Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: tdadams; goldstategop; PeoplesRep_of_LA
quibbling, mendacious, captious

For someone who warns others in their profile page not to launch ad hominem attacks, you are very quick on the draw to accuse others of being evasive, overtly critical, deceptive, and ill-natured. But, let's not 'quibble', shall we? Here is where we apparently diverge:

1. The word article....is merely a generic term for the thread topic. No. Using that logic, I can troll here on FreeRepublic posting Holocaust denial trash, and call it an "article." Moreover, your very post says this is an editorial from the Red Star. Editorial are not facts, they are by definition opinion.

2. The genesis of your post (I would infer, so forgive me for that) is that this "Bishop" has been thoroughly smeared, investgated, and then cleared in the tidy span of less than 24 hours. He was also allegedly "cleared" by members of the body that clearly supported him and moved mountains to elevate him. This is not an independent "investigation", this is what is known as a "cover up."

3. The heart of the matter is that the issue here (in my opinion, and this is my opinion) is an attempt to give legitimacy to an abhorent and degenerate form of sexual perversion (homosexuality). Further, this is but one battle in the war truth versus falsehood, and good versus evil. If you think that is lunacy, and there is no battle for hearts, minds, and souls here on earth, then you are entitled to that opinion.

I do not wish to be disrespectful to you, or to engage in quibbling, mendacity, or entrapment. But I cordially disagree with this "editorial" apeing an objective factual hard news representation of the tragedy this particular story.

38 posted on 08/06/2003 10:24:16 AM PDT by SkyPilot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies ]


NY Times
Bishop Scruton, of the Diocese of Western Massachusetts, said he had interviewed David A. Lewis, a church member in Manchester, Vt., who sent an e-mail message to bishops on Sunday night that accused Bishop-elect Robinson of harassment in November 1999 at a church conference in Holyoke, Mass.

When Bishop Scruton called Mr. Lewis on Monday, Mr. Lewis said he "regretted having used the word `harassment' in his e-mail," Bishop Scruton said. Mr. Lewis described two conversations with Bishop-elect Robinson at the conference, Bishop Scruton said. Mr. Lewis said the bishop-elect had touched him on the arm and upper back during the talks, which were in front of other people.

Mr. Lewis said that the gestures struck him as too familiar and that they "made him feel uncomfortable," said Bishop Scruton. But he acknowledged that other people might view the exchange as normal and natural and told Bishop Scruton two times that he did not want to pursue the matter further, Bishop Scruton said.

Mr. Lewis said he sent his message on Sunday night after hearing that Bishop-elect Robinson had been approved by the House of Deputies, one of two decision-making bodies in the Episcopal Church, along with the House of Bishops. Mr. Lewis said that he "found himself late Sunday night needing to tell someone of his experience," Bishop Scruton said.

Bishop Scruton also cleared Bishop-elect Robinson of a second accusation, made late Sunday night by his opponents in the House of Bishops. Bishop Scruton said he had found that the bishop-elect had no involvement in a Web site for young gay people that also had links to a Web site that included pornography.

Bishop-elect Robinson helped found that the organization with the site, