This a bombshell hot potato dropped in Eric Schneiderman and New York Governor Cuomo’s lap….
Unlike Donald Trump?
If this story stays hot for any length of time?
Eric Schneiderman WILL have step down from the office he holds and is running for re-election ….
The office could be involved in cleaning up the scraps from the Mueller /Trump investigations…
Former US Attorney Preet Bhars’s name is already being floated….
New Yorker: “Eric Schneiderman, New York’s attorney general, has long been a liberal Democratic champion of women’s rights, and recently he has become an outspoken figure in the #MeToo movement against sexual harassment… Now Schneiderman is facing a reckoning of his own. As his prominence as a voice against sexual misconduct has risen, so, too, has the distress of four women with whom he has had romantic relationships or encounters. They accuse Schneiderman of having subjected them to nonconsensual physical violence. All have been reluctant to speak ou fearing reprisal…
The New Yorker...More...
Update…
Attorney General Eric Schneiderman is resigning amid allegations that he physically assaulted four women he dated.
Schneiderman, an outspoken supporter of the #MeToo movement against sexual harassment, bowed to pressure from politicians, including Gov. Cuomo, who called for him to step down.
“It’s been my great honor and privilege to serve as Attorney General for the people of the State of New York,” Schneiderman said in a statement.
“In the last several hours, serious allegations, which I strongly contest, have been made against me. While these allegations are unrelated to my professional conduct or the operations of the office, they will effectively prevent me from leading the office’s work at this critical time. I therefore resign my office, effective at the close of business on May 8, 2018.”….
NY Daily News…More….
Note…..
Elliot Spitzer repeat, eh?
Update 5/10/18….
Acting Attorney General Barbara Underwood says she wants to keep her new job through the end of the year.
Underwood told the Daily News Thursday that she will submit her name for consideration to the Legislature as lawmakers consider who to appoint to fill out the last few months of Eric Schneiderman’s term….
…
Assembly Speaker Carl Heastie on Wednesday created a screening panel to consider candidates to fill the role through the end of Schneiderman’s term. He suggested Underwood would be welcome to submit her application, which she said she will do.
“I have tremendous respect for the Legislature,” Underwood said. “I will be submitting my application for an appointment to them. They invited me to do that and I will do that.”
But Underwood, 73, said she is not interested in seeking to run for a full four-year term in November….
image…axios
Sorry on the spelling
Will be cleaned up shortly….
New York Governor is already calling for The AG to step down,….
This is moving fast…..
What a difference between GOPer’s and Dem’s
Not too much of a difference on the state level. Many Missouri Republicans were quick to call on the Governor to resign, and the Republican AG there is currently prosecuting him.
The allegations against Schneiderman involve multiple people and a good deal of sexual violence. At least Elliot Spitzer can feel better about his hypocrisy and sins by comparison.
How unfortunate and upsetting for all those involved.
I had heard that Schneiderman might have a drinking problem, but nothing like this. He did great work and it’s a pity he is so flawed.
Of course the Governor and the Democratic Party establishment acted quickly to get the Attorney General to resign. Unfortunately for folks like Governor Bondage it didn’t work that way. Why the legislature in Missouri hasn’t thrown him out yet is beyond me. How many days has this been going on in Missouri with no resolution?
They are either in or out of office. Trying to split hairs over sexual misconduct is so Republican in the age of Trump.
The jury trial for Greitens begins on Monday. Yesterday the judge agreed to allow his accuser to testify in court.
Will it be a closed courtroom Scott? I can only imagine what the Republicans will do to her after her testimony. Brave woman.
Schneiderman has resigned.
What a scumbag.
This has not been a good few months for the Jewish people, I am sorry to say.
As to the reporting of this story… Ronan Farrow strikes again.
I wonder what Woody Allen thinks of all this and his supposed biological son (not a chance.)
