More proof the libs can’t take the heat… and have a REAL discussion about the issues they so greatly care about.

wayward episcopalians both...

Bishop & Nate… Afraid to debate?

As noted in this previous post, I linked to Dartmouth senior Nathan’s piece at the Wayward Episcopalian blog where he’s put forth the call for suggestions of what he should ask NH’s openly gay Episcopal bishop Eugene Robinson in an interview he’s conducting with him later this week. Earlier this morning, I availed myself of his call and comment section and left the following suggestions he ask the bishop:

Ask him how he feels about placing the desires of the flesh above the job of bringing souls to Jesus.

Ask him what he thinks his Maker will say to him when its his turn.

Ask him what he would counsel a confused preteen about sexuality– would he tell him to follow his "desires" wherever they take him?

Ask him what is worse– flushing a Koran down the toilet, or using the Bible to promote the gay agenda?

And ask him if he’ll come on our radio program in Laconia to defend his positions and "teachings". (Meet the New Press radio; 1490 WEMJ)

At the time, my posted comments appeared on the blog. I checked it a little while later to see if anyone had responded and, unsurprisingly, no one had… probably not too many people read the kid’s tripe anyway. As mentioned above, I referred to Nathan’s piece in this prior post about the gay bishop’s visit here to our town of Gilford, and I actually copied and pasted the above questions published as I submitted them directly FROM his blog.

Guess what? I refreshed the open page a few minutes ago to see if anybody responded to my input, and, yep– you guessed it—

MY COMMENTS HAVE BEEN REMOVED, AND THE POST SHOWS "0" COMMENTS

Ya just gotta love these "open minded" and oh-so-"tolerant" lefties like Nate– everything’s just ducky until you raise points they disagree with, or are damaging to their cause. Then, all bets are off. Why engage in debate when you can simply stifle it? This is the future in Barack Obama’s Amerika. Are we sure we really want that?

Like it? Share it!

by

See all posts by Doug
Visit Doug's website

Follow @

Find Doug

Add Doug

Email Doug

mer

Racist! Hater! Bush Sucks!
Yep, I love trying to have an intelligent, fact based, emotionless discussion with a tolerant liberal. Yep, as tolerant as Torquemada they are.
http://waywardepiscopalian.blogspot.com The Wayward Episcopalian

I wrote that I would not tolerate hostility and you blatantly ignored those instructions; of COURSE I deleted your comment. You knew full well I would. Tough questions are one thing. Loaded questions asserting that one point of view is true and there’s no room for debate on the subject are another thing altogether. Your first questions, for example, uses as a foundation the idea that +Gene is opposed to
“saving souls” and is a fan of the “pleasures of the flesh.” It would make a lot more sense to ask him IF it’s true than WHY it’s true. As in, tell me Doug, when did you stop beating your wife? Does your mother know you’re gay?
I am planning to ask the bishop how he interprets the verses in Leviticus and Paul that condemn homosexuality. I won’t shy away from these subjects, I just won’t use the interview to attack him, something you knew full well when you posted your comment. The point is to get his point of view to my paper’s readers, not to get your point of view, or mine, to him.
As for the blog, I get around 50 hits a day, sometimes spiking around 300 when I’m more active. I’m also a front-pager on MyDD.com, so I get readers that way. I would also defend my credentials on tolerance and respect, highlighting past posts and comment threads at both WE and MYDD, but Granite “Grok” just isn’t worth the time. You have a good week.
skip

Here is the question that I left: For quite some time, Bishop Robinson has held that it is not about him. Yet, he has persisted in quest concerning his sexuality’s rights vs those in the greater Anglican church – in large part, his quest is what is shattering the Anglican Communion. The question – what moral or religious imperative does he quote to justify his quest over that of dissolution of the larger Communion?
http://www.granitegrok.com doug

