Charles Lewis from the National Post offers this:
A B.C. court ruling that four dissident Anglican parishes have no legal right to their buildings and land is being viewed as a watershed moment in a decade-long battle within the Church over same-sex blessings.
The case is sure to have ramifications for the other 35 dissident parishes spread across Canada that have chosen to leave the national church over doctrinal issues, raising questions about where they will worship if other courts follow suit and rule in favour of the Anglican Church of Canada on the property issue.
“We are absolutely concerned that this will create a precedent,” said Cheryl Chang, chancellor of the Anglican Network in Canada, which represents the breakaway churches. It is not clear yet, Ms. Chang said, whether it will appeal Wednesday’s decision from the B.C. Supreme Court.
But the ruling was already having a direct impact on Thursday on church life. The Anglican Diocese of Niagara said the B.C. decision has given them new impetus to pursue legal cases against breakaway parishes in their jurisdiction.
“Although it is a different jurisdiction, we believe that this decision will have a very important effect upon our ongoing legal efforts with the Network in Niagara,” the statement said.
The ruling also underscores deep divisions and often hard feelings that have built up around this dispute — and even a sense of regret that the battle began in the first place.
“First thing to say, I’m pleased with the decision but I have no sense of joy in the whole matter,” said Bishop Michael Ingham, head of the Diocese of New Westminster, who first decided in 2003 to allow same-sex blessings. “I think this has been a sad conflict and entirely unncessary. But the group of four do not represent the majority of conservative Anglicans. They are a fringe group.”
He said that it was up to each parish to opt to perform same-sex blessings. Eight decided to go ahead. But in 2004, when the worldwide Anglican communion called for a halt to same-sex blessing, Bishop Ingham put a moratorium on new churches performing the rite, but allowed those that were doing so to continue.
He on Thursday rejected the idea that offering same-sex blessings goes against the Gospels. Much of what Jesus spoke about, he said, concerns love and welcoming the stranger.
“The Church has evolved on many issues, including the ordination of women.”
The court decision was more than 90 pages long, but the crux of the issue can be boiled down to two key points: The Diocese of New Westminster said the main structure of the Anglican Church is the diocese and any parish within that part of the structure. The conservative group argued that once the Diocese of New Westminster allowed same-sex blessings to take place, it broke the rules of basic Christian faith and no longer had authority as a legitimate church entity.
But Wednesday’s ruling by Mr. Justice Stephen Kelleher said the diocese did not break faith when it allowed same-sex blessings, citing a general synod of the Anglican Church in 2007 that said the issue of same-sex marriage is not one of core doctrine.
Ms. Chang, however, said the judge missed a key point about Christianity and Anglicanism in particular.
“The judgement implies the Church can determine doctrine by democracy. And that shows a lack of understanding of what the Christian faith is about. Doctrine comes from scripture, the inspired word of God. And you can’t change what is in the scripture. We can’t vote on what we’ll believe.
“It’s a lack of appreciation of what Christian faith is about and a reflection of our society just how few Christians are left. It also sets a precedent not only for the Anglican churches in Canada but also for all religious denominations, in my view.”
Ms. Chang also argued that the judge’s reading was incomplete. He did not take into account that, in her view, the majority of 70 million Anglicans in the world oppose same-sex blessing as running opposite to the Gospels.
“The judge said the buck stops in Canada, that the Church has the authority to do these things. And if you don’t go along you have to sacrifice your property and all your money.”
In the meantime, the ministers of the four churches now have to contemplate the real possibility of eviction — though the diocese said there are no “time lines or next steps planned right now.”
Still, Rev. Mike Stewart of St. Matthew’s Anglican Church in Abbotsford said today the reality of the situation hit home.
“We came into this with our eyes open … and we realized we were prepared to do that if it was a matter of faith over buildings,” said Rev. Stewart. “The way forward for us is uncertain at the moment, that’s for sure.”
He said if his parish loses its buildings, the fight will have still been worth it.
“In the service of the Gospel sometimes sacrifices need to be made and being faithful to Jesus involves sacrifice — and if that means the building, so be it. But the mission will go forward from strength to strength.”
You may be interested in this excerpt from a Supreme Court decision in the case of Syndicat Northcrest v. Amselem. A Jewish condo owner had erected a “booth” for the Feast of Tabernacles, and the condo management objected. It ended up in the Supreme Court (and the Jewish condo owner prevailed). This gives some insight into where religion stands before the courts.
