On Thu, Dec 18, 2003 at 03:05:46PM +1100, Russell Coker wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 14:39, Joel Baker <fenton@debian.org> wrote:
> > Imagining it? I suppose it's possible that I've hallucinated the
> > stated positions of the Catholic, Luthern, Episopalian, Baptist, and
> > Mormon authorities (the latter not technically being considered a sect
> [...]
> > Since you have no idea *what* civil rights I'm claiming are denied, your
> > claim that I'm just imagining this denial is... well, I'll just let it
> > stand on it's own, for people to evaluate it's backing.
>
> So which civil rights are you referring to?
>
> The Anglican church seems to be doing reasonably well in terms of civil
> rights recently (I think that they already have gay priests, and gay
> marriage is being debated). Quite a number of Anglican ministers and
> members of the congregation have defected to the Catholic church because
> of this (and they apparently are not missed at all).
>
> I haven't been following the matter closely, I haven't been an Anglican
> (or any type of Christian) for some time.
Details in a private reply (and I'll send them to those who ask - privately;
we're already so far off topic we're losing sight of dry land).
The Anglican church is, in fact, the most likely among anyone except the
UUs to (eventually) decide that it's OK, for the same reasons that they
have (now) decided that it's OK to have gay clergy and formal recognition
of committment ceremonies (they won't call it marriage, or treat it as
such, but they WILL recognize an oath of enduring commitment sworn before
God, under their doctrines - or at least, that is the summation of the
ceremony issue that I was given by a member of said clergy and long-time
friend, about a month ago, after the ordainment of the Bishop that caused
the latest not-quite-schism).
My personal experience is, in fact, that most members of the Anglican
communion that I have contact with are, at worst (for me), somewhat
discomfitted by a clash between doctrine and principle. They are the same
people who voted to allow the recent changes.
Which is one reason why I take issue with organized religion far more often
than with people who happen to be members of it, but don't have personal
problems with my actions - they happen to be the most likely to vote (in
secular elections) against the implied vote that the doctrinal statement
would expect.
Or, to steal a quote, "A *person* is smart. *People* are dumb, stupid,
panicky animals and you know it."
--
Joel Baker <fenton@debian.org> ,''`.
Debian GNU/NetBSD(i386) porter : :' :
`. `'
`-
Attachment:
pgpFy261AWK9l.pgp
Description: PGP signature