Gay Bishop Confusion

Coming up with new titles is hard. Anyway, you may have noticed that this is the first post of the day. I'm still a little short on material, and I have an insane amount of work that I should be doing (notice the word choice there), so I don't have that much time to blog. Fortunately, I do have some random stuff from today that I can write about. First, we have another fun quote from my sociology professor. We were talking about the war in Iraq and national defense, and at one point in the lecture, he compared our strategy to a "1950's" defense policy. I'm really not sure why he chose that specific decade. That was just strange. He also said something like "we haven't proven that Iraq had any direct connection to 9-11." Was anyone trying to prove that? That's not the issue. He called Iraq a "terrorist cell," which I don't really think is accurate. Iraq was funding terrorism. They weren't directly responsible for it.

Of course, now that Reverend V. Gene Robinson, the gay Episcopalian bishop, has been consecrated, our relativistic friends at the Daily Orange had to speak up with an editorial called "Approval of gay bishop a positive step for religion." Before I talk about this briefly, I'll clarify something: I'm not an Episcopalian. I'm actually not a member of any official Christian denomination. I was baptized as a Presbyterian and confirmed as a Methodist, but I just consider myself a non-denominational Protestant right now. However, I still think this gay bishop thing is not a good move. Naturally, the DO doesn't agree. I don't have time to fisk the whole thing, but here's a sample of some of the content:

"...a group of misguided conservatives is now likely to break from the church and form their own separate denomination...This reaction, though not surprising, illustrates the constant villification of homosexuality, particularly by inept religious conservatives."
They're so predictable. "Well, gays are being villified, so we'll counter that by villifying conservative Christians!" I don't get this at all. How is following the Bible and sticking to traditional values "misguided?" It seems to me that the people saying "homosexuality is not a sin" (actual quote I saw on TV; one of the other bishops said it) are the misguided ones. Doctrine exists for a reason. Here's another tolerant, unbiased observation:

"The Bible asserts all manner of ridiculous rules and regulations against homosexuals, those who consume pork, practice wizardry, and even wear wool-cotton blends."
There's a strategy they use a lot: taking different forbidden practices and making them morally equal. Here's my understanding: Consuming pork was forbidden because it was more dangerous in those days than other types of meat, and it wasn't sinful as much as it was unclean. I know that many Jews still don't eat pork today, so I may very well be wrong in my interpretation, but it seems to me that it's not the same thing. The wool-cotton blend thing was probably to make people's lives simpler, but it wasn't a sin either. On the other hand, homosexual relations are repeatedly called an "abomination." I don't understand how you could possibly go from abominable to acceptable just because 5% of the population decides that they want to live that way. Again, it's funny that you can call THE BIBLE "ridiculous," but you can't suggest that there's anything wrong with homosexuality.

Conservatives...if they are not comfortable with homosexuality in the priesthood, would do well to break off - and take their weak-minded followers with them. The last thing a progressive church needs is bigotry..."
More double standards! You people are hilarious! Why do you not apply the same standard of "bigotry" to your own opinions? In any case, I have heard this argument several times, and it's always been wrong. If a group of people decides to disregard a significant Biblical rule because they've been coerced by society, how are conservatives the ones that should break off? It seems to me that the people supporting Robinson should form their own church instead of trying to change beliefs that have been considered mainstream for thousands of years. From what I've seen, Robinson doesn't necessarily believe in the authority of the Bible, and he says that he worships a "living God." This is similar to people calling the Constitution a "living document." IT DOESN'T WORK THAT FRICKIN' WAY!

Here's one more: "Spirituality is a personal issue for many, so those who support gay priests in their church have the right to do so. Similarly, if certain factions within the church feel their retrogressive ideologies conflict with their religion, they should feel free to go off by themselves and redefine their own beliefs."
WHAT? The progressives are the ones who get to stay, and the traditionalists have to redefine their beliefs? That seems counterintuitive. Shouldn't the progressives be the ones who change themselves so they can apply that label accurately? This whole "personal spirituality" thing is another problem. If you personally believe in something, why should the entire church change to accomodate you? They have policies. If you don't agree with it, join another church! That's one of the reasons I don't go to church right now. I don't know which one most accurately reflects my beliefs, so I'm still looking. I'm not going to go to a random church and say, "here's what I believe, so you'd better make it a rule! Well, I don't care what God, the Bible, and Jesus think. It's the 21st century, and you should be trying to satisfy ME! It's all about ME!" Seriously. Religion is about God, not you. If you don't agree with God, don't believe in Him. You'll find out if you were right soon enough.

I had another dumb conversation with the guy who got Pakistan and Palestine confused, but I have to go to band practice soon, so I'll save that for later. This has been the homophobic, fundamentalist, "retrogressive" rant for today. Thank you.