http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/19/national/19BISH.html

This is really a non-issue. There is no denomination in the western world dying a quicker and surer death than the Anglican/Episcopal church. This is a denomination that has long since stopped standing for anything in the U.K., U.S. and Canada (although a very conservative version of Anglicanism is thriving in Nigeria and other parts of Africa). Given that this denomination essentially stands for nothing anymore, this is a curious place to draw a line, making it doubtful that the line will hold.

The Anglican church will soon schism. If not over this, then the next crisis down the road. As Catholic theologians would knowingly observe: such is the way with all heresies.

NOTE: If any devout, church-going Episcopals or Anglicans want to debate these points and convince me that I'm wrong, my mind is open. But like the unicorn and the honest lawyer, I believe that the "devout, church-going Episcopal" is a wholly mythical creature.

CHARLIE IN THE TREES

I DON'T KNOW THAT THIS SITE IS THE RIGHT FORUM FOR THIS DISCUSSION (AS I UNDERSTAND IT TO BE A SITE FOR GAY SPORTSMEN AND SPORTS LOVERS AND FOR THE DISCUSSION OF SPORTS IN GENERAL AND MORE PARTICULARLY GAY SPORTS AND GAYS INTERESTED IN SPORTS)HOWEVER I DID COME ACROSS YOUR MESSAGE AND FELT COMPELLED TO RESPOND...SO HERE IT GOES...

I DON'T KNOW EXACTLY WHERE YOU'RE GOING WITH YOUR MESSAGE...IT ALMOST SEEMS THAT YOU'RE UPSET THAT THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH IS NOT LAYING DOWN A BLANKET CONDEMNATION OF HOMOSEXUALS AND HOMOSEXUALITY...I ASSUME THAT YOU'RE GAY/BI IF YOUR A MEMBER OF THIS SITE...IF SO I'D LIKE TO HEAR YOU CLARIFY YOUR POSITION ON THIS ISSUE...I WON'T DEBATE THE ISSUE WITH YOU UNTIL I KNOW WHERE YOU STAND...BY THE WAY I AM A PROUD AND ACTIVE EPISCOPALIAN (CONVERTED FROM SOUTHERN BAPTIST)AS WELL AS A PROUD AND ACTIVE GAY MAN...I DISAGREE THAT THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH IS IN ANY JEOPARDY OF DISOLUTION OVER THIS OR ANY OTHER ISSUE...I FIND THE CHURCH TO BE STRONG AND GROWING IN GREAT PART DUE TO ITS STANCES ON, AND COMMITMENT TO, OPENESS AND INCLUSION...SORRY TO HEAR THAT YOU FEEL DIFFERENTLY.

ANXIOUSLY AWAIT YOUR RESPONSE...
HAYDEN
GO REBELS!! GO BUCS!!

Let me respond to each of your points, UM.REBELandTAMPA.BUCfan, and, by the way, welcome to the Outsports messageboard.

CHARLIE IN THE TREES
I DON'T KNOW THAT THIS SITE IS THE RIGHT FORUM FOR THIS DISCUSSION (AS I UNDERSTAND IT TO BE A SITE FOR GAY SPORTSMEN AND SPORTS LOVERS AND FOR THE DISCUSSION OF SPORTS IN GENERAL AND MORE PARTICULARLY GAY SPORTS AND GAYS INTERESTED IN SPORTS)
This is a website and messageboard for gay sports fans and gay athletes. However, the board includes two non-sports forums. One is appropriately called "non sports related topics," the other "politics and religion." This thread, appropriately, is within the "politics and religion" forum, where the board moderators have successfully segregated all potentially divisive discussions of politics and religion.

I DON'T KNOW EXACTLY WHERE YOU'RE GOING WITH YOUR MESSAGE...IT ALMOST SEEMS THAT YOU'RE UPSET THAT THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH IS NOT LAYING DOWN A BLANKET CONDEMNATION OF HOMOSEXUALS AND HOMOSEXUALITY
That definitely was not the intent. I am a practicing Catholic. (And I hope someday to get it right.) In all seriousness, I have little respect for the liberal, mainline Protestant denominations, which I believe do not stand firm for anything. This includes the western Episcopal and Anglican churches. Given that, my point was that I found it curious, even strange, that a gay bishop is the point where some "conservative" Episcopals, using that term relatively, have chosen to draw a line. Of all the issues facing that church: why there?

I ASSUME THAT YOU'RE GAY/BI IF YOUR A MEMBER OF THIS SITE
Valid assumption.

BY THE WAY I AM A PROUD AND ACTIVE EPISCOPALIAN (CONVERTED FROM SOUTHERN BAPTIST) AS WELL AS A PROUD AND ACTIVE GAY MAN
Excellent! I', always happy when this Board adds people who do not feel that being Christian and being gay are mutually exclusive.

