Actually I see lots of things that don`t relate to my campaign against U*U injustices, abuses and hypocrisy not U*Uism itself as you and others like to pretend. But. . . when I do see something that does have close prarllels to U*U injustices, abuses and hypocrisy posted on a blog that is listed as a U*U blog I do chime in to make a valid point.

:just makes others grow somewhat weary of the particular idea fixee’ that one is obsessed with.

I can think of a lot worst idées to be fixed upon. . . In case youi hadn`t noticed U*Us are most responsible for dragging this war of words on and on and on by not only obstinately refusing to deal responsibly with the injustices, abuses and hypocrisy that I bring to their attention but by compounding those injustices and abuses by going to extreme and highly questionable lengths to silence me. If U*Us actually practiced what they preach about justice, equity and compassion in human relations this war of words would have ended years ago but U*Us much prefer to engage in victim blaming which, come to think of it. . . is very much on topic to the theme of this blog post. I dare say that the U*Us who are most directly involved in this conflict can be quite justifiably described as scoundrels. . .

it will start with the disappearance of a lawyer for a guantanamo detainee or someone otherwise associated with scoundrels.

It will?

You seem sure that something that hasn’t happened & no one has come close to seeing, will come to fruition. Much like Boortz calling for Obama’s future ventures into communism.

How are you so sure?

The person who looked at the issue in black and white is the person who owns this blog.

Man…all I can say is you done and gone messed with the wrong white boy.

Next time pick a fight with someone that ISNT on your side!

It’s the future here - it’s beoming the reality for those not fortunate enough to have U.S. citizenship. I don’t know if the story about an Australian Justice being “rendered” is true… but I know that after years of detention, innocent people from Afghanistan have had to be released from Guantanamo… or that they have to be kept there because it’s no longer safe to return them to their home country, now that they have been labeled “terrorist”. I know that many people were released, innocent… finally, from Abu Graib. I know the story of Canadian citizen Maher Arar.

The question isn’t whether it’s realistic to fear politically motivated denial of civil rights for ordinary, apolitical citizens, at this particular moment. The question is whether this or any country can afford to surrender basic protections against such action by the government. The fact is that - even if the current administration isn’t taking advantage of the fact widely - we have willingly surrendered the right to habeus corpus. We have willingly surrendered the right to security in our persons and property without due cause. And there’s likely no way to get those rights back now… if there is a way, his name is Barack Obama (Hillary isn’t going to give up that kind of power either)… and there’s no guarantee that he would even restore those protections. McCain? Forget it. His voting record clearly says that he likes concentrated power in the executive branch without protections for individuals.

The question is less whether the rights we had 8 years ago will be restored, than whether and at what rate they will continue to be eroded.

Making specific criticisms too black & white - something else my minister is rarely guilty of (if anything, he is too cautious most of the time) doesn’t make one a scoundrel by itself. It’s just the mark of an underdeveloped set of critical thinking skills. In fact, even having tunnel vision and being unable to see *anything* that doesn’t relate to one’s personal anti-UU campaign doesn’t make one a scoundrel… just makes others grow somewhat weary of the particular idea fixee’ that one is obsessed with.

A certain number of Unitarian*Universalist ministers preached post-9/11 sermons, or otherwise made public statements, that effectively suggested that 9/11 represented the U.S. “chickens coming home to roost”. Does that make them scoundrels too?

:Several of his specific criticisms of U.S. policy are presented in black-and-white terms that do not do the issues justice.

The same might be said about some specific criticisms of U.S. policy presented by U*Us, including U*U clergy and UUA administrators. Scoundrels?

Feel free to say yes.