Unitarian Universalism's First Principle And Such Despicable Crimes As Pedophilia And Rape Committed By Certain Unitarian Universalist Ministers - What's The Connection?
How about this plagU*Urized parody version of an excerpt from a sermon that Rev. Dr. Victoria Weinstein aka Peacebang aka Vicki The Impaler delivered to her First Parish Norwell U*U "Church" parishioners approximately six years before she so immorally, and so UNethically, (dare I say so “sinfully”?) colluded with the Unitarian Universalist Association and the UUA's "less than perfect" Canadian attorney, Stikeman Elliott Barristers & Solicitors litigation lawyer Maitre Marc-André Coulombe, to falsely accuse Yours Truly of the archaic criminal act of blasphemous libel in UUA legal bullying that, amongst other things. . . was intended to conceal "such despicable crimes as pedophilia and rape" committed by Peacebang's pedophile rapist First Parish Norwell parishioner Richard Buell from the public?
I thought I’d share this excerpt from a sermon Peacebang gave in 2006 since there seems to be a broader challenge to those U*Us who persistently and conveniently misinterpret U*Uism's First Unitarian Universalist Principle to mean that they should not be taken to task for their egotistical and obstructionist attitudes in The U*U Movement. It has fresh relevance today in the broader conversation about Rev. Dr. Victoria Weinstein aka Peacebang colluding with the Rev. Dr. Peter "Beyond Belief" Morales led UUA in immoral, UNethical, borderline criminal, and yes. . . #BatShitCrazy misuse of Canada's soon to be repealed blasphemy law in UUA clergy sex abuse cover-up and denial legal bullying that was*is quite evidently intended to conceal "such despicable crimes as pedophilia and rape" most certainly committed by "certain Unitarian Universalist ministers" (to say nothing of certain UUA Religious Educators and Peacebang's pedophile rapist parishioner Richard Buell) from the public aka all persons of inherent worth and dignity.
Unitarian Universalists share a set of seven principles. The first among them is a commitment to affirm and promote “the inherent worth and dignity of each person.” I think this is a beautiful principle, and I am happy to see that Unitarian Universalists take it seriously enough to invoke it on a very regular basis in the wider denominational context.
But Boston, I think we U*Us have a Big Fat U*U Problem. When it comes to the notion of moral or ethical FAILings, also known as “sin,” U*Us tend very often to jump right to the first principle and to say, “Remember, that person has inherent worth and dignity!” It’s as though that’s it, that’s the final truth, and therefore, we must not delve at all into the question of whether or not there is some moral or communal failing or problem that needs to be named and fixed.
Our Big Fat U*U "Mistake" is in seeing our first principle as a kind of sociological and psychological claim rather than an ontological claim. (An ontological claim is a claim about the nature of reality itself.) To use simpler language, we have often insisted that because each person has “inherent worth and dignity,” they can really do no wrong, in the final analysis, because to accuse them of doing wrong is akin to accusing them of being wrong and unacceptable in some basic way. This kind of attitude really stymies conversation and stifles healthy conflict. It says, “There’s no such thing as sin, because we’re all inherently worthy!”
Well, of course we are inherently worthy. But we are also occasionally terribly wrong and terribly harmful. The first principle should not be the ending point for our view of human nature, and a conversation stopper, it should be the starting point – the first assumption — for our work toward spiritual growth and ethical commitment. The first principle should be the optimistic claim that starts us on our way knowing that we can ascend higher on the ladder of moral evolution.
That first principle was written to remind us that there are many people whose voices have been silenced, whose humanity has been denigrated, and whose full participation in the notion of God’ s grace has been questioned. Our first principle calls us to serve as guardians for the humanity and dignity of those people especially, and to promote such conditions for all people as allows that dignity and worth to flourish. It was never intended to be used as a defense plea for my sins or yours, but as a rallying cry toward an ethic of universal kinship.
– from “Inherent Worth And Dignity, The Starting Point”
Delivered to the First Parish Unitarian Church in Norwell, March 12, 2006, The Rev. Dr. Victoria Weinstein
I thought I’d share this excerpt from a sermon Peacebang gave in 2006 since there seems to be a broader challenge to those U*Us who persistently and conveniently misinterpret U*Uism's First Unitarian Universalist Principle to mean that they should not be taken to task for their egotistical and obstructionist attitudes in The U*U Movement. It has fresh relevance today in the broader conversation about Rev. Dr. Victoria Weinstein aka Peacebang colluding with the Rev. Dr. Peter "Beyond Belief" Morales led UUA in immoral, UNethical, borderline criminal, and yes. . . #BatShitCrazy misuse of Canada's soon to be repealed blasphemy law in UUA clergy sex abuse cover-up and denial legal bullying that was*is quite evidently intended to conceal "such despicable crimes as pedophilia and rape" most certainly committed by "certain Unitarian Universalist ministers" (to say nothing of certain UUA Religious Educators and Peacebang's pedophile rapist parishioner Richard Buell) from the public aka all persons of inherent worth and dignity.
Unitarian Universalists share a set of seven principles. The first among them is a commitment to affirm and promote “the inherent worth and dignity of each person.” I think this is a beautiful principle, and I am happy to see that Unitarian Universalists take it seriously enough to invoke it on a very regular basis in the wider denominational context.
But Boston, I think we U*Us have a Big Fat U*U Problem. When it comes to the notion of moral or ethical FAILings, also known as “sin,” U*Us tend very often to jump right to the first principle and to say, “Remember, that person has inherent worth and dignity!” It’s as though that’s it, that’s the final truth, and therefore, we must not delve at all into the question of whether or not there is some moral or communal failing or problem that needs to be named and fixed.
Our Big Fat U*U "Mistake" is in seeing our first principle as a kind of sociological and psychological claim rather than an ontological claim. (An ontological claim is a claim about the nature of reality itself.) To use simpler language, we have often insisted that because each person has “inherent worth and dignity,” they can really do no wrong, in the final analysis, because to accuse them of doing wrong is akin to accusing them of being wrong and unacceptable in some basic way. This kind of attitude really stymies conversation and stifles healthy conflict. It says, “There’s no such thing as sin, because we’re all inherently worthy!”
Well, of course we are inherently worthy. But we are also occasionally terribly wrong and terribly harmful. The first principle should not be the ending point for our view of human nature, and a conversation stopper, it should be the starting point – the first assumption — for our work toward spiritual growth and ethical commitment. The first principle should be the optimistic claim that starts us on our way knowing that we can ascend higher on the ladder of moral evolution.
That first principle was written to remind us that there are many people whose voices have been silenced, whose humanity has been denigrated, and whose full participation in the notion of God’ s grace has been questioned. Our first principle calls us to serve as guardians for the humanity and dignity of those people especially, and to promote such conditions for all people as allows that dignity and worth to flourish. It was never intended to be used as a defense plea for my sins or yours, but as a rallying cry toward an ethic of universal kinship.
– from “Inherent Worth And Dignity, The Starting Point”
Delivered to the First Parish Unitarian Church in Norwell, March 12, 2006, The Rev. Dr. Victoria Weinstein
Comments