I DISAGREE THAT THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH IS IN ANY JEOPARDY OF DISOLUTION OVER THIS OR ANY OTHER ISSUE...I FIND THE CHURCH TO BE STRONG AND GROWING IN GREAT PART DUE TO ITS STANCES ON, AND COMMITMENT TO, OPENESS AND INCLUSION
I'm not sure if "strong and growing" is an appropriate description. The data that I've seen is that the "liberal" mainline Protestants denominations are losing congregants more rapidly than any other churches. If a church preaches a variation on "all roads lead to God" (and I'm not saying that specifically is Anglican/Episcopal dogma), why even bother going to church? Just stay home if the "sitting on the sofa watching football" or the "serial adultery" road leads just as surely to heaven as the more difficult road of devout piety. Of course non-demanding religions are going to quickly lose their flock. Across this country and the world, the fastest growing faiths are the more conservative (Pentecostals in this country; Islam around the world).
From all that I've read, I do think the Anglican/Episcopal church is in serious danger of schism, probably into a liberal northern UK/Candian church and a conservative southern, Africa-based church, with U.S. Episcopal congregations split and dispersed between the two. The gay bishop in New Hampshire certainly is not the cause of this. The forces have been set in motion regardless of how that issue is resolved, since there doesn't seem to be room for compromise.

...SORRY TO HEAR THAT YOU FEEL DIFFERENTLY.
But I'm not Episcopal. I'm not going to convert to Episcopalianism. So, ultimately, it doesn't matter what I think on this subject because it's an issue for Anglicans and Episcopals to resolve among themselves. (Just like I always wonder what's the agenda of non-Catholics when I hear them speculating about whether the Pope should step down, or who his successor should be.)

Does this clarify things, or make them even murkier?

By the way: your email address in your profile is given as "XDEVILDAWG4U" or something like that. I'm confused. "X" devil dawg? I always thought: once a marine, always a marine.

[ July 19, 2003, 02:53 PM: Message edited by: Charlie in the Trees ]

thanks for the response charlie

let me start by saying that i am brand new to this site and was incorrect in my assumption that it was for sports related discussions only...i discovered that shortly after my posting but the "bullet was already outa the gun" so to speak...i apologize.

i believe that i better understand some of your statements...you mentioned that you found it odd that with all of the important issues in the world today the episcopal church was coming to blows over this particular one (at least that was my understanding which, as my last post proved can be incorrect)...if my understanding is correct then i couldn't agree with you more...however, im still a bit perplexed as to how you would prefer that the church deal with the specific issues of homosexuals and homosexuality in a more conservative church (which you seem to advocate)...i would think that being gay and a conservative catholic would be akin to "throwin a bobcat and a pole-cat in a burlap bag together"...excuse the mississippi vernacular but sometimes it just paints the picture.

i am intrigued as well to know if you equate church popularity or size of membership with spiritual correctness...yes the pentecostal denomination and radical islam are growing faster than many other religious groups but i hope you wouldn't assume that their attraction is necessarily due to their rightness or rightiousness...throughout human history when societies are put into stressful situatons (ie. war, famine, social unrest, natural growth, financial hardtimes etc.) their people tend to gravitate to more conservative and radical strictures (socially and religiously) often with catastrophic consequences...the Inquisition (religious) and Nazi Germany (social) are examples that come to mind.

i would love to hear more of your feelings on these matters as well as other controversial topics in church doctrines...maybe we can break down and talk sports sometime too.

i must tell you that it is refreshing to be able to carry on an intelligent, educated, respectful discussion on a topic as taboo as religion, especially with a fellow gentleman who happens to be gay...i recognize and appreciate your intelligence and polite debate.

as for the "x" in my email, you are ABSOLUTELY right...it sounds stupid but you wouldn't believe how much i agonized over that "x"...why i broke down and put it in my screen name is a long story and a topic of discussion for another day...suffice it to say that i WAS, AM and will ALWAYS be a proud member of the United States Marine Corps...Semper Fi!...OOOOOOrah!...thanks for noticing...shows you're paying attention...would expect nothing less from a good attorney.

feel free to email directly, if you wish, at my personal email address

hayden
tampa, fl

Tonight (Friday, July 25) on ABC's "Nightline": a gay priest.

He's an openly gay Roman Catholic priest in Indianapolis who comes out to his parish in a Sunday morning homily. Many around him, of course, struggle mightily with the news.

The guy is a laser beam of honesty and godliness -- he's AWESOME. Folks in later time zones, if you're interested in the issue, make an effort to see it.

Fascinating, but not surprising, that folks here are suddenly silent when it comes to the last-minute charges leveled against the bishop.

These charges are serious--more serious and more critical than the accused himself. They must be fully investigated. They are most likely true because they are so serious. After all, this same logic was applied to folks like Clarence Thomas when he was nominated. (Had this gay bishop been a Roman Catholic bishop, the charges would definitely have been true.)

For the good of his church, the gay bishop ought to resign.

***WARNING***WARNING***
The above is laden with sarcasm for those who have no sense of humor here.

For what it's worth, I personally believe these last-minute charges are awfully suspicious. The timing is suspect and it smacks of vindictiveness. Time will tell, of course.

