Robinson ambush / The anatomy of a smear

Minneapolis Star Tribune ^ | August 6, 2003 | Editorial

[tdadams]

We had hoped to comment this morning on the meaning of the Episcopal debate over the nomination of the Rev. Gene Robinson to be bishop of the New Hampshire diocese. Why is it happening now? What does it portend? Is the Episcopal Church, as it often has before, signaling a significant change in the social fabric of American life?

That was before Robinson was ambushed, hours before the House of Bishops was to take the final vote on his nomination, by the most scurrilous smear: He was accused of linkage to a porn Web site and of inappropriately touching another man. The church investigated both charges and cleared Robinson. The House of Bishops then voted to accept his elevation to Bishop of New Hampshire. End of story? Not quite.

The Every Voice Network Web site, a liberal Anglican site, reported Tuesday that the alleged inappropriate behavior "occurred when Robinson touched a married man in his 40s on his bicep, shoulder and upper back in the process of a public conversation at a province meeting around two years ago." Oh, please.

The phony accusation that Robinson was linked somehow to porn on the Web was easy to track down. It was a deliberate, calculated lie, apparently held in reserve until the last minute in case the first vote, in the House of Deputies, went against those opposed to Robinson's elevation to bishop -- which it did on Sunday.

The question of whether Robinson should be a bishop is -- and probably will remain for some time -- an issue for the Episcopal Church. But the smear is an issue for the larger community as well, for it demonstrates just how low some people will stoop when honest, reasonable debate is going against them. In fact, it links to the same sort of behavior in the American body politic.

[tdadams]

it demonstrates just how low some people will stoop when honest, reasonable debate is going against them.

For some reason, this line stood out and made me think of a few Freepers I've debated with on these types of threads.

[Evil Inc]

it demonstrates just how low some people will stoop when honest, reasonable debate is going against them.

It also shows the frustration of people having their beliefs ridiculed by the forcing of an immoral person down their throats, as their leader in things spiritual. The test will be in the church schism coming next.

[chiefqc]

Thank you Mrs. Robinson for a your article of support of your offspring.

[Tarl]

The real AMBUSH was initiated by this bishop, this "church" has exposed itself as operating outside of biblical doctrine, the Bible has stood throughout the trials of time because it is uncompromising in defining right from wrong...those who shade its words do so as an offense to its Author.

[jazzlite]

"It also shows the frustration of people having their beliefs ridiculed by the forcing of an immoral person down their throats, as their leader in things spiritual. The test will be in the church schism coming next."

After a lifelong commitment to a religious denomination, I stopped going to church about two years ago because of this factor. My Christianity is perhaps stronger than ever in my "one to one" relationship with God but I could no longer endure the hypocracy I saw. I know it has always been around but I just think it is rampant now. The church I attended was a member of a conservative association but those in charge seemed to be building a social structure endorsing their very secular personal aims in life. In addition, they coddled and promoted like-minded individuals in the management of the church. This was the lay leadership. Two pastors left because of the problems. The church has lost it's mission and it's way. If I had my way, our family would be very careful in giving money to the church. The response to this should be that people stop supporting these churches. Let them fall of their own decadence and then start over.

[rhema]

The Every Voice Network Web site, a liberal Anglican site,

I commend the Strib; the adjectives liberal and pro-life seldom appear on its pages. Actually, pro-life never appears, so it's interesting to have a rare sighting of the "l" word, a sort of Halley's Comet occasion for the Strib.

The question of whether Robinson should be a bishop is -- and probably will remain for some time -- an issue for the Episcopal Church.

The Apostle Paul noted as much in 1 Corinthians 11:18-19:
First of all, I hear that there are divisions among you when you meet as a church, and to some extent I believe it. (19) But, of course, there must be divisions among you so that those of you who are right will be recognized!

[Huber]

What are they saying, that he got "Anita Hill'd"?

[I still care]

I was listening to Clomes yesterday saying, "Why now? Just before the election this comes out smearing his character- it is disgraceful"

And I remembered when the last hour accusations came out against Bush about drunk driving just a couple of days before the election. Funny, Colmes didn't think it was disgraceful then.

[SkyPilot]

The church investigated both charges and cleared Robinson.

Sure they did. A whole 14 minute "investigation." Clarence Thomas or the Florida Election should have take that long.

Amazing how fast the wheels of "justice" turn if you are a Liberal and your aim is to destroy God's law.

[I still care]

I think it is important to have a home church - there ARE churches out there you can trust.

But I tell you something I would never do after what I have seen. I would never give a perpetual legacy to a church (and many other organizations), because once the leadership changes over to liberal after being many years conservative, they are using your money to sustain themselves.

For instance, many denominations, such as certain Methodists, used to be very conservative and are no longer. And they don't CARE if people leave, because they are living on their legacies -legacies that were given by people who thought they were giving money to spread the Gospel and the Word of God.

[tdadams]

Sure they did. A whole 14 minute "investigation."

Did you even read the article?

[nygoose]

I heard on Imus this morning that there was no investigation.

[Salman]

Let's get this (you should pardon the expression) straight.

He admits he abandoned his family. He proudly boasts that he has a sexual relationship with another man. That's A-OK.

Someone alleges (maybe falsely) that he patted a man on the behind and looks at naked pictures. That's a smear.

[tkathy]

There is a vast difference between spirituality and religion.

[Glock22]

Did you read the comments? Remember Anita Hill? This matter was disposed of with remarkable swiftness. Now, it does appear that the allegations were way overblown, and they smack of character asassination. But in the case of a conservative, anti-abortion judicial nominee, similarly weak accusations triggered weeks of prying into every corner of an honorable man's private life. No such phenomenon here.

"Beware. This is the way they play." My backside. This is a classic feminist/homosexual activist maneuver. How do you like it now? Care to go back to the old, striaghtforward way of doing things? Even if it means that people can refuse to have homosexual leaders,if that's how they want it? If not, prepare to see more of this kind of dirty fighting.

[JesseHousman]

For some reason, this line stood out and made me think of a few Freepers I've debated with on these types of threads.

Not surprising.

Generally, deluded promoters of The Agenda only think they're debating. It's usually a once sided affair as pro-agenda people are incapable of hearing the other side in their breathless pauses before hammering away their perverted logic.

[sgtbono2002]

You have brought it down to the basics. Why worry about whether or not he looks at pornography when we know he participates in perverted acts.

[SkyPilot]

Did you even read the article?

There was no "article" tdadams. There was an "editorial" from the Minneapolis Red Star. Do you understand the difference?

[wita]

Pardon extended, I get it. OTOH, if an admitted homosexual was not involved in a physical relationship with another man and was so living as not to have a physical relationship just as potential adulterers are so living, I could see nomination and confirmation, but then why the issue in the first place, I don't announce I'm a potential adulterer anymore than someone else announces their sexual leanings, unless it happens to involve the out of the closet types GLB&T which in reality is HLB&T with the T a really questionable issue. The whole lifestyle and the need to come out, and the marriage thing, is so convoluted and counter productive, that it boggles my mind. My sense of the issue is God didn't ask them to come out of the closet.

[mict42]

I think that it was just a " cock and bull" story. My comment here is self explanatory as to why the Church should not have to be burdened with even the notion of a double entendre. If homosexual behavior was " normal" then the joke wouldn't work, would it?