Skip to main content

Archbishop of Canterbury, the Rt Revd Rowan Williams, has denounced U.S. foreign policy in Iraq and stated that they have lost the moral high ground since 9/11.
See Greg Peters post on this issue here.

and read my take below:

Rowan Williams is perfectly within his rights to state his opinion on matters of state and I do not intend to deny his claims. However, being an Anglican myself, I'm not sure it's wise for the leader of the Worldwide Anglican Communion to publicize his personal opinion at such a critical time in the life of the Episcopal Church.

He is fighting a losing battle with conservative Episcopalians in the United States and it is difficult to see how this can have any effect other than splintering a communion already held together with scotch tape. The Rt Revd Rowan's statement, right or wrong, is unlikely to change anyone's mind on anything and he needs to put his efforts into forming a real moral unity in his own communion before trying to spread it elsewhere.

Originally posted to Rob Stevenson on Mon Nov 26, 2007 at 11:06 PM PST.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  The statement (0+ / 0-)

    I couldn't quite follow his reasoning when I read this yesterday. It sort of sounded like, now that you have invaded, you should do the honorable thing, and stay like Britain did in India. I'm afraid I lost the thread.

    •  Sort Of, So What? (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Athena, Wee Mama

      If he's on the side of justice, where's he been for 5 years? And if he's on the side of empire, same question.

      We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

      by Gooserock on Mon Nov 26, 2007 at 11:13:09 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Here's a link to Australian news coverage of (0+ / 0-)

      the statement and an interview with the Rt.Revd.

      robstevensonblog@gmail.com My Blog

      by Rob Stevenson on Mon Nov 26, 2007 at 11:15:04 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Well, I couldn't disagree with you more (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        esquimaux
        As an Episcopalian here in Ohio, I should point out that the church, like every other denomination except the Southern Baptist Convention, has always been against the occupation of Iraq. Whether you thought they were "enough" against it or outspoken enough is another matter. But this is not a particularly radical position for a Christian denomination; the Pope has also taken a stand against it.

        I especially disagree with your reasoning which strikes me as very Blue Dog-ish and analogous to the reason that a lot of us are so frustrated with our Democratic ongress. Don't stand up for what you know is right because a handful of dead-end conservatives might be offended!!! Frankly, the "schism" has been overblown; we are talking about a handful of congregations and four dioceses, a barely visible sliver of the American church. They are building their case on a false, deliberately divisive issue, and the controversy was engineered at the front end by the Republican front group, the Institute for Religion and Democracy which has passed money to the radical-right  African bishops to help stir up trouble here. These aren't people you can placate, just as Congress can't placate Bush by watering down their Iraq funding bills. He'll veto everything. (One of the dioceses, the one in California, isn't even upset about gays; they're upset about WOMEN being bishops, still fighting the LAST battle.)

        It's about time Rowan spoke up and became more forceful on this, and if this handful of schismic churches and dioceses are Episcopal in name only and are basing their theology on Republian party platforms as the Southern Baptist Convention did, then the church as a body is stronger without them.

        We're retiring Steve LaTourette (R-Family Values for You But Not for Me) and sending Judge Bill O'Neill to Congress from Ohio-14: http://www.oneill08.com/

        by anastasia p on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 06:36:49 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  Add up... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Wee Mama

    ...all the Americans who have opposed the war from the beginning, and its more people than there are total in the U.K., who must not have much moral standing left either after following along, at least according to the good Archbiship's standards.  Did he happen to mention when exactly it was that America had the moral high ground?

    Clothes make the man. Naked people have little or no influence on society -Mark Twain

    by gooners on Mon Nov 26, 2007 at 11:19:42 PM PST

    •  He seems to imply that the U.S. had the high (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Wee Mama

      ground over extremist sects of Islam in the immediate wake of 9/11. Depending on his view of Iraq's relation to 9/11 you may be right and it may be incoherent for him to refer to a time of American moral high standing.

      robstevensonblog@gmail.com My Blog

      by Rob Stevenson on Mon Nov 26, 2007 at 11:23:14 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Wow. (6+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Bob Love, Wee Mama, DaleA, Othniel, magi, esquimaux

    That’s right, Williams is claiming to judge the morality of the United States when he himself is apparently unable to state unequivocally the moral position of homosexuality, for example. One only needs to read the Bible and have a basic grasp on Christian history to know where homosexuality falls on God’s moral scale, yet Williams seems unable to recognize this obvious moral stand. However, he does not seem to have this same problem when judging the actions of the U.S.