[ August 05, 2003, 09:55 AM: Message edited by: MIB ]

With the last post dated over a week ago (25 July), I'm not sure "suddenly silent" would be the correct characterization.

actually i am not silent on the recent suspicious accusations against the episcopal priest...this only happened yesterday...i find it highly suspicious that these allegations were brought forth within hours of the final vote to approve his assent to bishophood...i would recommend that everyone read the report about these latest developments on PLANETOUT.COM (just went back to the site to get a quote, it has been edited since yesterday and the information i reference has since been removed...don't know why)...the AP wire report that they originally used went into much more detail as to what the accusations were...the mainstream news programs were very biased in their coverage...they presented the "allegations" almost as fact, not giving any details about the accuser or allegations (details which make the accusations seem all the more ridiculous)...They never mentioned the verocity with which the conservatives had lobbied against the nomination or how suspicious the last minute allegations were...and they only showed interviews with conservative priests who disagreed with his nomination...the allegations were made, by email, by a vermont man who claimed that the priest, while conversing with him at a public gathering, touched him in a way that was "contrary to accepted standards for male to male contact"...to some men that could mean he put his hand on his shoulder...and was this touch inappropriate at the time or did it just become inappropriate once he found out that the priest was gay...a lot of straight men consider a handshake with a gay man to be inappropriate touching...what man, who has ever had a serious conversation with a pastor or priest, hasn't had him put his hand on his shoulder or put his arm around him...it's kind of the nature of the job and wouldn't be scrutinized for one minute if the priest was assumed to be straight...the other accusation, that he had connections with pornography, came from the fact that he helped develop a website for gay youth...he was instrumental in developing only one part of the site (presumably a section that dealt with the religious concerns of young gay people)...he has had no association with the site for many months now...allegedly a page of the site (not the one that the priest helped develop) had a link to a site that "some" considered "to be of an adult nature"...we dont know who "some" are or what their standard is in considering a site to be "of an adult nature"...my mother would consider a website dedicated to michael angelo's sistine chapel masterpiece "a site of an adult nature" because of the nudity...this alleged link was also added to the site within the last 6 months, after the priest had discontinued his association with the site...the accusations are suspicious and unproven...what seems strange to me is that even if both allegations are proven to be 100% true (EXACTLY AS STATED) i don't see that he did anything wrong other than "touching" a man during a conversation in a way that he (two years after the incident and only after finding out the priest was gay) decided was in a way that some straight men would consider inappropriate for a gay man to touch them...and trying to help develop a website to help troubled gay youth by giving them an information and support resource (that in itself would be considered evil and immoral by many religious conservatives) and by not monitoring the sites every action on a daily basis since making his contribution.

one last note...i dont know how familiar the general public is with the episcopal church and its heirarchy...i am an episcopal and i can tell you that this gentleman did not just show up the day before the convention and say "hmmm, i think i wanna be a bishop...ill just throw my hat into the ring tomorrow and see how it goes"...this man was a faithful, active member and priest in the church for years in order to even be a candidate for consideration for such a position...he has risen through MANY levels of church heirarchy through study, experience, and demonstration of devotion to the church, it's doctrine and it's flock...these qualifications and actions have been recognized by both his parishoners and church leaders, a vast majority of whom have deemed him worthy of consideration for bishop coronation...how is it possible that he could have served for so many years and only when he is in the final hour before being approved for bishopship do these allegations come forth...if this in fact turns into a catholic-style pedophile scandal (which i seriously doubt it will) then THAT would be a valid reason to rock the church and split it right in two...and the conservatives will get more than they ever bargained for...remember, this vote was going to be a precursor to the vote later this week concerning holy unions for gay couples...the conservatives feared that if this priest was endorsed then gay unions were more likely to be approved...that turned this issue into a "win at all cost issue" and the ends would justify the means no matter how hurtful, deceitful or unchristian...i hope that their hatefulness, unchristian behavior, hipocracy and willingness to destroy a man's good name and reputation are exposed and the backlash results in a positive result for the rest of this convention...spokesmen have said that the allegations are pretty straight forward...leaders should be able to investigate and discuss them and the vote could go forward before the convention adjourns later this week...im sure that the conservatives will do everything in their power to filibuster or make additional allegations in order to delay until the convention is over...if you are episcopalian, christian or of any faith and have a passion for fairness, contact your local episcopal priest or church leader and show your support for a fair consideration of this man.

Homosexuality isn't threatening anything.
HOMOPHOBIA is

Very suspicious. From what I've heard so far in news reports, the email alleging "inappropriate touching" doesn't specify what kind of touching (but says it occurred in presumably public setings, where there would have been witnesses), and the web site allegation is all guilt-by-association.

Churches have a right to believe or teach whatever they want, and members (or groups of members) have the right to stay or leave based on those beliefs (and their own). I think this situation reeks of political (in the internal sense) manipulation, but how the parties involved settle it is up to them.

I just saw a headline on msn where the Bishop has been cleared of all allegations.

How can he have been cleared so quickly? Now THAT'S suspicious! There is no way the investigation could have been finished so soon. Therefore, he obviously has something to hide.

The very fact that these are serious charges that were so quickly "investigated" and so conveniently swept under the rug means he's guilty of them. There could be no other explanation.

