Rev. Rosemary Bray McNatt Endorses Laurel Hallman for UUA President

Rev. Rosemary Bray McNatt has endorsed Rev. Dr. Laurel Hallman for UUA President on her Rev. Rose blog. There are a few snippets of Rev. Bray McNatt's endorsement that I find quite interesting and worth commenting on. Here goes. . .

:Those of us who love this faith owe Bill an enormous debt of gratitude for making credible a liberal religious voice amid the conservative noise that passes for public debate.

Just how credible a voice for liberal religion UUA President Bill Sinkford is or was is open to some debate. . .

:In his strategic commitment to speaking faithfully, Bill changed the game for Unitarian Universalism’s public witness.

From where I stand, and from where other people stand, President Bill Sinkford has spoken rather less than faithfully on a number of issues. In fact, as far as I am concerned President Sinkford has demonstrated considerable bad faith and has repeatedly proven himself to be an outrageous hypocrite.

:Today, our faith once again provides respected testimony to our liberal values.

Really? Who are all these people who respect President Bill Sinkford's testimony of the "liberal values" of the U*U movement?

:Hearing Unitarian Universalists speak truth to power is expected — even assumed.

That's funny I could have sworn that UUA President Bill Sinkford, and no shortage of other UUA leaders, have turned deaf ears to Unitarian*Universalists speaking truth to power. . .

:It’s time once again for Unitarian Universalists to elect a religious professional to lead our movement into the 21st century. Yet the urgent work that faces our association is very different now than it was when Bill chose to run for the presidency. As liberal religious people, we are called now, more than ever, to be both articulate in naming the brokenness of this world and effective in the work of healing our world. That’s why I am supporting The Rev. Dr. Laurel Hallman as the next President of our Association.

Really. . . Well I sure hope that Rev. Dr. Laurel Hallman will be both articulate in naming the brokenness of the U*U World and effective in the work of healing your U*U World Rev. Bray McNatt. I will know soon enough how articulate and effective she is when it comes to the aspects of brokeness that I will bring her attentiuon to shortly and I certainly look forward to Rev. Dr. Laurel Hallman's articulate response to the Open Letter About Clergy Sexual Misconduct that the Denominational Affairs Committee sent her and Rev. Peter Morales recently. For the record that Open Letter would likely have been quite unnecessary if Rev. Bill Sinkford hadn't miserably failed, and apparently even obstinately refused. . . to deal responsibly with clergy sexual misconduct during his eight year term as UUA President. N'est-ce pas Rev. Rose?

:In his brilliant Ware Lecture from 2008, the African American community activist Van Jones spoke about the next level of insight, awareness and activism that we must embrace as human beings living on this fragile and endangered planet. And one of his themes—not unique to us as UUs, but so very relevant for us—is that it’s not enough to have a critique; you have to have a plan.

Well I don't see either of the UUA Presidential candidates critiquing the UUA's negligent, incompetent and effectively complicit mishandling of clergy misconduct complaints. What plans do they have to address that serious issue to say nothing of other aspects of U*U brokeness?

:I am supporting Laurel because she has a plan, not a critique of how awful/unprepared/inept we are.

Oh dear I guess that Rev. Rosemary McNatt Bray won't be endorsing The Emerson Avenger as UUA President or indeed Rev. Peter Morales who obviously got her back up with his blunt critiques of how awful, unprepared and inept U*Us are. . . So Rev. Rose can you fill us in on just what Rev. Dr. Laurel Hallman's plan is to responsibly deal with how awful, unprepared and inept many leaders of the U*U movement, including top level UUA officials such as Rev. Beth Miller and Rev. Dr. Tracey Robinson-Harris just for starters? I guess she can breathe a sigh of relief that Rev. Dr. Tracey Robinson-Harris decided to leave the sinking U*U Ship Of Fools before she could possibly face any accountability from the next UUA President, not that there is any guarantee that any of the awful and/or unprepared and/or inept administrators at the UUA will actually face any real accountability when the awful, unprepared and inept Rev. Bill Sinkford is replaced as UUA President by either Rev. Dr. Laurel Hallman or Rev. Peter Morales assuming he does better than a snowball in Hell. . .