    Are you sure you want to be using this link as a defense of your point?  The Archbishop of Canterbury won't unequivocally condemn homosexuality and therefore should shut his yap about Iraq?

    I'm not sure this is a link you want to be using.  Of course, I'm not an Anglican, so what do I know.

    •  Anyone who expects (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      magi, esquimaux
      the Archbishop of Canterbury to make unequivocal statements about the morality of homosexuality is confusing it with the Catholic church. The Archbishop serves a different function than the Pope and it isn't his job to make such moral pronouncements for the whole church. In addition, this was, appropriately, a trivial side issue to broader issues of peace and social issues in the Anglican church (for most of us, it still is). It has been forced, kicking and screaming, to the forefront by the same group of right-wing  ideologues who control the Republican party and have inappropriately injected a political issue into a church that is way less dogmatic than most.

      By the way, anyone who thinks they can judge the absolute position of homosexuality on God's moral scale by reading the Bible is kidding themselves, especially if they are a Christian. With only a handful of disputed passages and Jesus never speaking about the issue, it's arrogance to think this can be decided with any degree of certainty.

      We're retiring Steve LaTourette (R-Family Values for You But Not for Me) and sending Judge Bill O'Neill to Congress from Ohio-14: http://www.oneill08.com/

      by anastasia p on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 06:44:59 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  The Church of England, discoursing on morality? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mini mum, bugscuffle

    Gimme a break.

    we're shocked by a naked nipple, but not by naked aggression

    by Lepanto on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 12:40:09 AM PST

  •  pretty feeble diary (4+ / 1-)
    Recommended by:
    TrueBlueMajority, Wee Mama, AbsurdEyes, magi
    Hidden by:
    anastasia p

    I don't see how Bishop Williams's views on the disagreement about gay people in the Anglican Church has anything to do with his clarity on the moral position of the US in the past seven years.  I agree with him that the US has severely compromised what moral authority it had in the world.  I don't believe it's even genuinely disputable.

    Other than that, you're just deadcatting Williams on the internal Anglican dispute about gay rights.  Why you link to a patronizing conservative fool's blog to achieve it, I'm not sure.

    To the extent I understand the Anglican dispute, Williams is doing the only sensible thing by not allowing for a definitive Biblical ruling on homosexuality.  Objectively, the Bible does not actually provide one nor does it consider homosexuality an inherently important subject. There is far more rigid condemnation of divorce in Scripture, yet no one complains about any lack of "moral unity" about the choice to deviate from the literalism on it.

    Whether the Bishop's problem with the foolish right wing churches in this country amounts to a 'losing battle', I doubt.  In a decade or two the churches that are schismatic will run out of the older, socially reactionary, generation that is crucial to its disobedience, incomity, and revolt.  They will in the not distant future have to change or fail- some will predictably submit again, others will fail, and yet others will recruit socially reactionary newcomers (such as recent immigrants) to sustain themselves.

    Renewal, not mere Reform.

    by killjoy on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 01:07:42 AM PST

    •  I agree except that the "schismatic" churches (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      mini mum, AbsurdEyes

      in the eyes of the Anglican Communion will be the former ECUSA, and I believe the split will be long standing.

      "I served my country. I played High School Football!" -Al Bundy

      by magi on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 04:44:56 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  They said that when we ordained women. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        esquimaux

        Now there are only a few provinces that still don't, so I am guardedly optimistic.

        •  Actually, I believe the San Joaguin diocese (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Wee Mama
          which is schmisic still has issues with that and part of the bug up THEIR ass is the election of Katherine Jeffords Schori as presiding bishop. Some peoples' minds can't be changed.

