This entry was published at least two years ago (originally posted on October 27, 2003). Since that time the information may have become outdated or my beliefs may have changed (in general, assume a more open and liberal current viewpoint). A fuller disclaimer is available.
The lengths that people will go to in their homophobia in the name of religion is really scary. Bishop-elect Gene Robinson is currently under 24-hour FBI protection due to death threats.
The first openly gay man to become an Episcopal bishop is under round the clock FBI protection following threats on his life, according to media reports.
Gene Robinson is to be formally installed as Bishop of New Hampshire on Sunday.
“The only thing that will stop this happening is if I am not around any more,” Canon Gene Robinson, who is to become the Episcopalian Bishop of New Hampshire, told the British newspaper The Independent in an interview published today. “We have to take that seriously.”
(via Atrios)
For starters, I don’t like the word “homophobia”. Its common usage is completely wrong: it is used to apply to a wide range of opinions, but (interestingly enough) not the “fear of” homosexuality that the “phobia” part implies. A person is NOT homophobic just because they disagree with the act of homosexuality.
That said, I don’t agree with the idea of death threats on Robinson. Personally, I am left wondering why a Christian church (whose basis for existing is supposed to be the Bible) is failing to take their Scripture seriously when it says that God finds “men lying with men” to be an abomination. In the Old Testament and the New Testament, this idea is mentioned, and I don’t recall it mentioning that God’s opinion has changed on the matter. If one wants to base one’s religion or religious practice on what feels right for them, there’s always the Unitarian Church.
As a person, Robinson is free to live as he chooses. He should not have to worry about having his life threatened by any man because of it. However, there are some limitations that one’s choices carry to one’s line of work. I would not, as an example, expect to see a confessed bank robber be made the president of a bank. Neither would I expect to see someone who openly and actively practices something that Scripture says is bad become a person of authority within a Christian organization.
Robinson really needs to take his actions into consideration, as they apply to his church’s affiliations. By persuing the archbishopric, he risks tearing the church communion apart. That sounds rather selfish to me, but that is just my opinion.
The bible also tells people not to wear blends (clothing woven of two types of material) , times change, go figure.
That’s right, times change, and we now have 2000 different religions out there to choose from. Religions for men, women, pacifists, militarists, vegetarians, homosexuals, and hedonists alike. But if you want to be a Catholic, then don’t wear blends! I mean, that’s the whole point… this guy wants to be a Catholic, and he wants to be gay. Both conditions are fine by me, but you can’t do both at the same time.
Correction: Episcopalian, not Catholic. But the fact remains.
I tend to think of it like this: You run a club. The club has open membership, the only condition is that you follow all the rules in the Rule Book. Now along comes this guy who not only want to be a member, but wants to be a chairperson for your club, except he disagrees with a rule and plans to amend it once he’s in. I think you have every right to deny his membership.
That said, death threats are of course out the question.
Oh, hi, Bill… it’s wonderful your comparison between a homossexual and a bank robber! You’re definitely not a homophobic!Have a good life..oh, by the way… we are not going to disapear just because you don’t want us to participate in the activities in daily life that you find we are not eligble to participate.
Where’s the comparison of a homosexual to a bank robber? I missed that and can’t find it in Bill’s post.
Anyhow, if someone wants to compare a person to a bank robber why shouldn’t they? I’m not sure I
understand the problem there.
The issue of blended fabrics is a commonly brought up one when talking about this issue, but it is true that there are Christians no where that follow that rule. I don’t even think Jewish people follow that rule anymore. But, the Bible is
slightly more adament about homosexuality being wrong (right up there with lying and murder – oops, was that
a bad comparison?) than about blended fabrics being wrong.
i don’t recall homosexuality being discussed in the 10 Commandments, and i certainly don’t recall Jesus ever saying anything about the topic either
that being said, who’s to say you have a better interpretation of so-called scriptures than a bishop (Episcopalian even)? from the beginning, Judaeo-Christian-Islamists have been picking and choosing (and ignoring) parts of scripture that fit their narrow-minded prejudices… i have a rule with Christian bible-thumpers: you can quote me what Jesus said — period… anything else is baloney and blasphemy as far as i’m concerned…
let me quote Jesus here on the law: “Rule number 1: Love God… Rule number 2: Love your neighbor… this replaces all previous laws”
and let me paraphrase Jesus on expressing your opinions about someone else’s life choices: “Judge not lest ye be judged”
Christians indeed… but obviously not followers of Christ
I am often amused by use of Scripture to prohibit certain ideas and not others. The Old Testament injuctions are cited as being the authority for these attitudes, however the book of Leviticus contains all sorts of sumptuary and dietary regulations which no one follows anymore. Even in the New Testament women are ordered to cover their heads, “be subject to their husbands” and “keep silence in the assemblies”. There are all sorts of practices that the first century Christians observed that are present in Scripture that Christians have not observed without feeling that their souls are in peril. The Scripture may be an important document for religious authorities, but they must also realize that this is not first century Palistine.
If one is going to use Scripture as the final authority in matters of behavior and morality then who chooses which injuctions are to be obeyed an which ones ignored. According to those who would uncritically cite Biblical sources for modern living we should be living like the Jews of Late Antiquity