Spreading the Word

I'm attaching a screencap from our comments section:

I'm spreading the word.

Your Ol; Pal,
Devilhead

The Debacle of GA '19: Those Who Signed

The controversy surrounding Rev. Eklof and the publication of The Gadfly Papers continues unabated. From my observation and experience, the controversy won't end until Rev. Eklof is out of the ministry. That's the only outcome tolerable to the hoo-hahs at the UUA. You know that and I know that. Rev. Todd knows that. [If anyone is interested, I can do a piece on what Rev. Eklof can expect from his colleagues and denomination, and the cancerous effect that will have on his congregation.]

In re-reading some of the responses to The Gadfly Papers, I noticed something odd among the signatories. There were those who signed the various papers calling Rev. Eklof and his book, racist, sexist, ableist, whatever-other-ists-would-stick-to-the-wall-when-hurled-against-it, etc.

And there were those who didn't.

In both cases, there were some interesting surprises on the list. Everything I'm about to point out has already been public knowledge. I'm just connecting dots and asking questions.

On the UUMA People of Color and Indiginous Chapter Statement, is this name:

Who, as it says, is President of Starr King School for the Ministry.

In the Open Letter from White UU Ministers, is this name:

Who, as it says, is President of Meadville Lombard Theological School.

Questions:

Does it strike anyone as odd that presidents of both Unitarian Universalist seminaries signed respective letters, calling The Gadfly Papers damaging?

The implication to me is that we have the presidents of the only two Unitarian Universalist seminaries that serve the UUA calling for the ban of a book.

Is this true? If it is, what does that say?

What about the idea of reading the book critically and then debating it? Why are the presidents of the UU seminaries not calling for this?

What of the future of Unitarian Universalism if this is how the future leaders are being trained?

The Unitarian Universalism you knew and loved is quite dead. 

As to our future leaders, here's another name from that list:

That's right, Isabel Call, who was the outgoing Intern Minister at the Unitarian Universalist Church of Spokane. WTF? She was supervised by Rev. Todd Eklof, and in leaving the church signs a petition that calls the book and her mentor racist. 

What is going on here?

A few possibilities, either she had a good relationship with Todd and the church, or she didn't. She could have had a great relationship with her mentor, and at the same time saw the realpolitik of the UUA and knew that she had better sign... or give up any hope of the ministry. (Not kidding, it really works that way.)

Questions:

Did Isabel Call see the writing on the wall as to the realpolitik of the UUA? Is that why she signed?

Does she believe the book, the minister and the church are racist? Does she believe any of them are racist? Is that why she signed?

It seems from the Spokesman-Review article that Rev. Todd Eklof was surprised by the presence of his church's Interm Minister on the list. Is this how we treat colleagues? Do we sign petitions instead of seeking honest dialog with our colleagues? 

What of all the others who signed? How many of them sought an honest dialog with Rev. Todd Eklof?

To be more to the point, how many of them read the book before signing the petition? How many?

How many of them have read the book at all? How many?

And, how many of them still haven't read the book, and have no intention of reading the book, and yet signed the petition calling for the book to be banned? How many?

If you are a congregant in a Unitarian Universalist congregation, do you want your leaders signing petitions against a book they have not read?

What does all of this say about leadership among the Unitarian Universalists?

If your minister is on either of these lists as signers, you need to ask them if they read the book before signing the petition, if they read it at all. If your minister admits to having signed the petition without having read the book first...

Devilhead's advice would be for you to work as hard as possible to get rid of your minister. No one needs human garbage in the ministry. Don't worry about where you're going to find your next minister, as the UUA promises again and again, there's always more in the pipeline.

Your Ol' Pal,
Devilhead

The Debacle of GA '19: What No One is Really Talking About

So far, the discussion surrounding the publication of Rev. Todd Eklof's The Gadfly Papers has focussed almost solely on whether the book is racist or not. That's not a big surprise as this narrative spin tends to favor the dominant voices in the UUA.

Is The Gadfly Papers racist?

Not at all. 

That hasn't stopped the professionally aggrieved from hysterically shrieking that it is not only vile racism of the lowest order, but dangerous to boot. So dangerous that people shouldn't read it. They have been told that not only shouldn't they read it, but if they want to know what's inside they need only listen to one of the aggrieved as they tell you what it's all about. 

Readers may notice a similarity between this viewpoint and that of the Medieval Church in regards to people reading the Bible for themselves. It was thought too dangerous, and so the Bible had to be mediated through priests. Does that sound familiar? Who does that benefit?

As a cherry on this shit sundae, it should come as no surprise to readers of this blog that many of the aggrieved who are happy to denounce the book as racism haven't bothered to read it. (I guess reading is rayciss.)

Welcome to today's Unitarian Universalism.

Here are a couple of pieces from the Spokesman-Review, Spokane's paper of record. [Here and Here]

Lost in the rush to denounce Rev. Todd Eklof as a racist, and make sure that no one reads his book and become infected with opposing viewpoints, is what happened in the meeting he had with the Right Relations Team.

Here's Rev. Eklof's account:

And here's the version from the Spokesman-Review, which was given verbatim from the UUA:

 And:

Notice a difference?