          We're retiring Steve LaTourette (R-Family Values for You But Not for Me) and sending Judge Bill O'Neill to Congress from Ohio-14: http://www.oneill08.com/

          by anastasia p on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 06:54:01 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  It won't matter (0+ / 0-)
        It's a handful of churches and four dioceses out of 100. Courts have generally not allowed them to take their church property along, which may have been an auxiliary goal of the IRD, along with weakening the ability of mainline churches to advocate for social justice. Let the split be "long-standing." I too believe these churches will atrophy as the Episcopal church is not in general the mosct compatible with rigid right-wing ideological thinking. Some congregations may in the end decide to become part of another denomination more friendly to their thinking. Ultimately, the issue has been way overblown by the media. I STILL see stories announcing the four schmismic dioceses like it was this big new problem in the church. I keep going to the stories thinking "What now?" and it's the same old same old. We have four such churches in our diocese that asked to be switched to the oversight of the bishop of Bolivia (maybe they move there!) but most of our churches are prefectly happy focusing more on working to eliminate extreme poverty around the globe (the ONE campaign, embraced by the whole American church as a primary goal).

        We're retiring Steve LaTourette (R-Family Values for You But Not for Me) and sending Judge Bill O'Neill to Congress from Ohio-14: http://www.oneill08.com/

        by anastasia p on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 06:52:11 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  More complex than it seems. (4+ / 0-)

    The Episcopal Church, as represented by its bishops, all called to their diocese and chosen by clergy and lay delegates, has been unequivocal in its opposition to the war in Iraq since before Mission Accomplished.  Most of the Episopal Church (TEC) is in complete agreement with ++Rowan.  In this, it joins with the rest of mainline Protestantism, Roman Catholicism and quite a bit of the rest.

    Perhaps ++Rowan and the Network bishops (i.e. those being installed by African prelates or indicating a desire to be governed outside TEC, citing the ordination of +Robinson as the reason) disagree, the Network being funded by a Scaife organization.  

    TEC is not in agreement with ++Rowan over homosexuality,  but has done everything in its power to appease the bishops of the Global South who want to boot it out of the Communion, short of making promises that it knows it cannot keep.  (Astute observers note that "everything within the power of the General Convention" extends only to the agenda of the General Convention, which lasts a week.)

    Also note that ++Rowan does not enjoy the power over Anglican churches that Benedict XVI has.  

    TEC = the Episcopal Church, formerly known as the (Protestant) Episcopal Church of the USA.  We noticed last Convention that there are Episcopal Churches in 31 countries within our structure.  

    The lead Anglican bishop in each country gets two crosses in front of his/her name.  Ordinary bishops get one cross.

     

    Dems in 2008: An embarassment of riches. Repubs in 2008: Embarassments.

    by Yamaneko2 on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 01:47:59 AM PST

  •  Good for him, etc. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mini mum, Othniel, bugscuffle

    But isn't the Archbishopric of Cambridge a political position, these days?  Maybe, it always has been - at least, since the time of Henry II.

    There was a scandal a couple of decades ago about an Archbishop of Canterbury who wasn't sure he believed in God.  

    Everything I know about the Anglican Church, I learned from Anthony Trollope's "Barchester Towers", a masterpiece - perhaps THE masterpiece - of 19th Century novels.

    •  Barchester (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      mini mum, Wee Mama, willb48

      My partner and I are currently watching this excellent series.

      IMHO, His Emminence has lost his bully pulpit on morality by statements and actions taken against the American Episcopalians over their support , ordination and elevation to bishop of gay clergypersons and gays in general.

      There is a certain South African prophet from whom he could profit by paying attention.

      God and ego are not equivalent expressions of reality.

      by Othniel on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 04:46:10 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I don't quite understand your comment (0+ / 0-)

        But, I'm an easy-going type.  I am just assuming that you're having a bit of fun with the Nigerian bishop.  I'm absolutely sure that you mean no offense to gays, or their ability to experience communion with the Divine.  Otherwise, I would have suspected otherwise.  I think that the "bully pulpit" refers to the American presidency, rather than to the Archbishopric of Canterbury.  Correct me, if I am wrong.

        Bishop Proudie turned out, in the end (in later novels), to be a sympathetic figure, as did his wife.  They meant well.  The archdeacon, who was Salieri in "Amadeus", was perfect.  What a series!

        The best Trollope series on BBC, however was "The Pallisers."  It was exquisite - perfect casting, perfect script, and gorgeous costumes and cinematography.  After seeing it, I read all of Trollope's novels, plus his autobiography.  Most of the novels, I have read at least three times.

        And the horse you rode in on.

        •  OOPS (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Othniel

          I totally, totally misread your comment.  I am so sorry for my comment.  It turns out that we are in agreement.  Dang. It's late, and I've been drinking.

          Trollope rocks!

          Sorry.