No, wait! Sorry, my fault. That would only be the case had he been a Republican.

I really have no set opinion on this because I'm not Episcopal or Anglican, but I do find this whole matter "interesting".

To me, as an investigatory matter, the website issue is more interesting than the inappropriate touching allegation, and there's no way that could've been seriously investigated in 24 hours.

He founded a website. For gay teens. The website apparently contains links to a gay porn site. The man's explanation is that he no longer has anything to do with the website anymore. Yet as soon as the allegation surfaces, the porn links disappear from the website with which he has nothing more to do.

Smoke doesn't mean fire. But it does mean you should check for fire. And less than 24 hours is definitely insufficient to investigate that claim.

But what's left of the Episcopal church is free to choose whoever it wants to have as bishops. The fact that I would find him untrustworthy is not relevant as I have no intention of leaving the Catholic Chuch regardless of who runs that denomination.

Honestly, Charlie, what's to investigate? Nothing he was "accused" of doing rises to the level of actual serious allegation.

He did not found a WEBSITE, he helped found a GROUP, that affiliated with other similar groups and later, AFTER HE WAS NO LONGER ASSOCIATED WITH IT, developed a Web site together. One portion of the Web site, for the Portland, Maine, chapter of the affiliation of organizations, linked to a bisexual-positive site, which then linked to erotica. That's the worst these sleazeballs could come up with.

Check out the Portland chapter of Outright's recent press release:

As for the touching part, it seems an incredibly flimsy case of gay-paranoia. This whole thing pisses me off. That's not too hard these days.

AND ANOTHER THING! If anyone tries to use the line that the Episcopalians are rushing things, that it will cause a schism in the church, wait until the "right time" -- let me tell you that for those who oppose gay bishops, gays in the military, gay marriage, even legal gay sex ... the "right time" is NEVER. They will oppose you, threaten you, admonish you, cajole you, and implore upon you until you weary of them or win. Gay marriage, gays in the military - all things gay have been issues for decades. Just because people have chosen to ignore our call for full equality doesn't give them the right to now put off that call. I may seem intemperate but I don't want to have to wait until I'm 70 to see justice in this world for gays.

If not now, when?

Gotta love that last bit -- he feels listened to! The guy has a homophobia freak-out, tries to scuttle Robinson's career, his life's work, for Christ's sake, and thinks it'll all be kept quiet. I'm proud of the Episcopals for outing him and pinning him down so quicky.

As to the "adult links", according to the investigating bishop, "Robinson ended his association with Outright in 1998 and was not aware that the organization has a Web site until this convention." It also appears that the adult site was multiple links away from the Outright site, so the accusation itself (from another bishop, no less) was a serious s-t-r-e-t-c-h of Internet reality.

Desperate, politically-motivated accusations, appropriately dismissed. Not surprising that both were sex-related, since that's where their terror lies.

--

Some revealing excerpts from the investigating bishop's report

I am not Episcopalian/Anglican (ex-Catholic here), but I applaud the tolerance/support that most Episcopalians have shown towards their gay bretheren! At least they have the cajones 'to do the right thing'.

As for the allegations against Robinson - can everyone repeat after the 'church lady' - "Well - isn't thaat conveeeenient".

_____


"Robinson Controversy: Allegations Weak, Timing Suspicious

So exactly what is the substance of the mysterious last-minute, surprise allegation that has put Gene Robinson’s confirmation vote as Bishop of New Hampshire on hold?

Sources say that the alleged inappropriate conduct by the Rev. Cn. Gene Robinson occurred when Robinson touched a married man in his 40’s on his bicep, shoulder and upper back in the process of a public conversation at a province meeting around two years ago.

David Lewis, layman from Manchester, Vt., made the allegations in a series of emails Sunday night with Vermont Bishop Tom Ely. Ely then had a 45-minute conversation with Lewis, who is a member of the conservative Zion Episcopal Church in Manchester Center, Vt., in which Lewis said the contact from Robinson was to his bicep, shoulder and upper back.

The question of whether the allegations are part of an orchestrated campaign by opponents of Robinson’s confirmation is still unclear.

The Rev. David Anderson, president of the American Anglican Council (AAC), a conservative group leading the opposition to Robinson has said to the media several times this week that his group was “reserving the element of surprise,” and reportedly said Sunday night on BBC that “tomorrow is our day.” The surprise about Robinson, however, was not the one they had prepared Anderson said. He denied having anything to do with Lewis’s allegation..."

"...Who is David Lewis?
A member of Zion Episcopal Church in Manchester, Vt., who became unemployed last Friday when a non-profit for which he had been a fundraiser shut down.

A member of the town’s planning board known for arguing vociferously for his positions, a volunteer theater critic for his local weekly newspaper with a predilection for feisty reviews that often drew just as vehement a response.

A married man with a young teenage son, a former editor of a local regional travel guide.
“He’d get into heated debates on the planning commission I served on with him, but he would also try to find a compromise road to some answers,” said Bill Drunsic. Drunsic was also on the board of the non profit Lewis worked for from 2000 until last week and said that Lewis’s performance had been “exemplary.” The organization had been set up to supplement school funding for the town, but a new state law that restored school funding made the non profit no longer needed, Drunsic said."

