'Purpose'
"[it should be just fine] to "pester" U*Us about U*Uism's failings,
No, no, no, no, no. Were you raised by wolves?!?"
combative victim blaming
I'm smart, stubborn, and commited to making you a member of the UCM, maybe you should step back and look at what I'm saying.
I'm not being combative. Not even close. I'm still on your side.
AnonymousUU's second original post.
Damnit robin. when you say 'U*Us' you paint with too broad a brush.
caught drennan lying?
the myth I once heard that alleges that I spat in the water ceremony bowl. That one actually has a small basis of truth to it but grossly distorts what actually happened.
My favorite technique is to make these verbally abusive people, and those who support them. . . chow down on their own abusive words.
I will get around to providing a copy of my original letter of grievance
sept 20:Bottom line: What did Drennan say?
"you mean your psychotic experience."
HOT DAMN! That is a Sentence!
Thank you, that's a start.
But wait, That phrase isn't found Anywhere else on google.
I have in fact provided the full phrases and sentences that Rev. Drennan spoke to me many times over, as well as the context that he spoke them in. You are apparently engaging in a certain amount of denial and ignorance yourself here....
So I ask you, What the fuck?
Now I'll admit that your description of this exchange does sound familiar, so maybe I saw it on Bnet years ago. I thought it might be in the documents you sent me, but I couldn't find it.
The point is, this information is not readily available, you said it was, and you belittled and insulted me because I asked for it.
That makes you an Ass.
Again.
I ask Robin what he expects in terms of 'validation', no answer.
Aug 20, 2006 - spammer
Aug 18,2006 - POW Post on indrax's blog 'Robin edgar just got thrashed' referencing anonymous's new post. Robin gives assignment.
Sept 04, 2006 - Robin responds to 'POW', indrax notes that he missed the last line , that the most useful information usually makes one's own job harder.
Sept 07,2006 - Don't reject Dialog, indrax is unimportant, robin is an asshole idiot, indrax offers committee, mediator?no, representative, yes. Who are you dialoging with? Keeping all this in mind, do you want my help, or not?
Sept 11,2006 - sept 26,2006 I'd really like an answer to that last question I asked. Do you think Schizophrenia is a good thing? indrax is still helping. I'd really like an answer to that last question I asked. pithy seven word zingers. indrax's obvious anger and frustration. U*Us PERVERT JUSTICE? communication: what Robin thinks others will interpret. Dim Thinking insults. I denied that you had told me what Drennan said, and it seems that I was right.
I am ignorant of a great many things, because you willfully refuse to answer my questions. Pity. What's obvious? evil fuckball. crazy behavior. robin admits some faults. chopping and reframing. Anyone who calls me "crazy" because of "the religious revelation itself" is guilty of some serious DIM Thinking. I am still waiting for U*Us to make a "good start" when it comes to admitting their serious faults and failings. . . Chopping, reframing, and spin. previously established her tone. snidely. room to disagree. her attitude was that "schitzophrenia is a terrible thing." DIM Fuck You. What did Drennan say? You can be pretty sure I can be sure? How can I be sure? Because you know? The internet is aware of UCM Rumors. There's that sentence again. Got any more? Actually if the entire religion turns a blind eye to the religious intolerance... ,
Sept 26, 2006 - Oct 17, 2006 the greater U*U religious community that for over a decade now has done absolutely nothing to promote justice, equity and compassion in human relations with yours truly. . . indrax calls robin impatient
Sept 28, 2006 - Do you want my help or not? no response.
Sept 29, 2006 - Oct 14,2006 - Do you want my help or not? What did Drennan say? ...you can't link to one place where you've supposedly transcribed the conversation? That's correct. I cannot link to a document that is not posted to the internet at the moment. . .
Sept 29,2006 -???? - you should listen, UU's should listen. Do you want my help? What did Drennan Say? It is all over the internet. indrax has done more harm than good. Something you've said is a lie. The last time I checked I wasn't getting angry I was getting even. . . Nobody has ever asked what drennan said after having been told. :Who has been told? Where are these letters and documents? You were sent a computer file. very few people other than me bother to chime in about anything you have to say in this matter. it may well be that "everyone who is informed here is so against you that they won't concede a minor point.)" the vast majority of U*Us do not want to be "well informed" about "this", Google, at least, cannot find "you mean your psychotic experience" anwhere but on very recent posts of yours. I already made it clear that your alleged "help" is neither needed nor wanted. (as of Oct 1, 2006) 20+ page complain letter is only more lengthy and detailed. It is no more "specific". As you wish, my offer is rescinded, Well you have my permission to publish anything that I have written about this dispute in whole or in part. You know perfectly well that that by enclosing a phrase like that in quotation marks limits the amount of search engine results Yes, it limits results to pages where those words all apear in that order, together, as one would expect them to if you had fully quoted Drennan anywhere that google searches. no such description exists anywhere google can find it. I can very truthfully and very accurately accuse U*Us of a considerable number of very public lies and back up my accusations with plenty of evidence. including this onedating back to 2003. So please forgive me Indrax for characterizing your assertion that "no such description exists anywhere google can find it" as a "public lie". . . our meeting of November 1995 when he tried to leave the meeting without having even dealt with the very reason that I had invited him to my apartment...You don't need any more context than you already have. You've got loads of context. If I accused you of DIM Thinking it was because you were engaging in some form of what Dee Miller calls DIM Thinking. Quite frankly right here and right now I am going to accuse you of dim thinking because I have had it up to here with your anal retentive stupidity over what Rev. Ray Drennan said to me. No I don't. What is "essential" is "all over the internet".
Oct 12, 2006 - Shawn Anthony leaving UUism, CUC, UCM membership numbers
Oct 27,2006 - my side of the story is very truthful, very accurate, and backed by lots of documentary evidence, including sworn testimony from my criminal trial. . . Whose testimony? Got Transcripts?
Oct 01, 2006 - Robin says my help is not wanted.
Oct 09, 2006 - indrax starts making this timeline
Thursday, October 26, 2006
Indrax-Robin Email Dialog
This the email dialog between Robin and myself. [snip] represents quoted text that's been cut for clarity.
From: Robin Edgar
To: indraxblog@gmail.com
Date: Jan 28, 2006 6:18 AM
Subject: Re: [The Emerson Avenger] 1/28/2006 01:49:21 AM
Have fun. . .
indrax wrote:
I'd like to thank the poster for getting Robin to post as close as I've seen to a clear chronological description of his grievances.
Robin:
Still work to do on this.
You say you were expelled for placing letters in mailboxes, but first brought before the DBC for distributing letter to members during coffee hour. I thought you distributed the letters to the board first?
It would be best if you included direct links to both the text of the letter, and a scanned image.
Also, the text and a scan of your original letters, and Drennan's apology letter.(and any other corresondance) these should all be linked to from a chornological list.
(Again forcing surfers to dig through google searches is bad web design.)
I'd also like, to the best of your recollection, a transcription of the conversation where Drennan said 'your cult' and 'your psychotic experience' and such. Establishing context is very important.
That's all I have for now.
--
Posted by indrax to The Emerson Avenger at 1/28/2006 01:49:21 AM
Find your next car at Yahoo! Canada Autos
5 attachments — Download all attachments
Me-MFC96.5
31K Download
Me-Ray96.3
12K Download
defense.wpd
15K Download
me-ray97.4.wpd
8K Download
Me-cng97.11.wpd
12K Download
From: indrax Mailed-By: gmail.com
To: Robin Edgar
Date: Jan 30, 2006 1:12 AM
Subject: Re: [The Emerson Avenger] 1/28/2006 01:49:21 AM
Thanks!
In the 96.5 letter you reference "the letter of complaint addressed to
the Board of the Unitarian Church of Montreal dated Wednesday February
14, 1996, contains an accurate and unembellished description of Rev.
Ray Drennan's comportment towards me."
That one should definitely get posted.
- Show quoted text -
On 1/28/06, Robin Edgar wrote:
[snip]
From: Robin Edgar
To: indrax
Date: Jan 30, 2006 2:13 AM
Subject: Re: [The Emerson Avenger] 1/28/2006 01:49:21 AM
It's 27 pages long and takes about an hour and a half to read. . .
I wrote it as a complete history of Drennan's behaviour towards me in case he accused me of slander and it ever went to court. I hindsight I should have wrote a two-page letter of complaint and added the rest as an addenda. . .
The shorter letters are more than adequate. This post alone should be more than enough to expose how the UUA and its Ministerial Fellowship Committee complicitly whitewashed Drennan -
http://emersonavenger.blogspot.com/2006/01/emerson-avenger-once-again-puts-uus-on.html
[snip]
From: indrax Mailed-By: gmail.com
To: Robin Edgar
Date: Feb 2, 2006 10:34 AM
Subject: Re: [The Emerson Avenger] 1/28/2006 01:49:21 AM
Ahh, yeah that's probably too long to post in it's entirety.
I want to back up a bit and talk about why I wanted this dialog in the
first place.
My intent is to develop a plan for how we can bring about 'restorative
justice' between you and the UCM. My vision is for you to return to
being an active member. What do you think this would take?
[snip]
From: Robin Edgar
To: indrax
Date: Feb 2, 2006 2:11 PM
Subject: Re: [The Emerson Avenger] 1/28/2006 01:49:21 AM
Hi Indrax,
Probably a miracle. . .
I had hoped that the restoration of my membership would be brought about by the Quebec Human Rights Commission after the UCM repeatedly ignored all of my communications but the QHRC dropped the ball by deciding not to bring my case before a human rights tribunal. The UCM pretended that this was an exoneration of Rev. Drennan, which was not in fact the case, and you can see the result in terms of anonymous U*U's U*U BS. There is little doubt that he is some sort of UCM or CUC official. My best guess is that it is probably Bert Christensen. . .
I might add that the abject failure and even the obstinate refusal of the UUA's Ministerial Fellowship Committee to responsibly act on my serious grievances in the earliest stages of the conflict, as illustrated in my recent post exposing Rev. Diane Miller's sincerely ignorant institutional denial and stonewalling, reinforced the Uintarian Church of Montreal's own obstinate refusal to act on my legitimate grievances. A later attempt to have the MFC act on my complaints after the election of Bill Sinkford as UUA President was also rejected as were all other attempts to settle this dispute via responsible conflict resolution procedures.
I have been in contact with President Sinkford recently as one of my recent posts shows. He finally responded to my emails yesterday but has never actually spoken with me as I have requested. His email was pretty much a brush-off that tersely albeit politely responded that the congregation has to deal with the matter. I responded at length agreeing in principle but making it clear that I held the UUA highly responsible for the fact that the Unitarian Church of Montreal never responsibly redressed my now seriously aggravated grievances due to the oppressive and punitive responses of the UCM to my letters of grievance and subsequent public protest activity. I demanded that President Sinkord practice what he preaches and begin to "begin again in love" by the fateful date of February 14th which just happens to be the 10th anniversary of my first letter of grievance about Rev. Ray Drennan's intolerant and abusive clergy misconduct. I also demanded that he deal responsibly with other injustices and abuses etc. that do not directly affect me and that he must take steps to end the culture of censorship and suppression of criticism and dissent that currently degrades UUism in general and the UUA in particular. It will be interesting to see how that plays out but I will not let the UUA off the hook for its past negligence and institutional denial and stonewalling that was effectively complicit with Rev. Drennan's anti-religious intolerance and bigotry and all but guaranteed that the Unitarian Church of Montreal would refuse to act upon my serious grievances.
How I proceed from here on in depends very much on how President Sinkford responds to my most recent email which also made him aware of my World Day of Conscience proposal and sought UU support for it and participation in it. I still have a variety of options that I can exercise in terms of putting pressure on the Unitarian Church of Montreal to responsibly redress my grievances that are now very significantly aggravated thanks to its grossly negligent and oppressive and punitive responses to my complaints. As a result of anonymous U*Us recent posts I will demand that the Quebec Human Rights Commission reexamine my complaint which was against the church itself as much as Rev. Drennan and at the very least have the QHRC inform the UCM that its refusal to bring my complaint to a tribunal was not in fact an exonneration of Rev. Drennan as has been pretended by the UCM.
