# I Pit the Primates **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [February 20, 2007, 4:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-primates/392971 "2007-02-20T16:37:01Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Paul\_in\_Qatar](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ccd318/32.png) [@Paul\_in\_Qatar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Paul_in_Qatar)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2007, 4:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-primates/392971/41 "2007-02-22T04:17:23Z")
[QUOTE=Skammer] **Paul in Saudi** , I don’t know if you mean to imply that polygamy is considered acceptable in the Anglican churches in Africa, [/QUOTE] Polygamy was destroyed by Western missionaries. That was Imperialism. When Africans tell Westerners how to run their lives and communities, that is OK. There is a big difference, depending on where the bluenoses and busybodies are from. ---
**Author:** ![ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e9bcb4/32.png) [@ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2007, 4:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-primates/392971/42 "2007-02-22T04:19:35Z")
Oh for fuck sake, **furt**. Looks like you need someone to spell it out for you and speak slowly. [[QUOTE=dictionary.com](http://QUOTE=dictionary.com)] pri·mate /ˈpraɪmeɪt or, esp. for 1, ˈpraɪmɪt/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[prahy-meyt or, esp. for 1, prahy-mit] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation –noun 1. Ecclesiastical. an archbishop or bishop ranking first among the bishops of a province or country. 2. any of various omnivorous mammals of the order Primates, comprising the three suborders Anthropoidea (humans, great apes, gibbons, Old World monkeys, and New World monkeys), Prosimii (lemurs, loris, and their allies), and Tarsioidea (tarsiers), esp. distinguished by the use of hands, varied locomotion, and by complex flexible behavior involving a high level of social interaction and cultural adaptability. [/QUOTE] [QUOTE=article in the OP] The directive, issued Monday after a five-day meeting of three dozen top leaders of the Anglican church gathering in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, constituted a severe rebuke to the small but affluent American branch. [/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Polycarp] It’s probably offensive as hell to say it, but the thought that comes to my mind is that when you gather a bunch of primates on an island off Africa, you should not be surprised when they start flinging shit around like this. [/QUOTE] Hmmm…now let’s see here. Could he have meant “offensive” in the sense that most people find the idea of other people throwing their own excrement around as distasteful, perhaps to the point of being offensive? _thinks really fucking hard_ Ass. ---
**Author:** ![Skammer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/skammer/32/143_2.png) [@Skammer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skammer)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2007, 4:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-primates/392971/43 "2007-02-22T04:30:53Z")
**Paul** , I apologize for misunderstanding you. It didn’t cross my mind that you were bemoaning the decline of polygamy in Africa. I have seen too many unfounded accusations of polygamy in the African churches held up as some kind of evidence of hypocrisy, so that’s what I thought you were saying. **Poly** , for the record, I didn’t take your comment as racist, although you should be careful… I’ve seen other commenters in the blogosphere pilloried for making the same innocent mistake. ---
**Author:** ![Zebra](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/c0e974/32.png) [@Zebra](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zebra)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2007, 4:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-primates/392971/44 "2007-02-22T04:54:58Z")
Actually the reason the meeting was in Africa is kind of interesting in an ironic way. Slavery was an issue they were addressing. They celebrated the Eucharist in a church used to be a slave market. The altar of that church stands on the spot that the whipping post once stood. The 200th anniversary of the abolition of slavery in the UK is approaching and this is part of the ‘celebration’ of that anniversary. You see back then, the differences between whites and blacks was used, not as an excuse, but as a reason to treat negroes as less than human. That was wrong. We know that now. Of course, that lesson doesn’t apply to those Godless Faggots. ---
