We are working to ban Tom Clowes from this site. Most of you probably know why. We tried a temporary ban but that did not work. He has persistently perverted the content of this site in order to constantly accuse the Fifth Principle Project of racism and fraud. He’s had repeated warnings about this behavior, which not only violates our Code of Conduct but is immoral as well. If he attempts to come back and post we will remove his remarks and ban him again.
We deeply apologize to our supporters for having to do this. For the vast majority of members and supporters who know how to self-govern, this is an affront. The alternative, however, is to make all posts pend approval.
Jay. I guess my question is…. Did you or anyone submit your name to the nominating committee for its consideration before you sought signatures for self-nomination? Mimi
The answer to that question, Mimi is no. Jay’s name was not submitted by anyone but Jay himself.
Not a fan of banning — at the same time, anytime I bring up anything critical or even questioning of CRT some in my congregation tell me I’m a racist, or suffering from fragility – in effect “banning” me. To me, when you call me a racist you are shutting down the conversation. When you name call, you are shutting down the conversation, when you repeatedly make false claims, you are not interested in conversation – you want your time on the soap box and won’t get off of it. I hardly ever post anything on-line, I have never had… Read more »
Thomas, I sympathize, and also am not a Facebook, Twitter or Instagram user, tho it appears these can be good tactical weapons in the hands of technocognoscenti. On the other hand I find very useful as mechanisms of education 1) these moderated discussion threads, and 2) the comment sections of online articles. In general discussion of these controversial topics onlie is often not fruitful because discussants are pretty uninformed or they are misinformed (courtesy often of a biased legacy media and academia). Above is an example of the best way anyone can put his/her knowledge to use: compile and make… Read more »
The CRT proponents and SJWs within UUism are bullies and scolds. Many are clearly pining for the days of the Inquisition, where UU heretics could be burned at the stake.
How is saying that you are racist banning you, in effect or otherwise? I understand that it is painful, and I’m very sorry if you have tried to have a good-faith conversation and someone tried to shut it down. I don’t know, of course, if that really happened that way. No offense; I don’t know you and I’m not assuming anything one way or another. However, it needs saying, because I have witnessed conversations that end with someone saying “You called me a racist!,” implying that what was going on was name-calling, when in fact what I observed was that… Read more »
That is my point… we can’t talk about it, because just wanting that discussion is a sign of white fragility. To discuss issues one would need to employ some form of logic and reason – which I have learned that through the wise discernment of the UUA, have been determined to be tools of white supremacy. So, with logic and reason sidelined what remains except – you are male, you are white, sit down and shut up. This is not what Unitarian Universalism is — or was — then again, as they say in my neck of the woods- I… Read more »
You are being an ineffective teacher, because UUs DO find “racist” and “white supremacy” to be name-calling, and will simply quit listening to you. A psychology professor taught me that. The effective way to teach people is to teach them the way they want to be taught.
Besides, CRT, and the stereotyping and grouping people by the color of their skin, is itself racist and reinforces racial stereotyping and considerations. As John McWhorter says, it’s simply “being racist in a whole new way.”
I thought intention doesn’t matter, only impact?
The UUA is full of hypocrisy and irony: fighting racial stereotypes with stereotypes, “UU the Vote” for America campaign while squashing Democracy in UU, impact > intent except when it isn’t, “The inherent worth and dignity of everyone” while denigrating and name-calling congregants, calling itself a “liberal religion” while demeaning Liberals and liberalism.
No wonder they don’t want UUs to use logic to examine their theories.
Heh. That was always a canard.
A simple rule, and one common to many chat boards, is to not allow ad hominem arguments: personal insults, attacking the messenger instead of the message, guilt by association, etc.
We will be thinking about our Code of Conduct with an eye to improving it along those lines.
Sorry that you have to go to the process of banning Tom Clowes, but I see how he gums up the work & muddies the water. Personally, I thought his rantings were totally unfounded & foolish.
This below I put up on the anti-semitism thread (along with several other comments of mine), but it may be relevant here: On the website of Californians for Equal Rights there is a 300+ item bibliography of online resources on this issue that support the California Constitution and the 1964 Civil Rights Act and opposes “identity politics” and “cultural Marxism” in all their guises. Check out: The Deceptions of “Systemic Racism,” “Antiracism”, and “Critical Race Theory” https://cferfoundation.org/the-deceptions-of-systemic-racism-antiracism-and-critical-race-theory/ A compilation of online resources on the ongoing unpleasant dumbing down and racialization of society. Please help get this resource in the hands of… Read more »
Things are certainly getting heated up in the culture wars. The language of warfare is necessarily polemic and ad hominem; one’s opponents must be degraded and dehumanized so they can be killed without moral regret – ridding the world of “vermin.” Us against them to the point of homicidal madness. Taking this language of warfare down a notch, making the dehumanization the point rather than a means to justify murder, and putting it online makes for a sad kind of enraged “keyboard warrior” out to win “gotcha” points. Ideological true believers in the UU world now appear to be geared… Read more »
Outsiders often mock the circular firing squads and “eating their own” that go on in the Left these days. Self-proclaimed UU radicals with their purity tests going after Liberals UUs as “alt-right” and “racists” would be pretty comical if it weren’t so sad and self-destructive to UU. It’s almost as if UU has its own brand of UU McCarthyism: trying to find the imagined (in their own minds) “alt-righters” under the beds. UU at the national leadership level has moved so far to the fringes of the Left that Liberals are now considered reactionaries. Strange tactic for growing the denomination,… Read more »
Please give specific examples to substantiate your claims. I’m a highly involved person from local to national levels and not seeing what you say at all.
