Episcopal parishes withholding donations
parishes are withholding funds
from dioceses that voted for the homosexual Gene Robinson to be a bishop. The entire diocese of Florida is withholding $200,000 in previously planned donations to the national church. A protest petition against Robinson’s ordination is located at this site
By the way, the media’s description “conservative Episcopalians” for those who oppose the ordination of Robinson is a misnomer, given that these same people accept the ordination of female priests and female bishops. A more accurate description for these dissidents would be “Christian Episcopalians,” since the ordination of a non-repentant active homosexual is self-evidently incompatible with Christianity itself.
Posted by Lawrence Auster at August 23, 2003 11:40 AM | Send
This is off the topic of this entry, but I just read parts of Ben Domenech’s blog entry on what he calls “EvilCons.” It is making me quite upset… I have been planning on writing something about neoconservatism (I’ve already been doing that, in comment entries, and some blog entries as well, but I haven’t done an actual entry or article addressing this topic from a PolySci or philosophical perspective.
Charges of “racism,” “bigotry,” and “anti-…whomever or whatever” made against legitimate conservative commentators and bold thinkers make me mad. It is especially frustrating when those smears come from people who claim to be “conservatives.”
Ben has stated, in a previous entry, on a different topic, that he is a minority, and in other entries, has criticized those who oppose immigration. But as I have pointed out before, some of the strongest criticism of mass immigration, throughout American history, has come from minority leaders. Currently, there are many people, including many immigrants, and their family members, who share our concerns about what our current policies in this area have been doing to our country, and our citizenry as a whole.
I have not read through your past articles and other work, so I do not know whether I would agree with all of your views on this issue or not. But thank you for bravely and firmly addressing this issue with clarity and insight. We need more people who do that in the Blogosphere, and in the public forum of discussion and policy-making as well. Please keep up the good work.
By the way, in my comments at this past entry at Ben’s site,
I mentioned one of your entries. (It was the one about Bush’s speech on slavery.) If you haven’t already seen our discussion at that entry, you might want to take a look at it.
Also, one more thing - I wanted to let you know that, that entry at Ben’s blog was so disturbing for me, that I am going to move your site up on my blogroll.
So Ben Domench, along with Cal Thomas, thinks the Bush Africa speech is one of the greatest ever given. I expect he and Cal would find speeches by Noam Chomsky equally inspiring. For me, that speech was the last straw. I no longer support George W. Bush and will not defend him in any way. I’ve no intention of voting for him or for any of the Republican sycophants who blindly support him.
An American president giving a speech on foreign soil condemning the historical America while making no mention whatsoever of the multitude of gross abuses committed by Africans both past and present is an utter disgrace. The President made no mention of the slaughter and enslavement of millions of Africans - including his fellow Christians - at the hands of his “Religion of Peace” friends in the Sudan or of the dreadful abuses of Mugabe, to name only two. To top it off, as I mentioned in my earlier posts regarding this abominable speech, the door has now been cracked open for taxpayer-funded reparations for American blacks (presumably so his pals at Enron and the like won’t have to swallow the already mounting litigation costs). Add to this his mindless repetition of the leftist slogan “diversity is our strength” after the Supreme Court abolished the 14th amendment and one has to ask: Would it really have been any worse under Gore?
George W. Bush is basically a Tranzi whose only concern seems to be the creation of some sort of global empire - one presumably run by himself and Blair instead of by Chirac and the UN. The Islamists we are waging war against are at least as great a threat to the utopian world envisioned by the Tranzi editorial writers of the Wall Street Journal as to the United States itself. The fact that the nation’s borders remain wide open and our military technology continues to be transferred to China (a foreign power whose leading generals have openly threatened to attack the US with nuclear weapons) demonstrates that this President basically has no greater concern about American security - or the American people - than Bill Clinton did.
A very good post by Carl. Bush and his friends are too dim to realize that even if they endorse reparations, the litigations will still be coming their way. The Bush administration combines the attitudes of Republican businessmen and guilt-ridden Eastern preppies.
I’m afraid I have to agree with David: Carl’s post was first-rate — excellently put! Because of the reasoning put forth by Richard Poe, I believe I’m going to hold my nose in the polling place and vote for Bush. But it’ll not be without lots of effort at self-control.
I wonder if the people around him realize Bush is playing with the worst kind of political fire imaginable? Where are the GOPers who get paid to realize what’s going on? It seems there’s no one with access to Bush or Rove — not a single soul — to plead our point of view.
“George W. Bush is basically a Tranzi whose only concern seems to be the creation of some sort of global empire - one presumably run by himself and Blair instead of by Chirac and the UN.”
This seems to be true. How else can we explain the fact that the U.S. only criticizes UN-style globalism, e.g. the International Criminal Court, in terms of possible threats it poses to U.S. forces around the world, not in terms of the inherent threat of global government?
“This seems to be true. How else can we explain the fact that the U.S. only criticizes UN-style globalism, e.g. the International Criminal Court, in terms of possible threats it poses to U.S. forces around the world, not in terms of the inherent threat of global government?”
this sums up by example the underlying principle of american foreign policy.
An American president giving a speech on foreign soil condemning the historical America while making no mention whatsoever of the multitude of gross abuses committed by Africans both past and present is an utter disgrace.
I remember when the Dixie Chicks spoke out against President Bush and everyone was denouncing what they said as treasonous. That was, of course, ridiculous. But why are those same people not now denouncing Bush’s speech as “treasonous”? An American citizen…speaking on foreign soil…saying things which could easily be construed as anti-American…
Not, of course, that Bush is guilty of treason, though his speech was shameful. But where are these people who so obviously hold to a double-standard?
Oh…and to comment on-topic…
I would sign that petition if I were Episcopalian. For once in my life, I truly regret the fact that I am not an Episcopalian.
And to all those who protest that it is silly to fuss about Gene Robinson now, when we didn’t fuss about him when he was ordained…yes, it was wrong to allow him to be ordained in the first place, but mistakes in the past don’t excuse action in the present.