Corrente

If you have "no place to go," come here!

Gay-hating Episcopalian schismatics don't get to take the church keys with them when they split

[Welcome, so-called Anglicans! And just so you know I haven't forgotten you....]

You remember the Scaife-funded gay hater Episcopalians? The ones who had to go to Nigeria to outsource Bishops who hated gays enough to satisfy them?

Well--and of course, it's never about the money--they don't get to break away from the Church and take the buildings with them, because the buildings (duh) belong to the Diocese. LA Times:

In a victory for the Episcopal Diocese of Los Angeles, a state appeals panel has upheld the diocese's claim to the buildings and other property of three conservative parishes that had severed their ties with the diocese.

The unanimous decision by a panel of the appeals court in Santa Ana reversed lower court rulings in the case, which involves St. James Church in Newport Beach, All Saints Church in Long Beach and St. David's Church in North Hollywood.

The ruling was reached late Monday by a three-judge panel of the 4th District Court of Appeal.

In August 2004, the dissident parishes pulled out of the six-county Los Angeles Diocese and the 2.3-million-member Episcopal Church, citing differences over biblical interpretation, including what they described as the diocese's too-lenient views on homosexuality. Instead, they placed themselves under the jurisdiction of a conservative Anglican bishop in Uganda.

The Los Angeles Diocese sued, arguing that the parishes held their church buildings in trust for the diocese and the national Episcopal Church and thus were not entitled to the property. An Orange County trial judge, in separate decisions, had ruled in favor of the parishes.

Good. And anything that makes life harder for these assholes is good. These people should check their Bibles and look in their hearts, if any. Luke 7:36-47:

36And one of the Pharisees desired him that he would eat with him. And he went into the Pharisee's house, and sat down to meat.

37 And, behold, a woman in the city, which was a sinner, when she knew that Jesus sat at meat in the Pharisee's house, brought an alabaster box of ointment,

38 And stood at his feet behind him weeping, and began to wash his feet with tears, and did wipe them with the hairs of her head, and kissed his feet, and anointed them with the ointment.

39 Now when the Pharisee which had bidden him saw it, he spake within himself, saying, This man, if he were a prophet, would have known who and what manner of woman this is that toucheth him: for she is a sinner.

40 And Jesus answering said unto him, Simon, I have somewhat to say unto thee. And he saith, Master, say on.

41 There was a certain creditor which had two debtors: the one owed five hundred pence, and the other fifty.

42 And when they had nothing to pay, he frankly forgave them both. Tell me therefore, which of them will love him most?

43 Simon answered and said, I suppose that he, to whom he forgave most. And he said unto him, Thou hast rightly judged.

44 And he turned to the woman, and said unto Simon, Seest thou this woman? I entered into thine house, thou gavest me no water for my feet: but she hath washed my feet with tears, and wiped them with the hairs of her head.

45 Thou gavest me no kiss: but this woman since the time I came in hath not ceased to kiss my feet.

46 My head with oil thou didst not anoint: but this woman hath anointed my feet with ointment.

47 Wherefore I say unto thee, Her sins, which are many, are forgiven; for she loved much: but to whom little is forgiven, the same loveth little.

Even if it were a sin to be gay, Christians who aren't filled with hate should--must--welcome gays into their churches, just like Jesus would.

And if they haven't studied the Book of Haggard, they can study Luke 18:9-14:

9 And he spake this parable unto certain which trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and despised others:

10 Two men went up into the temple to pray; the one a Pharisee, and the other a publican.

11 The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, God, I thank thee, that I am not as other men are, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this publican.

12 I fast twice in the week, I give tithes of all that I possess.

13 And the publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, God be merciful to me a sinner.

14 I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other: for every one that exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted.

We get entirely too much "I thank God that I am not like other men" from the Christianists. Jesus would speak against them, and I'm sick of it.

It's always been about the hate with these people, and as usual with Christianists and Republicans, you can tell by the shifting rationalizations.