:Laurel has a plan that takes Unitarian Universalism to the next level of insight and influence, based on her decades of experience, not only as a parish minister, not only as a brilliant fundraiser, but also as a committed community organizer working with

I have to admit that, besides rather less than diplomatically critiquing just how awful, unprepared and inept U*Us are, to say nothing how tiny, declining, and fringy the U*U religion is these days. . . Rev. Peter Morales has not done a very good job of presenting his plan for how he intends to grow the U*U movement from the "tiny, declining, fringe religion" religion that he acknowledges it is today into "the religion of our time" in *our* time. In spite of repeated requests from your's truly that he articulate his plan. OTOH I have not seen Rev. Dr. Laurel Hallman's clearly articulated *plan* for how she intends to take Unitarian*Universalism to "the next level of insight and influence" as you put it. Could you be so kind as to direct me to where I can read her detailed plan?

:Those of us who have been exposed to the community-organizing model know intimately that it’s never about talk, because talk is cheap.

You don't need to tell me or any other victim of U*U clergy misconduct, or various other injustices and abuses perpetrated and perpetuated by U*Us, just how cheap talk is Rev. Bray McNatt. . .

:Those of us who know community organizing know that it’s never about what a single person can do, but about what a committed group can do when it works together to hold powerful people accountable.

So just which group is holding powerful people within the U*U World and UUA accountable Rev. Rose? Please direct me to this group because I know some powerful people, at least within the context of the U*U movement, who need to be held accountable for their failures and misdeeds. Can you let us in on what Rev. Dr. Laurel Hallman's plan is for holding powerful U*Us who have misused and abused their power accountable?

:Most importantly, those of us who know community organizing have seen what can happen when a collaborative leader brings together people who are so different that they shouldn’t even be able to stand next to each other. We know that amazing things happen when such disparate people unite in a common purpose!

Well I look forward to Rev. Dr. Laurel Hallman bringing victims of clergy misconduct of all kinds together with the awful U*U ministers who are directly accountable for that misconduct, the awful and/or unprepared and/or inept UUA administrators and other U*U church leaders who failed or refused to hold those awful U*U ministers accountable for their clergy misconduct.

:Bill Sinkford’s exemplary success in leading Unitarian Universalism has served to raise the bar for liberal religious leadership itself.

UUA President Bill Sinkford’s leadership of the "tiny, declining, fringe religion" known as Unitarian*Universalism aka the U*U Movement is neither as exemplary or successgful as you and other U*Us would like to believe Rev. Rose. Just how has Rev. Bill Sinkford served to raise the bar for liberal religious leadership when it comes to U*U religious leaders like Rev. Ray Drennan, Rev. Victoria Weinstein aka Peacebang, Rev. Cynthia P. Cain, Rev. Dr. Timothy W. Jensen and other awful and/or unprepared and/or inept U*U clergy? Pray tell. . .

:We have traveled beyond the point where our movement can empower religious leaders who often talk a good game, but in the end hesitate to change the game.

ROTFLMU*UO! You empowered Rev. William G. Sinkford didn't you Rev. Rose? Do you*really* believe that President Bill Sinkford didn't talk a good game, but in the end hesitate to change the game, when it came to the UUA's (mis)handling of clergy misconduct and holding awful and/or unprepared and/or inept U*U clergy accountable for their "less than excellent" ministry?

:I am impatient with those leaders in our movement who participate in press conferences and public actions that make liberal religious people feel good, but leave those we oppose feeling angry or dismissive, and leave those unfamiliar with our faith—the movable middle—feeling both unmoved and unchanged.

ROTFLMU*UO again! Do you *really* believe that President Bill Sinkford didn't participate in press conferences and public actions that make liberal religious people feel good, but left those U*Us oppose (to say nothing of a good number of good U*Us) feeling angry or dismissive? What planet are you living on Rev. Rose? Certainly not the U*U World. . .

:I support Laurel because she knows very well how to argue with people like the late Jerry Falwell, or how to get face time with people like President Bill Clinton, (for the record, she’s done both!)

Woo hoo! Good for Rev. Laurel Hallman. I must admit that that sure beats President Bill Sinkford's misguided effort get some red-faced time, to say nothing of two-faced time. . . with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad that left a good number of indignant U*Us feeling angry or dismissive.

