One rule for you, one rule for me (2)

This is my response to comments left by Dolgwyn on the original post. There are too many characters, apparently, for them to be posted as a follow on comment so instead I am making them a new post:

Thanks Dolgwyn for your comments. As you might expect, I disagree with much of what you say.

You said, "it may well be worth your checking up on the purpose and mission statement of Anglican Mainstream, before making comments like "This approach makes clear the single issue nature of the Anglican Mainstream agenda". After all, it was established to support/promote/ defend (depending on your POV) traditional orthodox Christian thinking ona variety of issues including, but not exclusively, sexuality."

I am well aware of AM's aim and mission but think that its practice (i.e. its public statements and activities) reveal it to be a group that is primarily concerned with supporting/promoting/defending its views on sexuality (i.e. a single issue organisation).

You wrote, "At the same time,your comment "What she is saying then, is that this one issue, whether a person or organisation is perceived as being 'pro-gay' or supporting those who are 'pro-gay', trumps every other issue and activity including the vital work of mission and relief throughout the world." is, for many, simply a response to what they perceive as the gay agenda's trumping of the very same 'every other issue and vital work' of the church at large.

For several people in society - Christian or not - there is a growing feeling of fear for their safety as government bring in every more legislation that seeks to criminalise any expression of oposition to the shift towards the acdeptance of homosexual relationships."

The legislation that this Government (and previous Governments) have introduced outlaws discrimination and criminal offences motivated by hatred against people on the basis of disability, gender, race, religion and sexual orientation. The only reason someone would have for "fearing for their safety" from such legislation would be if they were discriminating or committing a criminal offence, or intending to do so. I assume that neither are true of you, so have no idea on what evidence your fear is based.

Nevertheless, feeling such fear does not justify discouraging support for the vital work of mission and relief undertaken by organisations like CMS and Tear Fund. On what basis could it ever be right to say that because I feel afraid of changes regarding sexuality I am justified in trying to discourage support for mission and relief?

You wrote, "What is perhaps even more frightening for some - I know of several myself - is the double standards that soem homosexual campaigners seem to hold - using theology, science and/or socio-anthropological material to support their argument, yet referring to those who use the same disciplines to develop a perfectly rational, logical but opposing argument as bigotted, blinkered, homophobic, narrow-minded, etc.

The fact that some of these folk have spent years studying the evidence before coming to the conclusion they have is ignored or, at worst, dismissed as of no importance."

Pots and kettles come to mind. Lisa Nolland's post describes Gene Robinson as "gay bishop poster boy" with a "sadly amaturish biblical hermeneutic." We have to practice what we preach and much of so-called debate on these issues is sadly little more than the flinging of invective instead of there being a real engagement with the views of those we oppose.

"Finally, in case you haven't been following the AM forum over the years, there is a regular and largely well-balanced debate on this and other issues running most of the time."

This is the list of Recent Posts on the AM site as it stands tonight: 'To the Anglican Communion: Pray, Fast and Resist'; 'Canterbury in a Corner'; 'Episcopals’ First Openly Gay Bishop Speaks'; 'Homosexuality to Heterosexuality: Can the Transition Be Made?'; 'ACI: Committing to the Anglican Communion: Some Will, Others Won’t'; 'Roman Catholic marriage agency advocates gay and unmarried parents'; 'US vote ‘not a snub to Archbishop of Canterbury’'; 'Their Separate Ways'; 'GC2009: Clarity Attained at 76th Episcopal General Convention'; 'A Message from Bishop David Anderson'; 'Why FCA UK and Ireland?'; 'GC 2009: Statement from the deputation of the Diocese of South Carolina:'; 'West Texas bishop drafts ‘Anaheim Statement,’ reaffirms moratoria commitment'; 'Signatures on the Anaheim Statement'; 'Anglicans and Their Unwelcome House Guests'.

The overwhelming majority of these posts are to do with the issue of homosexuality. The AM forum may well debate other issues but issues of sexuality are consistently its dominant agenda. It would be an altogether healthier place if mission and relief work were its primary features, instead of its current preoccupation with sexuality.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Athlete - Street Map.