Back in the days of Stonewall, gays were to be hated because of promiscuity. Well, now it turns out that for some, promiscuity hasn't worked out too well, and they want to get married. Well, rather than let gays do that for which they were previously hated for not doing--and rather than even be in the same building, let alone sit down to dinner with them, as Jesus would have done--the Scaife-funded Christianists will split the Church and outsource their pastoral care (to pastors who won't sit them down and tell them to work on their own issues first, note well.)

I say, good riddance to them. The Christianists are the same ones who want the 1929 Prayer Book back (and the new Prayer Book is beautiful). They are the same ones who resisted having women priests (and they should be fucking proud to have women priests). And now they want to split the Church on the shoddy theological basis of a few ginned up passages from Leviticus and a whole passle of suppressed hate.

Don't let the Church door hit you on the way out, say I.

NOTE Let's all remember the conservative definition of Hate: Being held accountable.

UPDATE Following the great winger tradition of using one lunatic comment as indicative of an entire movement, from the so-called Anglican board linked to above:

As has been detailed many times, the homosexual is so tied up in what they do, that they cannot separate it from who they are as a person. It is no different than a person in a job for 40 years whose entire identity is what he does for a living. When they retire, they no longer have an identity, and many die shortly thereafter as they no longer see a purpose for living.

Words fail me. I guess if it isn't Teh Hate, it's Teh Banality...

UPDATE And I just love the buried phallocentric metaphor of Stand Firm in Faith. I doubt they're even aware of it...

0
No votes yet

Comments

Submitted by [Please enter a... (not verified) on

I attend St James Church and honestly can tell you that it is a very loving, inclusive church. While doctrine may vary between us, love is not lacking nor is hatred promoted. For the record, we have two priests one of which is a female priest and have a church plant in San Juan Capistrano under the loving leadership of another female priest. Somewhere in the midst of this dispute, a mutual love of Christ and one another needs to take precedent over anger. The church remains about Him, for Him, and through Him. The building is only a "thing". If we lose it, we lose it. Life will go on. Let us not in the process lose the very things that are near to the heart of God.
the peace of the Lord be with you~

Submitted by [Please enter a... (not verified) on

Where in the words of Jesus have the gays been condemned? He had plenty to say about the selfish, the cruel and the hypocritical, but I've not found anything about gays, and I've yet to find a Christianist who can tell me either. Do you know?

Submitted by lambert on

Vengeance and retribution for the damage they've done to the country and our Constitutional system of governance are fine with me, just fine. (Of course, on a good day, I advocate a Truth and Reconcilation commission, where the operative definition of "reconciliation" would be: No actual criminal penalties).

Now, I can't answer your question for you, Greg, because--if you notice--I didn't claim to be a Christian. (The continued, unsmitten presence of the "God is in the White House" Bush administration is one of the stronger arguments for atheism, in my view).

However, I do feel that when Christianists espouse their religion so strongly--bring their spiritual lives out for promiscuous, open display in the public square, as it were--then they need to be held to the standards that Jesus set out in the Bible -- which anybody can read, not just Christianists.

Nice little bit of wankery on "selective quotation," though. Try wiping the Cheetohs off your hands for a moment, and then explain to my why the parables I cited don't apply? Thank you.

P.S. I'm sorry if any unintended offense was taken by calling Christainists (not Christians) assholes. But, in the context of this post, it's kinda subliminabable, so I thought it was a propos. See Haggard:69.

No authoritarians were tortured in the writing of this post.

Submitted by [Please enter a... (not verified) on

Where has the author found any suggestion that the conservative anglicans hate gays? We do not believe that a divorced priest who is having an open adulterous affair is appropriate to be elevated to the office of Bishop. No church has ever been more solicitous and open to inclusion of anyone than the anglican church, but are there no standards for the leadership of the church. maybe not.