:But she also knows, and will institutionalize, ways to build capacity in the tiniest congregation, ways to support the midsize congregations that are betwixt and between, ways to challenge large congregations to step forward for our faith. Even more important, Laurel knows how to support all our congregations as they work strategically within their own communities, so that our congregations become known as trusted partners in the work of justice, so that real and lasting change occurs.

So what will Rev. Laurel Hallman do to make the UUA and U*U congregations partners in the long overdue work of providing genuine and tangible restorative justice for victims of clergy misconduct of all kinds so that real and lasting change occurs?

:Most of all, I support Laurel because I feel in her presence what I feel in Bill Sinkford’s presence: a deep knowledge of The Holy, and a deep commitment to Unitarian Universalism as a liberal religious faith as opposed to some random nonprofit group.

So where was Rev. Bill Sinkford’s *presence* and alleged "deep knowledge of The Holy" when it came to dealing responsibly with the clergy misconduct of "less than excellent" aka awful U*U ministers Rev. Rose? I saw little or no sign of it myself. . .

:I resonate deeply with those within our movement like Laurel who find depth, strength and focus in a consistent religious practice, and whose spirituality grounds the work they accomplish.

You mean a consistent religious practice like totally ignoring people demanding justice for victims of clergy misconduct Rev. Rose? Come to think of it. . . that seems to be the consistent religious practice of you and other members of the UUA Board of Trustees as well.

:I have confidence that when Laurel leads—even when I disagree with her—she will lead from the core of our Living Tradition, that she will support religious leaders like myself in the work of justice and peace, and that she will call on each and every one of us to reach deeper and do more.

Oh I don't doubt that Rev. Laurel Hallman will be asking each and every U*U to reach deeper, especially in light of the UUA's current financial situation that is due in no small measure to unprepared and inept, if not downright awful. . . UUA planning (and not just financial planning by any means) during Rev. Bill Sinkford's tenure as UUA President.

:Laurel leads with the spirit of a pastor, the focus of a seasoned executive and the insight of the community activist that she’s been for more than 20 years. She has my unqualified support, and I hope you will join me in voting for her at our next General Assembly.

I look forward to seeing just how well Rev. Dr. Laurel Hallman leads with the spirit of a pastor, the focus of a seasoned executive, and the insight of the community activist when I and other people demand genuine and tangible restorative justice for ALL victims of clergy misconduct after the UUA elections.

An Open Letter About Clergy Sexual Misconduct to the UUA Presidential Candidates Courtesy Of The Denominational Affairs Committee Of The FUUN

Wow! In light of my The Emerson Avenger blog post about the inhuman indifference of many Unitarian*Universalist U*Us to victims of clergy misconduct and other U*U injustices and abuses posted earlier tonight, the following blog post of an 'An Open Letter About Clergy Sexual Misconduct to the UUA Presidential Candidates' addressed to Rev. Dr. Laurel Hallman and Rev. Peter Morales and publicly posted to the FUUN blog of the First Unitarian Universalist Church of Nashville, Tennessee is really quite serendipitous, almost an online synchronicity of sorts. I had been planning to draft a letter addressed to both candidates asking similar questions myself. For now I will cross-post this Open Letter About Clergy Sexual Misconduct verbatim here so that more people get to see it and hopefully read it.

I will later post my take on it and draw up my own follow-up letter about clergy misconduct of all kinds, not just clergy sexual misconduct, and inquiring what Rev. Dr. Laurel Hallman and Rev. Peter Morales intend to do in terms of providing restorative justice to all victims of clergy misconduct perpetrated by U*U ministers and perpetuated by the negligence and complicity of the congregations they serve and/or the UUA. I am very glad to see that the Denominational Affairs Committee of First Unitarian Universalist Church of Nashville has written this letter and posted it publicly, thus making UUA handling of clergy sexual misconduct, to say nothing on non-sexual forms of clergy misconduct, a 2009 UUA Presidential campaign issue as I had intended to do myself. . . I for one look forward to seeing how UUA Presidential Candidates Rev. Dr. Laurel Hallman and Rev. Peter Morales respond to the issues raised and the questions asked in this important Open Letter. I posting this Open Letter now but may add more about my take on it to this blog post later -

An Open Letter About Clergy Sexual Misconduct to the UUA Presidential Candidates

Posted in Denominational Affairs at 5:32 pm by Comm Comm

March 25, 2009

Rev. Dr. Laurel Hallman
Submitted on the contact form on hallmanforuuapresident.com; and
4015 Normandy Ave.
Dallas, TX 75205

Rev. Peter Morales
By email to info@moralesforuuapresident.org; and
Morales for UUA President
15321 W 66th Pl.
Arvada, CO 80007

Dear Rev. Morales and Rev. Hallman,

We write to you in the spirit of enhancing the democratic process in our Association in regard to the presidential election at General Assembly in June. We hope to learn from both of you what your positions are on issues of vital importance, helping ourselves and others be fully informed on these issues.