But Mr. Wayward Episcopalian, my questions ARE sincere. How can you assert that the man is NOT about the flesh when that’s what’s driving him? I also want proof of how the Catholic Church, and, as claimed by your “big hero”, the Bible, teaches “hatred” of women? This came as news to my wife.
And I really DO want to know how he would counsel young people.
I am not surprised, as you and your ilk NEVER allow yourselves to engage in an open and fair debate, as you know your ideas don’t pass muster when confronted with facts and truth. How about joining us on our radio program? We always promise to be a “no sandbagging” zone. Better yet, you get “plus” Gene and we’ll get our buddy John F. Russo.
What say you?
http://waywardepiscopalian.blogspot.com The Wayward Episcopalian

Skip, I would disagree that the Communion is indeed dissolving, but the question isn’t phrased in a hostile or disrespectful manner so I’ll approve the comment. Not that I’ll ask him, of course. I will, however, be asking him what he thinks of ++Rowan’s leadership and what he took away from talking to bishops who oppose him in London.
Doug, I don’t doubt your sincerity. However, it is not the flesh that drives the man, and it’s very disrespectful for you to demean someone just because they interpret Scripture differently than you, no matter how off-the-wall you think their interpretation. You further show your own absurdity by talking about my “ilk” when all you know about me is that I deleted one comment off one post on my blog. You’re getting a little ahead of yourself, don’t you think? Read a few more posts – for instance, the one called “What is elitism?” – and look through the comment sections of my posts on MyDD, or where they quoted me on Stand Firm, and then tell me about my “ilk.”
On another note, I’m unaware of any comments +Gene made regarding the Catholic Church and women. Shoot me a link to his quotes. If he did say such things, I too would like to question him about them, and would consider sticking such a question in the “if I have time” portion of my list (I only have 30 minutes to talk to him).
I’ve never listened to your radio program and wouldn’t appear on a show I don’t know a thing about. (Those folks who agree to talk to the Daily Show or the Colbert Report and then get offended never cease to amaze me – do your homework, folks.) But, I appreciate that you’re willing to talk to people who disagree with you – though I have to wonder if the questions wouldn’t be phrased similar to those that Orlando anchor asked Joe Biden.
http://waywardepiscopalian.blogspot.com The Wayward Episcopalian

Doug, it occurs to me that this is a private photo and I haven’t given permission for it to be replicated. Please take it down. Thanks.
http://waywardepiscopalian.blogspot.com The Wayward Episcopalian

Well that’s odd… I had a longer reply comment earlier and it said it was being held for moderation, but the comment about the photo went up right away, no holding period.
http://www.granitegrok.com doug

The Wayward Episcopalian LIES about his longer comment. It appears as you wrote it, buddy. As to the photo, no. We’ll keep it. Thanks. I rather like it.
Skip

Putting up a “private” photograph at The Wayward Episcopalian isn’t exactly good form for something that you wish to keep “private”….is it?
Skip

The “Longer comment” was held because it failed our simple CAPTCHA request. I have manually gone in and have published it….it should appear momentarily.
http://waywardepiscopalian.blogspot.com The Wayward Episcopalian

I’m not lying, Doug, and shame on you for making such a slanderous accusation when you can’t prove it. There must have been a technical glitch in the public library computer I was using when I wrote the long comment, and how dare you try to make it a moral issue about my character instead. I’ll repeat what I told Skip in that first comment, but I won’t repeat what I told you, you’ve proven yourself not capable of real dialogue. You’re a bully – I’ll happily engage with consertavives, as a pro-life budget hawk I have many conservative views myself, but I will not engage with bullies who frame everything in hostile terms. Your posts on this blog show that you’re not interested in an exchange of ideas or in information gather; you’re only interested in advancing your own views and agenda. You’re also a criminal, in violation of copyright infringement laws.
Skip, your comment at my blog has been approved. While I disagree that the Communion is dissolving, you didn’t use the same hostile, accusatory comment that Doug made. I don’t mind Doug’s conservatism; I’ll engage with any belief system, and I have a number of conservative beliefs myself. What I mind is his tone, and you didn’t embody that. Thanks, skip. But as for the photo, I don’t wish to keep it “private,” I just wish to keep it privately owned and controlled, like any published material.
I won’t be visiting Granite Grok again, so go ahead and say whatever you want in your reply comment, it will drift off into the ether unread. If I want to talk to intellectual conservatives, I know I can find them at Stand Firm at Dartblog, I certainly won’t bother with you again.
http://waywardepiscopalian.blogspot.com The Wayward Episcopalian