**Author:** ![Mellivora\_capensis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/8797f3/32.png) [@Mellivora\_capensis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mellivora_capensis)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2007, 7:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-primates/392971/45 "2007-02-22T07:05:31Z")
**furt** , I’ll pay you 500 bucks to stop misspelling “no one”. 😛 ---
**Author:** ![Skammer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/skammer/32/143_2.png) [@Skammer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skammer)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2007, 2:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-primates/392971/46 "2007-02-22T14:01:28Z")
[QUOTE=Zebra] Of course, that lesson doesn’t apply to those Godless Faggots. [/QUOTE] Either provide evidence that an Anglican leader has used the phrase “Godless Faggots” or the equivalent, or shut the hell up. Veiled and baseless accusations do not contribute to reconciliation. In fact, let me provide evidence of the opposite. Bolding added by me: > [@](#): > > [1998 Lambeth Resolution I.10 on Human Sexuality](http://www.lambethconference.org/resolutions/1998/1998-1-10.cfm): > We commit ourselves to listen to the experience of homosexual persons and we wish to assure them that **they are loved by God** and that all baptised, believing and faithful persons, **regardless of sexual orientation** , are full members of the Body of Christ; > [@](#): > > [The Anglican Primates’ Meeting Communique, Feb 2005](http://www.anglicancommunion.org/acns/articles/39/00/acns3948.cfm) > We also wish to make it quite clear that in our discussion and assessment of the moral appropriateness of specific human behaviours, we continue unreservedly to be committed to the pastoral support and care of homosexual people. The victimisation or diminishment of human beings whose affections happen to be ordered towards people of the same sex is anathema to us. **We assure homosexual people that they are children of God, loved and valued by him** , and deserving of the best we can give of pastoral care and friendship. The first statement was approved in a meeting of all bishops of the Anglican Commuion, the second by the same group of primates who met last week. ---
**Author:** ![FriarTed](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/friarted/32/1052_2.png) [@FriarTed](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FriarTed)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2007, 2:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-primates/392971/47 "2007-02-22T14:09:35Z")
I skimmed past the primates-Africa-flinging-shit comment the other day with a quick suprised “huh!?” and went on to post about the Holiness-Pentecostal movements ordaining women. I didn’t even notice that the comment came from Poly. Now that I did fully read it, I don’t believe for a minute that Polycarp meant that as a racial slur, BUT if it had been said by anyone with a lesser reputation, I can’t say such suspicion wouldn’t be reasonable. ---
**Author:** ![Zebra](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/c0e974/32.png) [@Zebra](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zebra)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2007, 2:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-primates/392971/48 "2007-02-22T14:41:35Z")
[QUOTE=Skammer] Either provide evidence that an Anglican leader has used the phrase “Godless Faggots” or the equivalent, or shut the hell up. Veiled and baseless accusations do not contribute to reconciliation. [/QUOTE] Pit threads do not contribute to reconcilation. (geez, go out and treat yourself to a sense of humor) ---
**Author:** ![jayjay](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jayjay/32/6765_2.png) [@jayjay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jayjay)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2007, 3:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-primates/392971/49 "2007-02-22T15:02:07Z")
[QUOTE=Skammer] In fact, let me provide evidence of the opposite. Bolding added by me: > [@](#): > > 1998 Lambeth Resolution I.10 on Human Sexuality: > We commit ourselves to listen to the experience of homosexual persons and we wish to assure them that they are loved by God and that all baptised, believing and faithful persons, regardless of sexual orientation, are full members of the Body of Christ; > [@](#): > > The Anglican Primates’ Meeting Communique, Feb 2005 > We also wish to make it quite clear that in our discussion and assessment of the moral appropriateness of specific human behaviours, we continue unreservedly to be committed to the pastoral support and care of homosexual people. The victimisation or diminishment of human beings whose affections happen to be ordered towards people of the same sex is anathema to us. We assure homosexual people that they are children of God, loved and valued by him, and deserving of the best we can give of pastoral care and friendship. The first statement was approved in a meeting of all bishops of the Anglican Commuion, the second by the same group of primates who met last week. [/QUOTE] Talk is cheap. ---