Schneiderman was on a crusade to make the playing of Fantasy Football illegal in his state, but when he left the office, he seemingly liked to engage in violent sexual roleplay with many women, that allegedly was not consensual.
Oh, and this paragon of liberal vitrue reportedly called one of his minority victims his “brown slave” and “property.”
The lawmakers subsequently made sports betting legal….
One gets the impression that the former AG KNEW this was gonna come back at him sooner or later….
I understand CG’s sensitivity to Schneiderman being Jewish. I recall being embarrassed when Mark Hatfield (a fellow Unitarian) got caught up in scandal.
Likewise, I have been somewhat embarrassed at how nationalistic Poland has become in recent years, being extremely unwelcome of others and intolerant of criticism. I do find it interesting that CG is embarrassed by the actions of some prominent Jews, but appears indifferent or supportive of the actions of Israel,. But CG has proven a willingness to justify anything he wants – even when seemingly indefensible – more than anyone on this site with the possible exception of James.
I couldn’t agree more Zreebs, and, as Jack points out, we have had a morning long rant here about Church membership that appears misguided at the very least. In my opinion a weak attempt to subscribe anti-Semitic opinions and beliefs in an attempt to change the subject and put others on the defensive.
This self righteousness gets old and tiresome from someone who should really be making a living, and not drawing non-existent anti-Semitic connections to another blogger .
I find this outrage particularly amusing because when Billy Graham died I reminded everyone here of his “darker” side. I recounted Graham’s 90 minute Oval office discussion with Nixon (on tape so he couldn’t deny it, although he often lied and said it didn’t happen) in which Graham made bigoted remarks about Jews. Remarks that our friend Corey dismissed as idle banter designed to please the President (in other words, Graham really didn’t mean it). Well, they were anything but casual remarks. Graham told the President that “the stranglehold (that the Jews had on the media) has got to be broken or the country is going down the drain.” Nixon asked if Graham really believed his words, and Graham responded that he did, and that maybe when Nixon was re-elected he could do something about it. Of course Nixon believed that most Jews were leftist, but the hostility of the conversation left me wondering what Nixon was supposed to “do” when he his second term.
My point, I cannot really believe someone who would so easily dismiss hate speech from one of our Nation’s most prominent religious leaders about his own religion, could really be so upset about another Christian sect saying the same things.
Selective outrage.
Americans of all faiths and all political parties were united in praising the legacy of Billy Graham and his accomplishments. Keith said he was glad he was dead.
Graham long ago apologized for what he said to Nixon about politically active Jews, as he should have, and he was forgiven for it. That is far different than questioning the right of Israel to exist. If these Christian congregations were to have a change of heart on BDS and efforts to delegitimize Israel and whanot, I have no doubt that they would be respected and treated with brotherhood by Jews around the world.
Keith’s history on the topic of Billy Graham is more than suspect since he knowingly posted statements attributed to Graham about homosexuals that were long ago debunked as false.
Sorry, not even remotely true.
You really need to come clean and explain why you could defend Billy Graham’s anti-Semitic remarks to the President of the United States (remarks that he denied making until the tape came out – those pesky tapes), and then attack an entire religious group that was critical of Israel’s actions on the West Bank (strongly inferring they are anti-Semitic). Is it because both Billy and Franklin have always been so supportive of the Republican Party?
It doesn’t make sense. Graham lied about his conversation with Nixon for years, and, not only was he anti-Semitic but he was anti-gay, and anti-Catholic too.
This is sort of like all of the Evangelicals believing Trump is a good Christian. When he is actually the anti-Christ.
Billy Graham was the first Christian con artist that hit it big, and his bigoted hateful son and daughter are following in his footsteps.
I am just amazed you would continue to defend them.
SAD.
What was said on the tapes are on the tapes. It is as not as what you said. He was going along with Nixon’s political (not religious rant) and he long ago asked for forgiveness. Nancy Pelosi, Barack Obama, and all the other leaders of your party were effusive in praise for Billy Graham when he passed. You like to spit on people’s proverbial graves. I am surprised you held back when it came to Barbara Bush. I am sure you will take the opportunity to let your hate flow now.