Re: the longer post, it may also be possible that I accidentally hit preview instead of post and closed the window not realizing I hadn’t posted yet. It’s certainly not an issue of lying, though. Are you really that dense as to believe being wrong about something and lying are the same thing, interchangable? Why would I lie about something like that? (That’s a rhetorical question – again with the unread ether.)
http://waywardepiscopalian.blogspot.com The Wayward Episcopalian

Skip, thank you!
Doug, does this mean an apology for calling me a liar is forthcoming?
Nathan out. For real this time (I just hadn’t closed the window yet.)
Skip

“Not that I’ll ask him, of course.”
Why not? Why ask people to leave questions and then respond as above?
It seems here in the US, with a large number of parishes leaving the church and putting themselves under the Nigerian church, it is. You have the conservatives rejecting the liberal theologians over the issues of homosexual teachings / blessings, and it isn’t dissolving? The word ‘spin’ comes to mind…..
http://www.granitegrok.com doug

I DO apologize for calling W/E a “liar”, as I had no idea there was some trash can repository for mistakenly improperly created comments (Skip’s domain). It just appeared to be a setup, as I looked in the internal comments and saw the post as created. Skip fixed it, and I apologize. But. Not. For my original comments, or questions, or for my tone in asking. I believe that V. Gene is tearing down the last shreds of the defenses left against cultural rot and would tell him so to his face.
mer

I’d also like the references for Catholics hating women. I was raised Catholic and have never been taught anything but respect for women, my father never acted towards my mother with anything but love. Go into any traditional Sicilian or Polish Catholic family, and it sure seems as if the mother rules the roost.
If the Catholic Church hates women so much, then please explain why Mary, Mother of Jesus, is venerated, has her own prayer (the Hail Mary), is depicted in every Church that I’ve ever been in?
Or are you saying that the Catholic teaching of women can’t be priests is hatred of women?
mer

Oh, by your moniker Wayward Episcopalian, I’m guessing that you are not a Catholic (Roman or Orthodox); as such, please explain your authority on the Catechism of the Roman Catholic Church? Me, I’ll take the word of “Papa”, any Jesuit, Bendictine, Carmelite (who by the way are an order of monks devoted to Mary, guess they really hate women), any Archbishop of the Orthodoxy, over you.
What is the root origin of the Episcopal Church? Did they get their start by being disgruntled with the Catholic Church?
Danielle DeLisle

I would just like to clear up something.
I was at the event, covering it for the paper and the bishop never used the word hate in regards to women and the church. That statement is editorializing on the part of Carbone. What the bishop said is that the treatment of women is oppressive up until the New Testament. He described a phrase in the Bible saying women should wear hats in church and not speak.
“Let the women learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.” I Tim. 2:11-12.
The above is what I believe he was talking about. He was mainly using it as an example of how the two parts of the Bible are different. Hope that clears up some things.
Oh and mer…
Your second post I assume is directed towards the bishop. The third to the W/E I am confused on. All he said was he didn’t know about these statements and would like the links. He never stated an opinion or claimed to know anything about Catholism from what I see. Did you look at some links on his site or something?
I am not speaking for the paper or anything, just on my own initiative.
Danielle DeLisle

I must apologize using my notes I do see that he used the word misogyny in connection with power in the church between men and women. He described that it is an oppressive atmosphere with women getting little mention in the Old Testament. So yes he was indicating that oppression is a form of misogyny. He did reference Tim so there were some parts of the new testament, but I recall him saying especially in the old. I think that is a different animal than what the impresion in Carbone gives. Sorry for not looking before. This is just my opinion though.
mer

Danielle, sorry, I misread doug’s post (the fourth in this thread), but I still stand by the thrust of what I am saying. The Vatican, through the Catechism, says what Roman Catholics believe; anyone else who says “this is what Catholics believe” frankly has no standing. I would never expect a non Lutheran to have authority on what Lutherans believe.
http://www.granitegrok.com doug

