Replies

And that is fine but you have to realize that I am approaching this entirely from the media playbook when it isn’t a sympathetic target. It is long over due that we hold them to the standard they have created. We are force fed the idea that these open churches are so open minded and such and I think they should make a statement for the sake of the healing that is need for the community.

Oh - I agree with you completely. I think they should make public statements disavowing him. My comments were directed at the other comments in general rather than you in particular. Sorry. I didn't want to put all their names in and I thought the general rule on FR was to direct general comments at the person who posted the article.

I'll try to be more direct here. A lot of the commentors (but not you Maelstrom) seem to be suggesting that cutting this man off in this way is somehow sinsiter. I don't think it is. I think it's a reaction of shame and embaressment at being associated with this many in any way. I'm sure they wish the story would go away and they would never ever have to talk about him in public again. Could you imagine having to admit in public that you thought this man was trustworthy enough to vote for in your vestry? I also think it's natural for them to want to avoid public scrutiny even on the intertubes and try to remove public references to him. People do that all the time. The internet just makes it harder.