A return to Boston with picket signs in hand is well within possibility. . . As are similar actions outside of Montreal. I came very close to heading down to Times Square and NYC UU churches in December to culture jam the UUA ads but unexpected financial difficulties dissuaded me from doing it in the end. Ottawa U*Us just added to my motivation to protest against U*U injustices and hypocrisy in Ottawa and Ottawa would be any easy and inexpensive target of opportunity for a weekend or two of protest activities. As long as the UUA and the Unitarian Church of Montreal refuse to initiate responsible conflict resolution measures that would provide some semblance of restorative justice my protest activities will not only continue but will be escalated, mainly by targeting other U*U churches in other cities etc. but also by targeting other institutions such as my recent protest in front of Station 11 after two of its officers went a bit too far in seizing and destroying my picket signs.
Allah prochaine,
Robin Edgar
[snip]
From: indrax Mailed-By: gmail.com
To: Robin Edgar
Date: Feb 2, 2006 2:48 PM
Subject: Re: [The Emerson Avenger] 1/28/2006 01:49:21 AM
What could the QHRC have done?
I imagine the UUA could have made some token punishment against
Drennan, but they could not have removed him from ministry or
anything.
I don't think either could restore your membership, even if they fully
backed you.
It's all about congregational polity.
[snip]
From: Robin Edgar
To: indrax
Date: Feb 2, 2006 3:51 PM
Subject: Re: [The Emerson Avenger] 1/28/2006 01:49:21 AM
:What could the QHRC have done?
Plenty. . . They could have force the restoration of my membership in the UCM, reprimanded and sanctioned both Rev. Drennan and the church leadership for violating my human rights, and even forced them to pay a certain amount of financial compensation for the damages that they have done to me.
:I imagine the UUA could have made some token punishment against
Drennan, but they could not have removed him from ministry or
anything.
I wasn't asking for that was l? I was asking for a comprehensive apology that acknowledged the wrongfulness and harmfulness of Drennan's words and clearly and unequivocally retracted them. This is all very well documented. It was only much later in the conflict when I had been repeatedly sanctioned by the UCM that I began to demand that Rev. Ray Drennan must face similar sanctions for his far worse "disruptive behaviour". . . Remember that justice and *equity* principle of UUism?
:I don't think either could restore your membership, even if they fully
backed you.
My membership was intact at the time I wrote to Rev. Diane Miller and for some years afterwards. I was permanently expelled in late 1999 on the fateful date of November 22nd to be exact. If you are referring to the UUA now under President Sinkford's questionable leadership the UUA can damn well do a mea culpa that clearly acknowledges their past negligence and complicity that all but guaranteed that the Unitarian Church of Montreal would not responsibly redress my serious grievances. I have even been told that former UUA President John Buehrens actually criticized the church for not being more heavy handed with me earlier and since the source of that information was with the UCM's so-called "Disruptive Behaviour Committee" I have little reason to doubt it. . .
President Buehrens berated me for calmly and briefly sharing my concerns about Rev. Drennan's demeaning and abusive misconduct but never so much as mildly reprimanded Drennan. . . The stunningly hypocritical double standards exercised by top level UUA officials are now very well documented.
:It's all about congregational polity.
At this point its about congregational conscientious stupidity. . .
- Show quoted text -
Allah prochaine,
Robin Edgar
[snip]
From: indrax Mailed-By: gmail.com
To: Robin Edgar
Date: Feb 6, 2006 4:27 AM
Subject: Re: [The Emerson Avenger] 1/28/2006 01:49:21 AM
Ok, I am quite surprised at the level of power the QHRC has. Is it
roughly equivalent to a court in Canada? In America, I'm pretty sure
even a court could not force a church to reinstate a memeber.
But if Drennan wasn't going to apologize, and the UCM wasn't going to
do anyting about it, what was the UUA supposed to do?
> If you are referring to the UUA
> now under President Sinkford's questionable leadership the UUA can damn well
> do a mea culpa that clearly acknowledges their past negligence and
> complicity ...
What would that acomplish?
>The stunningly hypocritical double standards
> exercised by top level UUA officials are now very well documented.
I have not seen that documentation.
Also, I would still like to see your transcripts on Drennan, all 27 pages.
>
> :It's all about congregational polity.
>
> At this point its about congregational conscientious stupidity. . .
Exactly my point. The UUA is irrelevant.
From: Robin Edgar
To: indrax
Date: Feb 6, 2006 1:32 PM
Subject: Re: [The Emerson Avenger] 1/28/2006 01:49:21 AM
Reply | Reply to all | Forward | Print | Add sender to Contacts list | Delete this message | Report phishing | Show original | Message text garbled?
Hi Indrax,
Yes the QHRC does have that level of power and if it had taken my case to a human rights tribunal aka court the tribunal most certainly could have ordered the Unitarian Church of Montreal to reinstate my membership, condemned the UCM and Drennnan etc. for discrimination and harassment on religious grounds, and could even have ordered them to pay a certain amount of compensation for damages etc. This possibility is still not totally out of the question.
I consider the QHRC to have acted negligently by failing to take my complaint to tribunal and for other reasons. As a result of Unitarians falsely representing this QHRC negligence as an exonerration of both Rev. Ray Drennan and the Unitarian Church of Montreal and thus prolonging their refusal to responsibly redress my grievances I am going to demand that the QHRC review its decision and take appropriate action. If it refuses to do so I will take action against the QHRC. . . The QHRC is already being sued by a black man who is accusing them of having failed to responsibly handle a case of racism that he suffered and I know that they have not done a very good job of dealing with various other cases of religious discrimination and harassment. If nothing else I can picket the QHRC for a while with appropriate picket sign slogans including my classic - CULT IS A FOUR LETTER WORD slogan. . .
:But if Drennan wasn't going to apologize, and the UCM wasn't going to
do anyting about it, what was the UUA supposed to do?
The record shows that the UUA and the MFC blew me off in the very earliest stages of this dispute thus reinforcing both Rev. Drennan's refusal to apologize and the UCM's refusal to responsibly redress my grievances. If UUA President John Buehrens and the Ministerial Fellowship Committee under Rev. Diane Miller had expressed appropriate dismay with, and condemnation of. . . Rev. Ray Drennan's obviously intolerant, hostile, insulting and abusive "disruptive and aggressive" behaviour in response to my initial complaints and had demanded that he retract hos damaging insults and apologize to me this conflict would have been successfully resolved in 1996. . .
UUA and MFC mea culpas acknowledging their past negligence and effective complicity in response to my grievances about Rev. Ray Drennan's intolerant and abusive clergy misconduct could accomplish much. It could not only lead to a swift resolution of this long drawn out conflict but by all rights it could and should led to much better handling of other people's legitimate grievances arising from non-sexual forms of clergy misconduct in the future. At present the UUA and MFC to say nothing of most UU congregations seem to be of the mindset that sexual misconduct is the only kind of clergy misconduct. . . and they haven't got a great track record for dealing with clergy sexual misconduct either for that matter. . .
http://www.uua.org/cde/csm/apology.html
You have in fact seen some of the documentation that exposes the stunningly hypocritical double standards exercised by top level UUA officials. The lettes from Rev. Diane Miller are a prime example. You just fail or refuse to see that this documentation does reveal hypocritical double standards exercised by top level UUA officials. I am fully confident that at least 80% of Canadians and Americans will side with me in this matter. There is more documentation that I can provide, including my "transcripts" on Drennan but I will need to go through older files to find it. I thought that I had tranferred everything to my new computer but it seems not to be the case. I am missing my digitized versions of my revealing correspondence with UUA President Buehrens which clearly shows him exercising outrageously hypocritical double standards in his response to my grievances about Drennan.
The sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity that has clearly been exercised by the Unitarian Chrch of Montreal throughout this conflict in no way makes the similar sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity that has clearly been exercised by the Unitarian Universalist Association and its Ministerial Fellowship Committee in any way "irrelevant". The effectively complicit refusal of the UUA and MFC to take action to ensure that Drennan retracted and apologized in the earliest stages of this conflict has everything to do with the UCM's continued obstinate refusal to practice anything even remotely resembling justice, equity and compassion in their now very well documented inhuman relations with me. . .
Sincerely,
Robin Edgar
[snip]
From: indrax Mailed-By: gmail.com
To: Robin Edgar
Date: Feb 6, 2006 2:45 PM
Subject: Re: [The Emerson Avenger] 1/28/2006 01:49:21 AM
Reply | Reply to all | Forward | Print | Add sender to Contacts list | Delete this message | Report phishing | Show original | Message text garbled?
"The sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity that has clearly
been exercised by the Unitarian Chrch of Montreal throughout this
conflict in no way makes the similar sincere ignorance and
conscientious stupidity that has clearly been exercised by the
Unitarian Universalist Association and its Ministerial Fellowship
Committee in any way "irrelevant"."
I view it as irrelevant because I am goal oriented. My goal is for you
to be an active member of the church. For that membership to be at all
meaningful, you must have a good relationship with the people at the
UCM. Getting a harshly worded letter from the UUA will not restore
that relationship. Getting an order from the QHRC can not restore that
relationship. Protesting cannot resotre that relationship.
Do I misunderstand our goal?
[snip]
From: Robin Edgar
To: indrax
Date: Feb 6, 2006 5:53 PM
Subject: Re: [The Emerson Avenger] 1/28/2006 01:49:21 AM
Reply | Reply to all | Forward | Print | Add sender to Contacts list | Delete this message | Report phishing | Show original | Message text garbled?
:I view it as irrelevant because I am goal oriented.
I consider it relevant for the same reason. . . A UUA admission of its failure to responsibly deal with my grievances in the early stages of the conflict along with an official UUA apology and some real restorative justice can set an example for the Unitarian Church of Montreal to learn from and to follow. . .
:My goal is for you to be an active member of the church.
How do you intend to achieve that goal may I ask? How will you succeed where the leaders and congegation of the Unitarian Church of Montreal have quite evidently not only failed but have actively sought to alienate me?
:For that membership to be at all meaningful, you must have a good relationship with the people at the UCM.
Agreed.
:Getting a harshly worded letter from the UUA will not restore
that relationship.
Did I say anything about a "harshly worded letter from the UUA"? I do believe I spoke about a mea culpa and apology etc. coming from the UUA to me. . . That could in fact go a long way towards restoring that relationship.
:Getting an order from the QHRC can not restore that relationship.
Perhaps not in and of itself but it would force the UCM to deal responsibly with its past errors and negligence and indeed its ongoing injustices, abuses and hypocrisy. . . That should lead to a process of restorative justice that would in fact ultimately restore that relationship.
:Protesting cannot restore that relationship.
See above. . .
:Do I misunderstand our goal?
Not really. It certainly has been my goal to restore that relationship but it clearly is not the goal of the Unitarian Church of Montreal which has never missed an opportunity to miss an opportunity to restore that relationship. . .
OTOH I have no interest in belonging to an outrageously hypocritical religious community. If Montreal Unitarians and the greater U*U religious community are not ready, willing or able to admit their past mistakes, initiate corrective measures and some genuine restorative justice for me, and indeed for others who have been harmed by U*U injustices, abuses and hypocrisy. . . I have no real interest in belonging to a corrupt and hypocritical religious community.
Sincerely,
Robin Edgar
[snip]
From: indrax Mailed-By: gmail.com
To: Robin Edgar
Date: Jun 4, 2006 2:10 AM
Subject: Re: [The Emerson Avenger] 1/28/2006 01:49:21 AM
Hey, are you still alive, or what?
From: Robin Edgar
To: indraxblog@gmail.com
Date: Jan 28, 2006 6:18 AM
Subject: Re: [The Emerson Avenger] 1/28/2006 01:49:21 AM
Have fun. . .
indrax
I'd like to thank the poster for getting Robin to post as close as I've seen to a clear chronological description of his grievances.
Robin:
Still work to do on this.
You say you were expelled for placing letters in mailboxes, but first brought before the DBC for distributing letter to members during coffee hour. I thought you distributed the letters to the board first?