First, let us give you some background. As the Denominational Affairs Committee of First Unitarian Universalist Church of Nashville, we are some of the individuals in our congregation most involved with the Mid-South District (past and present officers) and the UUA (including members of the GA Planning and Volunteer Committees and the 1998 - 2000 Safe Congregations Panel, also known as the Muir Panel), as well as having four past presidents and many present and past board members of the congregation. It is our role to be a conduit for information between the congregation, the District and the UUA. As this matter concerns the election for president of the UUA, it falls in our sphere.

Our questions have to do with how you will provide leadership around the issue of clergy sexual misconduct. Before we get to the questions, we would like to say why we believe this is an important issue for you to address. We know this is a difficult topic. Because of our congregation’s history, we know that as deeply as any church in the Association. We also know that, just as with other types of abuse, silence is a large part of the pattern and that silence often endangers more victims, impeding both justice and healing. So, even though it is a difficult topic, it must be broached for the truth to come out and progress to be made.

Also, because of the structure of the Association and congregational polity, the areas of giving credentials to ministers and deciding when to take them away are unusual in being ones in which the UUA, through the staff led by the President, the board and the Ministerial Fellowship Committee, actually has the authority to take these actions. In this area, it is not a matter of the office of the UUA president being a bully pulpit or providing support to congregations or advocating for the issues we care about in the wider world; this is an area where one of you, together with your staff will be making decisions that determine the process in which the UUA deals with these issues, which in turn is likely to affect the outcome of the cases. We recognize that the MFC actually makes the final decisions.

You probably know that the UUA established a panel chaired by Rev. Frederic Muir that in 2000 made its report to the UUA entitled “Restorative Justice for All.” That document is still on the UUA web site. The panel made 13 recommendations of actions for the UUA. Many of them have never been carried out by the current administration. Others were only partially put in place.

Our first question to you is: if you are elected, will you carry out all 13 of the recommendations of that report? If so, on what time frame? If not, what will you do instead, with input from whom?

Secondly, is there anything else your administration will do to provide support and ministry both to victims of UUA clergy misconduct and to the congregations disrupted by it, and to decrease the likelihood of future misconduct?

To help others who are concerned about this issue, we will be posting this letter on our church web site, and we hope to post your responses there as well. We like to think of this as a small step in breaking the silence and hope you will join us in the effort. We hope that you will be able to either reply to us within a month or let us know when we can expect to hear from you. It occurs to us that at some point down the road if we have not heard from you, we may have to assume we will not be getting an answer, and we would rather not have to make that assumption.

We would like to thank you for the time you take in thinking about these issues and formulating your position. We believe the Association will benefit from your having done that.

Sincerely,

The Denominational Affairs Committee of
First Unitarian Universalist Church of Nashville, Tennessee

Yet Another Unitarian*Universalist U*U Damns UUA Presidential Candidate Rev. Peter Morales With Faint Praise. . .

This time it is corpse-cold Unitarian*Universalist U*U Rev. Scott Wells who says the following on the 'Who I’m backing for UUA President' blog post of his 'Boy In The Bands' blog -

I think Dan Harper is absolutely correct in his take on the UUA presidential race. . . If given a choice, I suppose I would vote for Morales. I don’t, however, have a vote. Neither am I all that enthralled in the process.

With "friends" and "supporters" like Rev. Daniel Harper and Rev. Scott Wells, UUA Presidential candidate Rev. Peter Morales sure doesn't need any enemies. . .

Is Rev. Peter Morales Running For UUA President aka UUA CEO Or Is He *Really* Running For Executive Vice President Of The UUA aka UUA COO?