Every Voice

_____

By any chance did anyone else see Rev. Falwell on MSNBC talking about the charges this morning?
He was asked if he was surprised, his response was something about gay men thinking with only one organ so no he was not surprised! Also brought up the Catholic church and that issue!

he was confirmed let the fire works begin

Is that pompous blowhard still babbling on TV? Doesn't he have a Teletubby to hunt down or something?

It should be noted who helped trump up the silly charge (and this is the silly part) that the website of the group that the Bishop was once involved with has a link to a site that has a link to site that has naughty pictures. It was mainly trumped up by the homophobic Fred Barnes of Weekly Standard and Special Report with Brit Hume fame. The Star Tribune has an interesting editorial on this. I would link to it, but it requires registration.

I read the full account of the two alleged incidents in today’s paper. Mr. Lewis indicated that during conversation Robinson placed a hand on his forearm while at the same time placing his other hand on his lower back.

I’m reading this and thinking…And then what? And then what? He pulled your pants down and grabbed your privates while making suggestive comments and trying to kiss you?

Uhhhhm, no. That was it. He touched his forearm and lower back. Then later that day he….

Oh! This must be it, I’m thinking. Here it comes! He cornered you in the men’s room and attempted to force himself on you, didn’t he?

No. During conversation, again Robinson placed a hand on his forearm while at the same time placing his other hand on his lower back. Twice he did it!

Mr. Lewis recounted these events in an email that talked about how uncomfortable this intimacy made him feel. I can understand that. I’ve met quite a few people who’ve put an arm around my shoulder, patted me on the back. I even remember one woman who did that very same putting the hand on my forearm thing. It’s not something I would do. Lewis used the word “harassment” which he later said he regretted but clearly he interpreted these actions in a sexual way. This is where his mind really jumped the shark. Lewis is generally described as a nice, bright, involved, community spirited kind of guy but he has a problem. A psychiatrist might help him figure out what it is.

Ironically, Lewis indicated that he was angry as he wrote the email, thinking that church officials would just ignore him. Think again, Mr. Lewis! I even read a piece about this guy on Deutsche Welle this morning. This is his 15 minutes. He’s world famous. The press will be camped out at his home and church for a week, at least. Talk about your just desserts.

The second allegation, about the porno, was just totally bogus but apparently the best the opposition could come up with.

As pleasing as Robinson’s confirmation may be, now is a good time to re-express my view that all organized religion is bad.

So, um...how many organs does Mr. Falwell use to think?

One ... his rectum!

well CHARLIE IN THE TREES, you've amazed me once again...i find your RECENT silence on this issue interesting and disturbing...after pointing out that, "(you) really have no set opinion on this because (you're) not Episcopal or Anglican, but (you) do find this whole matter "interesting", you proceeded to offer your opinion...a number of things about your post bother me...i'll cover a few of them here...first, by the time you made your post, there was a lot more specific information available about the accusations and the accuser...even though only 24 hours had passed it proved to be MORE than enough time to debunk each allegation...second, the way you repeated the accusations seemed as though your mind had already jumped to the conclusion that the worst possible scenario conceivable for "inappropriate touching" and "porno connection" must have occured...third, you never even mentioned what to me seemed the most obvious questions concerning the accusations: the suspicious timing, the accusers, the motive, etc...you never questioned how the accuser defined "inappropriate male to male contact" or who was calling a site "of an adult nature" and what their definition of that was...even days after this information has been made public the silence from you, never one to not express an opinion, has been deafening...the thing that MOST concerns me is the fact that the concept of "innocent until proven guilty" and due process seems to be lost on you...guess you'd have to be an attorney to understand these concepts, OH wait a minute you ARE an attorney...that's even more distressing...the "end justifies the means" and "win at all cost" mantra seems to suit you better...you even called this man "untrustworthy"...what did you base this assessment on...i guess no queer could ever be really trusted...honestly man i have tried but i just don't understand your thought processes or beliefs...they seem to be so self defeating and self hating...i'm somewhat surprized that with your faith and your seeming negative feelings toward anything gay or liberal, that you dont join one of those "sinners in the hands of an angry God" or "Dante's Inferno" monk orders that spend their days and nights depriving themselves of anything pleasurable, living in sack cloth and ashes, praying constantly for forgivness and righteousness while beating themselves across their bloody backs with a cat-o-nine tails...i don't know what has brought you to this point in your life but i will sincerely be praying that you find some peace within yourself and an understanding that God made you and loves you without the wailing and nashing of teeth...i send my love to you brother, the love of Christ

You know, not to kill this thread, but.. come on... another tampa fan? welcome to the bandwagon, welcome aboard... tally ho.

PS CITT is a true american.

Responding to UM.REBELandTAMPA.BUCfan:

well CHARLIE IN THE TREES, you've amazed me once again...i find your RECENT silence on this issue interesting and disturbing
I made my point. I said what I had to say. Y'know, it's like that old Omar Khayyam line: "the moving finger writes; and, having writ, moves on ..."