Greg provides a host of examples: “David wrote, “The association of them or their ideas with the Right, or alt-Right, is simply silly and an ignorant smear.” I don’t know Fifth Principle Project people or their political persuasions, all of the “anti-Critical-Race-Theory” talk is the same that is being used beyond UU. There’s no mistaking it.” “David, the candidate is obviously – whether intentionally or unintentionally – reiterating talking points of the right-wing campaign trying to banning discussions of systemic racism (past and present) in schools and other spaces.” “Mr. Kiskel & co, what is it you believe “Critical Race… Read more »
Greg who? I responded to HRC’s assertion of “purity tests,” and such. Still need specific examples.
You say you read our book. There are quite a few examples of purity tests in it. Consult it.
Why do people need to buy your book to understand Jay Kiskel’s platform?
They don’t. His platform is supplied in a link from the UUA page and in his material on our GA booth.
Again, I am seeking clarification from HRC’s post. I read your book, and found it not at all a reliable source of accurate, thoughtful information for consultation on these matters.
Greg is me. I hope I won’t be banned for raising questions and making comments.
It’s very sad. It’s the new “woke” ism.
What is the purpose of this website? Is it only for people who share your views? I was hoping it was a place where all viewpoints and free discussion are allowed. And where Jay Kiskel would engage with voters.
This Tom Clowes has been asking reasonable questions and asked you to back up what you’re publishing.
The purpose of our site is explicit. But what it’s not for is people who want to come out here a level accusations at us. That is all Tom is doing and he’s perverting the contents of this site in order to do it. We’re not obligated to tolerate it. Nobody is. If you don’t like the way we’re running our own site then let me remind you that no one is forcing you to be here.
I’m less interested in this person you want to ban, I’m more interested in how the average U.U. experiences your website.
What about questions for Jay Kiskel that people have posted? This is very reasonable. You send voters to this website and ask them to comment. Some comments are ignored and deleted tho.
No, we do not send voters to this website for this purpose. That is being done by those trying to bait the site. Jay has held many town halls answering all questions put to him, one held by the UUA where there were nearly 300 attendees and the questions were tough.
This website hosts your campaign. There has been outreach to UU congregations mentioning this website. The comment sections, I should say the comment sections on posts that still allow comments, say “Would love your thoughts, please comment.” But people might get banned, or their questions won’t be answered.
Any transcripts or recordings of these forums for folks to check out? I could not attend the UU Multi Racial Unity Action Council.
Ban an effective critic? Hmmm. That just makes it look like you can’t tolerate criticism from a good critical thinker.
A good critical thinker does not have to deliberately pervert the material being used.
Jay, please give us specifics of “deliberately perverting material”. I have taken a close look and don’t see it.
This has been done time and again. Clowes has simply moved on to another piece. This is not going to be repeated.
I saw comments from Tom asking for specifics about what was wrong with his behavior. No responses. I can help you find them.
Jay, please answer questions from people. Some are delegates and wound up here to learn about you as a candidate. Also please don’t silence any voices for dissent or criticism.
Thank you, but we don’t need your help. Plus, the invitation to come to this site did not come from us. Moreover, we don’t silence voices of dissent so long as they don’t misuse the privilege of being on this site. All you have to do is look at the posts from you and the many other opponents of 5PP posting here.
Huh? Invitation to visit your side didn’t come from you? This is your campaign website. You’ve linked it a bunch of places. Like the UUA’s announcement of the election.
As I said elsewhere, that is a link to a specific page. It’s informative to the voter or to anyone interested. It is not intended to be a dumping ground for question after question, many if not most of them loaded or based on deliberate perversions of the material on this site. That’s abusive, and we’re not having it.
I’m really confused about what “perversion” of site material is being referred to. “Perversion” and “abusive” is really strong language that doesn’t seem warranted at all in this situation.