        •  By referencing my Partner (0+ / 0-)

          I kind of let on that I am gay - though being an openly gay lawyer such a reference has occasionaly resulted in amusing misunderstandings, such as in state bar convention social events.

          I totally support Gay and Gay accecpting Episcopalians, Anglicans and othe Canterbury affiliated denominations.  I am upset with the Archbishop for not according our queens the support he gives His.

          If you come to Net Roots Nation I'll buy you a beer at OCH and laugh about this exchange.

          God and ego are not equivalent expressions of reality.

          by Othniel on Wed Nov 28, 2007 at 09:53:24 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

  •  Duh! (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    milkbone

    CHRISTIAN, n. One who believes that the New Testament is a divinely inspired book admirably suited to the spiritual needs of his neighbor. A. Bierce

    by irate on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 03:03:04 AM PST

  •  Try this link (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mini mum, Wee Mama

    The EpiScope is a blog of the US Episcopal Church (ECUSA) which offers a good range of news items and perspectives on many issues.

    "War is not the answer, for only love can conquer hate." - Marvin Gaye

    by JBL55 on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 04:20:58 AM PST

  •  Re: (0+ / 0-)

    Revd Rowan's statement, right or wrong, is unlikely to change anyone's mind on anything and he needs to put his efforts into forming a real moral unity in his own communion before trying to spread it elsewhere.

    ++Rowan has been putting all efforts into stopping the schism, and restoring unity.  The left refuses to budge as does the right.  I'd say even more so on the left.  This shouldn't discount his views or his moral authority.  The propaganda emanating in regards to the Anglican struggle on both sides does great injustice to the original issue.

    "I served my country. I played High School Football!" -Al Bundy

    by magi on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 04:36:31 AM PST

    •  the left is refusing to budge (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Wee Mama

      speaking from the Anglican/Episcopal left, I am refusing to budge because I am certain I am on the right side of scripture and reason and history.

      Abolitionists were criticized for not refusing to budge, even when conservatives of that time had more scripture to point to in support of slavery than conservatives now have in opposition to homosexuality.

      even so, i have seen a lot more compromise from the left than the right in this current struggle.

      I have a great deal of respect for ++Rowan; even though he has not moved as fast as the left would like, it is clear he is being cautious in an effort to avoid greater schism.

      If parts of the world that believe gays and women are undeserving of church leadership decide that TEC should be cast out from the Anglican Communion, I won't like it, but will wear it as a badge of honor.  The split may or may not occur, and may or may not be long-standing, but I am supremely confident that future generations will wonder what the fuss was about, once what is now called the "left" on this issue becomes the mainstream.

      Politics is like driving. To go backward, put it in R. To go forward, put it in D.
      IMPEACH CHENEY FIRST.

      by TrueBlueMajority on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 05:42:41 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I respect your point of view entirely. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        TrueBlueMajority

        The original reason of this "scuffle" was due to the fact that the ECUSA went ahead with +Robinson's consecration even though ++Rowan asked them to show restraint until the issue could be resolved.  The ECUSA's decision to ignore his moderate voice is what caused this to be so contentious.  Very few people would be as opposed to what ECUSA (my church as well)did if they had simply not "thumbed their nose" at the communion.  ++Rowan had already made progress on this issue, and was pushing for more.  The ECUSA would have been in a much stronger position had the shown patience.  And the left did not budge when a moratorium was called for until the issue could be "ironed out" which is not a compromise in my opinion..

        "I served my country. I played High School Football!" -Al Bundy

        by magi on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 06:08:34 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I will point out that the 1998 Lambeth (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          TrueBlueMajority

          Convention, which passed an anti-homosexuality statement (engineered as I understand in some back rooms) also passed a call for a listening process and mutual education about sexuality. Since none of the latter had happened in the intervening five years it is perhaps understandable if the Episcopal Church doubted anything would happen in the next five or fifteen.

          Part of the tragedy here is that those who oppose homosexuality altogether simply will not believe that many on the other side have strongly held scriptural reasons for their position. It is not a question of scripture against the godless; it is one scriptural interpretation against another, and until the self-declared "orthodox' understand that, they will never understand the other case.

          •  Agreed. Just like in our politics today one can (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Wee Mama

            never look at the far wing of either side as representative of the majority.  I know many who have grown disillusioned if not disgusted that this argument has been dominated of late by the extremes.  What began  as a thoughtful and logical movement on left has become a political battleground, just look at the myriad of responses to ++Rowan.  He does not deserve this.  