I never communicated with Billy Graham. Had I ever had and had he challenged me on my support for Israel, as Zreebs did overnight unsolicited, I would say the exact things I am saying here.
What was on the tapes was on the tapes.
How profound.
The problem you have is that Billy meant what he said. Why else would he have lied about it all those years?
My issue, is why you would defend an anti-Semite no matter who praised him after his death. Does you tribalism, even though you know Billy had contempt for you as a Jew, prevent you from admitting that he was, in his old white man way, a bigot.
Like I said,
SAD.
Got to go, the gym is calling.
Take it up with the ADL and their entire leadership which were very praiseful of Billy Graham. If they can forgive him for thing said long before I was born, then I can too.
Don’t overdo it at the gym.
But if you want to talk about things said or written 40 or 30 years ago, we can have that discussion….
Far more relevant than the things a frustrated and paranoid Richard Nixon said about prominent Jews in the early 1970s are the very vicious and dangerous things that Louis Farrakhan continues to say about all Jews to this day and just how close of ties he continues to have to the Congressional Black Caucus.
So cue the black guys right.
We are talking about the President and the Nation’s head Christian. Both, when they thought not one was listening made horribly anti-Semitic remarks, going out of their way to agree with each other. I know of no instance where a Member of the Black Caucus is on tape saying the things Billy Graham said to Nixon, and then lied about.
But, please, continue with the whataboutisms.
You do them so well.
Still stuck in the ’70s?
Jesse Jackson said far worse about Jews in the 1980s than what was on the Nixon/Graham tape and he was forgiven and is well-regarded in your party.
Of course at the time, you had no qualms in attacking Jackson publicly to the white ethnic voters your boss needed on his side.
Jackson is well regarded in the Democratic Party?
By some, probably. I doubt he could get elected anywhere other than in some congressional districts.
He was their runner up in two Presidential sweepstakes the same cycle and the one right after his remarks about Jews were caught on tape and for which he offered a perfunctory apology.
He was a national figure in the party after that and was very close to Bill Clinton. Obama kept him at more arm’s length, perhaps because in the 2008 campaign, Jackson was caught on tape saying that Obama was disrespecting (n-words) and expressing a desire to castrate him.
Yes he was but he was never nominated.
I would place Trump and Jackson in the same boat.
Republicans actually nominated Donald Trump.
I KNOW you aren’t lumping ALL of the jewish faith into a few people’s actions , eh CG?
Of course not, since I am Jewish, as everyone here knows. I can comment on the fact that so many Jewish men, either in politics or entertainment (and in both parties) have been in the headlines for these kinds of stories recently is of course something that we would consider a “shande.”
Just checking….
What are you checking?
I have suggested you check yourself at the multiple times you have made suggestions that the only reason that Chuck Schumer opposed the Iran Deal was because he was Jewish.
Relax….
I explained the local POLITICAL reason for my Schumer comment…
What you “explained” was highly offensive to Jews, whether you realize it or not, and you likely do not.
No…..
Schumer lives and gets a sizable amount of political support from Jewish voting enclaves in Brooklyn…He also gets solid support form others in nearby upstate New York….
Those bloc’s can generate tens of thosusands of votes….
That’s Politics CG….
What you are saying is complete b.s.
Schumer does not have to worry about being reelected in New York and certainly does not have to worry about the Jewish vote.
But let’s look at the facts and the fact is that Evangelical Christians were *far* more likely to be opposed to the Iran Deal than Jewish voters in New York. Was he being beholden to Evangelicals?
Claiming that these Brooklyn Jews somehow hold a magical amount of power and can force a politician to cast a vote that you claim he would not otherwise do of his own free conscience is really quite a miserable thing to say, both about Schumer and in the implication that someone cannot be Jewish and reach their own conclusions.