Some time ago the idea of a co-Presidency of the UUA with both Rev. Dr. Laurel Hallman and Rev. Peter Morales briefly flitted through my mind but I did not give it too much serious thought because it just seemed unrealistic and impractical. Somewhat later, it occurred to me that the runner-up in the UUA Presidential s*elections *could*, and perhaps should, get the proverbial "consolation prize" of replacing Kathleen Montgomery as the Executive Vice President of the UUA. I don't know a lot about Kathleen Montgomery, she seems to keep a rather low profile, but regardless of how competent or indeed incompetent she may be in her role as Executive Vice President of the UUA *I* think that she has held that position for a bit too long for anyone in a genuinely *democratic* religious community. So I am formally proposing that when the UUA Presidential election has been decided in June that the person who is s*elected as UUA President and the UUA Board of Trustees give very serious consideration to giving the job of Executive Vice President to the hopefully not so sore loser of the UUA Presidential s*election campaign. In fact I think that they should be given that position unless a) they have no interest in being the Chief Operating Officer of the UUA aka UUA COO or b) there are some compelling reasons for not making them Executive Vice President of the UUA.

That being said, it just came to my attention earlier tonight that Rev. Peter Morales *may* be dropping hints that he would be interested in being the Executive Vice President of the UUA, and apparent front-runner Rev. Dr. Laurel Hallman *may* be dropping hints that she is open to that possibility. I get these *possible* "hints" by reading between *some* of the lines of a blog post entitled 'Hallman, Morales on Administration' on the lengthily named 'Blog Whose Name Is Way Too Long To Expect People To Fully And Completely Name It When Mentioning It Or Quoting From It On Their Blogs' blog. Maybe I will take a cue from its URL and refer to it as the UUA Presidential Debate 2009 blog from here on in. Here is the section where

Morales - I would want to be the CEO, and that’s the way I have worked a great deal of my life. (Editor's note: Bear with me. . .) And if one were to look at my track record in government and in publishing and right now in my own congregation, I am relentlessly collaborative. I mean, I make sure that everyone who has a stake in a decision, gets input into it. I seek consensus. I also try to make sure that people who don’t belong at the table don’t have to suffer through meetings where they have nothing, where they don’t have a dog in that fight, because I’ve spent too many of my own hours doing that. But you make much better decisions when they’re collaborative. It’s a matter of input, but accountability is about, I think, the CEO being held accountable. (Editor's note: Gotta love that bit. No U*Us?) The executive vice president, yeah, especially given how much of the presidency has been, and I think will be and needs to be, dealing with the external. The UUA needs in the corporate world what would be called a chief operating officer.

Hallman: I would want to (sic) COO, to clarify that as well. And collaboration has, I just want to also be very clear about the fact, that collaboration isn’t necessarily consensus. We have a strange understanding of consensus, I believe, which is not, we take it from the Quakers but we don’t take their whole spiritual and their disciplined way of going about it. And so I want to make sure that we don’t, that you don’t hear that I’m saying that we need consensus or that everybody has to have a voice and kind of thumbprint everything. We tend to do that, too. We want to be efficient about that process and make decisions when decisions just need to be made and we don’t need to go through the loops of getting everybody’s thumbprint.

end quote

Presumably Rev. Dr. Laurel Hallman meant to say, "I would want a COO." As in, "I would want a Chief Operating Officer." I take note of how she says this in response to Rev. Peter Morales' statement in which in almost the same breath as saying, "I would want to be the CEO," he mentions how relentlessly collaborative he is and quickly segues into mentioning the position of Executive Vice-President of the UUA being a a chief operating officer. I *may* be reading a bit too much into this but then again, I may not. . . Time will tell. If following the UUA Presidential election UUA President Rev. Dr. Laurel Hallman appoints Rev. Peter Morales as Executive Vice-President of the UUA aka Chief Relentlessly Co-Operating Officer of the UUA just remember that U*Us read it here first. :-)

Yet Another Unitarian Universalist Endorses Rev. Peter Morales For UUA President Even Though He Is Pretty Sure Rev. Morales Can't Win The UUA Election

Just saying. . .

It would appear from his 'Choose one for UUA president:
Hallman | Morales' blog post that Rev. Daniel Harper believes that in choosing to vote for Rev. Peter Morales he is choosing the proverbial "lesser of two evils" however. Here is a sampling of Rev. Dan Harper's "less than enthusiastic" endorsement of Rev. Peter Morales with (in)appropriate embedded hyperlinks -

"Honestly, I’m not terribly enthusiastic about either candidate. Both candidates are a little too committed to “The UUA Way” of doing religion."

