I think the charges reek of falsity. This makes the conservatives who have been vilifying Robinson and his confirmation look even worse than they already did, if that’s possible.
Well, I’ve tried to go out of my way not to villify him. But you’re right, that’s exactly my fear.
The sexual allegation could or could not have anything to it, but the website thing is pathetic: it reeks of someone desperately searching for a smear, finding nothing, and trying to pass off this as something untoward even if it has the slightest connection to Robinson. Just shows how low his opponents will sink: and this is supposed to prove that THEY are the ones upholding some sort of traditional morality?
I’m right with Skammer in his concerns. Fox News amplifies the CNN story with two details: The website in question (which no longer has any porn links, according to them) is www.Outright.com. And Fr. Robinson is withholding comment until after Presiding Bishop Frank Griswold makes a statement he is preparing – which is, according to my reading of church controversies in the past, standard courtesy to a Presiding Bishop by a party involved in a controversy.
As I was composing this, I pulled down a report from MSNBC that said this:
sigh It’s happening already… Can we condemn this fragrantly irrelevent accusation (the website thing) without attributing it to the entire array of Anglicans who oppose Fr. Gene’s confirmation? Surely we were not all consulted; I’ve been checking my email all day and haven’t seen anything.
It was certainly enough to be tacked onto the stated list of reasons for the postponement.
I hate being left out of the loop like that, Skammer! Last time they planned Secret Forums to Plan the Liberal Agenda to Destroy American Values, they up and forgot to send me the memo!
We ought to protest!!
I don’t think the rank and file of every conservative Anglicans are involved in this but Ray Charles can see that this timing isn’t just a coincidence. The website thing is obvious nonsense and the allegation discredits itself. The “touching” charge is particularly vicious and puts Robinson in the impossible position of proving he didn’t touch somebody.
Somebody clearly just wanted to get the words “pornpgraphy” and “inappropriate touching” into a headline. The substance of the allegations doesn’t matter. They accomplished what they wanted.
This sounds like White Water and Monicagate all over again.
It’s a shame when a faction would rather pull the whole edifice down than allow one iota of their precious dogma to be put to the test…
But that’s what orthodoxy in general, and Christian orthodoxy in particular, has always demanded.
It’s Denethor’s Pride.
**
In an earlier post, basing my statement on the MSNBC report, I said that Bishop-elect Robinson had assisted with the forming of the Outright group which had a website at www.outright.com – that is a satire site, and the group is at www.outright.org .
As it turns out, the Outright group, with which Fr. Robinson was in fact not affiliated, had a link to a bisexual group which in turn , unbeknownst to Outright, had a link to an erotic website. When the Outright people found out about the second link, they promptly removed their own link to the bisexual group.
Not that that’s going to make a lot of difference to people who are grasping for anything to throw up to block this appointment.
First of all, I agree that these allegations are quite suspicious. If this is just a false allegation to discredit this man, then it is a dispicable thing to do.
I would just like to add a few things which are my opinion and belief.
1.) I believe that the ultimate authority is the bible. When men start making decisions of what is moral and what is not, that is where the mistakes are made.
2.) It bugs me when people use the Old Testament law as a way to try to corner people. If I hear another Leviticus verse taken out of context I’m gonna hurl. As a Christian and a follower of the Word of God (not a council or organization), I believe that scripture is clear about “the law”. When Christ came and died on the cross, He did away with the old law. This is why I am not obligated to sacrifice an animal to attone for my sin, or never cut my hair, or any other law you can find in Leviticus. This is not to say that the Old Testament is irrelevent. There are many good lessons and stories to be learned from. But I am not “under the law”. Much of the book of Acts and the Apostle Paul’s writings in the New Testament deal with this issue. When I see someone misuse the law of the Old Testament, it usually shows me someone who has studied scripture very little.
I also think another big misconception is that Christians against homosexuality think they are better or judging gays. I can definetely understand this arguement (many, many Christians have been hypocritical on this point). I do not consider myself “better” than anyone else. We all have the same sin problem. I don’t expect to have “perfect” church leaders, but I do expect them to live under the bibles standards. Everyone sins. Everyone fails. But it is the attitude God is interested in. There is a big difference between someone who sins and asks for forgiveness and someone who embraces it as their lifestyle.
You’re assuming that homosexuality is a sin. That is your personal (and erroneous) interpretation of the Bible. The Episcopalian Church has no obligation to conform to your interpretation of the Bible.
sigh Lifestyles again.
Which is why my post is MY OPINION. I think I clearly stated that. Or is that not allowed?
Well, this atheist is proud of him too.
It was the wall that was devisive – and remains so. This issue is not going to go away until that wall is down. The question will come up again and again – if not with the Rev. Robinson, then with someone else. I know that the church may split if he or another homosexual eventually becomes a bishop. But the only chance for unification and healing is to work through it together.
During my thirty-seven year membership, I have known at least one homosexual Episcipal priest. The congregation would never have guessed. I knew only because I knew his companion. He was a wonder minister and very good at the work to which he was called. What a waste of a human being if he had not been allowed to serve.
He’s a “skirt-chaser” who doesn’t keep “appropriate boundaries with men”? 
Am I missing something? or is the allegation that he went wild at a drag queen convention? :rolleyes:
It is getting ugly.