It would be best if you included direct links to both the text of the letter, and a scanned image.
Also, the text and a scan of your original letters, and Drennan's apology letter.(and any other corresondance) these should all be linked to from a chornological list.
(Again forcing surfers to dig through google searches is bad web design.)
I'd also like, to the best of your recollection, a transcription of the conversation where Drennan said 'your cult' and 'your psychotic experience' and such. Establishing context is very important.
That's all I have for now.
--
Posted by indrax to The Emerson Avenger at 1/28/2006 01:49:21 AM
Find your next car at Yahoo! Canada Autos
5 attachments — Download all attachments
Me-MFC96.5
31K Download
Me-Ray96.3
12K Download
defense.wpd
15K Download
me-ray97.4.wpd
8K Download
Me-cng97.11.wpd
12K Download
From: indrax
To: Robin Edgar
Date: Jan 30, 2006 1:12 AM
Subject: Re: [The Emerson Avenger] 1/28/2006 01:49:21 AM
Thanks!
In the 96.5 letter you reference "the letter of complaint addressed to
the Board of the Unitarian Church of Montreal dated Wednesday February
14, 1996, contains an accurate and unembellished description of Rev.
Ray Drennan's comportment towards me."
That one should definitely get posted.
- Show quoted text -
On 1/28/06, Robin Edgar
[snip]
From: Robin Edgar
To: indrax
Date: Jan 30, 2006 2:13 AM
Subject: Re: [The Emerson Avenger] 1/28/2006 01:49:21 AM
It's 27 pages long and takes about an hour and a half to read. . .
I wrote it as a complete history of Drennan's behaviour towards me in case he accused me of slander and it ever went to court. I hindsight I should have wrote a two-page letter of complaint and added the rest as an addenda. . .
The shorter letters are more than adequate. This post alone should be more than enough to expose how the UUA and its Ministerial Fellowship Committee complicitly whitewashed Drennan -
http://emersonavenger.blogspot.com/2006/01/emerson-avenger-once-again-puts-uus-on.html
[snip]
From: indrax
To: Robin Edgar
Date: Feb 2, 2006 10:34 AM
Subject: Re: [The Emerson Avenger] 1/28/2006 01:49:21 AM
Ahh, yeah that's probably too long to post in it's entirety.
I want to back up a bit and talk about why I wanted this dialog in the
first place.
My intent is to develop a plan for how we can bring about 'restorative
justice' between you and the UCM. My vision is for you to return to
being an active member. What do you think this would take?
[snip]
From: Robin Edgar
To: indrax
Date: Feb 2, 2006 2:11 PM
Subject: Re: [The Emerson Avenger] 1/28/2006 01:49:21 AM
Hi Indrax,
Probably a miracle. . .
I had hoped that the restoration of my membership would be brought about by the Quebec Human Rights Commission after the UCM repeatedly ignored all of my communications but the QHRC dropped the ball by deciding not to bring my case before a human rights tribunal. The UCM pretended that this was an exoneration of Rev. Drennan, which was not in fact the case, and you can see the result in terms of anonymous U*U's U*U BS. There is little doubt that he is some sort of UCM or CUC official. My best guess is that it is probably Bert Christensen. . .
I might add that the abject failure and even the obstinate refusal of the UUA's Ministerial Fellowship Committee to responsibly act on my serious grievances in the earliest stages of the conflict, as illustrated in my recent post exposing Rev. Diane Miller's sincerely ignorant institutional denial and stonewalling, reinforced the Uintarian Church of Montreal's own obstinate refusal to act on my legitimate grievances. A later attempt to have the MFC act on my complaints after the election of Bill Sinkford as UUA President was also rejected as were all other attempts to settle this dispute via responsible conflict resolution procedures.
I have been in contact with President Sinkford recently as one of my recent posts shows. He finally responded to my emails yesterday but has never actually spoken with me as I have requested. His email was pretty much a brush-off that tersely albeit politely responded that the congregation has to deal with the matter. I responded at length agreeing in principle but making it clear that I held the UUA highly responsible for the fact that the Unitarian Church of Montreal never responsibly redressed my now seriously aggravated grievances due to the oppressive and punitive responses of the UCM to my letters of grievance and subsequent public protest activity. I demanded that President Sinkord practice what he preaches and begin to "begin again in love" by the fateful date of February 14th which just happens to be the 10th anniversary of my first letter of grievance about Rev. Ray Drennan's intolerant and abusive clergy misconduct. I also demanded that he deal responsibly with other injustices and abuses etc. that do not directly affect me and that he must take steps to end the culture of censorship and suppression of criticism and dissent that currently degrades UUism in general and the UUA in particular. It will be interesting to see how that plays out but I will not let the UUA off the hook for its past negligence and institutional denial and stonewalling that was effectively complicit with Rev. Drennan's anti-religious intolerance and bigotry and all but guaranteed that the Unitarian Church of Montreal would refuse to act upon my serious grievances.
How I proceed from here on in depends very much on how President Sinkford responds to my most recent email which also made him aware of my World Day of Conscience proposal and sought UU support for it and participation in it. I still have a variety of options that I can exercise in terms of putting pressure on the Unitarian Church of Montreal to responsibly redress my grievances that are now very significantly aggravated thanks to its grossly negligent and oppressive and punitive responses to my complaints. As a result of anonymous U*Us recent posts I will demand that the Quebec Human Rights Commission reexamine my complaint which was against the church itself as much as Rev. Drennan and at the very least have the QHRC inform the UCM that its refusal to bring my complaint to a tribunal was not in fact an exonneration of Rev. Drennan as has been pretended by the UCM.
A return to Boston with picket signs in hand is well within possibility. . . As are similar actions outside of Montreal. I came very close to heading down to Times Square and NYC UU churches in December to culture jam the UUA ads but unexpected financial difficulties dissuaded me from doing it in the end. Ottawa U*Us just added to my motivation to protest against U*U injustices and hypocrisy in Ottawa and Ottawa would be any easy and inexpensive target of opportunity for a weekend or two of protest activities. As long as the UUA and the Unitarian Church of Montreal refuse to initiate responsible conflict resolution measures that would provide some semblance of restorative justice my protest activities will not only continue but will be escalated, mainly by targeting other U*U churches in other cities etc. but also by targeting other institutions such as my recent protest in front of Station 11 after two of its officers went a bit too far in seizing and destroying my picket signs.
Allah prochaine,
Robin Edgar
[snip]
From: indrax
To: Robin Edgar
Date: Feb 2, 2006 2:48 PM
Subject: Re: [The Emerson Avenger] 1/28/2006 01:49:21 AM
What could the QHRC have done?
I imagine the UUA could have made some token punishment against
Drennan, but they could not have removed him from ministry or
anything.
I don't think either could restore your membership, even if they fully
backed you.
It's all about congregational polity.
[snip]
From: Robin Edgar
To: indrax
Date: Feb 2, 2006 3:51 PM
Subject: Re: [The Emerson Avenger] 1/28/2006 01:49:21 AM
:What could the QHRC have done?
Plenty. . . They could have force the restoration of my membership in the UCM, reprimanded and sanctioned both Rev. Drennan and the church leadership for violating my human rights, and even forced them to pay a certain amount of financial compensation for the damages that they have done to me.
:I imagine the UUA could have made some token punishment against
Drennan, but they could not have removed him from ministry or
anything.
I wasn't asking for that was l? I was asking for a comprehensive apology that acknowledged the wrongfulness and harmfulness of Drennan's words and clearly and unequivocally retracted them. This is all very well documented. It was only much later in the conflict when I had been repeatedly sanctioned by the UCM that I began to demand that Rev. Ray Drennan must face similar sanctions for his far worse "disruptive behaviour". . . Remember that justice and *equity* principle of UUism?
:I don't think either could restore your membership, even if they fully
backed you.
My membership was intact at the time I wrote to Rev. Diane Miller and for some years afterwards. I was permanently expelled in late 1999 on the fateful date of November 22nd to be exact. If you are referring to the UUA now under President Sinkford's questionable leadership the UUA can damn well do a mea culpa that clearly acknowledges their past negligence and complicity that all but guaranteed that the Unitarian Church of Montreal would not responsibly redress my serious grievances. I have even been told that former UUA President John Buehrens actually criticized the church for not being more heavy handed with me earlier and since the source of that information was with the UCM's so-called "Disruptive Behaviour Committee" I have little reason to doubt it. . .
President Buehrens berated me for calmly and briefly sharing my concerns about Rev. Drennan's demeaning and abusive misconduct but never so much as mildly reprimanded Drennan. . . The stunningly hypocritical double standards exercised by top level UUA officials are now very well documented.
:It's all about congregational polity.
At this point its about congregational conscientious stupidity. . .
- Show quoted text -
Allah prochaine,
Robin Edgar
[snip]
From: indrax
To: Robin Edgar
Date: Feb 6, 2006 4:27 AM
Subject: Re: [The Emerson Avenger] 1/28/2006 01:49:21 AM
Ok, I am quite surprised at the level of power the QHRC has. Is it
roughly equivalent to a court in Canada? In America, I'm pretty sure
even a court could not force a church to reinstate a memeber.
But if Drennan wasn't going to apologize, and the UCM wasn't going to
do anyting about it, what was the UUA supposed to do?
> If you are referring to the UUA
> now under President Sinkford's questionable leadership the UUA can damn well
> do a mea culpa that clearly acknowledges their past negligence and
> complicity ...
What would that acomplish?
>The stunningly hypocritical double standards
> exercised by top level UUA officials are now very well documented.
I have not seen that documentation.
Also, I would still like to see your transcripts on Drennan, all 27 pages.
>
> :It's all about congregational polity.
>
> At this point its about congregational conscientious stupidity. . .
Exactly my point. The UUA is irrelevant.
From: Robin Edgar
To: indrax
Date: Feb 6, 2006 1:32 PM
Subject: Re: [The Emerson Avenger] 1/28/2006 01:49:21 AM
Reply | Reply to all | Forward | Print | Add sender to Contacts list | Delete this message | Report phishing | Show original | Message text garbled?
Hi Indrax,
Yes the QHRC does have that level of power and if it had taken my case to a human rights tribunal aka court the tribunal most certainly could have ordered the Unitarian Church of Montreal to reinstate my membership, condemned the UCM and Drennnan etc. for discrimination and harassment on religious grounds, and could even have ordered them to pay a certain amount of compensation for damages etc. This possibility is still not totally out of the question.
I consider the QHRC to have acted negligently by failing to take my complaint to tribunal and for other reasons. As a result of Unitarians falsely representing this QHRC negligence as an exonerration of both Rev. Ray Drennan and the Unitarian Church of Montreal and thus prolonging their refusal to responsibly redress my grievances I am going to demand that the QHRC review its decision and take appropriate action. If it refuses to do so I will take action against the QHRC. . . The QHRC is already being sued by a black man who is accusing them of having failed to responsibly handle a case of racism that he suffered and I know that they have not done a very good job of dealing with various other cases of religious discrimination and harassment. If nothing else I can picket the QHRC for a while with appropriate picket sign slogans including my classic - CULT IS A FOUR LETTER WORD slogan. . .
:But if Drennan wasn't going to apologize, and the UCM wasn't going to
do anyting about it, what was the UUA supposed to do?
The record shows that the UUA and the MFC blew me off in the very earliest stages of this dispute thus reinforcing both Rev. Drennan's refusal to apologize and the UCM's refusal to responsibly redress my grievances. If UUA President John Buehrens and the Ministerial Fellowship Committee under Rev. Diane Miller had expressed appropriate dismay with, and condemnation of. . . Rev. Ray Drennan's obviously intolerant, hostile, insulting and abusive "disruptive and aggressive" behaviour in response to my initial complaints and had demanded that he retract hos damaging insults and apologize to me this conflict would have been successfully resolved in 1996. . .