"I was hoping that a younger candidate (”young” by the standards of The UUA Way means someone under 50) would step forward at the last minute to challenge The UUA Way."

"I’m going to vote for him even though the theological vision he states in his platform is not particularly compelling, nor particularly deep. . ."

"Most important to me, Morales seems to really understand that The UUA Way has to undergo rapid change to respond to the vast changes in surrounding society — I don’t think he would change The UUA Way as much as I’d hope to have it changed, but at least we’d see some change in the right direction."

"Not that it matters how I vote, or whom I support, because the rumor mill tells me that Morales doesn’t stand a ghost of a chance*. Hallman has the money and the influential people behind her, and even Gini Courter, the popular moderator of the UUA, has come out in support of Hallman. So maybe I should just forget the 2009 election."

Gotta love StevenR's comment on Rev. Dan Harper's YAU*U blog post. . . No U*Us?

"Sometimes it’s good that the UU elections aren’t democratic - at least we know that whoever wins the UUA Presidential race, that they don’t really represnt (sic) UUs."



* aka a snowball's hope in Hell. . .

Is A Long Term Successful Record In Fund Raising, People Management, Financial Planning And Organizational Performance Improvement. . .

a primary, or even secondary, qualification/consideration for being President of the UUA?

Just asking. . .

I can't help but recall that unsubstantiated rumor about former UUA Presidential candidate Rev. Diane Miller asserting that -

"THE UUA IS A BUSINESS AND NOT A RELIGION."

ALL CAPS internetese "shouting" courtesy of disillusioned YRUU guy Duncan Metcalfe

UUA Moderator Gini Courter Endorses Rev. Dr. Laurel Hallman For President Of The UUA

A blog post entitled 'Gini Courter Endorses Laurel Hallman' appeared on UUA Presidential candidate Rev. Dr. Laurel Hallman's 'Elect Laurel Hallman For President Of The UUA' website today. This is obviously a key endorsement that could potentially swing the election in Rev. Dr. Laurel Hallman's favor if it is not already heavily swung in her favor already. . . Here with my point-by-point commentary on UUA Moderator Gini Courter's endorsement of Rev. Laurel Hallman for UUA President -

:The Rev. Dr. Laurel Hallman is the leader Unitarian Universalism needs at this pivotal moment in the life of our Association.

Fair enough Gini but why is the Rev. Dr. Laurel Hallman *the* leader Unitarian Universalism needs at this pivotal moment in the life of your Association as opposed to Rev. Peter Morales?

:The last three UUA Presidents - Bill Schulz, John Buehrens, and Bill Sinkford - all addressed growth in their campaign platforms. As President, each spoke eloquently and frequently about growth, and each in turn increased our visibility and our public voice. The number of visitors to our congregations has increased dramatically, but our membership has not.

This is an interesting "confession", possibly an unintentional one, on the part of UUA Moderator Gini Courter. The subtext of the last sentence is that even though the number of visitors to U*U congregations has *increased dramatically* few if any people amongst this dramatically increased numbers of visitors to U*U "churches" have actually chosen the tiny, declining, fringe religion known as Unitarian*Universalism to be their chosen faith. . . Membership in "Less Than Welcoming" Unitarian*Universalist congregations has not only not increased dramatically but may not have increased at all. In fact it is entirely possible, even quite probable, that membership in UUA congregations has not only stagnated but has even decreased somewhat, if not decreased significantly, over the terms of these three UUA Presidents, all of whom addressed growth in their campaign platforms if not in their policies and actions as UUA President. What does this clear lack of interest in becoming a member of a U*U "church" say about Unitarian*Universalism as a "product" in the religious "marketplace". What does this say about the millions of dollars that the UUA has spent on marketing, advertising, and other forms of U*U propaganda, trying to gain market share? Was this U*U money flushed right down the proverbial toilet because people who tried the "product" as a result of UUA marketing efforts decided that U*Uism was a rather sour, if not somewhat mouldy and rotten, "lemon"?

:It is time to shift our focus to our congregations, and treat them not like customers who purchase programs and inspiration, but as Association members with common concerns and shared purpose.