...after pointing out that, "(you) really have no set opinion on this because (you're) not Episcopal or Anglican, but (you) do find this whole matter "interesting", you proceeded to offer your opinion
I said I have no "set opinion" because ultimately I do not have to live with the consequences of actions taken by the American Episcopal church. I'm not a member. I have no intention of joining. They could elect Satan himself to head the whole freakin' church and it would not affect me one iota. The fact that I claim to have no "set opinion," yet I offer what I deem to be transitory thoughts, well, give that whatever weight you will.

...a number of things about your post bother me...i'll cover a few of them here...first, by the time you made your post, there was a lot more specific information available about the accusations and the accuser...even though only 24 hours had passed it proved to be MORE than enough time to debunk each allegation
So you say. Neither of us really know what investigation, if any, was conducted in that short time.

...second, the way you repeated the accusations seemed as though your mind had already jumped to the conclusion that the worst possible scenario conceivable for "inappropriate touching" and "porno connection" must have occuredI referred to the "inappropriate touching" as an "allegation." Where I come from, "allegation" means just that. Someone has "alleged" something to be true. It's been proven neither true nor false. I was very clear that these were unproven.

...third, you never even mentioned what to me seemed the most obvious questions concerning the accusations: the suspicious timing, the accusers, the motive, etc.
Actually, I did find both the timing and the nature of the allegation extremely suspicious. I found it deeply suspicious that when a gay man is up for a promotion or appointment, the negative allegations pertain to sexual misconduct. I think there were a Mt. Everest of reasons to oppose this arrogant man, yet I was upset that the appointment was only on the verge of being defeated when the 11th hour (59th minute) allegations of sexual improprieties surfaced. Which is why I think it would've been nice to conduct an investigation that would seemed to have been real, and not just a whitewash.

...you never questioned how the accuser defined "inappropriate male to male contact" or who was calling a site "of an adult nature" and what their definition of that was
Actually, I wasn't troubled by the "inappropriate male to male contact" allegation, which I thought could be investigated quickly. The new bishop's connection with the Outright website is the allegation that I thought needed time for a thorough ivestigation.

...even days after this information has been made public the silence from you, never one to not express an opinion, has been deafening
I already had said what I had to say. Apparently, I have no influence on the hierarchy of the American Episcopal church. Which is how it should be.

...the thing that MOST concerns me is the fact that the concept of "innocent until proven guilty" and due process seems to be lost on you
Again, read my post on the allegations. I only said investigate. If you want me to detail the reasons why I think the man is wholly unqualified for a position of authority within a mainstream Christian church, pull up a chair.

...guess you'd have to be an attorney to understand these concepts, OH wait a minute you ARE an attorney...that's even more distressing...the "end justifies the means" and "win at all cost" mantra seems to suit you better
Now, really.

...you even called this man "untrustworthy"...what did you base this assessment on
Oh, I find the utter lack of humility and the total arrogance of this man to be off-putting. Comparing himself to Christ when he equated his election to "Easter Sunday" coming after "Good Friday". As a Christian, I would think you find his equation of his ordeal to a crucifixion, as his elevation to bishop to the resurrection, to be somewhat blasphemous, maybe? Or his declaration that God blessed his relationship to his male partner. Considering that his position is contrary to the dogma of his church - and he was up for a leadership position with said church - I would think he should have added some qualifiers, like maybe he "hoped that God would bless" his union. Instead, he arrogantly professes that he has personal knowledge that God has taken a position directly contrary to his church's. But, far and away, I find it most troubling that he left his young children to carry on a relationship with another person and he professes absolutely no regret. I don't care whether he left his wife for a man or woman. And divorce is not a disqualifier for a position of authority within the Protestant denominations, but ... again, a little recognition that his children may have some transitional problems would've been nice. You know they did. Children always do in any divorce situation, even if it works out in the long run. But to loudly proclaim that there were no problems, and that his children were always supportive (I don't doubt that they are now) ... I find that lacking in credibility.

...i guess no queer could ever be really trusted...honestly man i have tried but i just don't understand your thought processes or beliefs
Attacking the straw man, are we?

...they seem to be so self defeating and self hating
This is the second time I've been accused of being self-hating simply by dissenting from the prevailing gay groupthink. You obviously don't know me. So until then, I ask that you refrain from the amateur psychoanalysis. Like I said the last time I was accused of being "self-hating": I don't hate anybody except child murderers, Hillary Rodham, and most people from the Dallas Cowboys.

...i'm somewhat surprized that with your faith and your seeming negative feelings toward anything gay or liberal[i]
Well, I'm not negative about everything "gay." I don't have a negative attitude towards having sex with men, although my love life / sex life is, as they say, on the "DL". Except in my case, "DL" doesn't stand for "down low." It stands for "disabled list." As in: it's been completely disabled. wink Wait, maybe I am being a little too negative ... wink

[i]...that you dont join one of those "sinners in the hands of an angry God" or "Dante's Inferno" monk orders that spend their days and nights depriving themselves of anything pleasurable, living in sack cloth and ashes, praying constantly for forgivness and righteousness while beating themselves across their bloody backs with a cat-o-nine tails
Now who's the drama queen? I'm ready for my close up, Mr. DeMille.

