Another Senseless Act of Bigotry

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by DanS
I'm uncomfortable with it too. Instead of proclaiming that homosexual acts aren't sins, then recognizing gay marriage, and lastly allowing a gay bishop (a series of events that would lend most legitimacy to the cause), what they are doing now is confirming a bishop who openly fornicates. Is this what passes for holy nowadays?

Um, Episcopalian clergy are allowed to marry and have sex. Since marriage isn't an option yet for gays, Robinson's 13-year monogamous relationship with his partner is certainly, as far as I can see, as good. Add to that the fact that they are considering adopting a same-sex union ceremony, I think that it's well within their guidelines and standards to have a bishop who is gay. It's up to the denomination's faithful to determine what they want, and such democracy is hardly objectionable, as far as I can see.

I was dismayed at the 11th-hour allegations. What a crock. The web site allegation was particularly asinine. Robinson had done some work with outreach.org, which is a New England organization dedicated to providing support to lgbt youth. It turns out outreach.org had a link to an affiliate site, and on that site was a link to a site that contained pornography. Such a bull**** link to Robinson was a pretty lame smear attempt.

[Wittlich]

Well put Boris!

[Sava]

Yeah, those allegations were bull****. That just shows how pathetic and stupid the religious right is.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
hmmm I'm a bit uncomfortable with gay bishops

OK, but let's hear no more foaming at the mouth rants about closed-minded protestants from you.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Makes me proud to be Episcopalian . . . 'cept that I'm an atheist these days.

You could have been one of Spong's disciples, but he's retired.

[Imran Siddiqui]

We have all been carpetbagged over entirely, that's why I was delighted with ol' Hillary getting elected up there as a reverse carpetbagger. Perhaps we can finally start to reverse the trend.

Hillary was a carpetbagger to begin with. Mrs. Illinois definetly didn't accept being 'Southern' in any way .

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Mrs. Illinois definetly didn't accept being 'Southern' in any way .

Oh do enlighten me...what would that entail?

[MichaeltheGreat]

Half of Illinois, Indiana and Ohio was ours anyway, to some degree.

Besides, the further north and east she goes, the better for us all.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Much more conservative in politics .

Well she definetly wouldn't be considered by anyone to be a Southern woman like Ann Richards. I don't think anyone was confused by where she came from (Northeast liberal) even when she was the First Lady of Arkansas.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Besides, the further north and east she goes, the better for us all.

[Sava]

Illinois is full of crackers! It's not a phenomenon exclusively in the South.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Sava, would you consider Senator Hillary to be a cracker in any way?

[MichaeltheGreat]

Butternuts, boy.

[Sava]

Sava, would you consider Senator Hillary to be a cracker in any way?

I consider her to be a ruthless, self-serving politician.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
the real question

Is it good for the Jews?

well on the one hand anything that advances tolerance, treating people as individuals, etc is good.

On the other hand the threat of losing a "moderate" protestant denomination, possibly to see it split into a left-wing group (do we need another one of those?) and a right wing group (do we need another one of those?) is bad

On the other hand, the left wing and right wing products of a schism are likely to be less attractive for Jews assimilating/converting out than the original unsplit church But the appeal of the Episcopal church in particular probably has little to do with Jews assimilating/converting out.

WRT to Israel : a left wing product of schism would probably join the left wing protestant anti-israel consensus But then the current Episcopal church is pretty much there already = a schism might liberate a pro-Israel right wing church (at least in the US) which is otherwise hidden, and would be more sensible then pro-Israel fundie churches On the other hand would even right wing anglicans be pro-Israel?
And would right wing anglicans be tempted into union with Rome - what would THAT mean for the Jews?


Altogether too many variables to say.

I've never heard of an anti-Israeli Episcopalian group. I doubt there's any real threat of that deverloping, nor is there a real danger of an Episcopalian group re-joining the Roman Catholic Church, since almost every Episcopalian priest that I know of is married.

There is a conservative group, supposely one-quarter of the bishops, who have petitioned the Anglican Communion for intervention. They'd like the AC to recognize their group over the main body of PECUSA. I don't think that this is going to happen, since they are only a minority group, and also considering that despite the small size of PECUSA it contributes the lion's share of the Anglican Communion's funds. When you consider how pie-in-the-sky an appeal to the Anglican Communion is, it has no authority whatsoever over any member, it is unlikely that many of them will go so far as to seperate. After all, it appears that despite their distress over Robinson's appointment, they still crave the legitimacy of being recognized as the official member of the AC in the USA.