I've just read a hugely distressing piece in the BBC News website:
Anglicans to halt gay ordinations
Basically the Church of England told the Episcopal Church to toe the line, and rather than stick to their principles -- the principes that gay people are as God made them are and just as entitled to love, marry, and serve the Lord as anyone else -- they bent and did what Canterbury told them to do, mostly because the African bishops were getting all medieval on Canterbury.
"The meeting was attended in part by the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, who urged the Episcopal Church to make concessions for the sake of unity."
Here's what I want to know: What's so hot about "unity"?
If two bodies of people have diametrically different positions about something, why force one body of people to compromise their principles for the sake of staying in the same club. What's wrong with leaving? What's so bad about saying "you know what? We're never going to agree on this issue, and if agreement is a condition of membership, we'll just be over here in our own, new clubhouse on the other side of the lake, k?"
WHY ARE PEOPLE'S CIVIL AND HUMAN RIGHTS BEING COMPROMISED FOR "UNITY"?
I also liked this bit:
"The Episcopal bishops did reaffirm their commitment to the civil rights of gay people and said they opposed any violence towards them or violation of their dignity."
Do they really not see that keeping gay people second-class citizens and denying them the basic right to marry IS a violation of their dignity??? What's with this attitude that physical abuse is the only form of oppression?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
21 comments:
That's something that has always annoyed me. The thing about christianity is they are against homosexuality - Period (tho I can't seem to find out a concrete reason why). They have no problem liking people who *are* gay, but the gay lifestyle is against their beliefs. So why bother try to make make them marry gay people -if it doesn't meet up it doesn't meet up. The whole reason there are so many denominations in the christian faith is over things like this that have come up in the past and forced them to split...Maybe it's time to bring in a new denomination. Because honestly, if marriage is a holy sacrament to these people and homosexuality is something they just can't condone, why should they be made to carry out gay marraiges and why should people who are gay try and grovel for the scraps of dignity from this faith they aren't likely to get? Now before you get mad, yes I think it's wrong....but why should one group be forced to give up their beliefs for another? Why can't they just agree to disagree and tolerate each other...the hatred has to stop.
Sure *I* think they're being closeminded and wrong, but honestly, sometimes things just don't match up. It's one of the issues I have with a lot of organised religions and can't quite reconcile at the moment...so why not change things? Or does change things make your beliefs fit your life make them a moot point? I don't recall Jesus ever making a negative poitn about being gay...so I'm not sure where the whole thing started anyways. I mean, wasn't one of his best friends a harlot?
Not sure where I'm going with this, but I reall believe there's got to be a middle ground.
To me, marriage is a legally binding thing - so why not make all ceremonies civil in nature and those wishing for a religious ceremony can add that part in if they wish? Because honestly - the strict definition of marriage,like it or not, particularly in religion, does not apply to gay relationships... it's stupid that it doesn't but it just doesn't. Why can't we have a "new" form of legal marriage called something else that encompasses both? I personally wouldn't mind, and why force people to do things they are fundamentally opposed to? I know a lot of religious people who don't care if gay people get civilly married, they're just opposed to the church having to bless the union...because it just dones't match up with their views of marriage.
Where does that put us -if we want freedom it has to go both ways doesn't it?
Ah I'm being clear as mud...
ah, maybe i should have given a bit more background to this whole debacle. the Episcopal Church (C of E in the US of A) has been blessing gay unions and ordaining gay priest/deacons/bishops for some time now. So this particular branch of the C of E doesn't see homosexuality as being in conflict with Christianity. The C of E in England and especially Africa DO see a conflict and think homosexuality is wrong. No big surprise there. So the African bishops told the Archbishop of Canterbury to make the Episcopals stop being nice to gays or they (the Africans) would split from Canterbury. So Canterbury relayed the messaged and initially the Episcopals told them to fuck off they weren't going to stop being nice to gays and we don't care what the African bishes think thank you very much.