Freedom of religion under the Quebec (and the Canadian) Charter consists of the freedom to undertake practices and harbour beliefs, having a nexus with religion, in which an individual demonstrates he or she sincerely believes or is sincerely undertaking in order to connect with the divine or as a function of his or her spiritual faith, irrespective of whether a particular practice or belief is required by official religious dogma or is in conformity with the position of religious officials. This understanding is consistent with a personal or subjective understanding of freedom of religion. As such, a claimant need not show some sort of objective religious obligation, requirement or precept to invoke freedom of religion. It is the religious or spiritual essence of an action, not any mandatory or perceived-as-mandatory nature of its observance, that attracts protection. The State is in no position to be, nor should it become, the arbiter of religious dogma. Although a court is not qualified to judicially interpret and determine the content of a subjective understanding of a religious requirement, it is qualified to inquire into the sincerity of a claimant’s belief, where sincerity is in fact at issue. Sincerity of belief simply implies an honesty of belief and the court’s role is to ensure that a presently asserted belief is in good faith, neither fictitious nor capricious, and that it is not an artifice. Assessment of sincerity is a question of fact that can be based on criteria including the credibility of a claimant’s testimony, as well as an analysis of whether the alleged belief is consistent with his or her other current religious practices.
This isn’t on point to what was decided about the local properties, but it does give some insight into the approach the courts take to these issues. It seems very unlikely a Canadian court will enforce religious canons or belief requirements. Corporations and individuals came before the court, not churches and parishioners.
Rev. Mike – Amen !!
So why not have the parishes retain a skeleton congregation that continues to elect trustees sympathetic to the ACNA congregations? Then, their main purpose – which would be in service to the Diocese of New Westminster – would be to find an economically beneficial use for otherwise empty church buildings and charge a fair rent for their use from the ACNA congregations. In addition, the ACNA congegations could begin the process of purchasing their own buildings. Another tack would be for the ACNA congregations to negotiate a purchase of these buildings from the cash-strapped Diocese which is losing money and people at an alarming rate. Has Ingham adopted a prohibition against selling the properties to the ACNA congregations? I don’t recall seeing any such statement. Surely he is not so foolish as to think he can replant the congregations, and the Diocese doesn’t have the money to play with the expenses of maintaining Potemkin congregations. The fact that Ingham can’t dismiss the now-hostile trustees is something of a bargaining chip for the ACNA.
There it is folks. I am actually quite surprised that the BC Supreme Court Judge even ruled in favor of the monies remaining with the one church that had been left specifically under a will.
These Federal and Provincial Courts are not now or in future going to judge in favor of the “dissident” churches that are breaking on grounds of upholding the Holy Bible and God’s Laws. Let’s face the facts folks, the Courts are the modern day sanhedrin in this country and they will never find in favor of extremists and fundamentalists because they dance to a different tune. They are politically appointed and they will remain under the control of those who do the appointing, no matter what the Government or any one else tells you.
Time to get on with the job at hand and get over this legal stuff. Just do our jobs within the law and stay out of court.
“First thing to say, I’m pleased with the decision but I have no sense of joy in the whole matter,” said Bishop Michael Ingham, head of the Diocese of New Westminster, who first decided in 2003 to allow same-sex blessings. “I think this has been a sad conflict and entirely unncessary. But the group of four do not represent the majority of conservative Anglicans. They are a fringe group.”
Isn’t it surprising that Mr. Ingam has used the presence of conservative Anglicans in the ACoC as pawns to support his contention that those conservatives who did leave are only a fringe group. NOT!! Somehow, I don’t think this is the kind of witness those in the Federation thought they were making.
Don’t be taken in by anything Michael Ingham says. He would make any excellent politician with his meaningless words designed to take people in. What I find disgusting is how he has been able to date to convince clergy and laity to stand with him. If he was really finding no joy in the decision he would at best allow the clergy and congregations continue full use of the buildings. After all, there is no suggestion of any heresy being taught and most, if not all, parishes have continued to pray for him and the Diocese. That prayer must be for his conversion and repentance.
I sent the following letter to most major publications in Canada.
The terminology attributed to the clergy and members of the four orthodox Anglican parishes is completely false. We are not dissidents, rebels or whatever other term you might suggest. Rather we are orthodox and stand for the truth of the Gospel and accept both the authority of Scripture and the uniqueness of Jesus Christ. You will note I have avoided the use of the terms “conservative” or “liberal” as the situation within the Anglican Church of Canada and its leadership is much more serious. The correct terminology is orthodoxy versus apostasy.
