Robin Edgar Resorts to Slander and Racism Against Rev. Peter Morales

Once again, Robin Edgar has stooped to new lows in his unending lashing out against Unitarian Universalists.  This time, the current target of his obsessive rage is UUA President Reverend Peter Morales, first with a post insinuating (in his lame yet outrageous style of ‘parody and satire’) that Morales has ‘demonized and marginalized’ a whole host of groups to which Mister Edgar claims the right to speak on behalf of.  He gives no evidence that Morales has indeed done anything to deserve such a comment, but this is par for the course with his previous behaviour, seeking any and every excuse to bash and belittle UUs in a desperate attempt to inflate himself.

But it is the post following this which is even more offensive.  In response to Morales’ observations regarding the Maricopa County sheriff’s office under Joe Arpaio, Robin Edgar labels Morales the ‘token Latino Hispanic President of the UUA’, further accusing Morales of hypocrisy because, as far as Robin Edgar is concerned, the UUA does not have enough Hispanics in its ranks to speak the truth in love regarding racism.

There is an enormous difference between the UUA, which has been making efforts to deal with issues of race and ethnicity, and a sheriff’s department with appallingly disproportionate statistics for its community (both in the lack of Hispanic officers and the high number of Hispanics arrested by the department).  But to lower himself to such an offensive personal attack against Morales only shows just how far this man is willing to go to draw attention to himself, and to artificially prop himself by tearing others down.

Mister Edgar, if the only way you can make yourself feel worth and dignity is to lash out at others, call them names, and resort to racism and slander, then you have no claim to feel outraged or indignant when the target of your endless ire either refuse to respond, or express how you have hurt and demeaned them.  How dare you attempt to make yourself the judge of who lives up to UU ideals, when you yourself go out of your way to do the opposite.

Shame on you!

A Question for Robin Edgar

Dear Robin Edgar:

We would post this as a comment on your “Emerson Avenger” blog, but you have a nasty habit of tracking down the people who dare to question you, and harassing them all across Cyberspace.  So, we will post it here, and hope it gets your attention.

You say that the purpose of your blog is to speak out about “injustices and abuses that corrupt Unitarian Universalism.”  But lately, a lot of your posts seem to have nothing to do with that, only serving to ridicule UUs simply because you don’t agree with them.

Your most recent post is the worst example we have yet seen of this.  How is a spammer managing to post about Nike shoes on the FUUSE blog fit the criteria of “injustices and abuses that corrupt Unitarian Universalism”?

Perhaps your definition of “injustices and abuses” is anything that falls short of your standards for perfection.  If so, may we ask that you take a good, hard look at your own conduct?  When a UU minister is found to be guilty of false imprisonment and rape — exposed, in fact, by members of his own congregation, then removed from ministerial fellowship, and notice of same acknowledged in a press release by the UUA — you then accuse the UUA and UUs of a non-existent “cover-up”.  Now that would fall short of perfection by anybody’s standards, and could in fact be seen as outright abusive, not to mention as unjust as any false accusation could be.

What about your obsessive fixation over the willingness of UU leaders to put their bodies and freedom on the line to speak out for the rights of immigrants in Arizona?  Not enough to label it all as “ersatz” civil disobedience, you lower yourself to tasteless sexual innuendo.

You claim to speak out against injustices, yet we see a number of examples of unjust accusations by you, Robin Edgar.  You claim to expose abuses, and to be a victim of abuse, but we see even more disturbing cases of abuse perpetrated by you.

You say that you do not hate UUs, only “*some*” of them, yet you seem to go out on a limb to find new targets for your seemingly limitless supply of vitriol. 

We would think that anybody who is serious about exposing injustices and abuses would be more diligent and more serious.  We would think anybody who does so would take the time to check their facts, to keep to relevant matters, and to refrain from personal insults.

So, why haven’t you?  Why do you fall so short of your own mission?  Why is your own behaviour riddled with even more egregious examples of injustice and abuse?

That is our question for you, Robin Edgar.

Robin Edgar’s “Pointed” Rebuttal

Robin Edgar had promised to deliver a “point-for-point rebuttal” of our recent post, “What Really Happened at the Montreal Church?”  Among the slew of recent posts on “The Emerson Avenger” (which we will address further down) we find yet another rage-filled rant in response to the allegations posted here.

So how many “points” did he “rebut”?  One.  That’s all.  Nothing else.

Consider that the main issue being addressed is whether Robin Edgar’s outlandish behaviour was “provoked” by what he claims Reverend Ray Drennan told him in a private meeting, or whether this pattern of behaviour was the very reason Drennan met with him.  Consider further how we treated the allegation which was brought to our attention — not as solid fact which completely refuted Robin Edgar’s assertions, but as an allegation which at best gives reason to consider his version of events with a grain of salt.

