Anglican Church Homophobic?

[cybercoma]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6680385.stm

Openly gay Bishop Gene Robinson, of New Hampshire, and Martyn Minns, of the breakaway Convocation of Anglicans, will not be at the [Lambeth Conference of the Anglican Communion].

More than 850 Anglican bishops have been invited to the conference.

The consecration of Gene Robinson four years ago led to a global dispute in the worldwide Anglican Church.

At a meeting last month in Tanzania, Anglican leaders issued an ultimatum to the US Church demanding an end to the appointment of gay clergy and the blessing of same-sex couples.

After being elected and consecrated by their church, they are being shunned from its gatherings. The Anglican Church can't seem to make up its mind here. If there's a divine being whose rules they're following, He or She should really make their intentions clearer.

These government supported institutions (through tax-exemptions and freedom of religion reverence) are illustrating hatred and bigotry toward homosexuals. Shame on the Anglican Church for being so disrespectful to these bishops.

[betsy]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6680385.stm

Openly gay Bishop Gene Robinson, of New Hampshire, and Martyn Minns, of the breakaway Convocation of Anglicans, will not be at the [Lambeth Conference of the Anglican Communion].

More than 850 Anglican bishops have been invited to the conference.

The consecration of Gene Robinson four years ago led to a global dispute in the worldwide Anglican Church.

At a meeting last month in Tanzania, Anglican leaders issued an ultimatum to the US Church demanding an end to the appointment of gay clergy and the blessing of same-sex couples.

After being elected and consecrated by their church, they are being shunned from its gatherings. The Anglican Church can't seem to make up its mind here. If there's a divine being whose rules they're following, He or She should really make their intentions clearer.

These government supported institutions (through tax-exemptions and freedom of religion reverence) are illustrating hatred and bigotry toward homosexuals. Shame on the Anglican Church for being so disrespectful to these bishops.

You know why the Anglican Church keeps flipflopping? It's about numbers!

When their quorum at their meetings is dominantly homosexuals, the decisions come down for homosexual behaviour in the church, and in society. When the quorum, by some luck or trickery, is dominantly heterosexual, the criticisms of homosexuality in the church, and I hope in society, is the flavor of the day.

If the foxes are voting in keeping the hen-house door open, we know the fate of the chickens.

[cybercoma]

If there is a God, shouldn't He or She have the final say? Religious people believe God is real and answers prayers and acts on our lives everyday.

Unless you're saying Christianity...erm, I mean Anglicanism, is man-made and not divine.

[betsy]

If there is a God, shouldn't He or She have the final say? Religious people believe God is real and answers prayers and acts on our lives everyday.

Unless you're saying Christianity...erm, I mean Anglicanism, is man-made and not divine.

What?

Of course I'm saying Anglicanism is man-made and not divine! So is Roman Catholicism. So is every other Christian church. So is every institution that claims to speak for God.

God did not proscribe the rites of the Roman Catholic Church, the Anglican Church or any other church. They're the inventions of men. For good or for bad. They were designed by men to worship their God, in whatever way they felt appropriate. Sometimes it wasn't.

And what is this He or she? Eh?

[sharkman]

Cyber, I think you know full well that by your unique defintion ALL churches are homophobic (save the very few that ordain them) so why start yet another hate thread on your favorite target of bigotry? We get it already.

[cybercoma]

I see. God exists, but all religion is wrong. Interesting concept, this personal God idea.

[B. Max]

I see. God exists, but all religion is wrong. Interesting concept, this personal God idea.

That from someone who obviously can't tell right from wrong.

[cybercoma]

Cyber, I think you know full well that by your unique defintion ALL churches are homophobic (save the very few that ordain them) so why start yet another hate thread on your favorite target of bigotry? We get it already.

I'm not starting a hate thread. I'm posting news about the Anglican Church having homosexual bishops but not allowing them to major events and in fact condemning them. I don't have a unique definition of homophobia (I hate that term by the way, there is no 'fear' it's simply bigotry), at all. When a group of people show systemic hatred and intolerance for homosexuals, you should be as repulsed by that as you are by systemic hatred and intolerance for jews and blacks. If expecting the church to answer for THEIR bigotry is bigoted (obviously it's not and only someone who doesn't understand bigotry would suggest otherwise), then I am.

