Gay Episcopal Bishop Gene Robinson Steps Out of Anglican Conference

[Creideiki]

Bishop V. Gene Robinson has announced he will not officially participate in a planned summer conference of world Anglican leaders. Robinson declined an invitation to events at the once-a-decade Lambeth conference this summer because of restrictions organizers placed on him if he were to appear. Robinson said the limited offer caused him "considerable pain" and he would reject the "non-offer" to be part of the conference.

Robinson has been the center of increasing controversy since his election as the only gay bishop in the Episcopal Church in 2003. As part of the restrictions on the offer sent to him to participate in the conference, Robinson was told he would not be allowed to join in worship and study groups.

Instead, Robinson would be regulated to the "marketplace," which will be a public area with commercial stalls and "fringe groups," according to the Guardian. Robinson was also told that he would only be allowed to participate in one major event during the 20-day conference.

http://www.gaywired.com/article.cfm?section=66&id=18455

[zanne]

1. They're really sticking it to him.

I admire his conviction and his courage. I hope they don't wear him down.

[TechBear_Seattle]

2. The diocesan bishop of a major US parish, sidelined like a heretic

I used to value being a member of the Episcopal Church. More and more, I am glad I http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=221x57797">withdrew from the communion last September. This is nothing short of disgraceful on the part of the Archbishop of Canterbury, especially considering that many of the break-away bishops (excluding the wanna-be Pope, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Akinola">Peter Akinola) will be very prominent in their inclusion.

[Glorfindel]

3. Well, isn't His Grace the same Archbishop who says Sharia law

is "invevitable" in the UK? What a winner!

[TechBear_Seattle]

4. Actually, he said it was "unavoidable," not "inevitable"

UK law has allowed for the establishment of Jewish courts. Jews dealing with various legal issues -- divorce, some types of debt obligation, etc. -- may, if both parties agree, bring the matter before a rabbinical court instead of the civil courts and have the matter judge by Talmudic law rather than civil law.

Rowan noted that, with this precedent, he is powerless to prevent Muslims from setting up similar Islamic courts with the authority to issue judicial rulings in light of Sharia law. As with the rabbinic courts, the Sharia courts would have standing only when all parties involved in the matter agree to bring it before such a court, and only on a limited selection of issues.

And while the Archbishop of Canterbury is a bishop and can be correctly addressed as Your Grace, as ABoC he would properly be addressed as The Most Reverend and Right Honorable, reflecting his dual role as Primate of the Church of England and the highest ranking non-royal in the UK peerage. :hi:

Added a bit more for clarity.

[Glorfindel]

6. Many thanks...I appreciate the clarification

and in many ways, "unavoidable" is worse than "inevitable." It shows weakness and how VERY far the UK has fallen. I'm glad we still have a LITTLE separation of church and state in this country. Frankly, I doubt that a subjugated woman would DARE to disagree with being judged by a Sharia court. I'm saddened to see our British cousins wandering down such a dangerous path. For what it's worth, I don't like the idea of rabbinical courts, either...or the Inquisition. To me, they're all much the same. Sooner or later, religious zealotry of any sort leads to repression and murder.

[TechBear_Seattle]

7. The US has such rabbinic courts as well, has for decades

Such courts are not only allowed under the Constitution, but prohibiting them would be a violation of the First Amendment. Under US law, at least, these courts are considered to be binding arbitration; when two parties agree to take a matter before a bet din, it is legally the same as going to any other (typically secular) arbitration process. And again, as in the UK, it would be illegal to prohibit Muslims from creating similar religious courts -- or let's call them private arbitration organizations.

The real source of tension between religious and civil courts is that at no time may religious courts curtail or circumscribe rights and protections recognized under secular law. Just as private arbitration cannot circumvent constitutional rights, religious courts cannot circumvent constitutional rights.

As for a "subjugated woman" daring to disagree to bring a matter to a Sharia court, keep in mind that Muslims are no different than a great many Christians. Consider the position of the Southern Baptist Convention regarding a woman's "place," or the doctrines of the Catholic and Orthodox churches. Please do not let your own religious bigotry cloud the issue.

[Glorfindel]

8. I'll gladly admit to religious bigotry...I live in Mississippi surrounded

by Southern Baptists, and I don't hesitate to let them know I think they are wrong about practically everything. If this makes me a bigot, so be it.

[Rowdyboy]

5. Glad he refuses to let them use him

I'm ashamed of the archbishop, have been for several years. I expected better. However. America's presiding bishop Katharine Shori has been more inclusive to the best of mu knowledge. She one reasoned I've remained in the church.