….’tens of thousands of votes’ sure WOULD get any politicans attention?’….
And to answer your last question….
Someone from out of state is gonna doubt someone who lives 10 miles from Schumer’s home boro and has Schumer as his US Senator?
The amount of Orthodox Jewish voters in Brooklyn is minuscule compared just to the number of Reform or secular Jews in Manhattan or the rest of the state. The Hasidic Jews in Brooklyn are not the ones funding Schumer’s campaign. He has no reason to overrule his conscience just to please them on one vote, especially when his record otherwise is pretty liberal down the line.
You just need to accept the fact that Schumer (and other Democrats such as Cardin and Menendez) looked at the Iran Deal and correctly decided it was bad for America and bad for our allies, including Israel. It has nothing to do with “Jews.”
Schumer is your own Senator and he likely agrees with me on very little, but if you told him your theory on his vote, he would be just as offended as a Jew, as I am.
You may not care, but you need to at least be aware of how offensive your position on this as to the motivations of people and questioning their loyalty to country for political reasons is. You don’t seem to be someone much into self-reflection though.
What happens to the 8.5 million dollars he has in his political campaign fund?
What did Hatfield do to get caught up in scandal? Are you thinking of Packwood?
I once again have a major issue with Zreebs logic. Yes, it makes sense for me to be especially perturbed when Jewish-American men are found to have acted illegally and immorally in stories like this, but of course, the vast majority of Jews, in and out of politics, Democrat and Republican, are decent law-abiding citizens. I hope the stereotype of the “nice Jewish boy” is not tarnished because of all the stories surrounding these people and no it is not “sad” or “unfortunate” for the victimizers of women.
Israel is a far different story that goes beyond individuals. I have no idea why that connection would be drawn. I know that the “church” or cult or whatever it is that Zreebs is a member of really hates Israel, but I consider the State of Israel to be part and parcel of the survival of the Jewish people, after they had been the most persecuted in world history.
Israel has always wanted to live in peace but has been and continues to be threatened on all sides by neighbors who do not think Israel has the right to exist and who wish death upon all Jews worldwide. Hopefully, one day, those old hatreds can be put aside by those extremists in the Muslim world who do not have the best interests of their people at heart of course, and there can be peace for all in the region. In the meantime, considering what Israel has to face, just to survive, I find very little that Israel does, even if they are not 100 percent correct in every circumstance to be “indefensible” and I wish that both political parties in the U.S., as had been the case historically, would hold the same view.
Yes. It was Bob Packwood. My confusion. Thanks for the correction.
I can’t ever recall the word Israel ever being mentioned at my church in my entire life, so I have no idea why you think it hates Israel. Certainly, the church includes a number of people who still identify as Jewish and at least one person that I know of who also attends a temple regularly. Hopefully you can explain why you think my church hates Israel. But I doubt you will. Your comment was pure nonsense.
I drew the connection because I indicated I am embarrassed by Poland’s actions being of Polish descent – which is similar to you being embarrassed by Jewish people’s actions. Not sure why you can’t see the connection, but logic isn’t your strong point.
I don’t have a huge amount of time to debate, but here is a report from Amnesty International. The press in the U.S. in very pro-Israel and it tends to justify Jewish atrocities in my opinion.
https://www.amnesty.org/en/countries/middle-east-and-north-africa/israel-and-occupied-palestinian-territories/
They probably call Israel Palestine there and refuse to acknowledge it’s existence.
I don’t ever recall a Unitarian referring to Israel as Palestine in my life. Given that you are unwilling to provide a source, I suspect you just made that shit up.
I stood corrected and apologized for the mix-up with the UCC, but their positions on BDS seem to be exactly the same.
Do Unitarians believe Israel has the right to exist as a Jewish state?
I do and I assume that most UUs do. I don’t recall discussing the topic with other UUs.