Submitted by [Please enter a... (not verified) on

I suppose it's an indicator of something or other when the bookthumpers get so worked up about something you've posted that they feel compelled to lie about it.

Over at the right-winger site, Stand Firm in Faith (more aptly: Slither Further into Fanaticism), the proprietor, Mr. Greg Griffith, has posted an excerpt of your article and has linked to it. However, in standard right-winger form, he's done a propaganda number on it so as to more arouse his membership. Here's the link:

http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.ph...

The headline of Mr. Griffith's posting about your article is:

"We Must Show Christian Love... Except to Gay-Hating Episcopal A**holes

Yep, that's what he said." Greg Griffith

I looked, but I couldn't find that quoted phrase anywhere in your article. I'm not surprised, for Griffith has been known to deliberately distort what people say while claiming to be quoting them. Propaganda tactics? Not in Griffith's view. He calls it "Correcting the bias" he finds in the material he quotes.

Submitted by [Please enter a... (not verified) on

Greg Griffith summarized lambert, but his headline was not a direct quote -- but lambert did say, just after citing the recent court decision in LA, "And anything that makes life harder for these assholes is good." So Greg Griffith did not make it up; that pejorative was used.

It is hard to say anything to lambert -- he does not grasp the basic arguments of conservative Christians, and so he cannot answer them. I wonder if his idea of love and acceptance is to be allowed to do what he pleases -- and anything that might suggest that what he pleases is wrong means that he is not loved or accepted.

Submitted by [Please enter a... (not verified) on

Christians live in the objective world, meaning that a truth is the same (equal) for everybody. I.E. the sky is just as blue for me as it is for you.

The rub is that everybody lives in this objective world and only the "blind" (Jesus' own word) think otherwise. God's word is the WHOLE bible. Paul spoke against homosexuality and so did Moses in the old testament.

The follower of Christ is to approach all things with love and charity...including sinners. And to call something good that is a sin (homosexual behavior) is not showing love or charity.

The follower of Jesus who speaks about homosexual behavior as sinful is nothing more than a fellow child telling the sibling "Remember, dad said we shouldn't do this."

Submitted by [Please enter a... (not verified) on

...of his own site, the spectacle of Greg Griffith whining about the lack of Christian love here gives new meaning to the word "irony."

chicago dyke's picture
Submitted by chicago dyke on

really. it's so tiresome after all this time, to recognize that you are both stupid and deluded. i defy any of you gay haters to prove the "sin-"lessness of your church leaders. ha, as if you could. the hypocrisy of the vast majority of gay hating church leaders in this country (and in africa, for that matter) would be astounding if history didn't prove that it's par for the course for most "religious" leaders.

and no, i'm not going to waste my time providing you with links to support my assertions- you go spend 8 years in divinity school like i did and get back to me. as lambert points out, the only rule i need to know about religious leaders who hate gays is Haggard 6:9. you people will never live him down (and don't prattle at me that he's not "one of yours") or the thousands of others like him. you know, the ones busy sodomizing boys and making money off of child warriors and blood diamonds and blaming gays for 911.

jesus, assuming he even existed, would condemn the lot of you today. and you know it.

Submitted by lambert on

I mean, consigning gay people to the fires of Eternal Hell, if any, because God made them gay...

And they call us hateful? Bilious, perhaps; ranting, perhaps; but as far as bringing Teh Hate, we're pikers.

Of course, we don't have the advantage of having been trained in Christianist doctrine. We just do the best we can.

No authoritarians were tortured in the writing of this post.

Submitted by [Please enter a... (not verified) on

The parable from Luke 7 is usually used to show that contrition precedes forgiveness. The parable from Luke 18 is also used, usually, to show that contrition precedes prayer.

Of course you are more than welcome to use the parables to show that Jesus did not like the same types of folks you don’t like.

Submitted by [Please enter a... (not verified) on

This Lambert guy is a world-class twit.