UUA and MFC mea culpas acknowledging their past negligence and effective complicity in response to my grievances about Rev. Ray Drennan's intolerant and abusive clergy misconduct could accomplish much. It could not only lead to a swift resolution of this long drawn out conflict but by all rights it could and should led to much better handling of other people's legitimate grievances arising from non-sexual forms of clergy misconduct in the future. At present the UUA and MFC to say nothing of most UU congregations seem to be of the mindset that sexual misconduct is the only kind of clergy misconduct. . . and they haven't got a great track record for dealing with clergy sexual misconduct either for that matter. . .
http://www.uua.org/cde/csm/apology.html
You have in fact seen some of the documentation that exposes the stunningly hypocritical double standards exercised by top level UUA officials. The lettes from Rev. Diane Miller are a prime example. You just fail or refuse to see that this documentation does reveal hypocritical double standards exercised by top level UUA officials. I am fully confident that at least 80% of Canadians and Americans will side with me in this matter. There is more documentation that I can provide, including my "transcripts" on Drennan but I will need to go through older files to find it. I thought that I had tranferred everything to my new computer but it seems not to be the case. I am missing my digitized versions of my revealing correspondence with UUA President Buehrens which clearly shows him exercising outrageously hypocritical double standards in his response to my grievances about Drennan.
The sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity that has clearly been exercised by the Unitarian Chrch of Montreal throughout this conflict in no way makes the similar sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity that has clearly been exercised by the Unitarian Universalist Association and its Ministerial Fellowship Committee in any way "irrelevant". The effectively complicit refusal of the UUA and MFC to take action to ensure that Drennan retracted and apologized in the earliest stages of this conflict has everything to do with the UCM's continued obstinate refusal to practice anything even remotely resembling justice, equity and compassion in their now very well documented inhuman relations with me. . .
Sincerely,
Robin Edgar
[snip]
From: indrax
To: Robin Edgar
Date: Feb 6, 2006 2:45 PM
Subject: Re: [The Emerson Avenger] 1/28/2006 01:49:21 AM
Reply | Reply to all | Forward | Print | Add sender to Contacts list | Delete this message | Report phishing | Show original | Message text garbled?
"The sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity that has clearly
been exercised by the Unitarian Chrch of Montreal throughout this
conflict in no way makes the similar sincere ignorance and
conscientious stupidity that has clearly been exercised by the
Unitarian Universalist Association and its Ministerial Fellowship
Committee in any way "irrelevant"."
I view it as irrelevant because I am goal oriented. My goal is for you
to be an active member of the church. For that membership to be at all
meaningful, you must have a good relationship with the people at the
UCM. Getting a harshly worded letter from the UUA will not restore
that relationship. Getting an order from the QHRC can not restore that
relationship. Protesting cannot resotre that relationship.
Do I misunderstand our goal?
[snip]
From: Robin Edgar
To: indrax
Date: Feb 6, 2006 5:53 PM
Subject: Re: [The Emerson Avenger] 1/28/2006 01:49:21 AM
Reply | Reply to all | Forward | Print | Add sender to Contacts list | Delete this message | Report phishing | Show original | Message text garbled?
:I view it as irrelevant because I am goal oriented.
I consider it relevant for the same reason. . . A UUA admission of its failure to responsibly deal with my grievances in the early stages of the conflict along with an official UUA apology and some real restorative justice can set an example for the Unitarian Church of Montreal to learn from and to follow. . .
:My goal is for you to be an active member of the church.
How do you intend to achieve that goal may I ask? How will you succeed where the leaders and congegation of the Unitarian Church of Montreal have quite evidently not only failed but have actively sought to alienate me?
:For that membership to be at all meaningful, you must have a good relationship with the people at the UCM.
Agreed.
:Getting a harshly worded letter from the UUA will not restore
that relationship.
Did I say anything about a "harshly worded letter from the UUA"? I do believe I spoke about a mea culpa and apology etc. coming from the UUA to me. . . That could in fact go a long way towards restoring that relationship.
:Getting an order from the QHRC can not restore that relationship.
Perhaps not in and of itself but it would force the UCM to deal responsibly with its past errors and negligence and indeed its ongoing injustices, abuses and hypocrisy. . . That should lead to a process of restorative justice that would in fact ultimately restore that relationship.
:Protesting cannot restore that relationship.
See above. . .
:Do I misunderstand our goal?
Not really. It certainly has been my goal to restore that relationship but it clearly is not the goal of the Unitarian Church of Montreal which has never missed an opportunity to miss an opportunity to restore that relationship. . .
OTOH I have no interest in belonging to an outrageously hypocritical religious community. If Montreal Unitarians and the greater U*U religious community are not ready, willing or able to admit their past mistakes, initiate corrective measures and some genuine restorative justice for me, and indeed for others who have been harmed by U*U injustices, abuses and hypocrisy. . . I have no real interest in belonging to a corrupt and hypocritical religious community.
Sincerely,
Robin Edgar
[snip]
From: indrax
To: Robin Edgar
Date: Jun 4, 2006 2:10 AM
Subject: Re: [The Emerson Avenger] 1/28/2006 01:49:21 AM
Hey, are you still alive, or what?
'First' email
From: Robin Edgar
To: indraxblog@gmail.com
Date: Jan 28, 2006 2:01 AM
Subject: Re: [The Emerson Avenger] 1/28/2006 12:42:48 AM
No problem.
BTW Anonymous probably is not from the Unitarian Church of Montreal because he or she seems to be genuinely ignorant of certain important facts and has probably been taken in by lies and disinformation fed to him or her from the UCM leaders. I would be willing to bet five dolllars that anonymous is a CUC collaborator, most likely a certain Bert Christensen. . .
Allah prochaine,
Robin
indrax wrote:
Anonymous:
I take it you are from the Unitarian Church of Montreal?
I would enjoy getting more background on this. Please email me at indraxblog@gmail.com
Robin: I wouldn't mind a private dialog with you, either.
--
Posted by indrax to The Emerson Avenger at 1/28/2006 12:42:48 AM
To: indraxblog@gmail.com
Date: Jan 28, 2006 2:01 AM
Subject: Re: [The Emerson Avenger] 1/28/2006 12:42:48 AM
No problem.
BTW Anonymous probably is not from the Unitarian Church of Montreal because he or she seems to be genuinely ignorant of certain important facts and has probably been taken in by lies and disinformation fed to him or her from the UCM leaders. I would be willing to bet five dolllars that anonymous is a CUC collaborator, most likely a certain Bert Christensen. . .
Allah prochaine,
Robin
indrax
Anonymous:
I take it you are from the Unitarian Church of Montreal?
I would enjoy getting more background on this. Please email me at indraxblog@gmail.com
Robin: I wouldn't mind a private dialog with you, either.
--
Posted by indrax to The Emerson Avenger at 1/28/2006 12:42:48 AM
Monday, December 04, 2000
Robin's reply to Buehrens
Robin Edgar
15 rue Lafleur apt. 11
Verdun, Quebec,
Canada, H4G 3C3
Dr. John A. Buehrens
President of the Unitarian
Universalist Association
25 Beacon Street, Boston, MA
U.S.A. 02108 Wodensday May 15, 1996
Dear Dr. Buehrens,
You say that the fact that I brought my very serious concerns about Rev. Ray Drennan's clearly unprofessional, demeaning, and damaging comportment towards me to the attention of the congregation of the Unitarian Church of Montreal during the "Joys and Concerns" segment of the Sunday, April 21, service and the fact that, after the service was concluded, I distributed a letter which called upon the members of the congregation to directly intervene in this matter was "quite reprehensible" and "entirely out of bounds". May I point out to you that the primary reason that I felt obliged to take this step was that none of the clergy or elected representatives of the Unitarian Church of Montreal, the Canadian Unitarian Council, or the Unitarian Universalist Association who I complained to took steps to ensure that Unitarian Universalist principles were upheld and that genuine justice was effectively achieved in this matter.
Mr. John Slattery, President of the Canadian Unitarian Council, made it clear that the CUC could not help me in regards to my complaint about the unprofessional conduct of Rev. Ray Drennan because the CUC "is based on the principle of congregational polity" and that this means that, in practice, "the CUC president, Board and staff do not have the authority to intervene in the internal affairs of any of our member congregations. Only the congregation as a whole, operating within its own bylaws, has the ultimate say in determining how it should conduct its affairs."
You, yourself, wrote that the UUA "does not intervene in local matters unless asked to do so by the congregation's board. They have not done so." The Board of the Unitarian Church of Montreal failed to respond to my obviously very serious grievances in even a remotely satisfactory manner, the Board simply acknowledged the "strength of (my) feelings regarding Rev. Drennan's behaviour as well as the depth of (my) belief in (my) revelatory experience" and concluded by lamely stating, "We hereby take note of your views." There was no indication whatsoever that the Board made any attempt to persuade Rev. Ray Drennan to retract his damaging allegations about me and to formally apologize to me for his unprofessional and demeaning comportment towards me, nor was there any apparent move by the Board towards any responsible mediation of this dispute.
Perhaps I should have informed you that, in a letter which Board President Krystyna Matula assured me was read during the April Board meeting (copy enclosed), I formally warned the Board of the Unitarian Church of Montreal that I would bring my grievances to the attention of the congregation of our church as a result of the failure of the Board to respond to my grievances in a satisfactory manner. Not a single Board member suggested that such an action would be "quite reprehehensible" or "entirely out of bounds" nor did the Board take any further steps to properly address my clearly stated dissatisfaction over its failure to respond in a genuinely responsible manner to my letter of grievance which clearly detailed Rev. Ray Drennan's deplorable comportment towards me. When I aired my grievances to the congregation, more than ten days after my clear warning of this, several congregation members expressed their concern and one former Board member said that "it took guts" for me to air, to the congregation as a whole, the demeaning and damaging allegations that Rev. Drennan has made about me. Not one member of our congregation indicated to me that my action was inappropriate. In view of all the foregoing I feel that I was perfectly justified in airing my very serious concerns to our congregation as a whole.
When the clergy, elected representatives, or the "procedures" of a democratically governed religious community fail to adequately respond to the legitimate concerns of any member of that community then, in my view, they have a clear right, if not a responsibility, to air their concerns to their religious community as a whole. You have said that, "One may challenge privately, and discuss concerns through other channels established by the congregation. One may not behave as you have done." The fact of the matter is that I took the steps you suggest as I have clearly indicated in the letters that I have written. As I wrote in my letter of complaint of Wodensday, February 14, during a meeting with him in his office on February 1, I "privately challenged" Rev. Drennan about his deplorable conduct during our meeting of Thursday, November 9, 1996. Regrettably, Rev. Drennan made it clear to me that he stood by his demeaning words and damaging allegation about me and reasserted that he was "just being honest" with me. It was evident from his attitude that there was no point requesting an apology from him at this stage and I said as much to him. I also made it clear to him that I would take steps to see to it that my grievances about his conduct towards me were addressed. He chose to ignore my warning. I formally aired my grievances about Rev. Ray Drennan's deplorable conduct towards me to the Board of the Unitarian Church of Montreal in my letter of Wednesday, February 14, 1996, which both you and President John Slattery received copies of, but these very serious grievances were, for all intents and purposes, effectively swept under the carpet by the Board as their written response, and their failure to implement any conflict resolution procedures, clearly indicates. It is the irresponsible failure of the Board of the Unitarian Church of Montreal to establish appropriate channels through which my very serious concerns about Rev. Drennan's behaviour could be discussed which left me with little option but to bring my grievances to the attention of the congregation as a whole and about the only channel that was left open to me to do this was during "joys and concerns".
It is, in my view, quite reprehensible, to use your terminology, that Unitarian Universalist clergy and elected representatives have attemped to "whitewash" Rev. Ray Drennan's deplorable behaviour, -behaviour which is in obvious violation of several clearly stated Unitarian Universalist aims and principles, and have endeavoured to sweep this extremely regrettable matter under the proverbial carpet. John Slattery had the good sense and political astuteness not to suggest, in any way, shape, or form, that Rev. Drennan's behaviour towards me was acceptable professional conduct by a Unitarian Universalist minister. Even the Board of the Unitarian Church of Montreal did not overtly condone Rev. Drennan's behaviour although their failure to condemn it may be interpreted as tacit approval of his behaviour, as I pointed out to them in my letter of Wodensday, April 3. You and Rev. Diane Miller, on the other hand, have made statements which have every appearance of condoning Rev. Ray Drennan's unprofessional, demeaning, and damaging conduct.