**Author:** ![Malacandra](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Malacandra](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malacandra)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2007, 3:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-primates/392971/50 "2007-02-22T15:12:29Z")
Oh, I’d give **Polycarp** a pass on the racism part, as I don’t believe I’ve ever seen him exhibit signs of having a racist bone in his body. But I did notice the cheap shot against a bunch of bishops who (I presume thoughtfully and prayerfully) reached a set of conclusions with which he happened not to agree. Apparently _that_’s grounds enough for calling people apes. ☹ ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2007, 3:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-primates/392971/51 "2007-02-22T15:12:55Z")
[QUOTE=Liberal] Your argument takes the premise that the archbishops give a shit about Jesus Christ. 😛 [/QUOTE] I’d had good reason, once upon a time, to believe Rowan Williams did. ---
**Author:** ![Mollie\_Magill](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mollie_magill/32/20882_2.png) [@Mollie\_Magill](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mollie_Magill)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2007, 3:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-primates/392971/52 "2007-02-22T15:24:28Z")
[Quote=The Anglican Primates’ Meeting Communiqué, Feb 2005] We also wish to make it quite clear that in our discussion and assessment of the moral appropriateness of specific human behaviours, we continue unreservedly to be committed to the pastoral support and care of homosexual people. The victimisation or diminishment of human beings whose affections happen to be ordered towards people of the same sex is anathema to us. **We assure homosexual people that they are children of God** , loved and valued by him, and deserving of the best we can give of pastoral care and friendship. [/Quote] And yet when it comes time to put their money where there mouths are… I guess some children of God are more equal than others. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2007, 3:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-primates/392971/53 "2007-02-22T15:34:01Z")
[QUOTE=Skammer] **Paul in Saudi** , I don’t know if you mean to imply that polygamy is considered acceptable in the Anglican churches in Africa, but it is not. It is only tolerated when a man already has multiple wives when he joins the church; in those cases he is not forced to cast out his extra wife or wives (which would result in her being destitute and a social outcast). And men with multiple wives cannot become bishops. [/QUOTE] So let me get this straight: 1. If one enters the Anglican Communion in a state of sin, then one can remain in that state of sin if the sin is a polygamous relationship. But not if the state of sin is a homosexual relationship. (ISTM that the man with multiple wives could choose one to remain married to, but continue to support his now ex-wives in his household until such time as they found new mates. But that’s JMHO.) 1. Apparently men with multiple wives can become Anglican priests, since I notice that you only say they cannot become _bishops_. There does seem to be a double standard here, if you ask me. ---
**Author:** ![matt\_mcl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/7ab992/32.png) [@matt\_mcl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/matt_mcl)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2007, 4:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-primates/392971/54 "2007-02-22T16:00:43Z")
[QUOTE=MEBuckner] Doesn’t seem very ambiguous to me. But of course women make up half the population (and I would not be surprised if they make up more than half of the active churchgoers); gays, not so much. [/QUOTE] On that, I’ve always been amused by the female-bishops debate. I heard one person say it was ridiculous he should be submitted to the authority of a woman. I was wondering if he was aware that the Supreme Governor of the Church of England is a woman. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2007, 4:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-primates/392971/55 "2007-02-22T16:04:15Z")
[QUOTE=matt\_mcl] On that, I’ve always been amused by the female-bishops debate. I heard one person say it was ridiculous he should be submitted to the authority of a woman. I was wondering if he was aware that the Supreme Governor of the Church of England is a woman. [/QUOTE] Silly Matt! It’s OK, don’t’cha know, for women to be _figureheads_. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2007, 5:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-primates/392971/56 "2007-02-22T17:07:44Z")
[QUOTE=matt\_mcl] I was wondering if he was aware that the Supreme Governor of the Church of England is a woman. [/QUOTE] A woman was also the first person to see the resurrected Jesus and believe in Him. Men are slow on the uptake sometimes. ---