Does Robin Edgar address this main issue?  No, he does not.  Instead, he goes on a lengthy, histrionic rant about the minor allegation that he threw a chair.  He goes on and on and on, denying over and over again that there was ever a “chair-throwing incident,” even putting forward the fallacious argument that, since you can’t find it in any Google search, then it could never have happened.

As for the main point, or any other point in our reader’s account?  He does not address this at all.

Not that this is surprising, as Robin Edgar has been known for avoiding questions asked of him, especially when it demands that he be held as accountable for his language and behaviour as anybody else.  No, he would rather nit-pick and fixate on minor issues rather than address the all-important issue of why he must lash out, insult, berate and belittle UUs, while he himself accomplishes nothing except the making of himself into a clownish caricature.

Take how he has responded to the participation of UUs in the recent “Day of Non-Compliance” in Phoenix, Arizona.  Amongst UU bloggers there has been healthy and thoughtful debate on the impact of these protests, both for the immigration issue and for the public perception of Unitarian Universalism.  Contrast this against Robin Edgar’s juvenile and tasteless posts on “The Emerson Avenger”.  He calls any given online disagreement, even when done in a civil tone, as a “kick in the balls”.  He tries to ridicule UUs in handcuffs with snide remarks about “bondage and domination”.  Yet in none of his feeble attempts at humour is there anything constructive or even entertaining.  It is nothing more than yet another pathetic display of Robin Edgar’s tendency to fixate on things which are relevant only to Robin Edgar.

Perhaps why he has wasted so much type on the minor question of whether or not he threw a chair.  To him, it is more important that he win that argument, even if only in his own mind, than ever dare to consider how his own nearly monomaniacal and rage-filled behaviour and language has not only cost him support, but annoyed and even frightened so many around him.

Robin Edgar Doth Protest Too Much

Well, after about two weeks of silence, Robin Edgar has struck again.

July 30, with apparently nothing better to do, he lashes out at this blog, now making the baseless claim that it is being written by a minister he does not like, whom he now asserts has Multiple Personality Disorder.  Woe unto anybody who dares to guess what is wrong with him, yet he proclaims the right to do so unto others (and not to help them, but to attack and belittle them).

In addition, Robin Edgar insists that the allegations presented to us (and recounted in our post “What Really Happened at the Montreal Church?”) are nothing more than “libelous” examples of “Big Fat U*U B S”, and insists that he will “rebut” them point for point.  We have heard this before, and again Robin Edgar is engaging in yet more black-and-white thinking.  As we said earlier, these allegations have not been proven; they merely open the question of what indeed happened which has set off so many years of obsessive and rage-filled attacks by this man.  If he has demonstrable evidence of what happened, let him present it.  If the other side can do so, we welcome that, too.  But if his “point-for-point rebuttal” is to be nothing more than more hysterically angry name-calling, then we are inclined to ignore it, because that is simply not evidence.

August 1, after posting comments on other UU blogs, he lashes out at the hundreds of UUs who have chosen to go to Arizona to protest that state’s recently passed immigration law.  No constructive criticism, either, which is par for the course for him.  Just more insults, calling UU protesters “stupid”, and another tasteless attempt at humour declaring that UUs who wind up handcuffed must be “into bondage.”

At least when other UUs question whether such protests are morally appropriate, or whether they will have any effect, they do not stoop to personal insults against those involved in the protests.  We have noticed a healthy debate among UU bloggers and their readers on the issue, with the sole exception of Robin Edgar.  Then again, he does not want to debate.  He wants to attack, to waste so much of his life and energy making Unitarian Universalism look bad, and to make himself the centre of attention.

If that is not bad enough, he has to whine yet again whenever even one of his numerous comments on other bloggers’ pages does not get approved.  When will other UUs learn that trying to deal with him is a no-win situation?  Since Robin Edgar thinks every word he types is important, how dare anybody decide that any of his comments is over the top?  Not to mention the software for some blogs, which screen comment submissions with more than one or two links for administrator approval, as a way of controlling spammers, as this is a signature they have in common with him.

We do not expect Robin Edgar to grow up and finally realize that the UU blogosphere is not his personal sandbox, where he can bully everybody else into doing whatever he demands.  We would hope, however, that more UU bloggers will recognize that there is nothing to be gained by allowing him to hijack their sites for spreading even more of his venom.  Screening him (and others) is not a form of censorship, because it does not prevent him from posting whatever he wants on his own blog.  It does, however, keep conversations on track, and will make a clear statement to him that, based on his prior behaviour, he cannot be trusted to engage in civil and meaningful discussion, and that he has nobody else to blame for this but himself.