[betsy]

I see. God exists, but all religion is wrong. Interesting concept, this personal God idea.

You see what? I think you don't see.

Religion does not equal church. Christianity is a religion. Church is a building. Denominations occupy church buildings and call themselves what they like. Anglican, Roman Catholic, or whatever, but they're all Christians, in our discussion.

Those occupants practice Christianity, their religion, well or not well.

As far as the personal god goes, that's a modern secular concept. Worshipping the Self.

[cybercoma]

That from someone who obviously can't tell right from wrong.

I find this pretty offensive and not at all appropriate to this discussion.

[B. Max]

That from someone who obviously can't tell right from wrong.

I find this pretty offensive and not at all appropriate to this discussion.

Not as offensive as this.

These government supported institutions (through tax-exemptions and freedom of religion reverence) are illustrating hatred and bigotry toward homosexuals. Shame on the Anglican Church for being so disrespectful to these bishops.

What do you think the church is about. The church was not only right to censure, but it's about time.

[cybercoma]

Please B., explain to me how doing all but defrocking these bishops because of their sexual orientation is not bigoted. It was known full well that they were gay when they were put in their position and now the church is openly condemning them for their sexuality. This wouldn't be allowed in a private workplace because it's unacceptable to discriminate; in a church it should be just as unacceptable to treat people in this way.

[M.Dancer]

After being elected and consecrated by their church, they are being shunned from its gatherings. The Anglican Church can't seem to make up its mind here. If there's a divine being whose rules they're following, He or She should really make their intentions clearer.

These government supported institutions (through tax-exemptions and freedom of religion reverence) are illustrating hatred and bigotry toward homosexuals. Shame on the Anglican Church for being so disrespectful to these bishops.

I am amazed why a self professed atheist would give a flying fuque about the internal politics of a benign religious sect.

Why let a good opportunity for religion bashing to go by eh.....

[cybercoma]

Because it shows how this particular religion is systemically promoting hatred and oppression towards homosexuals. It's just another chapter in the history of religious ignorance and intolerance.

[newbie]

Please B., explain to me how doing all but defrocking these bishops because of their sexual orientation is not bigoted. It was known full well that they were gay when they were put in their position and now the church is openly condemning them for their sexuality.

Maybe the Catholics will take 'em.

[B. Max]

Please B., explain to me how doing all but defrocking these bishops because of their sexual orientation is not bigoted. It was known full well that they were gay when they were put in their position and now the church is openly condemning them for their sexuality. This wouldn't be allowed in a private workplace because it's unacceptable to discriminate; in a church it should be just as unacceptable to treat people in this way.

What's there to explain, they shouldn't have been there in the first place. Let them start their own church. Bringing corruption like that into the church is crazy. What is unacceptable is people who think they should be able to force the acceptance of bad behavior of others, on those who disagree with the bad behavior. Be it in the church or anywhere else.

[sharkman]

Because it shows how this particular religion is systemically promoting hatred and oppression towards homosexuals. It's just another chapter in the history of religious ignorance and intolerance.

Yes, as opposed to your promotion of hatred and oppression towards Christians? Give it a rest already.

[cybercoma]

Yes, as opposed to your promotion of hatred and oppression towards Christians? Give it a rest already.

Asking people to support their beliefs with evidence, logic and reason is not what any rational thinking person would call hatred and oppression.

[jefferiah]

It's quite simple, Cybercoma. In the Bible it is said that for one man to lie with another man in the same way he lies with a woman is a sin. So according to many churches it is a sin. And if a certain churches official position on the subject is that homosexual acts are sins then that is their business. I think people like to make everything bigotry nowadays, and it can go too far. I don't understand how it is anybody's business really. If someone believes that homosexual acts are sins whose business is that. To believe something is a sin is not bigoted. Suppose you started a religion, or even just a social club, that forbade people to wash with Ivory soap. Washing with Ivory soap now becomes the equivalent of sin. It is against the rules. Anyone who wants to join is aware of this, so if they happen to have the "orientation" of an Ivory soap buyer, they will understand that if they want to join this is what is done. And if they don't like it, they don't have to join. Are you a homosexual trying to get a ministry? What is your beef?