If you follow the link to the “contested-election-2021” and click the candidate website for Jay it takes the user to a specific page on the website related to the campaign. This same linking to the campaign bio page appears in other GA references. The booth at General Assembly, per the suggestion by a UUA staff member is “Jay Kiskel Fifth Principle Candidate for the UUA Board.” Likewise if you follow the link for Sam’s campaign website, it takes the user to Sam’s home page on his website.
What exactly is the concern that you are raising?
“the invitation to come to this site did not come from us” I came to this site because I read the candidate information on Jay Kiskel and Sam Trumbore. I followed Jay’s link to this website, read what he’d posted, had questions, and came to the discussion boards to ask them. I really appreciate that Jay and Sam are promising to keep things civil, and I make the same commitment as a delegate. I thought Tom’s comments were civil and his questions were relevant to the issues facing the Board. May I suggest that instead of evading questions, you just… Read more »
Warning: Moral Comment
I thought that Tom asked some important questions, and I saw those questions received with defensiveness and hostility. I have also seen other questions go unanswered. I would love to see a deeper engagement, even with those who may have different opinions from you, and especially welcome to me would be responses that are more than just defensiveness.
What we have learned is that no answer given to any question is going to satisfy those asking them. The answers are ignored, or denied to be an answer. This is a form of abuse and neither the candidate nor anyone else should subject themselves to it.
(1) I’d love to hear about how Jay as a candidate interprets harm and abuse. How does he know it when he sees it? Seems like he does. I’d love to know his secret and how he plans to use this knowledge as a member of the UUA Board, if he is elected.
(2) As UUs, we ask so many questions! Not answering questions is maybe the most counter-cultural thing I could imagine in UUism. As a Board Member, how would Jay deal with questions – from his “colleagues” on the Board or in other venues?
He’s addressed with question in his town halls. But there is a final debate involving Jay the night before the delegates’ vote. I suggest you tune in and ask him directly.
Okay so you’re suggesting at the town hall, I ask “On the 5PP site where you posted campaign information, your webmaster said ‘no answer given to any question is going to satisfy those asking them’ and that it is a ‘form of abuse’ that you as a candidate should not be subjected to. Do I understand you correctly that we are abusing you right now?” Or, are those questions in the town hall NOT abuse? I’m really struggling to understand when/if we’re harming Jay through becoming informed constituents.
Actually no, I’m not suggesting that. First you wanted to ask Jay about his view of harm. Now you want to ask him about something I said. So you see, I don’t believe you’re really interested in the question or the answer. I don’t believe you’re here just struggling to understand anything. You just want to use this site to abuse the candidate and suggest the worst about him.
I have suggested nothing about Jay. I think I’m being pretty clear and direct. I am responding to what you just said to Cec:
“What we have learned is that no answer given to any question is going to satisfy those asking them. The answers are ignored, or denied to be an answer. This is a form of abuse and neither the candidate nor anyone else should subject themselves to it.”
No mutual dialogue = no leadership. Answer the questions the people care about. Not just YOUR people.
Ignoring answers to questions, or naming that a question has not been answered in a satisfactory way, is definitely not “abusive” in any recognized understanding of what constitutes “abuse.”
I just got on here today trying to understand the Fifth Principle Project. I was dismayed about the “ firing” of Todd Eklov and also disturbed about the accusations against the 5th Principle Project as being” racist” I thought there would be discussions about what the Project is now doing. Unfortunately, I don’t find anything here that answers my questions. A lot of people seem to be just arguing about things here. Maybe I’m on the wrong blog here? Nothing substantial that I can find, so where should I find out about the 5thPrinciple Project. My small congregation is pretty… Read more »
Banning … from the site of a candidate campaigning on free speech and democracy doesn’t represent said candidate well at all.
We recognize when someone is using the argument of free speech against free speech itself. It’s what you folks say the alt-right does, and that’s true. But it is also what you just did, and it’s no surprise.
Who is “you folks?” I speak for myself alone. And would expect for the candidate to speak for himself here. That’s the democratic way.
The WebMaster wrote: We are working to ban Tom Clowes from this site. I remember that a major criticism of those who condemned Todd Eklof’s book was that claims of harm were made without sufficient evidence being provided. Another major criticism was the lack of due process where Todd Eklof wasn’t able to respond and defend himself in a forum that where he would be treated fairly. So . . . are you going to provide any evidence of the alleged “harm” that you claim Tom Clowes caused? In the two paragraphs posted by the WebMaster, I don’t any quotes… Read more »
I was thinking the same thing Stephen.
Well, first off, we never used the word “harm” relative to Mr. Clowes. So, your attempt to compare him to Eklof is just a bit too transparent. He has persistently and deliberately perverted the contents of this site for his own purposes and we have showed how a number of times. We are not obligated to provide the same amount of detail for each violation.
This fits the comparison.
People concerned about the content and or actions of a writer, that he’s selectively crafting a narrative for his own purposes.
And people responsible for addressing the violations not being obligated to provide the details.