Yes, this is a right-wing source, but just as the first one I found. The UCC has led efforts for divestment and boycotts of Israel which is about as anti-Israel as one can get.
https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/265251/anti-israel-bias-united-church-christ-joseph-puder
Yes, the old canard about the Jewish media as well. The concept of “Jewish atrocities” is ridiculous.
At the risk of stating the obvious, the UCC and Unitarian Univeralism are two entirely different and completely unrelated religions.
And only you called it the “Jewish media”. You never heard me use that phrase, nor did anyone else.
It’s hard not to view that in an alternative way.
What is your theory then as to why the U.S. media is too “pro-Israel?”
As for the UCC and UUC, I do not care at all about what their religious precepts are. I believe strongly in religious freedom. I care though about organizations taking dangerous and destructive political positions that could in effect wipe out another religions.
Is it your position then,that anyone who is affiliated in any way with any organization that opposes Israel must by that act alone be considered anti Israel?
I guess it depends on if they agree with the position or not.
For example, I am an anti-Trump Republican, which you seem to think is somehow inconsistent.
There’s nothing wrong with disagreeing with clergy on political matters. I have done so myself, as my sense is that the Rabbis I have listened to sermons from tend to be by and large pro-choice (for example), so I would hope that someone who is a Unitarian would be willing to stand up for the right to Israel to exist as a Jewish state and even if they dislike certain policies of the Israeli government, to not be silent about the threats Israel faces or to disregard the freedoms that Israelis of all faiths have that do not exist elsewhere in the Middle East.
I don’t believe in the concept of a Muslim state, a Christian state or a Jewish state. To me that is contrary to freedom of religion.
Ok….
I will adjust my thinking on the replacement of Schneiderman…
There is little to no chance former US Atty Bharara is in the mix to be picked for this spot….
My memory failled to go back and regester the fact that the guy was hot on the trail of the New York State lawmakers just before Trump gave him the axe….
There is no way these guys would pick him for the spot….
I f he actually wants to run for it?
He’s have to run against people he was gonna try charge with crimes….
State lawmakers have decided to keep Acting Attorney General Barbara Underwood in office through the end of the year.
The Legislature will hold a joint meeting of the Senate and Assembly later Tuesday afternoon to officially designate Underwood as the state’s new attorney general, replacing the disgraced Eric Schneiderman, sources said…..
More…
(the new NYS AG will most likely be the Democrat that wins the Sept Dem Primary for the spot)
My theory is that few people even know how the positions stated in the Amnesty International clip that I provided and Amnesty International is a highly regarded organization that is doing some great work.
And no liberal religious group that I know of wants to wipe Israel off the map. If any does, then I strongly oppose it.
Why would a church who is so focused on highlighting supposed Israeli “atrocities” be so complicity silent about atrocities in the Muslim world committed against Jews and Christians? Why not speak of both, if all atrocities are wrong? How many resolutions have these churches put forth that denounce countries other than Israel? After a while, it becomes a bit suspicious.
Do you or do you not support the BDS movement or do you not have enough information to have an opinion?
and committed against other Muslims, which of course is the most prevalent of the atrocities committed in the Muslim world.
Are you referring to the UCC again? I know very little about that church. I have been a Unitarian since 1993, but I cannot recall ever hearing a Unitarian Universalist sermon on Israel, nor can I recall reading a UU article on Israel, so it is absurd in the extreme to suggest that the church is “so focused on ..Israeli atrocities”.
I don’t even know what the “BDS movement” is.
As I said, my mixup (which I partially blame on Google, because you type in UUC and it gives you UCC results) does not show any space between them on the specific issue being discussed.
I would find it hard to believe that an intelligent person such as yourself you would be unaware that the UUC supported BDS or that you do not know what BDS is and that you are unaware that that sort of position has created a tremendous amount of tension between those churches in America and American Jews (who certainly do not tend to be all conservative Republicans like me.) I will try to take you at face value at that though and encourage you to look into what it is your church has been doing and saying on that matter.