[cybercoma]

Your assumptions aside, I have a beef with systemic oppression towards a group of people based solely on with whom they find love. These bishops were clearly gay before they were bishops and now the Church is going back and changing its mind.

If the Bible says it's ok to offer your daughters to rapists* or impregnate them** (see: Lot, does that make it any more acceptable? Nevermind the fact that death and destruction are status quo in this part of the Bible.

* Gen 19:5,8 "5And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them. 8Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof."

** Gen 19:33-36 "33And they made their father drink wine that night: and the firstborn went in, and lay with her father; and he perceived not when she lay down, nor when she arose. 34And it came to pass on the morrow, that the firstborn said unto the younger, Behold, I lay yesternight with my father: let us make him drink wine this night also; and go thou in, and lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father. 35And they made their father drink wine that night also: and the younger arose, and lay with him; and he perceived not when she lay down, nor when she arose. 36Thus were both the daughters of Lot with child by their father."

Not only is it morally repugnant that Lot impregnates his daughters, but the Bible paints a picture of Lot being the victim. If the treatment of women in the Bible isn't disgustingly oppressive to you by this story alone, then I find it awfully difficult to believe you have any morals at all.

It is patently absurd to claim that belief in what is written in the Bible should be acceptable merely because it is written in the Bible.

Leviticus 20:13 "13If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them."

Is it their business if the church decides to start murdering homosexuals? It's in their Bible to do so and we are never to question the word of the Bible, nor faith in its teachings, right? Faith, of course being, belief without proof or any other logical reason to believe.

When religious moderates such as yourself demand free-thinking, inquiry and reasonable skepticism take a back seat to the Bible and religious teachings, it creates a dangerous environment where those who choose to do so can get away with murder.

[jefferiah]

Is the church murdering homosexuals, Cybercoma. Be realistic. The church is not sending out an army to exterminate them are they? So if you see religion as no more than a social club, and it's one you don't like, you don't have to join. Homosexuals are allowed to go to church. Temptation itself as far as I know is not a sin anyway (I don't actually go to Church). But homosexuals acts are forbidden. But not by punishment. The church has no power to put people in jail do they. You say it is not the Church's business to decide who somebody loves. Well they can't decide that. But they can decide who they want as leaders (for better or worse) that is their business. They cannot stop a Priest or whatever from leaving and getting married to a man or whatnot. But if that is against the rules of their society they can choose another leader. How is it oppression? Are they starving them to death?

Homophobic is a funny term, and a large assumption in itself. Who is to say that all these people are afraid of homosexuals? Do Jews shrink in fear when they meet pork eaters? Does believing something is wrong mean you are afraid of it. In some cases it may be very true. But the flip side is that people also go too far the other way. Believing something is a sin does not necessarily mean that you are going to be mean to a person who commits that sin, or that you will feel uncomfortable about your own orientation because of it. It can simply mean that you do believe it is wrong. And we all have a freedom of conscience prescribed by law, as long as you dont start assualting people who have a different conscience. Believing that homosexuality is a sin is no more a detriment to society than believing that eating pork is wrong or believing that wearing fur is wrong. If a group of people who happens to believe that wearing fur is wrong (among other beliefs) wishes to get together and have a group and speak their mind about this and other things among their own group, that is their business. If one of their leaders comes to the podium to speak at one of their meetings wearing a mink shawl, it is their business to decide if that violates the code of their society, or whather or not they should forgive. Since you don't even want to belong to the church why do you care about it.

[jefferiah]

As to the issue of discrimination in hiring, you do understand that a religion is a bit different than a regular business.

Now let's say I discriminated against someone by not hiring him to work at my candy store because in his spare time he is a seal hunter. That would be kind of wierd and irrelevant wouldn't it. But if it were not a candy store, but rather it was the people at PETA who decided that he was not suitable to be a chairman or whatever of their organization it would kind of make sense wouldn't it, given their beliefs.