**Author:** ![Skammer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/skammer/32/143_2.png) [@Skammer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skammer)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2007, 5:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-primates/392971/57 "2007-02-22T17:31:39Z")
[QUOTE=RTFirefly] So let me get this straight: 1. If one enters the Anglican Communion in a state of sin, then one can remain in that state of sin if the sin is a polygamous relationship. But not if the state of sin is a homosexual relationship. (ISTM that the man with multiple wives could choose one to remain married to, but continue to support his now ex-wives in his household until such time as they found new mates. But that’s JMHO.) 1. Apparently men with multiple wives can become Anglican priests, since I notice that you only say they cannot become _bishops_. There does seem to be a double standard here, if you ask me. [/QUOTE] Taking your points in reverse order, I don’t think they can be ordained to the priesthood at all; but I am not 100% certain and could not find a cite so I limited my statement to bishops, which I am certain of. Responding to your #1, I don’t think I have a good answer – I’ve basically shared all the facts I know. Your proposed solution seems to make sense, but also seems obvious enough to have been thought of and rejected – perhaps for social, cultural, or (sadly) political reasons. I just can’t speculate. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2007, 5:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-primates/392971/58 "2007-02-22T17:34:56Z")
[QUOTE=Malacandra] Oh, I’d give **Polycarp** a pass on the racism part, as I don’t believe I’ve ever seen him exhibit signs of having a racist bone in his body. But I did notice the cheap shot against a bunch of bishops who (I presume thoughtfully and prayerfully) reached a set of conclusions with which he happened not to agree. Apparently _that_’s grounds enough for calling people apes. ☹ [/QUOTE] Thoughtful and prayerful bigotry is still bigotry. ---
**Author:** ![Malacandra](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Malacandra](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malacandra)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2007, 6:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-primates/392971/59 "2007-02-22T18:22:15Z")
[QUOTE=Miller] Thoughtful and prayerful bigotry is still bigotry. [/QUOTE] Beg the question much? Or, to elaborate, if the conclusions they reach are arrived at other than through bigotry, it is unreasonable to call it bigotry simply because the conclusions they arrive at happen to match those of a bigot. In a trial, one juror might vote to convict because the case presented by the prosecution was overwhelming. Another might vote to convict because the defendant was black. The conclusions are the same, but the first juror is not guilty of bigotry. > [@matt mcl](#): > > On that, I’ve always been amused by the female-bishops debate. I heard one person say it was ridiculous he should be submitted to the authority of a woman. I was wondering if he was aware that the Supreme Governor of the Church of England is a woman. Silly Matt! Don’t you know the Queen has no ecclesiastical standing in the Church of England? > [@Article XXXVII of the Thirty-Nine Articles](#): > > The King’s Majesty hath the chief power in this Realm of England, and other his Dominions, unto whom the chief Government of all Estates of this Realm, whether they be Ecclesiastical or Civil, in all causes doth appertain, and is not, nor ought to be, subject to any foreign Jurisdiction. Where we attribute to the King’s Majesty the chief government, by which Titles we understand the minds of some slanderous folks to be offended; we give not our Princes the ministering either of God’s Word, or of the Sacraments, the which thing the Injunctions also lately set forth by Elizabeth our Queen do most plainly testify; but that only prerogative, which we see to have been given always to all godly Princes in holy Scriptures by God himself; that is, that they should rule all estates and degrees committed to their charge by God, whether they be Ecclesiastical or Temporal, and restrain with the civil sword the stubborn and evil-doers. Meaning that HM the Q has no more right to open her mouth in church than any commoner. ---
**Author:** ![matt\_mcl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/7ab992/32.png) [@matt\_mcl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/matt_mcl)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2007, 6:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-primates/392971/60 "2007-02-22T18:25:35Z")
[QUOTE=Malacandra] Meaning that HM the Q has no more right to open her mouth in church than any commoner. [/QUOTE] This person was not talking about opening her mouth in church; he was talking about being subordinate to a woman. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-primates/392971.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-primates/392971.md?page=4)