I don’t know what UUC even stands for. Many UU Churches call themselves UU “Societies” because the word “church” has Christian connotations to many, and we don’t typically consider ourselves Christian. Unitarian Universalist churches (or societies) are exceedingly independent and do not necessarily agree with the UUA (Unitarian Universalist Association) of which many are members.
Many Unitarians are social activists. The UUA takes positions on lots of moral positions – some of which I don’t agree with by the way. There are some issues that I agree it needs to focus on, and other issues that I wish it would just be silent on. I don’t currently have a personal position on BDS or you probably would have heard it by now. Per your comment that my church has taken a position on this issue, I’ll probably read what if anything the UUA had to say about BDS and I’ll let you know if I do think I should take a position. Either way, thank you for that info.
So contrary to what CG said, the resolution to support BDS failed at the UUA General Assembly.
https://www.uuworld.org/articles/uuaga2016-palestinian-rights-resolution
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Amnesty_International#Israel
My understanding was that there were two resolutions in 2016. The first one passed and the second one failed because it did not have 2/3 of the vote, although it did have 54% in favor.
I may not have fully grasped the 2/3 requirement to pass though on the second one, as the media reports are stressing the 5$% yes vote, so that’s additional information that is welcomed.
The first one dealt with specific companies such as Hewlett-Packard.
It was a bad idea to even have a vote on something like BDS, and it’s bad that 54% voted in favor of it, but congrats to them for not being as bad as the UCC then.
From the article linked:
“Rabbi Rick Jacobs, president of the Union for Reform Judaism, delivered in the opening minutes of the interfaith-themed General Assembly. Jacobs surprised many by telling delegates the resolution would damage UU-Jewish relations while doing nothing to advance the human rights of Palestinians.
“Actions like divestment and disengagement harden the hearts instead of bringing people together,” Jacobs said. “I would not be doing my job—my sacred job representing our movement, and my job as your true friend—if I did not say clearly that the overwhelming majority of your American Jewish brothers and sisters oppose BDS—boycott, divestment, and sanctions—because it is ultimately an effort to delegitimize the very existence of the state of Israel.”
I hope his words had an effect, but still it’s pretty unfortunate that 54% would vote yes to do such a thing.
I strongly regret that the Republican Party did not have a 2/3 threshold at convention to nominate a candidate for President.
I think it’s unfortunate that according to last weeks NBC Poll,76% Of Republicans believe that Trumps tells the truth “most of the time,” while 22% thinks he does “some of the time.”Still 56% of them “approve “ of his job performance.
I find that much more concerning than the views of delegates to a rather small religious groups convention.
I don’t find the vote concerning.
If you want to know what Unitarian Universalists believe, this is your best source:
http://www.uua.org
It’s a matter of public record that the UUA signed on to BDS. Thus, the official position of the church is that Israel should not have the right to exist as a Jewish state. There was a divided vote of course and many people have left these organizations, as well as churches such as the UCC because of their extremist positions on Israel.
But as an anti-Trump Republican, I cannot see myself attending a Republican meeting or gathering where there would be any possibility that Trump would be praised or celebrated, so I have made the conscious decision that those gatherings are not for me and I should stay away.
Contrary to what you implied, unlike most religious institutions, Unitarian Universalism has actually grown over the past 20 years. My best guess is that membership did fall in 2017, but it had nothing to do with Israel. Personally, I believe that religious institutions should NEVER be silent in the face of injustice, and if they are, then I will not be a member of that institution. I know that social justice issues does not typically concern you.
social justice issues concern me very much, around the world, and there is certainly no greater example for social justice in the Middle East than Israel.