We have provided details, many times. But as with the answers to questions, they’re ignored.
Hmm. Saw some unanswered questions throughout your website. Here’s one from from a minister – “Could give a brief explanation of the conflict you perceive between critical race theory and our UU values, or just quote a relevant paragraph of the book?” Saw an ask to clarify comments like these which Jay gave at a recent event – “’Critical race theory’ is the most illiberal ideology that has come around in a long time.” “Trying to get ‘critical race theory’ and UU values to coexist is not possible. It is antithetical to our liberal values. I’m not making it up.… Read more »
Which minister asked that question?
Amy Zucker Morgenstern. Want the names of other folks who didn’t get responses?
Excuse me, Rev. Amy Zucker Morgenstern.
More unanswered questions for Jay Kiskel I see on your site:
“In a recent event, you said that “critical race theory” is incompatible with UU values – I believe your words were that “It is not possible for ‘critical race theory’ and UU values to coexist.” What do you mean when you say “critical race theory”? Are you referring to our anti-racism efforts?
You also stated that “critical race theory” has taken root at our UU seminaries. What do you mean by this? Do you believe our UU seminaries are odds with UU values?”
The WebMaster wrote:
” . . . persistently and deliberately perverted the contents of this site for his own purposes”
You have claimed this but have provided no evidence — no quotes, no screenshots, and no links.
Whether you accept my shorthand term (“harm”) for your allegations or your longer term, you haven’t delivered the evidence for your allegations.
You have responded with a huge measure of bluster and angry attitude to me and others.
Is your approach here representative of Jay’s campaign and his approach to UUA governance?
I’ve done this a number of times. And since you’re tone policing, no, I’ve not shown anything like “bluster and angry attitude.” Blunt and direct? Yes. Police that.
It is very concerning that this kind of response is what Jay allows, or worse, chooses, to represent him in this campaign. Is this how he would respond to people as a board member?
Right. We wouldn’t want our leadership to be direct and blunt with their critics.
Well, not to put too fine a point on it, but as you say, it says thoughts and comments, not questions. As I said before, while we have put campaign material on this site, it is not our campaign site. That material is on our GA booth. Additionally, we never invited a soul to this site to drown it in questions for which the answers are largely ignored.
Such an inhospitable response really doesn’t reflect well on your candidate.
It’s very difficult if not impossible to be hospitable to those who are only here to constantly suggest the worst. That’s just the way things work.
Please explain how this jibes with our first principle … or our second, third, fourth, fifth (for which this group is named, sixth, or seventh.
I have just spent about 15 minutes reading the various comments. Obviously Jay and the 5th Principle Project has got the attention of UUA trolls.(I am so old and out of touch that I have never done “social media.” and had to look up the term “troll”) They are obviously trying to destroy your site, and delegitimize it. It is a curious phenomena to watch Unitarians become this personally destructive and abusive to each other. Ironic is probably the correct term. Eklof has turned a light on the underbelly of UU’ism. Your detractors wouldn’t be spending this much energy on… Read more »
The irony is it is exactly these UUA social jealous zealots calling fellow UUs “racists,” “fragile,” name-calling, imagining only the worst in others, attacking Liberals, etc. that has turned off so many UUs and led many to leave UU. The so-called “allies” like Tom and Rev. Sarah epitomize exactly what has turned so much laity against the current UUA. They are simply mean-spirited, obnoxious people, who, as with religious zealots, are true believers to their cause, and see any and all who think differently as a-moral and the enemy. I thought the moderator should have just ignored folks like Tom… Read more »
Just wanted to express my appreciation for your post, Ron. It’s good to know that someone actually gets it.
Yes, and the COIC report is a rickety piece of theological propaganda used to try and make this “dead philosophy” seem “scholarly.” One only needs to take a brief look at sampling bias, particularly participation bias, to understand how vacant and shallow this all is.
Yes. Plus the “data” is hidden in those avatars and won’t be made available for scrutiny for 5 years. Despite its clear shortcomings, we have plenty of folks that are lusting after changes to UUA bylaws and to our Principles based on that report. This report should, as Jay advocates in his platform, be independently evaluated before any further decisions are made on its recommendations. It’s a more than reasonable and prudent thing to do. But that’s too much for some here it appears.
According to the UUA announcement of the election, this is the candidate’s website. If it’s not, why was it submitted as such?
Who is this website for, if not voters? Why no questions on the candidate’s website?
That announcement takes you to a specific page. It’s informative to the voter or to anyone interested. It is not intended to be a dumping ground for question after question, many if not most of them loaded or based on deliberate perversions of the material on this site. That’s abusive, and we’re not having it.
Abusive for voters to ask questions on the candidate’s website? Have you reviewed the General Assembly program book Jay?
The exhibitor website listed for your campaign is http://www.fifthprincipleproject.org. Makes sense for people to comment on what you’ve published on your site.