            "I served my country. I played High School Football!" -Al Bundy

            by magi on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 06:46:41 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  amen amen and AMEN (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Wee Mama

            I love going toe to toe with conservatives on scripture, especially on this issue.  And it pisses me off when they presume to judge and deny my five decade relationship with Jesus Christ.  I understand their point of view so much more thoroughly than they understand mine.  Maybe that's why I still hold out hope that any official schism will be temporary (even tho in ecclesiastical terms temporary may mean a generation or two).

            Politics is like driving. To go backward, put it in R. To go forward, put it in D.
            IMPEACH CHENEY FIRST.

            by TrueBlueMajority on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 06:48:21 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  yes, but since Bishop Gene's consecration (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          magi

          other gay bishop candidates have been set aside for a cooling off period that is holding up well so far.  no official moratorium was accepted, but the fact remains that no other diocesan convention has elected a gay bishop since +Gene, even without an "official" moratorium.

          If +Gene Robinson is the only gay bishop in ECUSA I'll eat my hat.  He is just the only one who is openly gay and in a long term partnership.  How ironic that he is being punished for being truthful when others in the closet are allowed to serve without threats and international condemnation and the need to wear bulletproof vests during parish visitations.

          I also keep being surprised that the "breakaway" churches in the US and in the global South refuse to accept the concept of intra-Communion independence.  They want to be allowed to do what they want when they want to (like insist on only having certain bishops to come into their churches for confirmations, or consecrate bishops to serve in the US without permission of the local diocesan authorities), but are not willing to allow the diocese of NH or the ECUSA to have the same ability to select their own leaders.  Conservatives keep expecting ++Rowan to make some kind of pronouncement from on high that settles the matter when no primate has that kind of authority over another member of the the Communion, not even the ABC.

          I do respect ++Rowan's moral authority however, even in areas where I disagree with him.  Sometimes I wish that people who want the See of Canterbury to act like the Vatican would just convert to Roman Catholicism.

          none of this frustration is directed at you specifically--I find this an enjoyable conversation.

          Politics is like driving. To go backward, put it in R. To go forward, put it in D.
          IMPEACH CHENEY FIRST.

          by TrueBlueMajority on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 06:43:35 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  I too am enjoying this conversation. (0+ / 0-)

            I think people tend to forget the original argument to +Gene Robinson, even Jeffrey Johns commented on it.  +Gene claimed that his homosexuality was in no way a sin and therefore felt no need to repent.  I've always found this to be his one "public" mistake.  We are all sinful and especially all sex outside of matrimony is sinful (hetero or homosexual).  That's what repentance is for.  To ask god to forgive you for being human.  He could argue that matrimony be extended to all therefore rendering it not a sin, but to claim it the way he did was somewhat inappropriate when trying to make the case for an inclusive church.

            And yes.  Of course he's not the only gay bishop, I do feel however that there would be many more openly gay ones if he had not have used the language that I highlighted above.

            "I served my country. I played High School Football!" -Al Bundy

            by magi on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 07:00:57 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  i agree with you on that point (0+ / 0-)

              his wife seems to have come to terms with it, and I have no knowledge about what he did with men during his marriage.  but I agree with you 100% that we are all sinners, and building an inclusive church is about preaching that Christ loves and welcomes sinners, rather than saying words to the effect of "I have no need to repent."

              BTW, I never heard +Gene say such a thing--is there a link to an interview or something?

              Politics is like driving. To go backward, put it in R. To go forward, put it in D.
              IMPEACH CHENEY FIRST.

              by TrueBlueMajority on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 10:06:39 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

        •  A certain amount of horsepucky there (0+ / 0-)
          The voices calling for some kind of moratorium on consecrating gay bishops have not made it very clear what could resolve this moratorium which is what troubles me. Suggesting that pro-gay hardliners somehow "thumbed their nose" at "moderates" ignores a couple of things: first that the election of a bishop is primarily an independent affair of that diocese and this diocese clearly elected Robinson on qualities unrelated to his sexuality and second, that the anti-gay faction will never give up their position because the opposition to aceptance of gays in the church is a political strategy being fueled by secular sources outside the church or, as one previous poster correctly noted, the African anti-gay bishops are being financed by a Scaife-backed (among other familiar ultra-right names) group; that would be the IRD. Given that, this isn't simply a disagreement among well-meaning people within the churh that can be resolved by sincere discussion. In the eyes of the IRD-backed group, only a statement unequivocally exluding gays will satisfy. I'm confused about where the moratorium can lead.