I also happen to think that after all that has happened to the Jewish people worldwide throughout history and all the social injustices they have had to face, it is a necessity for their to be one, single, solitary Jewish state in the world, to go along with the dozens and dozens of official Muslim and Christian states that exist. And that is why any effort to delegitimize or harm Israel is an affront to social justice.
http://www.thetower.org/article/how-a-major-american-church-chose-boycotts-over-peace/
http://www.bnaibrith.org/press-releases/bnai-brith-deplores-united-church-of-christs-adoption-of-anti-israel-resolution
“The Simon Wiesenthal Center stated that the July 2005 UCC resolutions on divestment from Israel were “functionally anti-Semitic”.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Church_of_Christ#Statement_on_the_relationship_between_Israel_and_Palestinians
https://www.ngo-monitor.org/reports/united-church-of-christ/
http://www.newenglishreview.org/custpage.cfm/frm/120067/sec_id/120067
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/viewSubCategory.asp?id=283
https://www.weeklystandard.com/dexter-van-zile/united-church-of-christs-anti-israel-stand
I will stop with the links. At the minimum, Zreebs can stop feigning ignorance on this matter.
I thought Zreebs was a Unitarian.
What does the United Church of Christ have to do with Zreebs?
My understanding is that he has talked about being a member of the UCC and has posted here a sermon he delivered etc.. If I have gotten this wrong, and he belongs to a group that is not associated with the UCC, I will sincerely apologize for the mix-up.
If there is a UUC, that is different and distinct from the UCC, then that is my bad, and it’s a bad mix-up. I apologize for the incorrect causation. jack was right to point this out.
What I said about the UCC stands though. I would have to do more research on whatever the UUC is.
Nonetheless, I see the UUC has also joined the anti-Israel BDS movement, so basically the substance of the argument as it relates to that issue stands.
I am not familiar with the author of this editorial, but I think it was extremely well-written and I have a hard time finding a word that I disagree with as it relates to this point of contention:
http://blogs.dailynews.com/friendlyfire/2016/05/31/jaccuse-unitarian-universalist-association-anti-semitism/
The United Church of Christ, as I remember and as I see from Wikipedia, unites many Protestant Christian denominations that would fall into the Calvinist or Lutheran traditions: Evangelical, Reformed and Congregational. As such, they (together with Roman Catholic, Orthodox and Anglican Christians) make central to their belief the Trinity of God the Father, God the Son (Jesus Christ) and God the Holy Spirit, as recited every week in the Nicene and Apostles’ Creeds.
Unitarians and Universalists, united generally although not completely in the Unitarian-Universalist Church, do not believe in the Trinity. One of the principal progenitors of Unitarianism, Miguel Servetus, was in fact burned at the stake by the city authorities of Geneva when John Calvin himself held sway there.
Unitarians do not always find it necessary for a fellow-congregant even to believe in God, although this is not true of the free-standing Universalist Church, a much smaller remnant of the Universalists who refused in the 19th century to unite with the Unitarians.
One characteristic, as I understand it, that the UCC, the Unitarian-Universalists, most Baptists, Quakers (two other denominations that suffered great persecution under Calvinist, Lutheran, Anglican and Roman Catholic rulers alike) and, I think, most Jewish congregations in the Diaspora today is a strong congregationally-based structure where authority flows upwards from each local congregation, rather than dictated down from some central ecclesiastical authority such as the Pope or a secular ruler.
¶ Anyway, that’s my crude understanding as a non-Christian who’s interested in Western history and the Christian bible. See Wikipedia’s article at
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Church_of_Christ
Who is this troll ?
It’s our former Democrat from Texas….
And if he does what he has been doing for a long time it will affect Scott’s commenting here….
Update….
The acting [NYS] attorney general will be Barbara Underwood, the current state solicitor general, officials said….
More…
Don’t screw up Scott’s ability to comment just to prevent him.
It’s actually up to Scott…..
The other party don’t get a shit….
Check your mail Z…..
Will it be a closed courtroom Scott? I can only imagine what the Republicans will do to her after her testimony. Brave woman.
I believe it will be closed.