And Jay calls himself the “Fifth Principle Candidate,” too. Makes sense people come here expecting some kind of respectful engagement with the candidate.
Is this request for respectful engagement from the same person who when first visiting this sight accused us of trying to shut down free speech because she was having trouble posting? Is this from the same person who has assumed the worst about 5PP in just about every post she makes? And now she claims she wants “respectful engagement”? Please pardon me while I regard that request as at best dubious and at worst duplicitous.
Interesting that asking legitimate clarifying questions from one attempting to engage in the democratic process this site and its candidate purport to uphold is engaged as “accusation.” I just see so many contradictions between what you say and what you do. Actions speak louder.
I would not like to see a forum devoted to democratic governance banning a person outright, except in the most extreme circumstances. I think there are good clear answers to Mr Clowe’s objections. It would be tedious to answer them, but well worth some effort to articulate short clear answers to those cavils, because those are objections we hear from many fellow congregants.
We have tried a number of times. We have told him that his persistent question directed at Jay are based on a perversion of the material he’s exploiting for it. He is only interested in impugning our values and our character. We’ve been clear and firm about this. He just denies it. Now he’s moved on to other material. I’m sorry. I share your loathing of banning anyone, but he has persisted in this and we have no reason to believe anything will be different regardless of the effort we put into it.
Sometimes it is best to remain silent when our responses might be hurtful. I have found Jay to be willing and able to thoughtfully and lovingly answer any questions about how he sees his role if elected to the UUA Board.
He is taking a brave stand.
Rev. Beverly H. Seese, UU Fellowship of Kokomo, Indiana
Can’t you point us to where that has happened? All we’ve gotten here is his webmaster’s refusal to respond to any critical query at all?
Have you emailed him? This is the comments section on a website– not the normal place for “official people” to engage. It’s possible he hasn’t even read these comments. The idea that he will respond to each and every comment in a website’s comment section seems farfetched to me.
He’s not responding to any, nevermind every. Unless he’s “webmaster,” which is even more worrisome given the nature of that person’s responses.
Did you ever notice that it’s called a “comment section” not a “Q and A” section?
Do I hear you correctly — suggesting we should not ask questions of a board candidate? I’ve both “asked” why the candidate won’t respond, and “commented” that the candidate’s failing to respond is worrisome and in both cases been accused of atrocities and roundly condemned by the webmaster. How would you suggest we get information? Only by buying a book, which I’ve already read BTW, or going to a candidate forum, which I also did — and am still left with unanswered questions. What about people coming to this site (which is what is given in both the GA Program… Read more »
You were accused of atrocities were you? What hyperbolic nonsense. You weren’t accused of anything other than constantly assuming or suggesting the worst of 5PP and Jay. Then you turn around and claim you’re just asking clarifying questions and for that you are being victimized by us. I don’t blame Jay at all for not engaging in your effort, an effort you share with others, to trash us then claim it’s all in the name of democracy and our principles. You’ve given Jay every reason to ignore you then you blame it on him. Sorry. It ain’t working.
Kiskel/Casper, Where does this anger at Amy Carol Webb come from? Noting your strong response above.
There is no anger at Amy Carol Webb or anyone else.
So Jay intends to ignore people who disagree with him. Not a good nor ethical practice for any board member, much less one campaigning on free speech and democracy. Thank you for making that abundantly clear.
Have you read his resume? If he had ignored people that disagreed with him he never would have gotten as far as he did, in the military, in his professional life, and in his leadership positions within our denomination. Additionally, he never would have gotten that far if he did not recognize those who give good reason to ignore them. You’re just here to tear him down. That’s a waste of time.
All the more confusing why he refuses to engage here and now. Also, you presume to know a lot about my intent. You don’t.
All I have to do is read your posts to discern your intent. Your confused because you believe the candidate should waste his time on your intent.
“He refuses to engage (with me) here and now.” You sound like a child who thinks everyone should revolve around your needs.
You sort of come across as someone to troll this site, like Tom.
This “Karen” is very insistent, off-track. I wonder if it is an alter ego for Clowes.
You have been engaging her in other forums for two years, Jack. It is disengenuous to suggest she is an alter ego.
I would like to see you implement a policy: “Endless second-guessing, arguing, or flaming the moderator(s) will not be tolerated. Keep it up and you will find yourself banned. This is a place for polite and respectful conversation – period. Got it?”
It would reflect better on the candidate for this “polite and respectful” to begin with whomever “webmaster” is.
My responses have been direct and blunt. That is the kind of response merited by those who come here to persistently suggest the worst merit.
I and others came to ask clarifying questions that have yet to be answered. Given this site represents Jay we can only surmise this is how he would approach his work as a board member, refusing to respond anything/anyone he decides has no merit. How does that square with our principles?
