Well, Scarcrest and Reannon, since you brought this to my attention...
http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/08/05/bishop/index.html
The Openly Gay Bishop made it in! Yeah! Not bad to get 62 out of 107 votes. However, religion should be completely tolerant, not just "tolerant by a small majority".
This next paragraph is a wee bit of a tangent, but it came to mind anyway.
This (tolerance/acceptance) reminds me of a story Ms. Tao told me about a sermon she listened to in Church. Yes, she was a devoted Catholic. The priest delivering the sermon was thickly Irish, and he began by telling the congregation that it was the anniversary of Roe v. Wade. The priest started off slowly, and his intent almost appeared to be tearing down Roe v. Wade, but suddenly he launched into the congregation saying that seemingly good Christians drove women to need Roe v. Wade because we shunned women who became pregnant out of wedlock, etc. Had we not been so quick to judge and opened our hearts and our homes to these women, so that they would not be unable to care for their as yet unborn children, we wouldn't need Roe v. Wade.
Anyway, I'm not sure I agree with everything the priest said. I still believe it is a woman's choice in the matter. But then again, we still shouldn't be so quick to ostracize people for their mistakes. Especially good, Anglican Christians.
The Openly Gay Bishop made it in! Yeah! Not bad to get 62 out of 107 votes. However, religion should be completely tolerant, not just "tolerant by a small majority".
This next paragraph is a wee bit of a tangent, but it came to mind anyway.
This (tolerance/acceptance) reminds me of a story Ms. Tao told me about a sermon she listened to in Church. Yes, she was a devoted Catholic. The priest delivering the sermon was thickly Irish, and he began by telling the congregation that it was the anniversary of Roe v. Wade. The priest started off slowly, and his intent almost appeared to be tearing down Roe v. Wade, but suddenly he launched into the congregation saying that seemingly good Christians drove women to need Roe v. Wade because we shunned women who became pregnant out of wedlock, etc. Had we not been so quick to judge and opened our hearts and our homes to these women, so that they would not be unable to care for their as yet unborn children, we wouldn't need Roe v. Wade.
Anyway, I'm not sure I agree with everything the priest said. I still believe it is a woman's choice in the matter. But then again, we still shouldn't be so quick to ostracize people for their mistakes. Especially good, Anglican Christians.
no subject
But then CNN.com runs a lead that starts, "In a move that threatens to split the Anglican Church..." *smack* Bastards. The only things threatening to split the church are headlines like that.
no subject