...i don't know what has brought you to this point in your life but i will sincerely be praying that you find some peace within yourself and an understanding that God made you and loves you without the wailing and nashing of teeth...i send my love to you brother, the love of Christ
Well, I'm never one to turn down someone praying for this soul. However, I'm afraid that I must admit that I don't consider you to be the final authority on what I need to do in this life. Sorry.
In all seriousness, I continually wonder if I'm leading the life I should, if I'm a good enough person (and this is definitely not limited to the gay thing). That's not "wailing and gnashing of teeth" (and not "nashing of teeth," which would refer to gumming a Rambler). That's what I consider "humility" (and, yes, I even worry if I'm being arrogant about my humility). That's what I wish all church leaders ... including leaders of my own beloved Catholic church would have. That's also something I found utterly lacking in a Episcopal bishop candidate who was dominating the news.

I'm going to add one final point. It all depends on whether you consider a church position to be a "calling" or just a job. If it's just a job, then none of what I said matters. Bishop Robinson is certainly qualified for the "job." But if the religious life is calling, and people in authority in religious denominations are held to higher standard, then I would have problems with this appointment if I were Episcopal.

[ August 07, 2003, 06:28 PM: Message edited by: Charlie in the Trees ]

Now that Robinson is Bishop, at least one prominent non-Anglican is having a major hissy fit: Patrick Buchanan, who writes:

And how many good "pro-family" politicians and leaders have been divorced - like Bob Barr, Newt Gingrich, George Will, Ronald Reagan! - yet they never seem to receive any criticism.

Given the questions about Pat's own marriage - good Catholic but no children, one has to wonder if he is holding himself up as the example of one who "fought his temptations."

The full commentary is here:

Buchanan Commentary on Robinson's elevation as Bishop

So, this sunday on CNN, it came to light that they (CNN) were given the information regarding the porn links. Withing a matter of hours they determined that the number of links required to get to the porn the story did not hold up, and did not report on it.

A question for Chari;e in the trees..You said
"I'm going to add one final point. It all depends on whether you consider a church position to be a "calling" or just a job. If it's just a job, then none of what I said matters. Bishop Robinson is certainly qualified for the "job." But if the religious life is calling, and people in authority in religious denominations are held to higher standard, then I would have problems with this appointment if I were Episcopal"
So then was Peter fit? After all he could not remain awake, and he did deny Jesus 3 times?
BTW I say un to you "Dominus vobiscum"

Yes. But did Peter demand that church teachings be changed so that he had the right to deny Christ whenever he chose, or the right to fall asleep rather than remaining awake?

I belong to a church that teaches forgiveness and redemption. And churches will always have to be led by men who are inherently fallible (even papal infallibility is limited to matters of faith). But forgiveness requires a recognition of our own sinfulness and limitations: not a demand that church teachings be changed to reflect our own personal proclivities. I never once heard Bishop Robinson say he's done anything wrong about anything ever for which he would need forgiven. His whole position was Sammy Davis Jr. singing "I Gotta Be Me."

That's why your analogy to St. Peter doesn;t hold. (And at least you're being more humble towards Bishop Robinson than he his himself, as he likened his 24-hour delay in confirmation to Christ's time on the cross.)

Ok, Thanks for your reasoning. While I do no agree, I can see where you are coming from, and therefore respect your opinion on this issue.
Do you then think Psalm 42 applies?
ludica me, Deus, et discerne causam meam de gente non sancta: ab homine iniquo et doloso erue me
(Do me justice , O God and fight my fight against a faithless people; from the deceitful and impious man resuue me)

More on the guy who initially accused Robinson of "sexual harrassment", then withdrew the accusation. (Sort of. He remains \"sure about what happened to him.\")

Support, understanding urged for clergy accuser - Rutland Herald 8/11/03

Two days, two papers.

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20031021...12753-1083r.htm

Recalling Deep Throat's advice to "follow the money," the Washington Post wrote this today:

Edited to add:

Gee, there's that Chalcedon Foundation again. It showed up in another thread entirely, in a link provided by Bill W.

The Integrity of Elections Will be in the Unchallenged, Unscrutinized Control of a Few Large - and Pro-Republican - Corporations (Independent UK)

I hope it’s not too late to jump into this one, but it seems to me that you may not have visited very many Episcopal Churches? I grew up in one in Eastern Oregon, spent about two decades in one in Edmonds, Washington, and now attend Trinity Episcopal, in Seattle. All have been very vibrant, involving faith communities - though differing from eachother in many ways - and my current parish is one of the most intellectually challenging places I’ve been as well as a very alive place with a full congregation of diverse people (many races, straight/gay, conservative/liberal) who genuinely enjoy eachother.

I’m not sure that sheer numbers tell whether a church, or any other organization, has much to offer. In this case, I think the opposite is the case: a lot of the growing churches grow because thy offer a very black-and-white, simplistic form of religion. People, unfortunately, like simple answers and sound bites, and many people feel somehow safer when they can identify some “other” to fear or hate. That’s hardly a way to grow.