This site is for our contributors to express their points of view. We open their essays for comments. The effort here pressed by some to make Jay out as responsible for everything said here, and much of it deliberately misleading, is inappropriate.
Jay’s page, the one you are linked to from the UUA, represents Jay and his candidacy.
As all can see, this site is listed for Jay in the app, with his moniker “Fifth Principal Candidate.” But no one’s supposed to seek answers here? How does that work?
I would support the banning of Tom Clowes. Not because he is white, or in favor of CRT, or anything else. Simply because he is not a reasonable person, and is not acting positively.
On the other hand, if persons simply ignore him, he may go away.
I thought his hectoring posts spoke for themselves. The webmasters should just as well not responded, as, Tom himself said, Tom was being a Gadfly
Sounds like some “Gadflies” are welcome in this organization, others not.
You talking about here or UUA? 🙂
I don’t think any organization or institution likes a Gadfly. They are by definition a pest, inconvenient, and usually a contrarian.
Yes. The quotation marks are most appropriate in this context.
I must have missed something. Who is Tom Clowes and what did he do to deserve banning?
I haven’t read all of Tom Clowes’s comments, of course, but I’ve read a lot of them and they all seem polite and well-reasoned. I do not understand what is immoral about what he has posted. If we can’t have honest, civil conversation about what constitutes racism, we’re not going to get very far in ending it. I know some people think my opinions are racist; I am fine with their saying so. If by doing so, they are considered automatically out of bounds, the conversation ends all too fast. Surely we can engage with difficult subjects without sneering, SHOUTING,… Read more »
Are Jay/5PP hosting any live Q&A sessions for delegates?
Jay had one today. I believe it was on the event schedule published by the UUA. Did you attend? Did any of you whining that you can’t get your questions answered here attend?
Can you point to where it was announced? I look the logical place — here. I asked the question because I did want to attend something rather than keep up the fruitless process here. While appreciate your responding, that it is past-tense, and taking pot-shots at me for asking — is neither useful for delegates nor good for your candidate’s image.
Lest you miss my note above, Amy Carol, the link to the Q&A was on a page in this very website if one drilled down enough. Or if the candidates’ webmaster chose to share the link with you.
Thank you, CB. I just didn’t know the right place to look, so asked the folks who would know. Sorry to have missed it.
What live Q&A are you talking about? The only one I find in the UUA agenda is tonight, sponsored by the UUA Nominating Committee at which both candidates will appear. That will be at 5 pm eastern. It is now one pm eastern, and you, webmaster, seem to have suggested that Jay already had one. You scolded her for not attending. *** After spending 20 minutes searching the Whova site, I found a single mention of a Q&A, in the Fifth Principle Project *Booth,* no where else, and the inclusion there of a link to a hidden page of this… Read more »
Pardon me. The announcement for the two events Jay held was on his candidate website (https://fifthprincipleproject.org/jaykiskel/), which is linked to from here (https://www.uua.org/uuagovernance/elections/contested-election-2021) This does not include the one sponsored by the UUA at which there were nearly 300 attendees. Amy Carol Webb is on our page most every day saying that she’s just trying to be a more informed voter and asking clarifying questions, but apparently she never consulted the candidate’s web page for information as to how to engage him directly, even after claiming just now in a post that she “look (sic) the logical place — here.”… Read more »
“one member of the crew that is here only to denigrate Jay and 5PP…” This is really hurtful, Frank. Your language belies your perspective…you accuse Amy Carol of denigration, being hollow, transparent, fraudulent, whining….these are the words you choose to use for a religious professional who asks questions here that *don’t get answered.* You say that she is part of a “crew.” Out to get you, it seems. And now proof that she embodies all of these negative things is that *someone else* managed to find the Q&A? (Who is in this crew? Am I in it? Probably not, two… Read more »
What I said about Amy Carol Webb’s posts may be hurtful, but it also is factual. It can be documented by just reading them over time. If she or you or anyone else is so concerned about hurt and harm, then why don’t you have anything to say about the constant comments by her and many others here insinuating the worst about Jay and 5PP? That’s hurtful too, but that’s apparently ok with you, particularly when you consider what you just said about our book, which did nothing to denigrate or hurt our faith. Rather, we defended our faith, and… Read more »
Obviously, the purpose of someone like Amy is to badger and hector and set rhetorical “gotcha” traps for public spectacle. Her demands that her questions be answered “here and now” takes the cake. Especially considered nowhere was or is this “Comments” section advertised as a Q & A session with the candidate. Hard to believe she’s a UU minister. She certainly assumes and implies the worst in others. However, this type of attitude and seeing fellow UUs as assumed enemies to battle is exactly what is splitting apart UU nationally. UU isn’t supposed to be a political cage match of… Read more »
Thank you, hrc.