Another correction that needs to be made is the claim that this relates solely to same-sex blessings. Nothing could be further from the truth. We do invite and accept all persons as each and every one of us has that old nature within us and as such are sinners. Yes, each and every one of us is a sinner. Our individual sin tendencies relate to many things such as our personality and our upbringing but we do not have the ability within ourselves to overcome these sin tendencies. Those tendencies include theft, assaults, pedophilia, adultery, anger, etc., and yes homosexuality. This does not give us the authority to bless any sin. In fact, that is impossible regardless of any liturgy or other actions of any person. The problem in the Anglican Church of Canada is that some so-called bishops have come to believe God’s word is subject to their approval and this is the crux on the matter. As Christians we are not here to worship the god of social acceptance or political expediency but rather to uphold both the authority of Scripture and the uniqueness of Jesus Christ. God’s love is beyond our understanding and is open to all. However, when the church “spits in God’s face” it both denies that love and substitutes it for social acceptance and/or political correctness.
Michael Ingham can only be described as an apostate as he rejects both the authority of Scripture and the uniqueness of Jesus Christ. That is proven by his proclamations and his book, “Mansions of the Spirit”. He and his colleagues have been allowed to decimate the church for years and the Primate, Fred Hiltz, and the other members of the House of Bishops have done nothing to curtail the reign of apostasy. Their lack of action has been decried by the vast majority of Anglicans throughout the world. The current situation shows the need for effective procedures within the Anglican Church of Canada to discipline and, if necessary, remove bishops when they openly denounce the vows they have made. Currently any person elected as bishop is virtually beyond any disciplinary action. On a secular vein persons conducting themselves like Michael Ingham would quickly lose their positions.
The court may well have made a legal decision but it has ignored completely the theological issues. That is quite understandable and undoubtedly explains why the Diocese of New Westminster steered matters in that direction. In this case the ruling of the court is tantamount to allowing the bank robber to retain his loot.
We do indeed pray for sincere conversion and repentance on the part of Michael Ingham and his associates but I do believe until that repentance is shown to be genuine they should be removed from office. Again it is not the clergy and laity in the four parishes that are dissidents. Rather it is those in Michael Ingham’s camp as they have and continue to deny the faith. Rather than being a servant of the people, he has become a tyrant and will continue to believe he is superior to God and the Primate and others in the House of Bishops simply sit back and do nothing. Because of this the Anglican Church of Canada will continue its rapid descent into apostasy and irrelevance.
Frank C. Wirrell
#21 – 35253 Camden Court
Abbotsford, B.C. V3G 2X2
Ktie (#8), the crime against Matthew Shepard was cowardly, heinous and contrary to Christian values. I’m sure all here would heartily agree. My question is what is your point? And why have you posted in an anonymous and trollish manner; and at a time of day when you likely suspected there wouldn’t be an immediate response? If you have something to say, say it. So long as it isn’t done in an insulting or vulgar manner, I’m sure you will find people here willing to engage your ideas in a respectful manner (even though this likely isn’t the most appropriate thread for doing so).
trollish? A reference to Tolkien?
What do you think my point is?
define appropriate
Ktie (#10), my apologies for referring to you as a troll. An effective troll makes a single comment, disappears, and watches the ensuing fireworks. I have a good idea what your point is, but I won’t put words in your mouth. Speaking for myself, however, I would be happy to discuss it on logical grounds. With respect to appropriate, a blog such as this isn’t intended to be a soapbox for every passer by (which you doubtlessly know given your approach and the name you have chosen – although I suspect you aren’t just a passer by). Nevertheless, if you have a cogent argument you wish to make, that in some way relates to this blog, I suspect the admins will permit it. If not, I wouldn’t fault them for deleting this whole discussion. I’m going to bed. Goodnight.
Ktie (#11), strike three. Pity though – I was hoping we could have a coherent conversation; but you’ve shown it is impossible to do so. Good bye.
Ktie,
It’s fine to hold a contrary view to others on this blog but you are not doing yourself or your position any favours by simply pointing to youtube videos.
If you wish to say something, please say it; in the meantime, no more youtube links.
David,
Thank you for your coherency and kind words. I am confused by what I am reading here. I read postings by those who seem to confess the grace and glory of the risen Christ. Yet, the condemnation of others that is openly apparent and also implied in the statements that I read here is abhorrent.
Do these writers not realize that our young people are dying over the issue of homosexuality? Do these writers not recognize that they have the power to protect our young people from violence in the way that they consider these issues? Many of the writers on this blog profess a love of gospel values yet continue to encourage a message of hate.