The Episcopal church, generally, refuses to simplify and cast things in stone. This is part on its history. Anglicanism did not start with Henry VIII – it started with Elizabeth I, who had seen what a generation of intolerance, religious fundamentalism, and thought-control could do. She resettled the Church of England under the broad guideline that “I will make no windows into men’s souls.” What she set up was a church where people could differ, but could still worship together. Seems to me that’s what we need these days!

What I find in my parish now is “passionate toleration.” We are dedicated to worshiping together in spite of differences. That’s hard to “sell” because it requires people to be adult, take some responsibility for their own opinions rather than imposing them on others, and one suspects, frightens off people who need broad agreement of convince themselves that they are right. It takes maturity to differ, just as it takes strength to live love of your neighbor as an active principle. That’s why bodies like the Episcopal Church and the Quakers can seem “irrelevant” to an outside viewer.

It’s hard to preach that kind acceptance. People want simple answers. “Junk politic” and “junk religion” are all too happy to pander to ignorance and fear. But I cannot help but think that Anglicanism and Episcopalianism offer a great deal.

And apparently Nat, not to take anything away from your eloquent assessment of the Episcopal Church/Anglican Communion - even in that movement there are those who believe if you can't reach broad agreement, just threaten violence.

The most divisive thing about this argument is not homosexuality, it is the complete refusal of the "conservative" side to acknowledge that Robinson and the bishops who voted in favor of his consecration may actually be working from their own hearts and souls. There is an absolute refusal to acknowledge that the belief in homosexuality as a natural and blessed part of human experience, at least for some small percentage of humans, could ever be reconciled with Christianity.

I know there were arguments among the Anglicans over ordaining women, and some parishes that will still not have female ministers, but was there this kind of vitrol? I doubt it, because in that case it seems some individuals could acknowledge the potential morality of both arguments, and agreed to disagree as Elizabeth I tried to encourage.

Advocate coverage of Robinson's Death Threats

Edited to add: I should have read further on the Advocate web site - there was also this:

Incredible.

More Advocate Coverage

Imagine no religion
It's easy if you try
No hell below us
Above us only sky

Ha! I worked for Washington Mutual Bank for years; they bought the Ahmanson Company (they had Home Savings here in SoCal). Ahmanson Ranch was a big chunk of land that's a pristine wildlife area. WAMU wanted to build 3,000 golfcourse homes but they got their asses kicked; they recently sold the plot off to the state and it'll be parkland.

Great. My sweat and toil went to "fund conservative causes". Nice.

Interesting interview with Episcopal Bishop Barbara Harris, who became the Anglican Communion's first female bishop in 1989.

"This is historic in the sense that Gene (Robinson) has been open and honest about his sexuality, but he is by no means the first gay bishop, which is why I think some of the fuss being made is hypocritical. People know very well that we've had gay bishops before, but they haven't talked about it."

Um, is she outing HERSELF?

From the article cited by redsoxbreath:

Excuse me Canon Mary Maggard Hays - but have you never heard of Jonathan and David? - only the greatest Isrealite King. Of course that's Old Testament, but since the same person, St. Paul, in the New Testament rails against women leadership in the church and against "homosexual behavior" they must be going outside the New Testament to justify female ministers and bishops.

Well she could, and maybe she should, but I don't think she is. Doesn't outing yourself require saying the words "I am gay"?

Not always.

But to address CPT's quoting of Barbara Harris, why does she need to racialize this discussion? Aren't some of the most virulent opponents of the consecration based in Africa and Asia? Are they "white boys"? She's obviously got a bone to pick with the [white male?] conservatives in the American Episcopal-Anglican church, but really, she needs to look at the larger issue, which is the international opposition. And isn't Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury and the primate of the church, in general supportive of gay people?

Southern Baptists battle gay rights

(Warning: bad combover alert)

Wednesday, 11/05/03

For those who may not know, 60 Minutes is featuring a story/interview tonight with Gene Robinson....hopefully they'll portray him in a positive light, but with CBS you can never be too sure.

gamecock, did you get to watch the 60 minutes program? I only saw your post this morning and missed 60 minutes. Was it worth watching?

Pissed me off that Ed Bradley referred to Robinson's "lifestyle," but overall a very fair piece.

Missed it. Ironically enough, BostonGirl were at a meeting at the Episcopal church that we are joining. Topic of the meeting was Homosexuality and the Church. Thank goodness it's a liberal (but not completely liberal) church. The divisiveness is heatrbreaking, although it's not as bad as it is with the churches in which she and I were raised (Catholic and Methodist, respectively).

Not that he's been here for awhile, but I'll still debate CITT on this, being (1) honest, (2) a lawyer and (3) a devout, church-going Episcopalian.

I'm still amazed that the Episcopal Church did not split during the Civil War, as many denominations did, and there was no fuss from the overseas brethren about those Episcopalians who were on the side of the slaveholders. Are we to understand, then, that the conservative branch of the Episcopal Church believes that homosexuality is far worse than slavery?