More Dorhauer Conspiracies
Tuesday, March 13, 2007
John Dorhauer, an Associate Conference Minister of the Missouri-Mid South Conference, is taking UCCtruths to task over my negative portrayal of him last week. Specifically, he didn't care for this:
The bottom line: Dorhauer doesn't want his conspiracy questioned or challenged.
On criticism of his web site policies, he explains:
He claims "Even James Hutchins, who authors ucctruths.com is welcome and can ask questions and challenge statements made - as long as he abides by the rules."
I'd love to go on his web site and raise the same questions there that I have here. The problem is that to join his web site, you have to check off a box that acknowledges that you "share our general concern about the religous right". If that means sharing Dorhauer's concern that there is a conspiracy to steal UCC churches, I'm not signing on because he hasn't proven it. For what it's worth, UCCtruths.com doesn't hold a litmus test like this on our message board. (ed. note: Will someone please tell Dorhauer and Clarkson how to spell RELIGIOUS?)
Update: Freddy just uninvited me from responding on his site. I'm crushed.
The bottom line: Dorhauer doesn't want his conspiracy questioned or challenged.
Dorhauer also distanced himself from the limitation that only clergy could attend his seminar by claiming that it was the conference's decision on who could attend the seminar. Again, Dorhauer chose to give the presentation with those restrictions and he shares responsibility for it.
The bottom line: Dorhauer doesn't want his conspiracy questioned or challenged.
Let's also be clear on one thing: I do not doubt that it is possible that there are ministers out there with an agenda to lead a church out of the UCC. Clergy in the UCC are as diverse as our membership. I have stated repeatedly that I think church stealing is abhorrent, the perpetrators should be called out and it should be stopped at all costs. My difference with Dorhauer is that I don't see a broad conspiracy and he hasn't provided any evidence that there is a broad conspiracy. He has dropped a couple of names and shared anecdotal stories of a few churches that have left... but that doesn't make a conspiracy by any stretch of the imagination. As I reported last week, the UCC had the biggest percentage drop of members of any denomination in the United States. If there is a conspiracy, Dorhauer should be able to come up with better information.
Dorhauer doesn't like to be asked for facts or questioned at all about his conspiracy. His web site limits comments to only those that are supportive while people who ask questions are called "trolls" and asked to leave or are kicked off. For his upcoming seminar, he has limited those who can attend because it "is purposely designed for pastors and these authorized ministers only".Dorhauer's response can be best summarized this way:
- He allows open question at his seminars
- He's not responsible for the rules of the web site where he posts his articles
- He's not responsible for the conference limiting attendees to his seminar
The bottom line: Dorhauer doesn't want his conspiracy questioned or challenged.
On criticism of his web site policies, he explains:
"First, tain't my website. I don't make the rules, but I damn sure follow them. The website was intentionally not designed to be a no hold's barred interactive forum, but simply a place where those who were doing research could share the information."He's right, Frederick Clarkson runs the site... and the rules he enforces don't allow for dissenting opinion or questions that hint at dissent. From Frederick Clarkson on one of Dorhauer's articles:
another troll deleted and bannedSo Dorhauer is just some hapless idiot following the rules? Give me a break. Dorhauer chose to follow those rules or he would have posted his articles elsewhere. By consciously posting his articles in a place where they cannot be scrutinized, Dorhauer shares in the responsibility for the enforcement of the rules.
Every once in awhile, someone joins this site under false pretenses in order to respond to a post or a comment.
In order to join and participate in this site, you have to check off a box indicating that you agree with the purposes of the site. If you do not share our purposes and join the site anyway, you are a liar and a fraud. Here in the blogosphere, we call such people trolls. Most trolls are cowards who hide behind pseudonyms to get away with saying what they would not otherwise dare to say to someone to thier face. Other trolls use their own names, but somehow think that the rules apply to everyone but them.
As the site co-owner, I just deleted the comment of a cowardly troll and banned the person from posting on the site.
People who do not agree with the purposes of this site are free to post elsewhere. It's a big blogosphere.
by Frederick Clarkson on Tue Dec 05, 2006 at 07:13:30 PM EST
He claims "Even James Hutchins, who authors ucctruths.com is welcome and can ask questions and challenge statements made - as long as he abides by the rules."
I'd love to go on his web site and raise the same questions there that I have here. The problem is that to join his web site, you have to check off a box that acknowledges that you "share our general concern about the religous right". If that means sharing Dorhauer's concern that there is a conspiracy to steal UCC churches, I'm not signing on because he hasn't proven it. For what it's worth, UCCtruths.com doesn't hold a litmus test like this on our message board. (ed. note: Will someone please tell Dorhauer and Clarkson how to spell RELIGIOUS?)
Update: Freddy just uninvited me from responding on his site. I'm crushed.
The bottom line: Dorhauer doesn't want his conspiracy questioned or challenged.
Dorhauer also distanced himself from the limitation that only clergy could attend his seminar by claiming that it was the conference's decision on who could attend the seminar. Again, Dorhauer chose to give the presentation with those restrictions and he shares responsibility for it.
The bottom line: Dorhauer doesn't want his conspiracy questioned or challenged.
Let's also be clear on one thing: I do not doubt that it is possible that there are ministers out there with an agenda to lead a church out of the UCC. Clergy in the UCC are as diverse as our membership. I have stated repeatedly that I think church stealing is abhorrent, the perpetrators should be called out and it should be stopped at all costs. My difference with Dorhauer is that I don't see a broad conspiracy and he hasn't provided any evidence that there is a broad conspiracy. He has dropped a couple of names and shared anecdotal stories of a few churches that have left... but that doesn't make a conspiracy by any stretch of the imagination. As I reported last week, the UCC had the biggest percentage drop of members of any denomination in the United States. If there is a conspiracy, Dorhauer should be able to come up with better information.