Please explain how asking for a simple link for a forum the information for which I could not find so that I could learn more about your candidate is “hectoring.” Or any evidence of any other accusation you levy. One thing sure, my investment in democratic process — and basic hospitality — is really different from yours.
It’s not hectoring. The hectoring is in your persistent pejorative insinuations in just every post you make. My point is that if you were as concerned about being an informed voter as you constantly claim, you would have found those links as others have. It was right there on the campaign web page. You just didn’t bother actually reading it. You preferred instead to harangue 5PP and diss Jay. That is what is so clear now.
So … it’s out of line to expect a candidate to respond to interested delegates on the sponsoring website listed in all of his materials? The problem is not with Jay, it’s with how poorly this space is representing him to the people whose votes he’s asking for. Does he know?
No. It’s out of line to come here pretending to be an interested delegate but all the while trashing the candidate, his character and values. Let me show you what an interested delegate looks like. Published with permission of the writer. I just watched the candidates forum and want to pass on my profound appreciation to Jay Kiskel for running for a board position in an effort to try to make the UUA more democratic. I’m a bit torn because I was also impressed with Sam Trumbore’s answers, which resonated with my own experience. For example: 1. I have been… Read more »
Pardon me, but it’s really not yours to judge how interested I am. One of my personal practices follows my distant cousin Will Rogers’ wisdom — that if I don’t like a person I’d do well to understand them better, which is what I’ve been trying to do with Jay. At least to get closer to something like, “not likely we’ll ever agree, but I understand better where he’s coming from.” That’s the place I’ve been trying to get to, because I see Jay making ample statements, but not seeming to really hear what some folks are asking to go… Read more »
Yes, I’m afraid it is mine to judge. Not exclusively, of course, and not for everyone. It’s just my judgement, and it’s based on your record here, which shows anything but a reasonable person with honest questions. In this connection let me reiterate that your stated motive here is belied by your failure to do what many other delegates have done, and attend the forums, which are the places provided by the UUA and the candidates for asking questions. And my gatekeeping would not have taken on the character it has if it were not for the fact that you… Read more »
Let me be clear: as you insist any interested delegate should do, I have indeed attended every forum I could find and read your book and followed the campaign on-line since its inception. And still have questions. What else would you have a dedicated delegate do when neither the candidate nor his representatives will respond in the space designated for his campaign?
Apparently, my last few replies have not sunk in. You’re free to your opinion of yourself. But your record here does not at all reflect “a dedicated delegate.” You have made it clear on this page that you are a dedicated opponent whose only purpose is, as hrc said, to “badger and hector and set rhetorical “gotcha” traps for public spectacle.” As far as your repeated claim that you’ve read our book, your review on Amazon, that it contains a “preponderance of easily proven mis- and dis-information”, strongly suggests otherwise. You provided not one line of specifics and failed utterly… Read more »
“Hurtful?” Not in the least. Just disappointed to have missed it.
Your characterization of their book – “denigrating our faith and those who serve it” – is miles away from my characterization. I see them as being deeply committed to the faith. I see their book as part of a committed effort to try and restore faith in liberal values that are being undermined by those who have lost faith in UUism and are, themselves, denigrating it as a “white supremacy culture.” So, I see Frank and Jay as defending the faith from those who are denigrating it and you see them as just the opposite – as denigrating the faith… Read more »
The book is a liberal religion argument against the UUA trends towards illiberalism, dogmatism, fundamentalism topdown rule (which is antithetical to UU), dismantling of democracy and due process, and suppression of honest dissent. All UUs should read the book.
The best thing about Jay’s candidacy is it will get UUs to read the book. Most UU laity will be aghast to learn what is happening in their religion.
I hope there are more write-in candidates to give light to the authoritarian, illiberal, intolerant, Catholic-style turn of the UUA, UUMA and the UU seminaries.
I watched the debate between the two candidates and I recommend others watch it as well: debate link Though differing in views, I thought both candidates presented themselves admirably. Polite, reasoned, respectful, the honest exchanging of views. Both came across as good, earnest people. The whole debate with the questioners was also done very well. Kudos to all. That folks such as Tom and Greg and other UUs would act so obnoxious and trollingly to either candidate is an abomination and breaking of the 7 Principles. How such a mean-spirited, unloving and “imagine the worst in others” personality such as… Read more »
Well said, Hrc. It’s Sochko that Tom Clowes is a fan of.
Just heard a person at the last General Session at GA call out Jay publicly regarding his campaign contribution report. I know there is another side to this. Also wondering if there will be a Zoom gathering to debrief GA? Thanks everyone here.
What about the campaign contribution report?
They said he didn’t turn in his report on time which was Wed and sent it in on Thursday and that it was “incorrect” and “incomplete” and he would be given until (don’t remember the date) to get it into the board. It seemed wrong to have this be part of the General Session V opening remarks and wondered about any details about this.