Submitted by [Please enter a... (not verified) on

Lambert,

We are all sinners - gays and straights - and all need the transforming power of God. We all have besetting sins - for some it is sexual behavior for others greed, anger, etc. Your theological error is Pelagianism - justifying an action that stems from our fallen nature.

Submitted by [Please enter a... (not verified) on

Quote Scripture and then call people assholes. Guess that makes you a first class dick. That must be in your bible somewhere.

Submitted by [Please enter a... (not verified) on

You can call people assholes but I get this when I post :

Your comment has been queued for moderation by site administrators and will be published after approval.

Nice double standard.

Submitted by lambert on

Although he did use the words "whited sepculchres" and "serpents." (Matthew 23:27).

So much for that silly argument about invective, eh?

And, humble sinner? The purpose of the queuing is to deal with spammers, not with ignorant trolls. As you can see, your comment was published.

No authoritarians were tortured in the writing of this post.

Submitted by [Please enter a... (not verified) on

...there is my post. It must have pained you.

And to slightly paraphrase "No one at all was tortured in the writing of this post"

Submitted by lambert on

See my response on "whited sepulchres" immediately above.

No authoritarians were tortured in the writing of this post.

dr sardonicus's picture
Submitted by dr sardonicus on

It is hard to say anything to lambert — he does not grasp the basic arguments of conservative Christians, and so he cannot answer them.

Likewise, since our Christian visitors presuppose the existence of God as the foundation from which they are making their arguments, it is just as hard for you to understand the argument Lambert has been making.

I forget where I read it, but I once saw a quote that said that it is impossible to debate somebody who claims to possess absolute truth.

...for the rest of us

MJS's picture
Submitted by MJS on

If on the one hand a certain sort of person claims the Old Testament to be the word of God, and so believes its words must be followed as holy and sacred law and instruction, why aren't the Christianists stoning sinners? Your God instructs you to do so--nevermind that Jesus died on the lumber so no one else would have to--why hang on to the bitter judgements of desert priests without also warming up the throwing arm and giving the rocks a bloody purpose? You know you want to.

If one is allowed to parse the words of God/revealed Truth in one direction, why not another? Why not ignore the bullying aspects of Semitic texts and pursue the "mote/beam" Jesus scripture, or even "that which you do to the least of them you do to me." If a True Believer thinks there's an answer that justifies the worst of our adrenal instincts but not Lincoln's "better angels of our nature" why does the believer not do the work of seeing beyond the rank fear-based baloney and truly ascend into the Love that is their Bounty at the End of the Rainbow--only in the Here and Now, not some PTBVL (Paradise To Be Visited Later).

Nothing exists that isn't a manifestation of the ineffable. Nothing. Everything else is opinion.

Moved by the Holy Spirit, I provide for your listening pleasure Deuteronomy 21:15-17.

+++

By the way, an asshole is something that shit passes through on its way to the beach. In case anyone was wondering...

+++

Submitted by [Please enter a... (not verified) on

Are we to take everything in Bible literally,then? Civilization began in a garden populated by an adult, Hebrew-speaking man and woman... and a talking snake? Are some of the ridiculous strictures found in the Old Testament to be considered as 'true' as the teachings of Jesus? Many of Jesus' parables emphasized that the Law of Love trumped all other 'laws.' The good Samaritan is a perfect example. When a law violates the Law of Love, it is to be ignored. That was the true Christ message.

Submitted by [Please enter a... (not verified) on

gathered with stones, torches and pitchforks, setting out to rid the land of...

Red Lobster restaurants.

After all, the same book that "forbade" homosexuality, masturbation and witchcraft (alas, three of my favorite things) in about one line each went on for PAGES and pages about dietary restrictions, one of which explicitly and in the strongest terms forbade the consumption of shellfish.

(And also eels, iirc, although I won't swear to that and in any case don't recall ever seeing it on an RL menu. And for the record I love Red Lobster; for midwesterners it's the closest thing to real fresh seafood you can get. Catfish and crawdads don't count.)