[jefferiah]

Your assumptions aside, I have a beef with systemic oppression towards a group of people based solely on with whom they find love. These bishops were clearly gay before they were bishops and now the Church is going back and changing its mind.

If the Bible says it's ok to offer your daughters to rapists* or impregnate them** (see: Lot, does that make it any more acceptable? Nevermind the fact that death and destruction are status quo in this part of the Bible.

* Gen 19:5,8 "5And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them. 8Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof."

** Gen 19:33-36 "33And they made their father drink wine that night: and the firstborn went in, and lay with her father; and he perceived not when she lay down, nor when she arose. 34And it came to pass on the morrow, that the firstborn said unto the younger, Behold, I lay yesternight with my father: let us make him drink wine this night also; and go thou in, and lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father. 35And they made their father drink wine that night also: and the younger arose, and lay with him; and he perceived not when she lay down, nor when she arose. 36Thus were both the daughters of Lot with child by their father."

Not only is it morally repugnant that Lot impregnates his daughters, but the Bible paints a picture of Lot being the victim. If the treatment of women in the Bible isn't disgustingly oppressive to you by this story alone, then I find it awfully difficult to believe you have any morals at all.

It is patently absurd to claim that belief in what is written in the Bible should be acceptable merely because it is written in the Bible.

Leviticus 20:13 "13If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them."

Is it their business if the church decides to start murdering homosexuals? It's in their Bible to do so and we are never to question the word of the Bible, nor faith in its teachings, right? Faith, of course being, belief without proof or any other logical reason to believe.

When religious moderates such as yourself demand free-thinking, inquiry and reasonable skepticism take a back seat to the Bible and religious teachings, it creates a dangerous environment where those who choose to do so can get away with murder.

What if anybody decides to start murdering homosexuals? Why the church? Is the church doing it? Maybe we should put everybody in jail lest they decide to do something.

[cybercoma]

I see, promoting hatred and discrimination towards a defined group of people is ok, as long as you're not murdering them. Although, if a group wanted to go ahead and murder them, they could justify it with the Bible you tout as being an infallible truth. The Church may not be like a business, nor have to follow the same hiring practices, but neither is the KKK and they're still abhorrent because of their beliefs. Churches and religion get special status, they're allowed to discriminate and show bigotry because of freedom of religion and moderates that are unwilling to question their faith. I contend that it isn't any less detestable.

[jefferiah]

How do you know they hate homosexuals? You have just made a huge assumption there. Believing that something is a sin does not mean you hate the person who does it. We all have our own standards and morals, whether they be religious or just personal preferences. I am sure you have friends who may not have exactly the same standard as you, they may do things you dont always agree with, but it does mean you hate them.

Lisa Simpson became a vegetarian because she felt eating meat was morally wrong. But she did not disown her whole family, right?

I am sure there are people who are anti-fur are able to see past their beliefs enough to be able to talk and enjoy social interactions with people who wear fur. There are more sects of Christianity than I can count and I can't vouch for them all, but most Churches I know of who preach that homosexual actions are sins do not preach a message of being mean or hateful to homosexuals, but of mercy and forgiveness, and that they can change. Now maybe you don't agree with that, but you are an adult and you have a choice of whether you would like to attend their church or not, and so do adult homosexuals. It is quite a stretch to compare it with the KKK. The church is not going to kick out homosexuals or call for their extermination. I don't think it is even often a subject of many sermons, really. But I mean why all the special treatment for homosexuals. Seriously, in some ways I think we have lost sight of how silly it is getting. Because the gay rights movement is getting to the point where it is actually enforcing its own beliefs on people through legislation, not just seeking the freedom to practice. You know it is not considered discrimination in most other cases to consider something a sin. I don't feel like I am a victim of Jewish bigotry because they believe that eating pork is wrong. Tolerance and condoning are not one and the same. But it seems that with the gay movement nowadays they want it to be. Not only is tolerance enough, you have to condone it. Why? People can condone whatever they want.