Regarding my February 14, 1996, letter of complaint to the Board of the Unitarian Church of Montreal you have said, "I must tell you that my own examination of it leads me to believe that there is nothing in it which warrants investigation." Rev. Diane Miller, after sharing my complaint with Rev. Drennan and reviewing it with the chairperson of the Ministerial Fellowship Committee, has responded, "While we recognize that your expectations of ministry are not being met in your relationship with the Rev. Drennan, we did not see cause to further investigate the minister's conduct. It seemed to us to be within the appropriate guidelines of ministerial leadership." I mailed my response to Rev. Miller on Monday, the day before I received your latest letter, and I am enclosing a copy for your perusal. I would hope that, on further reflection, both you and Rev. Miller will agree that Rev. Ray Drennan's deplorable behaviour, as it is described in considerable detail in my letter of February 14, 1996, can hardly be considered "to be within the appropriate guidelines of ministerial leadership."
I find it difficult to believe that you and Rev. Miller genuinely believe that Rev. Ray Drennan's comportment towards me, as I have described it, is actually "within the appropriate guidelines of ministerial leadership." I can only assume that Rev. Drennan has somehow managed to convince both of you that my description of his behaviour is false. I have affirmed the truthfulness and accuracy of this description in the second paragraph of my letter to Rev. Miller, which you may wish to read, and I reiterate to you that if Rev. Drennan has denied making any of these statements he is lying.
It should be obvious to any reasonable person that it is Rev. Ray Drennan's obstinate refusal to acknowledge the damaging nature of his false allegations about me and his extremely negative and demeaning statements about my religious beliefs; his failure to retract these statements; and his stubborn unwillingness to agree to formally apologize to me for his deplorable behaviour, that has brought us to this rather sad state of affairs. Unfortunately, your responses to my correspondence will clearly do nothing to encourage Rev. Drennan to retract his damaging statements or apologize to me.
I find it incongruous, to say the very least, that you have the temerity to describe my calm and dignified plea to the congregation of the Unitarian Church of Montreal to intervene in my dispute with Rev. Ray Drennan, during a segment of the service which is clearly intended to be one in which concerns of a quite serious nature may be raised, as "quite reprehensible" and that you may describe my handing out of a letter to this effect after the service was concluded as "entirely out of bounds" yet you are apparently totally unwilling or completely incapable of perceiving that Rev. Drennan's comportment towards me during our meeting on Thursday, November 9, 1995, to say nothing of his behaviour on a number of other occasions, is considerably more meritous of being described as "quite reprehensible" and is most assuredly "entirely out of
bounds" of "the appropriate guidelines of ministerial leadership."
You conclude your letter to me by saying of my actions on Sunday, April 21, "One may not behave as you have done." Are you not capable of seeing that you could, more justifiably, use these words to reprimand Rev. Ray Drennan for his "quite reprehensible" actions on Thursday, November 9, 1995 and that if you had done so that I would most likely not have found myself in a position where I felt that I had few options left open to me but to bring this highly regrettable matter to the attention of our congregation during the "joys and concerns" segment of a Sunday service? I firmly believe
that, if you had responded to my serious grievances concerning Rev. Drennan's behaviour towards me by recognizing them as being both truthful and legitimate, if you had quite justifiably reprimanded Rev. Ray Drennan by informing him that you felt that his behaviour towards me, as it is described in my letter of Wednesday February 14, was "quite reprehensible" and had made it clear to him that his deplorable comportment in my apartment was "entirely out of bounds" of the acceptable professional conduct of a Unitarian Universalist minister, and had you told Rev. Ray Drennan that as a Unitarian Universalist minister "One may not behave as you have done," and
had recommended that he retract his damaging statements about me and formally apologize to me for his behaviour as I have demanded, this regrettable conflict would hopefully now be well on its way to a satisfactory resolution.
The situation, as it now stands, is far from being satisfactorily resolved. The inability of the Canadian Unitarian Council and the Unitarian Universalist Association to constructively intervene in this matter, and the failure of the Board of the Unitarian Church of Montreal to take appropriate steps towards resolving this very serious dispute is highly regrettable. I will continue in my efforts to try to find a just and equitable resolution to this conflict by dealing with concerned members of the congregation.
Sincerely,
Robin Edgar
15 rue Lafleur apt. 11
Verdun, Quebec,
Canada, H4G 3C3
Dr. John A. Buehrens
President of the Unitarian
Universalist Association
25 Beacon Street, Boston, MA
U.S.A. 02108 Wodensday May 15, 1996
Dear Dr. Buehrens,
You say that the fact that I brought my very serious concerns about Rev. Ray Drennan's clearly unprofessional, demeaning, and damaging comportment towards me to the attention of the congregation of the Unitarian Church of Montreal during the "Joys and Concerns" segment of the Sunday, April 21, service and the fact that, after the service was concluded, I distributed a letter which called upon the members of the congregation to directly intervene in this matter was "quite reprehensible" and "entirely out of bounds". May I point out to you that the primary reason that I felt obliged to take this step was that none of the clergy or elected representatives of the Unitarian Church of Montreal, the Canadian Unitarian Council, or the Unitarian Universalist Association who I complained to took steps to ensure that Unitarian Universalist principles were upheld and that genuine justice was effectively achieved in this matter.
Mr. John Slattery, President of the Canadian Unitarian Council, made it clear that the CUC could not help me in regards to my complaint about the unprofessional conduct of Rev. Ray Drennan because the CUC "is based on the principle of congregational polity" and that this means that, in practice, "the CUC president, Board and staff do not have the authority to intervene in the internal affairs of any of our member congregations. Only the congregation as a whole, operating within its own bylaws, has the ultimate say in determining how it should conduct its affairs."
You, yourself, wrote that the UUA "does not intervene in local matters unless asked to do so by the congregation's board. They have not done so." The Board of the Unitarian Church of Montreal failed to respond to my obviously very serious grievances in even a remotely satisfactory manner, the Board simply acknowledged the "strength of (my) feelings regarding Rev. Drennan's behaviour as well as the depth of (my) belief in (my) revelatory experience" and concluded by lamely stating, "We hereby take note of your views." There was no indication whatsoever that the Board made any attempt to persuade Rev. Ray Drennan to retract his damaging allegations about me and to formally apologize to me for his unprofessional and demeaning comportment towards me, nor was there any apparent move by the Board towards any responsible mediation of this dispute.
Perhaps I should have informed you that, in a letter which Board President Krystyna Matula assured me was read during the April Board meeting (copy enclosed), I formally warned the Board of the Unitarian Church of Montreal that I would bring my grievances to the attention of the congregation of our church as a result of the failure of the Board to respond to my grievances in a satisfactory manner. Not a single Board member suggested that such an action would be "quite reprehehensible" or "entirely out of bounds" nor did the Board take any further steps to properly address my clearly stated dissatisfaction over its failure to respond in a genuinely responsible manner to my letter of grievance which clearly detailed Rev. Ray Drennan's deplorable comportment towards me. When I aired my grievances to the congregation, more than ten days after my clear warning of this, several congregation members expressed their concern and one former Board member said that "it took guts" for me to air, to the congregation as a whole, the demeaning and damaging allegations that Rev. Drennan has made about me. Not one member of our congregation indicated to me that my action was inappropriate. In view of all the foregoing I feel that I was perfectly justified in airing my very serious concerns to our congregation as a whole.
When the clergy, elected representatives, or the "procedures" of a democratically governed religious community fail to adequately respond to the legitimate concerns of any member of that community then, in my view, they have a clear right, if not a responsibility, to air their concerns to their religious community as a whole. You have said that, "One may challenge privately, and discuss concerns through other channels established by the congregation. One may not behave as you have done." The fact of the matter is that I took the steps you suggest as I have clearly indicated in the letters that I have written. As I wrote in my letter of complaint of Wodensday, February 14, during a meeting with him in his office on February 1, I "privately challenged" Rev. Drennan about his deplorable conduct during our meeting of Thursday, November 9, 1996. Regrettably, Rev. Drennan made it clear to me that he stood by his demeaning words and damaging allegation about me and reasserted that he was "just being honest" with me. It was evident from his attitude that there was no point requesting an apology from him at this stage and I said as much to him. I also made it clear to him that I would take steps to see to it that my grievances about his conduct towards me were addressed. He chose to ignore my warning. I formally aired my grievances about Rev. Ray Drennan's deplorable conduct towards me to the Board of the Unitarian Church of Montreal in my letter of Wednesday, February 14, 1996, which both you and President John Slattery received copies of, but these very serious grievances were, for all intents and purposes, effectively swept under the carpet by the Board as their written response, and their failure to implement any conflict resolution procedures, clearly indicates. It is the irresponsible failure of the Board of the Unitarian Church of Montreal to establish appropriate channels through which my very serious concerns about Rev. Drennan's behaviour could be discussed which left me with little option but to bring my grievances to the attention of the congregation as a whole and about the only channel that was left open to me to do this was during "joys and concerns".
It is, in my view, quite reprehensible, to use your terminology, that Unitarian Universalist clergy and elected representatives have attemped to "whitewash" Rev. Ray Drennan's deplorable behaviour, -behaviour which is in obvious violation of several clearly stated Unitarian Universalist aims and principles, and have endeavoured to sweep this extremely regrettable matter under the proverbial carpet. John Slattery had the good sense and political astuteness not to suggest, in any way, shape, or form, that Rev. Drennan's behaviour towards me was acceptable professional conduct by a Unitarian Universalist minister. Even the Board of the Unitarian Church of Montreal did not overtly condone Rev. Drennan's behaviour although their failure to condemn it may be interpreted as tacit approval of his behaviour, as I pointed out to them in my letter of Wodensday, April 3. You and Rev. Diane Miller, on the other hand, have made statements which have every appearance of condoning Rev. Ray Drennan's unprofessional, demeaning, and damaging conduct.
Regarding my February 14, 1996, letter of complaint to the Board of the Unitarian Church of Montreal you have said, "I must tell you that my own examination of it leads me to believe that there is nothing in it which warrants investigation." Rev. Diane Miller, after sharing my complaint with Rev. Drennan and reviewing it with the chairperson of the Ministerial Fellowship Committee, has responded, "While we recognize that your expectations of ministry are not being met in your relationship with the Rev. Drennan, we did not see cause to further investigate the minister's conduct. It seemed to us to be within the appropriate guidelines of ministerial leadership." I mailed my response to Rev. Miller on Monday, the day before I received your latest letter, and I am enclosing a copy for your perusal. I would hope that, on further reflection, both you and Rev. Miller will agree that Rev. Ray Drennan's deplorable behaviour, as it is described in considerable detail in my letter of February 14, 1996, can hardly be considered "to be within the appropriate guidelines of ministerial leadership."
I find it difficult to believe that you and Rev. Miller genuinely believe that Rev. Ray Drennan's comportment towards me, as I have described it, is actually "within the appropriate guidelines of ministerial leadership." I can only assume that Rev. Drennan has somehow managed to convince both of you that my description of his behaviour is false. I have affirmed the truthfulness and accuracy of this description in the second paragraph of my letter to Rev. Miller, which you may wish to read, and I reiterate to you that if Rev. Drennan has denied making any of these statements he is lying.
It should be obvious to any reasonable person that it is Rev. Ray Drennan's obstinate refusal to acknowledge the damaging nature of his false allegations about me and his extremely negative and demeaning statements about my religious beliefs; his failure to retract these statements; and his stubborn unwillingness to agree to formally apologize to me for his deplorable behaviour, that has brought us to this rather sad state of affairs. Unfortunately, your responses to my correspondence will clearly do nothing to encourage Rev. Drennan to retract his damaging statements or apologize to me.