My understanding is that they rejected it the first time he submitted it. So, what they’re saying is not quite true. But that doesn’t surprise me.
Alana Graham wrote: -snip- Just heard a person at the last General Session at GA call out Jay publicly regarding his campaign contribution report. I would suggest that the UUA Election Campaign Practices Committee (ECPC) was very fair to Jay in this matter. The ECPC could have made an announcement on the campaign finance disclosure reporting before voting had concluded on Friday. They did not do this. Maybe they were understanding because this was the first time Jay had run for an elected position within the UUA? If they had announced this before voting was concluded on Friday, it might… Read more »
I appreciated their restraint, and that it was brought forward in such a compassionate way, not a “call out” at all.
It was anything but an example of “restraint.” It was a public callout. Even Stephen said so. It was a deliberate and uncalled-for attempt to embarrass Jay.
I never said it was a “public call-out” (whatever that might be). Please don’t put words in my mouth that I didn’t say. I was attending GA but I heard the Sunday afternoon plenary moderator report on the campaign finance reporting issue. They reported this to the GA delegates because it’s a transparency matter. They were generous in their timing because they could have pulled a “Comey” by announcing the campaign finance reporting issue while people were still voting where it would have potentially affected the voting. Keep in mind that making this information public isn’t a “call-out.” After all,… Read more »
I beg your pardon. You were quoting Alana Graham who said it was a public callout. And it was. Jay submitted the report three times, answering the same question each time with the same fundamental answer. Jay did not solicit campaign contributions so there were no contributions to report. Making this information public is not itself a call-out. And certainly making it available is good openness and transparency and the suggestion we would have reason not to support it is false and just another underhanded innuendo. However, the manner and the timing of making this information available was perceived by… Read more »
WebMaster wrote: I beg your pardon. You were quoting Alana Graham who said it was a public callout. No problem . . . the blockquote HTML formatting to distinguish quoted text in a reply does not show unless one expands the reply by clicking on the “Read more” text. Then WebMaster wrote: Jay submitted the report three times, answering the same question each time with the same fundamental answer. Jay did not solicit campaign contributions so there were no contributions to report. It’s worth looking at this portion of the UUA Bylaws and Rules: “Rule G-9.13.8 Campaign Finances Disclosures and… Read more »
In view of the fact that we’ve not had an election in a decade, it is more likely that what you’re calling their fairness might be their ignorance. When Jay first went to the UUA to ask about and clarify the rules for his candidacy, nobody knew anything about it. They had to do some research into their own bylaws and it took some days to get it straight. What is more concerning to us is the fact that this person called Jay out at all in such a public way. He had no business to say such a thing… Read more »
WebMaster — On a related note, does it take 3 days to approve a comment that awaiting approval?
Here is the link for this comment awaiting approval:
There shouldn’t be any comments pending approval. It’s taken three days because I didn’t know it was there. I will approve this, but before I do, I want to see why it even has that status.
Jay, I hope you’re holding your head high and are proud of the extraordinary effort you have put forth in defense of Unitarian Universalism. I am somewhat of an outsider here, because I am not a member of a UU church nor have I been. But as a kid, a UU church and its people made a positive difference in my life, and I always thought of UUs as some of the best people. I’ve only made it to a UU church on the rarest of occasions with my odd work schedule, but I imagined that those churches were still there, still… Read more »
Thank you so very much for that post. “It put a smile on my face.” What a morale boost! We are exceedingly grateful for you well articulated support. BTW. It’s not over….
Let me add my appreciation for your consistent refusal to dignify the subtle and not-so-subtle attacks upon your and Jay’s integrity.
“It’s not over…?”
After GA I kind of feel like the Polish Calvary in November 1939.
Thanks Jim. And yes, I get what you mean. And though the percentage was decisive, it was a long way from unanimous. We see it as a proverbial shot across the bow.
“It’s not over….”
That’s good to hear indeed!
I have come here with curiosity about a conversation concerning the Unitarian Universalist Fifth Principle. But I find instead a number of things that appear strange: Who is “Webmaster”? This person is posting here in the first person without identifying themself. Webmaster: create a named account under your own name, so we know you as a real person. This forum shows up in the navigation bar under “Code of Conduct”. Why is there no statement of that code? I suggest a pinned post stating it. This website appears to be solely to advocate the candidacy of Jay Kiskel to the… Read more »
Maybe his name is William E. Bmaster? 🙂 The site is run by Frank and Jay. I believe most of the first-person reply posts are Frank. This site and group existed before Jay decided to run and the book was published.
CRT = critical race theory. SJW = social justice warrior. WSC = white supremacy culture.
I’m also a bit lost. I guess it’s an insider discussion?
I’m so sad about the division in the UU church . I guess it can happen anywhere, but it’s not very encouraging. Maybe it’s a sign of the times?