Is it Danielle’s contention that Carbone is “editorializing” throughout the piece? Is the movie NOT slanted towards accepting the gay lifestyle within some context of the Bible? Does V.Gene NOT preach the pro-gay agenda? Quite frankly, I was quite pleased that Carbone brought information about the Bishop and his beliefs out of hiding for more of the public to see.
And as I said, I want PROOF of his claimed “gay retreat”. As a Catholic, I am deeply offended that he attack my Church’s doctrine as “hatred” or “misogyny”. Although I do readily admit that I scoff at his religious “teachings” over in his “church”…
Danielle Delisle

That’s cool, mer. You made it clear.
Doug,
Nope, that’s not my contention. I wrote..
“That statement is editorializing on the part of Carbone.”
I didn’t comment on the rest of the piece. I feel that part is editorializing because in my view as a writer, putting it the way it is phrased in that article reads to me like Robinson was indicating an aggressive hatred of women (i.e. chaining them, insulting them crudely etc.) which is not what I got from what he said. As I tried to write above I felt he was talking about an oppression of women in the Bible that he was trying to illuminate as subtle hatred. The other part of what he was talking about was the reason for this is when the Bible was written and the culture was much different then. He argues for an interpretation of the Bible that allows for changes in the world. He made the point that he felt God hasn’t said all he had to say to man in the first century and is done with the world and that there are still things to learn.
I am not agreeing or disagreeing with any of that. I am just trying to point out I think the topic was a lot more complex than was indicated in that part of the article. I called it editorializing because it indicates what Carbone got out of that part rather than the actual issue, which I think was much more subtle. It happens all the time. We hear things and one person takes away one thing and someone else gets something else out of it. In my own opinion I don’t think he went deep enough into it to make it clear. Which, yes, is editorializing on my part. I just thought I would offer a slightly different view. I admit its hard tackling this complex things in 600 words.
I also want to say I don’t think it was intentional. I am not trying to disparage Carbone. I am sure I have slipped and done something similar. It is unfortunately something all to easy to do. Since it seemed such a hot topic here I’d thought I would chime in with my thought.
http://www.granitegrok.com doug

Danielle, we appreciate your input here. I think you are right when you discuss what Carbone took from what V. Gene said versus what you heard him to say in that we, as humans, all tend to “hear” what we want, at times. Perhaps Carbone took his inference from what might have been “code” words or “buzz” words that he has learned to discern through the years. It has long been my observation that liberals and others attacking cultural “norms” use such language to couch what they are saying due to the fact that more people would disagree and oppose them if they knew what they were really all about. I stand by my belief that V Gene is about destroying, not creating, or improving.
I’m hoping we’ll read another eyewitness accounting of Saturday’s event in the GS?
Danielle DeLisle

While I am thinking about it, Doug and Skip. You welcome people with different views to guest blog and/or guest on your radio show. Would you be willing to allow me to do so as someone who lives a very alternative lifestlye? Preferably radio, but I will do a guest blog too. This would not be representing the press in anyway, but merely as someone who is willing to speak about what she believes in. I am not ashamed of who I am and am perfectly willing to answer ANY questions put before me. I am neither monothesitic nor straight so you would really be getting someone from the opposite end of the spectrum. I have no credentials other than the lifestyle I live, but I see lack of people willing to speak on the other side on here and I am willing to. Let me know what you think.
http://www.granitegrok.com doug

We would definitely be into having a radio discussion on this topic. We had the LHS G/S Alliance in studio at one point and we were all very cordial. We promise “no sandbagging”, but will definitely present our point of view. As to the blog, we’re laways open to submissions, but generally if the post is something we are in disagreement with, the purpose would be to write a rebuttal and have a form of a “point-counterpoint” type of exchange.
Remember, I do not hate those who choose a different lifestyle, but I do object to pushing certain agenda in the schools on children, and I will fight to defend the institutions I believe ought to be defended, like the Catholic Church and the tenets of the Bible. And I’m not just talking about the gay agenda in this instance, especially with regards to the schools– there I just want the teaching of the basics, couched in a safe, organized and disciplined atomosphere. NOBODY’S AGENDA. Period.
Danielle DeLisle

Just let me know when and where for the radio show and as for the blog…when I get something written I will send it.