But now they've backpeddalled and said they they would stop being nice to gays for "the sake of unity" so the African arm wouldn't storm off in a huff. So they've compromised their principles of equality for the principle of unity. but why?
i don't see why this unity is such a great virtue. what's so great about it? why is it worth sacrificing equality for it? and perhaps more importantly, CAN you have true unity withOUT real equality?
issues pertaining to gay rights are very emotional to me, so i genuinely don't understand what's so great about all this unity business, but i'm sure there are things i havn't thought of because i'm so wrapped up in this emotionally. so i really want your thoughts.
i agree with you that churches shouldn't be forced to carry out gay marraiges if they don't want to. the point was that the Episcopals wanted to -- and WERE -- but then agreed to stop because some peevish, crusty, small-minded old geezers told them to.
I am with you on this, CB. I would not mind the conservatives (who represent less than 10% of our congregation) walk off on this issue.
I am not too concerned about the latest declaration. The damage has already been done via. resolution B033 in General convention '06. This latest statement is just restating the resolution. The only good thing is that it is not a step backward.
The conservatives are not going to be satisfied by this and will still walk away to be under Archbishop Akinola from Nigeria who is leading a crusade to inflict death sentence to gays.
This just provides a fig leaf for Archbishop of Canterbury to say that TEC has not breached Primates' resolutions and to keep TEC within the communion. The united front of the progressives from UK, US, Canada and NZ enabled by this resolution is a positive development in the battle against the regressive forces led by Darth Vader like Archbishop Akinola.
Check this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IeloN23PRrc
it would appear to be a version of apartheid - I wonder how our African cousins manage to salve their bigoted consciences.
Ah...well, I think the conservative twits should take their toys and go home, and the rest of the more moderate people can keep doing what they were doing.
It's bullying, plain and simple. It's not right anywhere.
unity = a large power bloc.
this is taking 'divided we fall' too far, however. jesus would have spat on these people.
CB, you have a most wonderful and unique way of looking at things and making analogies.
RT: thanks for the details. it's nice to hear from someone on the inside.
LC: i couldn't only make it about half way through watching. when i was in high school they used to herd us together in assemblies and make us watch liver performers/inspirational speakers very much akin to our friend in the video there. watching that clip brough it all back and i found myself on the floor in the fetal position.
ziggi: an interesting observation. i doubt they see it that way, though.
geo: exactly. when the puritans left england (left, not driven out) it was because they were more conservative than everyone else and so they packed up their marbles and went off to start their own game. i don't see why that principle can't apply here.
FN: thank you for being the only person to attempt to answer the question. i think you're probably right.
rimshot: ta.
On the nail as usual, CB.
FN is right, I think, but why would you want anything to do with the African bloc? Jeez, the sooner they walk, the better. Mind you, I think religion is all fairy stories anyway, so what do I know?
I'm terribly sorry, CB. I honestly thought your question was rhetorical.
Regardin Unity (as it relates to this instance, I presume): Personally, I don't think Principles CAN be compromised, if so, they weren't strongly held in the first place, were they.
"Conservative churchgoers believe active homosexuality is contrary to the Anglican Communion's teachings, which are rooted in the bible.
However, liberal Anglicans have argued that biblical teachings on inclusion should take precedence."
It would seem to me that only those who wish to instigate dissent would be members of any organization who's rules and beliefs are clearly stated, only to oppose those rules. If they (the church members) don't agree with Anglican beliefs, they should leave or never have joined in the first place.
Unity works when all the parts work as a whole. Imagine a sculling team with all the members doing what they want regardless of the overarching goal. They're all in the boat, but working at cross-purposes. It would be comical at best, dangerous at worst.
unity in this case shouldn't operate at the expense of a perceived minority, though. thats why this sucks. if it were a purely political issue it would be one thing-just as putrid, though-but that it's a purported 'christian'endeavor makes it all the more sick and sad. christianity is 'supposed' to be accepting, forgiving and inclusive. turns out to be just another secular political machine after all.
Christianity is NOT supposed to be accepting of that which they deem sinful and against God's will. Forgiving yes. But I don't hear anyone coming to the Anglican Church asking for forgiveness, just brazenly demanding that they be accepted as is. Christianity is inclusive of all who come to it and wish to follow it's tenets. Would you expect the true Christian Church (whoever that is) to open accept a Nazi or Racist or Genocidal maniac? (No, I'm not lumping in gays with nazis, I'm making a point...relax)
Tolerance no longer means to put up with something you believe to be false (after all, you don't tolerate things you agree with). Today, tolerance means that you MUST accept EVERY belief as true.
