I Pit the Primates

The BBQ Pit
61

[QUOTE=Malacandra]
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.
[/QUOTE]

Boy, do you ever suck at analogies.

The Primates were not making a decision about an individual. They were making a decision about an entire class of people. And they decided that class of people should be treated differently than the mainstream, based on an attriubte that in no way infringes on their ability to perform in the areas from which they are barred from participating. That’s simple bigotry, no matter how you slice it, and there’s absolutely no excuse for it.

62

[QUOTE=Malacandra]
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.
[/QUOTE]

If the conclusions are the very things that define the bigotry, then of course it’s bigotry. It doesn’t matter how you get to Bigotry Town. What matters is that you’ve arrived.

63

[QUOTE=Miller]
Boy, do you ever suck at analogies.

The Primates were not making a decision about an individual. They were making a decision about an entire class of people. And they decided that class of people should be treated differently than the mainstream, based on an attriubte that in no way infringes on their ability to perform in the areas from which they are barred from participating. That’s simple bigotry, no matter how you slice it, and there’s absolutely no excuse for it.
[/QUOTE]

Sure there’s an excuse. God said to do it that way, that trumps everything else ya know.

On that note, God has told me that he really doesn’t like the people of Liechtenstein and so I will now be prejudiced against them. (good thing there’s only about 34,000 of them, it makes it simpler)

64

[QUOTE=Polycarp]
[li]Disavow the Rt. Rev. Gene Robinson and agree never to name another gay person to the clergy[/li][/QUOTE]
Gay person or non-celibate gay person?

65

[QUOTE=gigi]
Gay person or non-celibate gay person?
[/QUOTE]
The report specifies candidates “living in a same-sex union.” It also specifically refers to the order of bishops, not all clergy.

66

[QUOTE=Polycarp]
Furt, you can be a real prick when you choose, you know that? As it happens, some of the so-called “Global South” archbishops are from Africa. And some are not. Drexel Gomes is from the West Indies, the Abp. of Singapore has been involved in this, and I gather the Abp. of Sydney has some less-than-complimentary things to say.

I emphatically deny any racist intent, other than in mentioning Africa as where they gathered. The pun was on primates=archbishops vs. primates=apes, monkeys, etc.
[/QUOTE]
I don’t think you had any racist intent, and I knew full well what pun you were making. The line nonetheless has a very ugly sound to it; your “It’s probably offensive as hell to say it” disclaimer suggests to me that you knew this quite well. And yet you felt free to say it without fear of rebuke.

I think it unlikely you would have made the same crack were the Bishops in agreement with you, nor would you or anyone else have been amused if someone else had made the joke. And yet, you felt free to say it, because, after all, you’re right and they’re wrong, and that’s all that matters in the end.

That’s what I find both sad and unsurprising.

My sole contribution to this thread is that I agreed that what you said was offensive. And for that crime, you’re implying that I’m being unchristian?

You have called these Bishops “clowns in ecclesiastical garb,” “pompous asses,” and “assholes;” said they “should all get fucked;” implied that they somehow owe their jobs to American Anglicans (and presumably should thus mind their place); claimed (inaccurately) that one bishop was expanding his personal empire; implied (inaccurately) that GLBT are not welcome in those churches who disagree with you; and longed for the day when these Bishops will appear “before the throne of judgment,” at which time you seem confident that The Lord Almighty will tell them how they were wrong and that they should have listened to Polycarp.

And what is the dire threat that occasioned this torrent of invective? That Anglicans will “face a state of ‘impaired communion’ with the other national churches.” Perhaps I’m just a bit dense, but if that rhetoric is any indication, your communion with them is already pretty damn impaired.

67

Sorry. Excuse me a minute.

:exits:

:returns with torch and pitchfork:

“Burn them! Burn the shit-flinging primates! Burn them all!”

Hope that’s better.

68

[QUOTE=RTFirefly]
I’d had good reason, once upon a time, to believe Rowan Williams did.
[/QUOTE]
Yeah, he seemed like a decent guy. This whole anti-gay thing from him is pretty surprising, at least for me.

69

[QUOTE=Revenant Threshold]
Yeah, he seemed like a decent guy. This whole anti-gay thing from him is pretty surprising, at least for me.
[/QUOTE]
What has he said that is anti-gay? I find it kind of amusing that he is distrusted by both sides. That probably means he’s doing a pretty good job.

70

[QUOTE=Skammer]
What has he said that is anti-gay? I find it kind of amusing that he is distrusted by both sides. That probably means he’s doing a pretty good job.
[/QUOTE]
Hmm. Doing a little research, it appears i’ve got entirely the wrong end of the stick and he is actually liberal in his views on gay people too. Well, that’s a relief.

71

Since we’re talking about the Archbishop of Canterbury’s support of gays (or lack thereof), this excerpt from a statement he made yesterday is quite relevant and something that I can certainly get behind:

72

[QUOTE=Skammer]
Since we’re talking about the Archbishop of Canterbury’s support of gays (or lack thereof), this excerpt from a statement he made yesterday is quite relevant and something that I can certainly get behind:
[/QUOTE]

That’s just “love the sinner, hate the sin” dressed up prettily. Burn the bigot! Burn him, I say! :waves pitchfork:

73

[QUOTE=Malacandra]
That’s just “love the sinner, hate the sin” dressed up prettily. Burn the bigot! Burn him, I say! :waves pitchfork:
[/QUOTE]

He’s a witch!

Well, actually, a White Druid, but close enough!

74

[QUOTE=Liberal]

[QUOTE=Revenant Threshold]
Why renamed Simon? I’m guessing a biblical reference?
[/QUOTE]

Simon was renamed “Peter” (Greek: the rock) by Jesus because “You are the rock upon which I will build my church.” I think that’s the reference. Poly’s saying to give the name back.
[/QUOTE]

Given that he wants to benefit from Grant Theft Real Estate, I assumed the reference to be to Simon Magus (who tried to purchase the use of Apostolic abilities).

75

[QUOTE=Steve MB]
Given that he wants to benefit from Grant Theft Real Estate, I assumed the reference to be to Simon Magus (who tried to purchase the use of Apostolic abilities).
[/QUOTE]
If anyone is stealing the properties in Virginia – and I propose that they are not – it is the vestries of the individual congregations and their bishop, the Rt. Rev. Martyn Minns. It is my understanding that none of the real estate, tithes, or other property is being assigned to Abuja. So your starting assumption is faulty.

76

[QUOTE=FriarTed]
He’s a witch!

Well, actually, a White Druid, but close enough!
[/QUOTE]

What does he weigh?

77

[QUOTE=Skammer]
If anyone is stealing the properties in Virginia – and I propose that they are not – it is the vestries of the individual congregations and their bishop, the Rt. Rev. Martyn Minns.
[/QUOTE]

Setting aside the unsupported cavil you “propose”, he certainly benefits if the people who are signing up to his allegiance are pilfering stuff on their way out of the established church.