Do not doubt the words that I read here will add to the persecution and pain of an already vulnerable sector of our society – young people who are struggling with issues of homosexuality. Jesus may have given these writers power in this world but instead of using it for good they are using it to add to the pain of others. How can they say that this is a gospel infused morality?
These writers are Canadian; Jesus has given these writers an opportunity, by their wealth and their resources, to make a difference in the time and place where they live. Yet they have chosen to spend their time and money on arguments. This is a time when the hope and action of the Gospel is needed! Turn off your keyboards and go!
Christians, please, use your time and effort on something that will truly show the glory and grace of the risen Christ. Encourage yourselves and your young people to stand beside those who are persecuted.
How do you define the Gospel? We are using the same words, but I don’t think we mean the same thing. Is it automatically “hate” to assert that the bible says that same gender sexual knowing is wrong? All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God – all of us. The Gospel is that Jesus has covered our sins, and invited us to follow Him. In order to do that, we have to renounce our sins and do our best to sin no more. It is not loving to lie to someone and say that God condones the particular sin that he or she struggles with.
Ktie (#15), finally something coherent. Thank you. Backtracking on what I said in #13, I’m still willing to dialogue with you. You say you are confused by what you read on this blog. Are you willing to try and understand, or are you really commenting here to make a political statement and further an agenda?
If you are willing to dialogue, I need to know a few things:
(1) How do you view the Bible? Do you believe it is God’s inspired and infallible Word, or something created by man?
(2) Do you believe in truth? If so, do you believe in absolute truth, or do you believe that truth is relative and varies with time and changes with societal norms?
(3) If you believe that truth is relative, can you provide a logical rationale for why your beliefs have any more validity someone else’s?
(4) Do believe that morality should be based on pain? Namely, do you think that if something causes pain it is automatically bad and should be avoided (or eliminated)?
(5) Your comments suggest that you hold to some form of morality and believe that some things are right while others are wrong. Do you have a logical basis for defending that view and a consistent means for determining what is right and wrong?
(6) How do you define “hate”? Can you logically do so without defining yourself as hateful?
(7) Do you believe that saying an act or thought is wrong is equivalent to “condemning” everyone who performs that act or thinks that thought? (If so, I must logically conclude that you condemn many of the people who comment on this blog and much of the population at large). Do you believe that your form of “condemnation” is more “right” and morally justified than the condemnation you accuse others of? If so, what are the logical grounds for your belief?
(8) Can you give an example of the open condemnation you claim to read on this blog?
I know the above questions are tough (and I’m just starting), and you might want to avoid them, but I contend that you will never understand what is being said here unless you attempt to answer them. You will just continue restating the platitudes that are repeated by so many people in our society without any real thought as to their truth or logical basis.
The ball’s in your court.
Warren,
I believe in one God, the Father, the Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all that is, seen and unseen. I believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, of one Being with the Father. Through him all things were made. For us and for our salvation he came down from heaven: by the power of the Holy Spirit he became incarnate from the Virgin Mary, and was made man. For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate; he suffered death and was buried. On the third day he rose again in accordance with the Scriptures; he ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father. He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead, and his kingdom will have no end. I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son. With the Father and the Son he is worshiped and glorified. He has spoken through the Prophets. I believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church. I acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins. I look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come.
Amen.
Ktie (#18), I believe the Creeds too, but they aren’t of much help in determing the truth – or lack thereof – of your allegations. Are you willing to do the heavy lifting? Be forewarned, however, it’ll take much more than cutting and pasting.
Ktie (#18), I would also like to recommend a little book called Your Mind Matters, written some 35 years ago by John Stott – a noteworthy Anglican clergyman and author. I think you would find it helpful in understanding why thinking through issues related to the Bible is important and in accordance with God’s will.
Ktie (#18), in addition to the questions I asked in #17 (and which I still hope you will answer), I have something else for you to ponder. By stating your belief in the Nicene Creed, you affirm the essentials of the Christian faith that passed down by the early Church fathers. You also affirming the sovereignty and “otherness” of God; that He is God, and you are not.
Over the centuries, many Christians have been martyred because of their refusal to recant the beliefs reflected in the Nicene Creed (and are still being martyred today). It’s not fair to ask if you would be willing to put your life on the line, but I think it is fair to ask if you are willing to stand up for the essentials of orthodox Christianity – even if puts you in direct opposition to many of the values cherished by our society; values that are shaped more by the secular media than by Christian morality, or thoughtful reflection and debate.