          We're retiring Steve LaTourette (R-Family Values for You But Not for Me) and sending Judge Bill O'Neill to Congress from Ohio-14: http://www.oneill08.com/

          by anastasia p on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 07:02:45 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  You are completely correct as to the diocesean (0+ / 0-)

            right to elect anyone they choose.  And they did so with an overwhelming majority.  The moratorium was a carrot, to prove to the rest of the communion the the ECUSA was indeed serious about resolving the issue.  Your points on the African influence is true and honestly distressing because it points out the fact that the far right has taken over this issue and therefore made it extremely distasteful to moderates, who as evident in this thread have began to be painted the same color.

            "I served my country. I played High School Football!" -Al Bundy

            by magi on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 07:12:03 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

  •  I Believe We are Still Called... (0+ / 0-)

    The Protestant Episcopal Church in America, not "The Epsicopal Church" as some have claimed.  So the correct acronym is TPECA not TEC.

    The Archbishop is not losing to the conservatives here in the US.  Less than 10% of the congregations in the country are threatening to split off.  And frankly, I will be relieved when they go... I am sick of their wingnut funded hatred against everyone not like themselves.  Our church will be a warmer and more inviting place without them.  And lets be clear, the Archbiship of Canterbury is a "first among equals" in the Anglican Communion...he is not nor has he ever been anything like a Pope.  His words carry weight, but do not represent the views of any particular province of the Anglican Communion.

    "Don't take life too seriously...you'll never get out of it alive." B. Bunny

    by The Angry Democrat on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 05:59:45 AM PST

    •  Actually, both acronyms are wrong (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      magi
      It's officially ECUSA.

      Other than that, I completely agree with you. It's not nearly 10%, it's actually 4% of the dioceses and I believe less than that number of churches. Most of us are focusing on feeding the homeless, tutoring inner city kids, ending the death penalty, rebuilding the Gulf Coast and building schools in Africa, something Nigerian bishop Peter Akinola would be better off spending his time focusing on than lobbying the government of Nigeria to pass a law imposing prison sentences for simply having dinner with a gay person; yes, this is who we would be "compromising" with!

      We're retiring Steve LaTourette (R-Family Values for You But Not for Me) and sending Judge Bill O'Neill to Congress from Ohio-14: http://www.oneill08.com/

      by anastasia p on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 07:06:48 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •   Attacks on Williams ( peters, et al ) BOGUS (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    magi

    Until we can actually read the EMEL article,
    all the summaries of what Williams actually said
    are typical SpinPolitik.

    I've seen extacts from Emel, and it seem Williams pretty much expressed the views that moderate Kossacks have said themselves. For years.

    The 24 November Guardian seems to have a pretty accurate response.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/...

    From The Guardian:

    "We have only one global hegemonic power. It is not accumulating territory: it is trying to accumulate influence and control. That's not working. It is one thing to take over a territory and then pour energy and resources in to administering it and normalising it.

    "Rightly or wrongly, that's what the British Empire did - in India, for example.

    "It is another thing to go in on the assumption that a quick burst of violent action will somehow clear the decks and that you can move on and other people will put it back together - Iraq, for example."

    He went on: "Our modern Western definition of humanity is clearly not working very well. There is something about Western modernity which really does eat away at the soul."

    Peters is a fine example of using the barest reference to Williams as a jumping off point to justify his OWN agenda, without troubling himself to attribute his canting references.

    If his Hit Job came from one of my former 9th grade english students, it would have gone right back with the demand for some footnotes, quotes, or other demonstration that the Emel article had actually been read.

    I try to hunt down the full article. It deserves a fair read.

    Abandon ideology. Instead, tell the truth. Always.

    by slowheels on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 06:50:54 AM PST

  •  EMEL: Rowan Williams' Interview (0+ / 0-)

    Here it is: read it for yourself.

    http://extras.timesonline.co.uk/...

    Abandon ideology. Instead, tell the truth. Always.

    by slowheels on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 11:06:18 AM PST

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site