I find it incongruous, to say the very least, that you have the temerity to describe my calm and dignified plea to the congregation of the Unitarian Church of Montreal to intervene in my dispute with Rev. Ray Drennan, during a segment of the service which is clearly intended to be one in which concerns of a quite serious nature may be raised, as "quite reprehensible" and that you may describe my handing out of a letter to this effect after the service was concluded as "entirely out of bounds" yet you are apparently totally unwilling or completely incapable of perceiving that Rev. Drennan's comportment towards me during our meeting on Thursday, November 9, 1995, to say nothing of his behaviour on a number of other occasions, is considerably more meritous of being described as "quite reprehensible" and is most assuredly "entirely out of
bounds" of "the appropriate guidelines of ministerial leadership."
You conclude your letter to me by saying of my actions on Sunday, April 21, "One may not behave as you have done." Are you not capable of seeing that you could, more justifiably, use these words to reprimand Rev. Ray Drennan for his "quite reprehensible" actions on Thursday, November 9, 1995 and that if you had done so that I would most likely not have found myself in a position where I felt that I had few options left open to me but to bring this highly regrettable matter to the attention of our congregation during the "joys and concerns" segment of a Sunday service? I firmly believe
that, if you had responded to my serious grievances concerning Rev. Drennan's behaviour towards me by recognizing them as being both truthful and legitimate, if you had quite justifiably reprimanded Rev. Ray Drennan by informing him that you felt that his behaviour towards me, as it is described in my letter of Wednesday February 14, was "quite reprehensible" and had made it clear to him that his deplorable comportment in my apartment was "entirely out of bounds" of the acceptable professional conduct of a Unitarian Universalist minister, and had you told Rev. Ray Drennan that as a Unitarian Universalist minister "One may not behave as you have done," and
had recommended that he retract his damaging statements about me and formally apologize to me for his behaviour as I have demanded, this regrettable conflict would hopefully now be well on its way to a satisfactory resolution.
The situation, as it now stands, is far from being satisfactorily resolved. The inability of the Canadian Unitarian Council and the Unitarian Universalist Association to constructively intervene in this matter, and the failure of the Board of the Unitarian Church of Montreal to take appropriate steps towards resolving this very serious dispute is highly regrettable. I will continue in my efforts to try to find a just and equitable resolution to this conflict by dealing with concerned members of the congregation.
Sincerely,
Robin Edgar
Letter from Diane Miller
Unitarian Universalist Association of Congregations
25 Beacon Street, Boston, Massachusetts 02108 Ministerial Fellowship Committee
(617) 742-2100 FAX (617) 367-3237
April 25, 1996
Mr. Robin Edgar
15 rue Lafleur Apt. 11
Verdun, Quebec,
CANADA, H4G 3C3
Dear Mr. Edgar:
Your letter to President John Buehrens, along with various attached documents, was
referred to me. You requested that your complaint be conveyed to the correct authorities within the Association. I serve as Director of Ministry and as Executive Secretary of the Ministerial Fellowship Committee (MFC), the body charged with oversight of ministers.
Your complaint was shared with the minister, which is a standard step in our procedures. It was then reviewed by me with the chairperson of the MFC. We did not see, in the volume of material you sent, that your complaint is within the purview of the MFC.
While we recognize that your expectations of ministry are not being met in your
relationship with the Rev. Ray Drennan, we did not see cause to further investigate the minister's conduct. It seemed to us to be within the appropriate guidelines of ministerial leadership.
We hope that you will find ways to pursue your spiritual insights which you and others will find both satisfying and harmonious in the pluralist theological environment of these times.
Sincerely,
Diane Miller
MFC, Executive Secretary
copies:
The Rev. Ray Drennan
Krystyna Matula, President, Unitarian Church of Montreal
MFC Executive Committee
25 Beacon Street, Boston, Massachusetts 02108 Ministerial Fellowship Committee
(617) 742-2100 FAX (617) 367-3237
April 25, 1996
Mr. Robin Edgar
15 rue Lafleur Apt. 11
Verdun, Quebec,
CANADA, H4G 3C3
Dear Mr. Edgar:
Your letter to President John Buehrens, along with various attached documents, was
referred to me. You requested that your complaint be conveyed to the correct authorities within the Association. I serve as Director of Ministry and as Executive Secretary of the Ministerial Fellowship Committee (MFC), the body charged with oversight of ministers.
Your complaint was shared with the minister, which is a standard step in our procedures. It was then reviewed by me with the chairperson of the MFC. We did not see, in the volume of material you sent, that your complaint is within the purview of the MFC.
While we recognize that your expectations of ministry are not being met in your
relationship with the Rev. Ray Drennan, we did not see cause to further investigate the minister's conduct. It seemed to us to be within the appropriate guidelines of ministerial leadership.
We hope that you will find ways to pursue your spiritual insights which you and others will find both satisfying and harmonious in the pluralist theological environment of these times.
Sincerely,
Diane Miller
MFC, Executive Secretary
copies:
The Rev. Ray Drennan
Krystyna Matula, President, Unitarian Church of Montreal
MFC Executive Committee
Reply to Robin from John Buehrens
Unitarian Universalist Association of Congregations
25 Beacon Street, Boston, Massachusetts 02108 The Rev. Dr. John A. Buehrens
President
(617) 742-2100 FAX (617) 367-3237
May 6, 1996
Robin Edgar
15 rue Lafleur apt. 11
Verdun, Quebec
CANADA, H4G 3C3
Dear Mr. Edgar:
Your actions on Sunday, April 21, were, by your own description, quite reprehensible.
It is inappropriate to use the time set aside in community worship for "joys and concerns" to speak in derogation of the minister, no matter how disappointed you may feel in him. Handing out letters to the same effect following the service is also entirely out of bounds.
Historically, other congregations that have had such behavior from congregants have been forced to remove such persons from membership and to ask help from secular authorities in seeing to it that their worship is not disrupted.
As I have told you before, the Unitarian Universalist Association does not require that its ministers see to it that a member's "claim of a revelatory religious experience be properly documented and critically examined." We are also under no obligation to share with other religious communities any message from a person who has behaved as you have.
You lack a basic understanding of, and respect for, the procedures of a democratically governed religious community. The minister, having been chosen by that community, is not to be publicly attacked. One may challenge privately, and discuss concerns through other channels established by the congregation. One may not behave as you have done.
Yours sincerely,
John A. Buehrens
cc. The Rev. Ray Drennan
President of the Unitarian Church of Montreal
The Rev. Wendy Colby, St. Lawrence District
25 Beacon Street, Boston, Massachusetts 02108 The Rev. Dr. John A. Buehrens
President
(617) 742-2100 FAX (617) 367-3237
May 6, 1996
Robin Edgar
15 rue Lafleur apt. 11
Verdun, Quebec
CANADA, H4G 3C3
Dear Mr. Edgar:
Your actions on Sunday, April 21, were, by your own description, quite reprehensible.
It is inappropriate to use the time set aside in community worship for "joys and concerns" to speak in derogation of the minister, no matter how disappointed you may feel in him. Handing out letters to the same effect following the service is also entirely out of bounds.
Historically, other congregations that have had such behavior from congregants have been forced to remove such persons from membership and to ask help from secular authorities in seeing to it that their worship is not disrupted.
As I have told you before, the Unitarian Universalist Association does not require that its ministers see to it that a member's "claim of a revelatory religious experience be properly documented and critically examined." We are also under no obligation to share with other religious communities any message from a person who has behaved as you have.
You lack a basic understanding of, and respect for, the procedures of a democratically governed religious community. The minister, having been chosen by that community, is not to be publicly attacked. One may challenge privately, and discuss concerns through other channels established by the congregation. One may not behave as you have done.
Yours sincerely,
John A. Buehrens
cc. The Rev. Ray Drennan
President of the Unitarian Church of Montreal
The Rev. Wendy Colby, St. Lawrence District
Thursday, October 26, 2000
Me-cng97.11.wpd
Robin Edgar
15 Lafleur, apt. 11
Verdun, Quebec
Canada, H4G 3C3 Sunday, November 9, 1997
Dear Fellow Member of the Unitarian Church of Montreal,
Today marks the second anniversary of Rev. Ray Drennan's reprehensible personal attack on me and my religious beliefs. This deplorable verbal assault, during which he repeatedly mocked and ridiculed my religious beliefs by labeling them as "silliness and fantasy" etc., and sought to deny and dismiss my claim of a profound and significant revelatory mystical experience by labeling it as "your psychotic experience", took place in my apartment on Thursday, November 9, 1995. During this meeting Rev. Drennan also falsely, and I have good reason to believe maliciously, labeled my religious activities, such as Creation Day, which were inspired by my revelatory experience, as "your cult”. When I immediately challenged this extremely derogatory, obviously defamatory, and potentially very damaging allegation, Rev. Drennan had the gall to reply that he meant "cult in the sense of "a manipulative and secretive religious group".
The foregoing are only the most serious of a variety of demeaning statements and damaging allegations that Rev. Ray Drennan made about me. A much more detailed description of his reprehensible behaviour towards me is available in my formal letter of grievance regarding Rev. Drennan's clearly unprofessional and unethical conduct. This letter, dated February 14, 1996, was submitted to the Board of this church, and the presidents of both the C.U.C. and U.U.A.
For me to say that our religious community as a whole has not responded to my legitimate and very serious grievances in a manner that is in clear conformity with the purported principles and purposes of the Unitarian Universalist religious community would be a considerable understatement. The remarkably negligent and irresponsible manner in which my serious grievances have been responded to by our religious community as a whole is well documented. The written responses of the Board of the Unitarian Church of Montreal, officials of the Canadian Unitarian Council and the Unitarian Universalist Association, as well as the Ministerial Fellowship Committee, to my various letters airing my, grievances demonstrate a clear and consistent unwillingness to acknowledge the clearly unprofessional and unethical nature of Rev. Drennan's reprehensible conduct. Indeed, the response of our religious community as a whole to my legitimate grievances clearly demonstrates the inherent truth of the wellknown aphorism that, "There are none so blind as those who will not see."
On Monday November 3, 1 submitted copies of almost all of the letters that I have sent or received as a result of my grievances to the ministers conducting Rev. Drennan's Peer Review. When I asked Rev. Brian Kopke of the Ottawa Unitarian Congregation who Rev. Drennan was accountable to for his misconduct he affirmed that it was the congregation of this church to whom Rev. Drennan must answer for his misconduct. This is consistent with similar statements made by officials of both the C.U.C. and the U.U.A. It is therefore clearly up to the congregation of the Unitarian Church of Montreal as a whole to respond in a responsible manner to my legitimate and serious grievances regarding Rev. Drennan's reprehensible conduct towards me.
(page 1 of 2)
This congregation has so far responded to my grievances in a manner that is characterized by a remarkably high degree of callous indifference and willful ignorance. As far as I am concerned it has thoroughly compromised both the letter and the spirit of many of our principles and purposes; indeed, it would appear to have completely abandoned some of these principles in several instances. The Board of this church did nothing to implement responsible conflict resolution procedures when I first aired my grievances to them in February of 1996 and the Board later informed me in writing that it considers this matter to be closed. This is in spite of having done virtually nothing to responsibly address my grievances. I formally appealed to our congregation as a whole to responsibly intervene in this conflict on two occasions (April 21, 1996 and November 20, 1996) and on both of these occasions my pleas were effectively ignored.
The enclosed letter to the congregation dated September 27, 1997 gives my clear and official response to Rev. Drennan's condescending and considerably less than honest "apology" for the "distress" that his demeaning and damaging words have caused me. I was delayed in distributing this response to the congregation as a result of warnings that I would be hauled before that dreaded "euphemism" known as the "Disruptive Behaviour Commiftee" should I distribute any more letters airing my grievances to my fellow members of our congregation.
The Board received a modified version of that letter early in October but did not respond to it. John lnder made a final effort to persuade Rev. Drennan to enter into mediated dialogue with me but to no avail. Last Tuesday, November 4, John Inder informed me that Rev. Drennan not only refused to enter into mediated dialogue with me but that he had also indicated that he would neither retract nor modify any of the derogatory statements or damaging allegations that he has made about me and my beliefs. Rev. Drennan confirmed this in a telephone conversation with me the next day.