One can accept and respect others with opposing or different view, but one is not obligated to embrace another's beliefs...that would be religious pluralism.
rob: i'm with you on the fairy stories so i don't usually take an interest in internal church politics, but in this case i'm quite interested because it has a direct impact on gay civil rights.
rimshot: questions on this site are never rhetorical! regarding your comment, "If they (the church members) don't agree with Anglican beliefs, they should leave or never have joined in the first place." i have to say i think this is a very naive remark. most people don't consciously choose to join a church; they are brought up in it. in this case, a great many people brought up in the anglican church want the church to have a more just and inclusive policy regarding homosexuals. they didn't join the chuch knowingly disagreeing with the church's views. who would do that? it's a matter of the people who were already in the club slowly, over time, forming disparate opinions over a particular issue that arose after the people joined (ie, at baptism). this sort of thing happens all the time, and it's why christian churches have changed their policies on a variety of issues many many times over the past two thousand years.
FN: i love the suggestion that christianity is just another self-serving machine. that should piss christians off about as much as when i'm told that science is just another religion!
Rimshot: for once i agree with you: a private club/group/religion cannot be forced to accept something it believes is false. the problem in this instance arises from two equally legitmate interpretations of the scripture which is meant to be the club's charter, as it were. one faction is keen on the OT "don't have gay sex" rule, while the other faction lumps that in with other outdated OT morality (of which there is a lot, like slavery is OK and adulteresses should be stoned) and is more keen on the NT rule of "love everybody" and the golden rule. Gay people aren't asking the Anglican church for forgiveness because they believe that if this is the way God made them it can't be against God's law. Hence the whole acceptance thing.
"Tolerance no longer means to put up with something you believe to be false (after all, you don't tolerate things you agree with). Today, tolerance means that you MUST accept EVERY belief as true."
This is a beef I have too... it seems that currently, in our society, everyone is so caught up in making sure that noone is offended or gets their feeling hurt that if someone stands up for what they believe at the expense of someone else they're made to be a zealot or a nut and asked to compromise for the "greater good". Tolerant doesn't mean you have to accept and like everything. It means you tolerate it and allow it to exist unless it is openly harming others and just stay out of it.
That's why I still think, for this branch of christianity, those who cannot tolerate the gay marriage should leave and separate from those who do. Because this isn't something that can be comprimised on from their point of view...time for a schism I think.
I know this comment's a couple of months late, but at least it's on topic.
Go to HERE to the website of a doco called "For The Bible Tells Me So", which has won a bucket load of awards and was produced by a friend of mine who, while being straight and happily married in Southern California, is, nevertheless repulsed by the homophobia of mainstream churches.
She stood up in church one Sunday, during a sermon and asked "show me where it says God turns his back on homosexuals?" And the whole project snowballed from there.
Hi Chester. Better late than never! Thanks for the link. Your friend sounds awesome. When I was a kid and the priest started going off on the evils of abortion we used to get up and walk out, but even my mom never had the balls to flat out interrupt the sermon and challenge the priest right there! Fantastic!
Hello. This post is likeable, and your blog is very interesting, congratulations :-). I will add in my blogroll =). If possible gives a last there on my site, it is about the CresceNet, I hope you enjoy. The address is http://www.provedorcrescenet.com . A hug.
I can never forget that the Church of England was founded on King Henry the Eighth's dick, and his right to put it where he wanted. Maybe if we'd had a bisexual king, things would have turned out differently.
Yea, we all know how Christians "respect the civil rights" of differing cultures, beliefs, and orientation. First, you break them militarily, then you herd the survivors onto reservations and grant their children the wonderful opportunity to go to a boarding school where their thousand years old traditions are stripped away and new, superior ones are installed.
That is, if some disease you introduced to them didn't kill them all off altogether.....
I am fortunate to have been born into a country and an era where, DESPITE having been stamped at birth as a Catholic, I have been able to reject my programming and CHOOSE to follow the path of Wicca. They can try and convert me back all they want, as long as they understand that I will shoot back. Who the hell needs to worry about what the Episcapals do when you can just quit their stupid club anyway?
Interesting to know.
Post a Comment