I think that for the sake of the pious, learned, virtuons priests of the Anglican church in the past, this organization should now be disbanded.
In an attempt to hold its real estate, it has abandoned any vestage of its theology and is outdoing the sins and extravagances of the public

I guess it's all a matter of perspective. She sees what she is doing as work on behalf of God, but you see it as blasphemous.

These past two elections, I have seen people who have said to represent the ideology of moral values and of faith, poo-poo torture as frathouse pranks, I've seen organizations like Media Matters have to be created, to set straight the misrepresentations and blatant lies of these moral crusadeders who claim to run on the values of integrity, honesty and religious moral principles. I've seen these people of faith mislead their congregations into thinking their individual right to worship is being attacked, if they aren't allowed to have high school microphones and federal courthouse walls as platforms.

I realize these people truly believe they are working properly for the betterment of their faith. Myself and others see the same level of blasphemy you see in a lesbian minister. Perspective, I guess.

Well, we can all see why so many former Episcopalians have embraced the Anglican Exemption and moved under the umbrella of the Catholic Church.

Dave

"For all her blasphemies, Carter Heyward is right about one thing: it is okay to be angry. It is okay to be angry when Jesus Christ, God's sinless Son, is enlisted in a cause as foreign to his gospel as that which now threatens to corrupt our national morality."

Here I agree. It is okay to be angry. I am angry because the writer submits that Carter Heyward is a blasphemer. National morality is not corrupted by two people of the same sex living in a loving, monogamous relationship which hurts no one around them. National morality is corrupted when those who fly the banner of Christ do so for very self serving purposes.

Show me where Christ Himself says that homosexuality is wrong. You will find no direct quotation attributed to the Son of Man. Since the day Paul claims he saw Christ on the road to Damascus, the Christian Church was doomed. Christ and His followers were a tool in Paul's arsenal against the status quo. The teachings of Christ were twisted and reworked to suit Paul's needs. By the time Mohammed (pbuh) came on the scene, political considerations played heavily in the evolution of Islam and the subsequent Qur'an.

By the time Charlemagne came on the scene a hundred years later, there was a need for a state religion to bring the Roman Empire together. Were it not for Muslims who reneged on an agreement with Charlemagne, it is quite reasonable to assume that the majority of the civilized world could have been converted to Islam. As we know, that didn't happen. Charlemagne, in his wisdom, realized that Christianity was the religion that most served his purpose and vision for the Roman Empire. It was politics, not faith, which caused Christianity to flourish.

The early Christian Church, the Roman Church and most sects within Christianity's umbrella have been the catalyst for fostering hatred and bigotry. Many, especially the Roman Church, have been headed by corrupt powers who were most interested in centralizing their own power and wealth. While the Protestant Reformation may have wounded the Roman Church, Paul's interpretation of the Living Christ remains the foundation of most Christian sects. Plenty of Church leaders throughout Christianity's 2,000 years "lost the moral and ethical courage to apply without hesitancy the command of Christ."

If Jesus Christ Himself rendered "unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's," what gives me the right to render my government to God? I render to God that which is His based on the common teachings of all religions - that being do unto others as you would have them do unto you. I cannot believe that only 33% of the world's population will be eligible for Paradise. There is nothing immoral about pure, unconditional love. There is nothing immoral about practicing a religion as long as it does not infringe upon the rights of another individual who freely chooses not to accept it.

obviously, Heyward's entire deviation from traditional theology is based upon her definition of "queer," which she broadens out to virtual meaninglessness: "Queerness is public solidarity in the struggle for sexual and gender justice and of irrepressibly making connections to other struggles for justice, compassion and reconciliation."

This isn't "blasphemy" - it's an assault on the "clear meaning" assumtions of language.

Benjamin C - another writer come and gone