Needless to say Rev. Ray Drennan's obstinate and arrogant refusal to retract the statements that he has made about me is completely unacceptable to me and I feel obliged to continue to take steps to seek a just and equitable response to my serious grievances. I expect my fellow Unitarian Universalists in general, and our congregation in particular, to formally acknowledge that Rev. Drennan's reprehensible conduct towards me is unprofessional, unethical, and in clear violation of the integrity of numerous Unitarian Universalist principles and purposes. I expect our religious community to formally condemn Rev. Drennan's conduct, demand that he retract the derogatory statements and damaging allegations that he made about me, and subject him to disciplinary action that is commensurate with the seriousness of his offense.
In the weeks ahead I will be publicly protesting Rev. Drennan's reprehensible conduct and the failure of our religious community as a whole to responsibly address my legitimate grievances. I will not be dissuaded by threats of expulsion from our church; indeed, I will persevere in my public protests until my very serious grievances are responsibly dealt with by our religious community.
Sincerely,
Robin Edgar
(page 2 of 2)
15 Lafleur, apt. 11
Verdun, Quebec
Canada, H4G 3C3 Sunday, November 9, 1997
Dear Fellow Member of the Unitarian Church of Montreal,
Today marks the second anniversary of Rev. Ray Drennan's reprehensible personal attack on me and my religious beliefs. This deplorable verbal assault, during which he repeatedly mocked and ridiculed my religious beliefs by labeling them as "silliness and fantasy" etc., and sought to deny and dismiss my claim of a profound and significant revelatory mystical experience by labeling it as "your psychotic experience", took place in my apartment on Thursday, November 9, 1995. During this meeting Rev. Drennan also falsely, and I have good reason to believe maliciously, labeled my religious activities, such as Creation Day, which were inspired by my revelatory experience, as "your cult”. When I immediately challenged this extremely derogatory, obviously defamatory, and potentially very damaging allegation, Rev. Drennan had the gall to reply that he meant "cult in the sense of "a manipulative and secretive religious group".
The foregoing are only the most serious of a variety of demeaning statements and damaging allegations that Rev. Ray Drennan made about me. A much more detailed description of his reprehensible behaviour towards me is available in my formal letter of grievance regarding Rev. Drennan's clearly unprofessional and unethical conduct. This letter, dated February 14, 1996, was submitted to the Board of this church, and the presidents of both the C.U.C. and U.U.A.
For me to say that our religious community as a whole has not responded to my legitimate and very serious grievances in a manner that is in clear conformity with the purported principles and purposes of the Unitarian Universalist religious community would be a considerable understatement. The remarkably negligent and irresponsible manner in which my serious grievances have been responded to by our religious community as a whole is well documented. The written responses of the Board of the Unitarian Church of Montreal, officials of the Canadian Unitarian Council and the Unitarian Universalist Association, as well as the Ministerial Fellowship Committee, to my various letters airing my, grievances demonstrate a clear and consistent unwillingness to acknowledge the clearly unprofessional and unethical nature of Rev. Drennan's reprehensible conduct. Indeed, the response of our religious community as a whole to my legitimate grievances clearly demonstrates the inherent truth of the wellknown aphorism that, "There are none so blind as those who will not see."
On Monday November 3, 1 submitted copies of almost all of the letters that I have sent or received as a result of my grievances to the ministers conducting Rev. Drennan's Peer Review. When I asked Rev. Brian Kopke of the Ottawa Unitarian Congregation who Rev. Drennan was accountable to for his misconduct he affirmed that it was the congregation of this church to whom Rev. Drennan must answer for his misconduct. This is consistent with similar statements made by officials of both the C.U.C. and the U.U.A. It is therefore clearly up to the congregation of the Unitarian Church of Montreal as a whole to respond in a responsible manner to my legitimate and serious grievances regarding Rev. Drennan's reprehensible conduct towards me.
(page 1 of 2)
This congregation has so far responded to my grievances in a manner that is characterized by a remarkably high degree of callous indifference and willful ignorance. As far as I am concerned it has thoroughly compromised both the letter and the spirit of many of our principles and purposes; indeed, it would appear to have completely abandoned some of these principles in several instances. The Board of this church did nothing to implement responsible conflict resolution procedures when I first aired my grievances to them in February of 1996 and the Board later informed me in writing that it considers this matter to be closed. This is in spite of having done virtually nothing to responsibly address my grievances. I formally appealed to our congregation as a whole to responsibly intervene in this conflict on two occasions (April 21, 1996 and November 20, 1996) and on both of these occasions my pleas were effectively ignored.
The enclosed letter to the congregation dated September 27, 1997 gives my clear and official response to Rev. Drennan's condescending and considerably less than honest "apology" for the "distress" that his demeaning and damaging words have caused me. I was delayed in distributing this response to the congregation as a result of warnings that I would be hauled before that dreaded "euphemism" known as the "Disruptive Behaviour Commiftee" should I distribute any more letters airing my grievances to my fellow members of our congregation.
The Board received a modified version of that letter early in October but did not respond to it. John lnder made a final effort to persuade Rev. Drennan to enter into mediated dialogue with me but to no avail. Last Tuesday, November 4, John Inder informed me that Rev. Drennan not only refused to enter into mediated dialogue with me but that he had also indicated that he would neither retract nor modify any of the derogatory statements or damaging allegations that he has made about me and my beliefs. Rev. Drennan confirmed this in a telephone conversation with me the next day.
Needless to say Rev. Ray Drennan's obstinate and arrogant refusal to retract the statements that he has made about me is completely unacceptable to me and I feel obliged to continue to take steps to seek a just and equitable response to my serious grievances. I expect my fellow Unitarian Universalists in general, and our congregation in particular, to formally acknowledge that Rev. Drennan's reprehensible conduct towards me is unprofessional, unethical, and in clear violation of the integrity of numerous Unitarian Universalist principles and purposes. I expect our religious community to formally condemn Rev. Drennan's conduct, demand that he retract the derogatory statements and damaging allegations that he made about me, and subject him to disciplinary action that is commensurate with the seriousness of his offense.
In the weeks ahead I will be publicly protesting Rev. Drennan's reprehensible conduct and the failure of our religious community as a whole to responsibly address my legitimate grievances. I will not be dissuaded by threats of expulsion from our church; indeed, I will persevere in my public protests until my very serious grievances are responsibly dealt with by our religious community.
Sincerely,
Robin Edgar
(page 2 of 2)
me-ray97.4.wpd
Robin Edgar
15 Lafleur apt. 11
Verdun, Quebec
Canada, H4G 3C3
Rev. Ray Drennan
Unitarian Church of Montreal
5035 boul. de Maisonneuve ouest,
Montreal, Quebec
Canada, H4A 1Y5 Sunday April 20, 1997
Dear Rev. Drennan,
As I you probably remember, a year ago, on Sunday April 21, 1996, I stood up during the Sharing Joys and Concerns segment of the Sunday service and brought my very serious grievances about your unprofessional, demeaning, and psychologically abusive behaviour towards me to the attention of the congregation of our church. There is no point in my reiterating what these grievances are since they are very well documented in my various letters of grievance. As you are also aware the congregation as a whole chose to ignore my repeated appeals for responsible intervention in this matter and thus chose to ignore the principle of our religious community which call for justice, equity and compassion in human relations.
For well over a year now you have done virtually nothing to seek reconciliation with me, you have obstinately refused to retract, or apologize for in any way, your extremely insulting, demeaning, and psychologically abusive statements, indeed your outright slanderous and potentially extremely damaging allegations that you have made about me and Creation Day. During my "chat" with that euphemism known as the Disruptive Behaviour Committee John Pike insisted that you deny having made the clearly demeaning statements and damaging allegations that I have accused you of in my letters of grievance. When I mentioned this to you in the church kitchen soon after my meeting with the DBC you scowled and immediately left "in a huff." If you have denied making any of the statements that I have clearly attributed to you in my letters of grievance you know full well that you have lied to the Board, and thus, by extension, you have lied to our congregation as a whole.
You must do several things to respond to my serious grievances and redress the clear injustices that you have done to me. You must admit to our religious community that my serious grievances are legitimate and that you did in fact make the statements and allegations that I have attributed to you in my letters of grievance. You must formally recognize that such behaviour is unprofessional, demeaning, and psychologically abusive, and that the allegations that you have made that I am psychotic and involved in, or trying to start, a "manipulative and secretive" cult are potentially seriously damaging to me and to others. You must formally, and in writing, retract all of the demeaning statements and damaging allegations that you have made about me. You must deliver a sincere apology to all who have been affected by your reprehensible behaviour towards me during a Sunday service and last, but by no means least, you must begin to take steps which show a clear desire and real effort on your part to seek genuine and lasting reconciliation with me.
Patricia Dobkin has said that you will "never apologize" to me. Perhaps this is true. Perhaps you really do lack the minimal amount of personal integrity necessary to recognize that have made some very serious mistakes, mistakes that clearly violate the integrity of virtually everything that our religious community purports to stand for. Perhaps you genuinely do not possess the minimal amount of basic human decency required to formally retract the sarcastic, demeaning, and psychologically abusive statements you made during our meetings as well as the damaging and slanderous allegations that you have made about me, and to issue a sincere formal written apology to me for your reprehensible behaviour towards me. Perhaps you are totally incapable, or completely unwilling, to practice justice, equity and compassion in your "human relations" with me.
You know that I informed the congregation that I was going public with my grievances in my letter of November 20, 1996. You can be thankful that a popular Montreal radio show was "cancelled" before I could "air" my grievances on it. You can also be thankful that the Gazette, while finding my story "interesting", has said it will not run it unless the situation becomes "more acrimonious". You can be thankful that a local T.V. "problem solver" is more concerned with loose floor tiles than your "loose lips" to say nothing of those of Frank Greene, and several other leading members of the Unitarian Universalist religious community. Ultimately you can be thankful that my efforts to "go public" with my grievances have, so far, been minimal and limited to local English language media.
This is the final opportunity that I am presenting to you to show some personal integrity and human decency and "do the right thing".
If you do not indicate a willingness to finally settle this matter prior to next Sunday's service I will distribute the enclosed letter to my fellow members of our church following that service.
If you do not apologize to me by Sunday, May 2, 1997, I will have to assume that you genuinely have no intention of apologizing to me for your reprehensible behaviour towards me and will therefore have to question the sincerity of any future apology that you may offer. I will send out a "Mayday signal" to my fellow Unitarian Universalists in Canada and elsewhere and take further steps to "go public" with my grievances. I will also seek genuine justice from various sources outside of the church.
Sincerely,
Robin Edgar
15 Lafleur apt. 11
Verdun, Quebec
Canada, H4G 3C3
Rev. Ray Drennan
Unitarian Church of Montreal
5035 boul. de Maisonneuve ouest,
Montreal, Quebec
Canada, H4A 1Y5 Sunday April 20, 1997
Dear Rev. Drennan,
As I you probably remember, a year ago, on Sunday April 21, 1996, I stood up during the Sharing Joys and Concerns segment of the Sunday service and brought my very serious grievances about your unprofessional, demeaning, and psychologically abusive behaviour towards me to the attention of the congregation of our church. There is no point in my reiterating what these grievances are since they are very well documented in my various letters of grievance. As you are also aware the congregation as a whole chose to ignore my repeated appeals for responsible intervention in this matter and thus chose to ignore the principle of our religious community which call for justice, equity and compassion in human relations.
For well over a year now you have done virtually nothing to seek reconciliation with me, you have obstinately refused to retract, or apologize for in any way, your extremely insulting, demeaning, and psychologically abusive statements, indeed your outright slanderous and potentially extremely damaging allegations that you have made about me and Creation Day. During my "chat" with that euphemism known as the Disruptive Behaviour Committee John Pike insisted that you deny having made the clearly demeaning statements and damaging allegations that I have accused you of in my letters of grievance. When I mentioned this to you in the church kitchen soon after my meeting with the DBC you scowled and immediately left "in a huff." If you have denied making any of the statements that I have clearly attributed to you in my letters of grievance you know full well that you have lied to the Board, and thus, by extension, you have lied to our congregation as a whole.