Still waitin' here...The ChristoTaliban is disappointing me greatly. Could it be that it's harder to whip up the frightened and insecure and ignorant with rants against a major chain of dining establishtments than against individual "others"? And perhaps more lucrative to keep donations pouring in? I would hate to be so disillusioned as to find out this was the case. :)

Submitted by lambert on

Here's my response to the commenter at SFiF who I felt engaged me most directly:

In Newark:
Thanks for the thoughtful response. But I don’t see how you can have it both ways on Matthew 19: You write:

Moreover, he explicitly defined marriage as grounded in the Creation, to be between a man and a woman

And Jesus concluded with:

Anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery.

Yet you write:

[D]ivorce is certainly not something the church should countenance as freely as it does.

I can’t help but contrast the mildness of this language on the divorced with the vehemence of the language elsewhere on this thread on gays.

It seem to me that to be consistent both in the letter of the law, and in its spirit, everybody on this thread should be seeking to treat gays and the divorced in EXACTLY the same way. Yet they do not.

I am well aware of the distinction between hating the sin and loving the sinner. But from where I sit, homosexuality no more involves sin than heterosexuality does—a loaded statement if ever there was one—and if Jesus were walking the earth today, he’d say so.

Not only that, but your denial of—if not sacramental, pastorally sanctioned (?)—monogamy to gay people is ITSELF deeply sinful. Immoral. Wrong. Not loving. Not neighborly.

That was the reason I asked Lizzie whether everything not allowed in the Bible was forbidden: Although much of human behavior is persistent over time, new forms do evolve (divorce among them), so the Bible cannot cover all cases.

From where I sit, the worldview on display in this thread looks very much like two communities reading their own, time-based social mores back into the (putative) word of God: Today’s schismatics, and yesterday’ scribes whose rigorous approach to informational hygiene transmitted the old testament texts. God (if any) is surely larger than that. That’s why, one would think, that reason is needed, to continually enlarge our scope of understanding.

And now, I must go spend my afternoon elsewhere. Please don’t think you’re being ignored.

NOTE Thanks for the correction on the Episcopal rubric, and for the clarification on marriage.

P.S. None of the OT cites are relevant, since there’s a ton of stuff in Leviticus nobody except the fringiest fringe worries about. A fine proof by example that, as I said, that new forms of human behavior evolve.

Crustaceans, anyone?

No authoritarians were tortured in the writing of this post.

Submitted by [Please enter a... (not verified) on

Hiram claims: "Greg Griffith summarized lambert, but his headline was not a direct quote."

You don't say!? You mean, you actually spotted that Griffith distorted what Lambert said? Wow, a Slither-Further type that can read and is willing to admit it.

The problem is that Griffith claimed that his line is what Lambert said. I know, what's a little thing like intellectual and personal integrity get in the way when there's good propaganda to be written for the loving folks at SFiF, right?

Dust off your specs, and tead what Griffith wrote again:

Yep, that’s what he said.” Greg Griffith

Griffith thinks that altering headlines to "correct" the bias he perceives is perfectly appropriate. And the good little SFiF'er sheeple baaa right on cue.

Submitted by [Please enter a... (not verified) on

You stirred up the lovely people in SFiF very well -- you can tell you hit home by the fact that they immediately trotted out their standard avoidance lines, hoping to divert you. You even got the "try Anger Management" line from the gang. (I guess since they liked it themselves, they want to share the experience with everyone else.)

I caution you, however, that while they'll twist and dance when you disagree with them, call you troll and other names -- if you start pointing out their deceptive tactics and reliance on propaganda techniques, you'll be history in very short order. Griffith gets very uncomfortable when you expose what he's doing behind the curtain. (For those who might be interested, here's a link to the details of my own experience in getting banned for telling the truth about Griffith's game.

http://forums.delphiforums.com/wolves/me...

(You can visit as a Guest to read, but if you want to comment, you'll need to create a free Delphi account.)