This from a Redditor [Here] makes the timeline clearer:

My favorite part is, "Someone on the Right Relations team did not like the outcome of this meeting, and went above the Right Relations team."

That, my friends, is the whole fucking story right there. A meeting occurred, things were agreed upon, then someone on the very team who initiated the meeting had issues on the ride home, and went above everyone's heads. Remember, this is the new Unitarian Universalism. Rules are rayciss. 

So, who's on the Right Relations Team? Here is the official web blurb. Interesting, it doesn't mention who's on the team, although it does have a few pics of previous Right Relations Team members.

Yup, the moderators were members of this team.

Here's what no one is talking about, but at the same time is the issue: the piss-poor boundaries of the leaders at the highest levels of the association.

Let's just go through this again:

Rev. Eklof hands out copies of his book at GA. Some were offended. Some tried to stop this book from being read altogether, but settled on it not being distributed for free. Rev. Todd agreed not to distribute the book. Meeting over, decisions reached. In a sane society that would be the end of it.

Except that Unitarian Universalism is populated by the emotionally damaged. Except that the whole anti-racism CIA Psyop initiative is deemed too important to follow rules. It has to succeed, and it doesn't matter if it does so on a lie. The rules don't matter if they stand in the way of naked political grasping. From this, we wind up with declaring that Robert's Rules of Order are rayciss.

[On that:

That's from a retired Unitarian Universalist Minister. How things have changed.]

A meeting did occur, someone didn't like the outcome. Most likely couldn't find a way to virtue signal, or even more likely, realized that they would have to deal with the sniveling of the professionally offended for the rest of GA. (And there probably weren't enough hug boxes in the safe room for everybody.) That's how the professionally offended get their way. They cry and throw tantrums until they get what they want. 

And that's what happened. The official pronouncements are making it all about Rev. Eklof. You may notice they don't mention the names of the others present. What are they hiding? The reality is the unprofessionalism of the people on the Right Relations Team (whoever they are), the UUA Board member (whoever that is), and a co-moderator (whoever... wait... he? Mr. Barb Greve?) calls into question all of the processes and professionalism of the UUA.

Seriously, if you can't trust the word of your elected leaders, or trust that your leaders behave ethically, what the fuck do you have?

If this incident has proven anything, it's that the UUA leaders at the very highest levels can't be trusted and cover for each other.

That's what no one's talking about.

Your Ol' Pal,
Devilhead

Happy 4th! Maybe it is time to dissolve the Association.

The Debacle of GA '19

I have the feeling the Unitarian Universalists have hit a historic point. It's not the historic point anyone would want to make, I'm sure, but a historic point has been made. 

Rev. Todd Eklof, minister of the Unitarian Universalist Church of Spokane. is at the center of a fucking shitstorm.

Given the absolute outrage over Rev. Todd Eklof's actions, one might expect that he is a serial sexual predator or a molester of children,  but apparently, he's done something worse, much worse. 

His crime, the response of which is deafening, doesn't come close to being a serial sexual predator. The UUA/UUMA continues to keep predators safe. How else can one explain the large number of people with piss-poor sexual boundaries in the ministry? (One of them had his congregation leafleted by an irate husband of the congregant our minister was sleeping with, on Easter morning no less. That one is still in the ministry, although not in that church. Don't expect that to change anytime soon.)

The response to Rev. Eklof's crime to date has been louder and more psycho than usual. Certainly more so than the situation around that cancer Christina Rivera, or those surrounding the swift axing of Rev. Peter Morales from the UUA presidency, and that of Rev. Don Southworth from the UUMA presidency.

Moreso than the arrest and conviction of confessed pedophile Rev. Ron Robinson. That one barely had a peep made. It was pretty quiet, and some defended his character. So, Rev. Todd must be horrible.

Rev. Todd Eklof's crime was in publishing a book called The Gadfly Papers, [available on Amazon, purchase it] which called into question some of the methods of the "white supremacy" bullshit that is a part and parcel of anti-racism. [Kindle edition here.]

Before we go any further, let's examine what happened from the core documents that are out there:

Here's the backlash:

An Open Letter from White UU Ministers

An Open Letter from UU People of Color

A Statement from LREDA

And one from DRUUM:

So, that's the official channels. Reddit is off the hinges. I've never seen this community so up in arms:

I love Reddit. In no particular order:

The Death of UUism by the Numbers

Rev. Todd Eklof's First Sermon Following the Release of the Gadfly Papers

Why You Should Read the Gadfly Papers

"White Fragility" Smacks of Psychological Abuse

Coverage of the Eklof Controversy from a Spokane Paper

This is, by Far, the Best Critique of the Gadfly Papers I've Read So Far

Curious About the Process of the Book Ban and its Rescinding

Telling Our Stories: The Failure of The Gadfly Papers

What is Going On?

The Gadfly Papers

General Assembly is Happening Right Now!

Well, that should give us all something to chew on. 

Next time, we'll unpack some of this stuff. And being Devilhead, I'm interested in looking at the stuff no one's talking about.

Your Ol' Pal,
Devilhead