This comes across as an almost meaningless platitude. It is a no-brainer that the 1000 or so U*U congregations that are members of the Unitarian*Universalist *Association* Of Congregations should be treated as Association members with common concerns and shared purpose. Isn't that what being a member of *any* association is all about? What exactly is UUA Moderator Gini Courter saying here? One obvious subtext of Gini Courter's big fat U*U platitude here is that the Unitarian*Universalist Association Of Congregations aka the UUA has failed to treat U*U congregations as Association members with common concerns and shared purpose during the terms of the last three UUA Presidents.

That being said, part of the job of any association is to provide its members with both "inspiration" and "programs" of various kinds. Why does Gini Courter apparently want to play down, or even decrease, the UUA's role in providing programs and inspiration to UUA congregations? What is so wrong with treating U*U congregations as "customers" anyway? Most people or groups join associations to receive certain benefits, aka goods and services, provided by that association and thus are in fact *customers* of the association as well as being members of it. . . Can UUA Moderator Gini Courter say "co-operative"? Maybe not. . .

:At this moment of possibility, Unitarian Universalism needs a leader grounded in our polity who knows that real growth will come not from having a thousand congregations listen to one leader, but from the work of a leader who listens to our thousand congregations.

Why is UUA Moderator Gini Courter so convinced that a thousand U*U congregations inspired by an inspirational UUA President, to say nothing of other inspirational U*U leaders associated with him and/or her, will not experience real growth? Why this apparent simplistic either/or thinking on Gini Courter's part? Can't Gini dream of a UUA President who will be both inspirational enough to have a thousand U*U congregations *really* listen to what he and/or she has to say, but who is ALSO wise enough to responsibly listen to what a thousand U*U congregations may have to say to him and/or her? What makes UUA Moderator Gini Courter so sure that Rev. Peter Morales is not listening to a thousand U*U congregations every bit as much as, if not more so, than Rev. Dr. Laurel Hallman is?

:In this time of promise, Unitarian Universalism needs a collaborative leader who will work with the UUA Board to focus the resources of the Association on supporting each congregation's ministry to its members and visitors, its local community, and the world.

In this time of promise?!! Who is UUA Moderator Gini Courter trying to fool? In this time of *crisis* would be a much more honest phrase to use. On what basis, if any, can UUA Moderator Gini Courter refer to this time in the UUA's history as a time of promise? The last time I checked the UUA's finances aka *resources* had decreased by over 25% as a result of the recession and the UUA was cutting it's already "less than adequate", to say nothing of "less than competent". . . human resources as a result of this significant loss of revenue. What makes UUA Moderator Gini Courter believe that Rev. Peter Morales would be any less of a collaborative leader who will work with the UUA Board to focus the resources of the Association on supporting congregations than Rev. Dr. Laurel Hallman?

:In this time of uncertainty, Unitarian Universalism needs a proven CEO and experienced fundraiser with the tenacity and courage and love that are needed to create lasting institutional change.

"In this time of uncertainty" is closer to the truth. . . It would obviously help if *any* and all UUA President's were proven CEO's, rather than proven failed executives or business men or something. . . but I see no reason why the President of the UUA needs to be an experienced fundraiser surely the UUA can hire appropriate people to undertake that task and free up the President for more important tasks. I don't see the President of the U.S.A. being described as "Fundraiser In Chief" why should the President of the UUA have to play that role? What makes UUA Moderator Gini Courter believe that Rev. Peter Morales has any less tenacity and courage and love than Rev. Dr. Laurel Hallman does? What makes Gini Courter believe that Rev. Peter Morales is any less ready, willing and able to create lasting institutional change in the UUA than Rev. Peter Morales is? Inquiring minds want to know as they say. . .

:Laurel Hallman is that grounded, collaborative, proven leader.

What makes Rev. Peter Morales a less grounded, collaborative, and proven leader than Rev. Laurel Hallman?

Well, come to think of it, Rev. Morales has said a thing or two which could indicate that he is not all *that* well grounded such as -

"We can be the religion of our time". . .

and decribing Christianity, Judaism and Islam as "obsolete religions" of course.

I am still waiting for him to answer my questions regarding those to questionable public statements of his.

:I encourage you to elect Laurel Hallman to serve as the next President of our Unitarian Universalist Association.