You must do several things to respond to my serious grievances and redress the clear injustices that you have done to me. You must admit to our religious community that my serious grievances are legitimate and that you did in fact make the statements and allegations that I have attributed to you in my letters of grievance. You must formally recognize that such behaviour is unprofessional, demeaning, and psychologically abusive, and that the allegations that you have made that I am psychotic and involved in, or trying to start, a "manipulative and secretive" cult are potentially seriously damaging to me and to others. You must formally, and in writing, retract all of the demeaning statements and damaging allegations that you have made about me. You must deliver a sincere apology to all who have been affected by your reprehensible behaviour towards me during a Sunday service and last, but by no means least, you must begin to take steps which show a clear desire and real effort on your part to seek genuine and lasting reconciliation with me.
Patricia Dobkin has said that you will "never apologize" to me. Perhaps this is true. Perhaps you really do lack the minimal amount of personal integrity necessary to recognize that have made some very serious mistakes, mistakes that clearly violate the integrity of virtually everything that our religious community purports to stand for. Perhaps you genuinely do not possess the minimal amount of basic human decency required to formally retract the sarcastic, demeaning, and psychologically abusive statements you made during our meetings as well as the damaging and slanderous allegations that you have made about me, and to issue a sincere formal written apology to me for your reprehensible behaviour towards me. Perhaps you are totally incapable, or completely unwilling, to practice justice, equity and compassion in your "human relations" with me.
You know that I informed the congregation that I was going public with my grievances in my letter of November 20, 1996. You can be thankful that a popular Montreal radio show was "cancelled" before I could "air" my grievances on it. You can also be thankful that the Gazette, while finding my story "interesting", has said it will not run it unless the situation becomes "more acrimonious". You can be thankful that a local T.V. "problem solver" is more concerned with loose floor tiles than your "loose lips" to say nothing of those of Frank Greene, and several other leading members of the Unitarian Universalist religious community. Ultimately you can be thankful that my efforts to "go public" with my grievances have, so far, been minimal and limited to local English language media.
This is the final opportunity that I am presenting to you to show some personal integrity and human decency and "do the right thing".
If you do not indicate a willingness to finally settle this matter prior to next Sunday's service I will distribute the enclosed letter to my fellow members of our church following that service.
If you do not apologize to me by Sunday, May 2, 1997, I will have to assume that you genuinely have no intention of apologizing to me for your reprehensible behaviour towards me and will therefore have to question the sincerity of any future apology that you may offer. I will send out a "Mayday signal" to my fellow Unitarian Universalists in Canada and elsewhere and take further steps to "go public" with my grievances. I will also seek genuine justice from various sources outside of the church.
Sincerely,
Robin Edgar
defense.wpd
My defense to the motion to revoke my membership that the
Board of Management of the Unitarian Church of Montreal
brought against me at the congregational meeting
of November 22, 1999.
Board of Management of the Unitarian Church of Montreal
brought against me at the congregational meeting
of November 22, 1999.
(The following is a copy of a hand-written defense that I read from with minimal modification, self-censorship, or other editing. There were, however, some ad-lib asides etc. It is possible that a tape recording of this meeting exists but I am not aware of it.)
“Sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me. . .”
I beg to differ
Does anybody know what day it is today?
I beg to differ
Does anybody know what day it is today?
(Nobody responded to this question although I said that I sought a response and gave some time for people to provide one)
Today is the 36th anniversary of the small e, small c, in quotation marks
“eTHNIC cLEANSING”
of John Fitzgerald Kennedy - 35th President of the United States of America.
(I then read extensively from the “Riot Act” i.e. the Guidelines of Ministerial Leadership)
In my eyes, based on my “direct experience” the Board’s recommendation to this congregation that my membership in the Unitarian Church of Montreal be revoked (as proposed in the motion that I received in the mail and that is now before you for your deliberation and subsequent vote) is yet another “leap of faith.” It is “based on the hope” that, by controlling the process in such a way as to minimize my ability to defend myself from their charges, the leadership of this church can mislead a two-thirds majority of this congregation in to approving their motion; thus transforming their “leap of faith” into an actual Act of Faith or, in Spanish, Auto-da-Fé. “eTHNIC cLEANSING”
of John Fitzgerald Kennedy - 35th President of the United States of America.
(I then read extensively from the “Riot Act” i.e. the Guidelines of Ministerial Leadership)
An Auto-da-Fé is, according to Webster’s Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language:
The public declaration of the judgement passed on persons tried in the courts of the Spanish Inquisition, followed by the execution by the Civil Authorities of the sentence imposed.
It is clear to me, and I believe that it will become clear to all reasonably intelligent people who, having a genuine appreciation for justice, equity and compassion in human relations, and seriously investigating all of the circumstances surrounding these charges, that there are serious flaws in the justice process and in the wording of the motion that the Board wants this congregation to adopt. I believe that the Executive Committee and the Board members of this “church” have made a very serious “mistake” in even proposing this motion, particularly without ever having invited me to any Board meetings to present my side of the story to them. I believe that, had I been invited to the June 16, 1999, Board meeting, or previous and subsequent meetings, so I could present my case to the Board that the motion that is before you would never have been put to the congregation.
I wish to give the Board an opportunity to admit their “mistake” and voluntarily withdraw the motion. (I made it clear that I would continue with my defense but that, as far as I was concerned, the Board could withdraw the motion at any time during the meeting.)
The Board says that I have refused to accept any decisions of the UCM or its affiliated bodies.
I say prove it. (I have in fact “accepted” some of the said “decisions.”
The Board says I have demonstrated a lack of respect for the said decisions.
I say prove it, and perhaps any lack of respect I have shown was simply because those decisions were unworthy of respect.
The Board says that I have demonstrated a lack of respect for the democratic process.
I say prove it, and countercharge that the successive church Boards have not quite lived up to the democratic ideals of our church.
The Board says that I have “lodged a number of spurious and unfounded claims against the Church.
I say that I firmly believe that none of my claims against the church are unfounded, and even the few that may appear to be spurious can be shown to be justified when explained to reasonably intelligent people.
Prove they are unfounded. Prove they are spurious.
The Board says that I have refused to accept the rejection of my complaints etc.
I say thank you for so publicly admitting that you have repeatedly rejected my perfectly legitimate and very serious complaints.
The Board says that my “refusal to accept and abide by the decisions of the UCM and its affiliated bodies is incompatible with membership in the Church.
I say that this statement might be true if this were the Totali-tarian Church of Montreal.
(I ad-libbed: “or the Authori-tarian Church of Montreal.”
I say that the said statement is simply another well documented example of the “moral and ethical mediocrity that I have encountered amongst Unitarians.” But if I wanted to use Ray Drennan’s hyperbole I would say that, “I am shocked.” “It is a moral outrage that a (Unitarian) person, usually a (dissenter) can be thrown out into the street” for exercising their “right of conscience” when they believe the church has made decisions that are neither just, nor equitable, nor compassionate.
Decisions that promote marginalization of a person rather than “acceptance and encouragement of their spiritual growth.”
Decisions made without any “responsible search for truth.”
Decisions that degrade the “inherent worth and dignity” of a person.
The Board says that the “dispute settling mechanisms of the Church are exhausted.
I say they are not. Not by any means.
(I then made it clear that I would be filing a second complaint with the MFC
regardless of the outcome of this meeting.)
regardless of the outcome of this meeting.)
The Disruptive Behaviour Committee, whose epithet has been described as “Stalinistic” by a former Board member of this Church, one of Eastern European ethnicity , is , by its very name, not a “dispute settling mechanism.” The DBC never attempted to “create compromise” it was set up primarily to prevent me from trying to distribute letters to the congregation appealing to you for intervention in my dispute. It rejected my complaint against Ray Drennan and John Inder, perhaps unilaterally, rejected my complaint arising from Pierre Binette’s physically pushing me around and threats of more serious physical assault.
(I was told I had one minute left at this point and went directly to my concluding statement on the final page of my defense beginning with “This is your hour of darkness. . .”
I was thus unable to the third and, for the UCM, most problematic charge against me.)
The Board says that I have “made statements in print, sought media attention for my demands, and displayed messages. . . in a picketing campaign.”
I say I have a perfect right to do so as both a Unitarian and, thank God (and I mean that not in vain) a citizen of Canada which fortunately is not a totalitarian dominion.
I say this is a church where “malicious gossip” is not only condoned but seemingly rampant.
I say that the words “Solar Temple” and “cult” come from the mouths of Frank Greene (former President of the Board and “Pillar of the Church” who was Parliamentarian of this meeting”), Ray Drennan and, if I am to believe Ray’s insistence that he was the “only one being honest” with me, other more politically astute members of this church who had the good sense to say these words to my face or to someone who would inform me of them.
I say that this church does engage in small e, small c, in quotation marks, “eTHNIC cLEANSING” that is what we are here for tonight. I can justify this statement to the public and have done so with success.
I say that this church “tarnished” its own “image”, indeed its principles and purposes, through the words and actions of its leaders and I am simply exposing this to public scrutiny. I am protesting the shameful conduct that I have been subjected to. Why can’t you see that words like “Solar Temple”, “cult”, “crazy”, “nuts”, “psychotic” etc. etc. etc. are “image tarnishing” and that I felt “harassed” by these “statements” long before I ever publicly protested them? Truly this is the “CHURCH OF THE DOUBLE STANDARD”, the “CHURCH OF THE TWO FACES” In the words of the woman who berated me on Sunday:
“Allez vous faites soignez.”
Why is it that you all rejected my letters complaining about my (mis)treatment and failed to acknowledge how “very difficult and unpleasant” my life was made by (it)?
Some Unitarians said, “If you don’t like it why don’t you leave?”
Small e, small c, in quotation marks “eTHNIC cLEANSING.”
The “Last of the Mohicans” walks into a bar and asks for a beer to slake his thirst. The bar tender growls, “We don’t serve Injuns in these here parts.” Not wanting any further confrontation the “Last of the Mohicans” calmly and quietly walks out of the bar.
Small e, small c, in quotation marks “eTHNIC cLEANSING.”
Thirty-six years ago today Unitarians and most other citizens of our neighbour to the south, and indeed people all around the world were in mourning. John F. Kennedy was murdered. Blown to “kingdom come” by concealed assassins
JFK was an “ethnic.” He was Irish, an ethnic group that suffered from prejudice in the “Land of the Free.” Not only was he Irish but he was of the Roman Catholic faith, a religion looked upon with suspicion by White Anglo Saxon Protestant Americans in the “Home of the Brave.” And boy was he “cleansed.”
Murder, or in the terminology of the gouvernment agencies that many conspiracy theorists believe played a role in JFK’s assassination, “terminated with extreme prejudice.”
The ultimate and final act of any “ethnic cleansing” campaign.
If there is time I propose a two-minute period of reflection for all people who have been subjected to the Orwellian euphemism “ethnic cleansing.”
What is an Orwellian euphemism?
A Ray Drennan has stated clearly in his sermon titled “Direct Experience” in which he described MFC (Ministerial Fellowship Committee) as, “a (sic) euphemism of the first order. A (sic) euphemism is best understood as a handy device of the English language which is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.”
Conclusion::
“This is your hour of darkness”
(I ad-libbed that I meant “darkness” in the sense of ignorance
and not knowing all the facts or truth about my case.)
I hope that more than two-thirds of you*
are beginning to see the darkness
and will begin to move towards the light
by taking my grievances seriously
and responding to me with genuine justice,
genuine equity, and genuine compassion.
I bid you adieu.
(*I only needed one third to “win” but two-thirds would have been a clear majority.
Only three members out of 80 present voted against the Board’s motion.)
“This is your hour of darkness”
(I ad-libbed that I meant “darkness” in the sense of ignorance
and not knowing all the facts or truth about my case.)
I hope that more than two-thirds of you*
are beginning to see the darkness
and will begin to move towards the light
by taking my grievances seriously
and responding to me with genuine justice,
genuine equity, and genuine compassion.
I bid you adieu.
(*I only needed one third to “win” but two-thirds would have been a clear majority.
Only three members out of 80 present voted against the Board’s motion.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)