Perhaps I’m wrong, but I’m reasonably confident that you “dropped by” this blog to upbraid commenters who you “feel” have a wrong view about homosexuality – a view that you believe is causing the persecution of innocent people. Although the questions I posed earlier must be grappled with before this issue can be meaningfully discussed, I will nevertheless give you a small insight into where I stand.
True believers believe that there are many thoughts and deeds that are contrary to God’s eternal and immutable law – not because they have any special insight, but because God says so in His Word. True believers also recognize their own sinfulness and total inability to keep God’s law, and understand that they no more merit God’s grace than does anyone else. They know that it is only because of Christ’s death and resurrection that the slate be wiped clean – otherwise no man would be able to stand uncondemned before a holy God.
I freely grant that there is greater societal stigma concerning homosexuality than for many other sins, and that the social sciences are more apt to claim that it is “natural” than for most other sins (a topic for another day), but do you think that this stigma is sufficient reason to put yourself above God and to ignore His Word? If liars, gluttons and coveters start to be persecuted in our society, is it your opinion that all the passages in the Bible that refer to these sins should be ripped out?
Do you think it is possible to love someone and still believe that they are a sinner? I do, because I believe that we are all sinners and that second greatest commandment could not be acted on otherwise. Or, do you believe that true Christian love means ignoring the Bible, deciding for yourself what is right and wrong, and pretending that the sin doesn’t exist? These are hard questions; ones foreign to the carnal mind that is still in darkness.
I hope you will carefully consider what I have said and will begin grappling with ideas and arguments instead of taking the easy way out (the way preferred by most in our society) and attacking people’s character based on emotion and feelings.
I hope to hear back from you, including your answers to the questions in #17, but please no cut and paste. Use the mind that God has given you!
Ktie, Warren’s posted a substantial and gracious response to your obfuscatory posts. You’d do well to respond, after defaming by implication the people who frequent this site as hateful and intolerant, connecting us and our utterly civil theological opinions with murder, and suggesting that our faith is somehow morally inadequate because it doesn’t confirm to your prejudices.
Rhetorical honesty can be quite difficult, especially if you’re accustomed to dismissing people who disagree with you out of hand. But go on: give it a try! I think you’ll find that honest debate is far more fulfilling than calling people names and running away. Who knows, you may even become more tolerant?
Redcrosse, thank you for your patience. I am living in a different time zone. It takes time for me to prayerfully consider your questions. Thank you for your responses. I trust that they are also prayerful?
Warren, my response to your question (number 17) was the Nicene Creed.
“…people who frequent this site as hateful and intolerant, connecting us and our utterly civil theological opinions with murder, and suggesting that our faith is somehow morally inadequate because it doesn’t confirm to your prejudices.”
These are your words, not mine.
#24 They were your words, or at least your implications – or else why did you post the Matthew Shepherd video?
#23 It is not really a response. How about trying to actually do the work to answer Warren’s questions? You see, if you don’t answer the questions you’ve been asked in your own words, the rest of us are probably going to assume that you are a troll who is more interested in slandering us than in actually having a civil conversation.
Ktie (#17), I’m heading for the airport in an hour and don’t expect to have Internet access for a few days. So, you have a reprieve from my rhetoric.
Even if you don’t post answers, I hope you will consider what I have said. Were we to continue talking, you might even discover that I am sympathetic to at least some of your views. Most Christians, myself included, often fail. Thankfully, our God and saviour does not.
The previous comment should read #23 vice #17.
ktir ~ You did a good job for a trol. You sucked a few in with your diatribe of a link.
don’t blame the christians for the things that are happening to the young people today, the ones that are dying over homosexuality. Blame the real culprits. Blame the senseless parents who have shown them bad judgement and poor morals. Blame the church leaders like Michael Ingham and Gene Robinson and yes, the Primate of the ACoC who is a coward and spineless man. Blame the Hollywood syndrome who have put the gay world into the limelight with their senseless useless films. Blame people like yourself who say you believe in one thing and then turn around and start useless conversations about immoral acts.
How about blaming a fallen world, and then preaching the Gospel?
Gerry (#29), although my first inclination concerning “Ktie’s” motivation for posting was similar to yours, I’m no longer certain. Regardless, his (or her) “comments” were likely of interest to other people who read this blog, and who choose not to comment. With regard to the specific issue that Ktie raised, Christians are not without fault for at least some of the intolerance that has been shown to homosexuals (google Westboro Baptist Church for an extreme example).