I would encourage Unitarian*Universalists to take a long hard look at both candidates for UUA President before casting their votes. This is an important UUA Presidential election that coulds determine whether or not Unitarian*Universalism will become an "obsolete religion" or at least an irrelevant religion that it is already well on its way to being. . . At present Unitarian*Universalism is a tiny, declining, fringe relgion as described by UUA Presidential candidate Rev. Peter Morales in his "stump speech" announcing his candidacy. If Unitarian*Universalists fail to play their cards right in the coming decades Unitarian*Universalism could very well go the way of Charles Darwin's dodo. . .

Elect The Emerson Avenger For UUA President Reject - The Official Campaign Portrait

A UUA Presidential Candidates Forum Transcript Typographical Error aka Typo Or Yet Another U*U Freudian Slip?

Just asking. . .

Straight from the horse's U*U - The process of running for UUA president is a grueling one. And I think we are better as an Association for this contested election. And, yet, we owe a great debt of gratitude for their *wiliness* to put themselves through all of this. So let's begin by giving thanks to both Laurel and to Peter.
[APPLAUSE]

What Is Rev. Peter Morales *For* As UUA President If He Is *Actually* S*Elected As President Of The UUA?

As a late coming Dark Horse candidate in the UUA Presidential campaign as part of the 2009 UUA elections *I* personally have not yet developed a Presidential platform. While I, in close consultation with *my* advisors, am busy figuring out exactly what *my* platform for President Reject of the UUA will be, in *order* that Unitarian*Universalists aka U*Us and *even* non-Unitarian*Universalist U*Us can very freely and irresponsibly excorcise their proverbial "right of conscience" if not *rite* of conscience. . . by actually voting for me, I feel that it can't hurt *too* much to yet again U*Unilaterally and U*Universally ask some questions that *I* put to UUA Presidential candidate Rev. Peter Morales quite some time ago, indeed the better part of 6 months ago, by posting them as comments on his moribU*Und aka langU*Uishing, to say nothing of "less than U*User friendly", Along the Campaign Trail blog.
To date, well more precisely. . . to *this* date, UUA Presidential candidate Rev. Peter Morales has not answered a single one of these questions to *my* 'Satisfaction' yet for the *simple* reason that he has not answered any of them at all. . .


I would like to ask you a few more questions about your campaign for President of the UUA, including a few questions about some rather problematic public statements that you made in your U*UTubed "stump speech" announcing your candidacy for UUA President. I will draw up a modest list of questions and send them to you, or post them publicly as an "open letter" blog post, in the coming days or weeks. I do however have a few important questions that just came to mind within the last few days that I will ask you now. I hope to receive adequate and detailed answers to these questions ASAP and I expect many U*Us would want to hear your response to these important questions. In your "stump speech" you quite justifiably describe Unitarian*Universalism as a "tiny, declining, fringe religion" but you then go on to say that you believe that U*Uism "can be the religion of our time." Indeed it would appear that your campaign slogan is,

"We can be the religion of our time."

Here are my questions that arise out of those public statements -

Do you genuinely believe that Unitarian*Universalism can actually become "the religion of our time" or is your campaign slogan just empty campaign rhetoric intended to help you to gain votes and win the UUA Presidential election?

What specific conditions do you believe would need to be attained and sustained for Unitarian*Universalism to credibly be able to claim the status of being "the religion of our time"?

How do you propose to transform Unitarian*Universalism from the "tiny,declining, fringe religion" that it currently is to "the religion of our time" within a reasonable time frame, let's say 25 years?

Please provide detailed and realistic answers to the latter two questions which are obviously posed on the assumption that you do genuinely believe that Unitarian*Universalism actually can become "the religion of our time."

Needless to say you need not answer the latter two questions if your campaign slogan is simply over-the-top campaign rhetoric that you don't genuinely believe in.* I look forward to seeing your detailed answers to these three important questions in the coming days. Let's say a week or two at most. I expect that a good number of Unitarian*Universalists would be very interested in seeing your answers to these important questions as well.

Sincerely,

Robin Edgar


* Brand spanking new candidate for UUA President Reject Robin Edgar aka The Emerson Avenger cannot *help* but take note of the fact that it is now the better part, if not the worse part. . . of six months since *We* quite reasonably and rationally, albeit just a tad "less than politely" aka *bluntly* asked UUA Presidential candidate Rev. Peter Morales that question. So. . . perhaps in his own special way Rev. Morales has answered *that* particular question.