I think it is important for the Church to draw a clear distinction between how it responds to individuals and how it responds to the militant GLBT lobby who would like to see Christianity conformed to its own image (or eradicated altogether) and wants to dictate how all children should be educated. How individual Christians respond is also very important. Do we see our gay/lesbian neighbour as just another sinner created in the image of God who we are called to love and who needs to hear the good news; or do we react differently because of our suspicions concerning the actions of the GLBT lobby? To the extent that we fail in our individual responses, we deserve to have fingers pointed at us.
Kate #30 and Warren #31
I areciate your responses, Kate, yours as always so short and to the point. Warren, yours, as most times, expanded to at least explain where you are coming from.
Blame a fallen world ~ of course, and preach the Gospel ~ of course (BUT) should we just stop there and not say or do anything in defence of our stand against the rising tide of the GLBT lobby? I don’t really think so, it is in how we combat that the effectiveness comes. I know, I am a combatant and that is me, and I do, at times take a tougher stand than I should.
Let it be known that I feel we must love the sinner but not the sin.
I cannot stand by and watch someone pointing the fingers at those who are trying to love the sinners.
I have three very close relatives who are all involved in the Lesbian lifestyle. Do I hate them? Of course not, I love all three of them but I surely do not agree with or appreciate what they are doing. Two of them are militant, one more than the other, but there you have it…..I’ll still love them and others who are doing what they are doing but I will not back down in expressing my views and condemning the sin of the GLBT lifestyle.
Warren, you are correct, when we fail, we do deserve to have fingers pointed at us, but when we stand up to this attitude of the militant GLBT’s do we then deserve the fingers being pointed? I really don’t think so.
ROFL Only in writing, Gerry, in person it is quite a different story!
Gerry (#32), when “condemning” the sins of others, do you make a distinction between those who profess to be believers and those who do not? Do you think a Christian should take this approach towards a non-believing co-worker and risk getting fired? Are you consistent inasmuch that you would treat your lesbian relative the same way as a relative living in a traditional common-law relationship? I’m not pointing a finger at you, because I often struggle personally with knowing what the right “Christian” response should be to a particular circumstance.
I don’t think “condemn” is the right word to use. If a couple living common law comes to St. Alban’s, the most important thing about that couple is not that they are living in a common law relationship – the most important thing about that couple is that they come to know Jesus. As they grow in Christ they will begin to learn how to follow Him, as we all do.
Now, if we are talking about people taking leadership positions in the parish, that is an entirely different thing, and we are right to expect our leaders to be doing their best to set examples of what it is to live the Christian life.
The issue of same-sex marriage is a non issue. Marriage can only be seen by government and the judiciary as legal contracts between individuals. Religion cannot enter the picture. No religious beliefs have been tampered with and freedom of religion prevails. The problem lies with conservative zealots who have the unfathomable idea that freedom of religion gives them the right to deny , eliminate , or diminsh ; the rights of others. ‘Others’ in the case of marital rights , involves hundreds of thousands of Canadians.
As far as rhetoric goes , however , the notion of “loving the sinner but hating the sin” , is simply odious and has no basis in reality. Dissident Anglicans , or whatever you wish to call yourselves ; have turned to religious leaders from African countries that are hell bent on passing the most primitive and draconian laws against homosexual persons , yet seen. People will die . This travesty of human dignity is a direct result of (primarily)US evangelicals who have been using east Africa as a testing ground for their fundamentalist belief system. Apparently there is a good deal of support for the results , from all across this continent.
Hugh (#36), your comments are based on many presuppositions and assumptions – many of which I suspect you don’t even realize that you hold – and you’ve pretty much missed the entire drift of the conversation in this thread. Unless your only reason for commenting here is to deposit your own rhetoric – which is likely true – you’ve talked past most of the other commenters. If you want to discuss the rationale for any form of belief, I would be happy to oblige. Even though you may pooh pooh the idea of a Christian God, you still believe in something and are forced to ground your beliefs in faith. If all you want to do is preach your “gospel”, please take it elsewhere. Nothing you are saying is new – it’s just a regurgitation of what can be found in much of the liberal media.
I found an interesting response to another of Hugh Vincelette’s diatribes at Christian Government dot ca (http://www.christiangovernment.ca/newsletter_view.php?id=324)
Only the first paragraph from #38 is from Huch Vincelette – the remainder is the response. It would be appreciated if the admins could correct my improper use of the tag for italics.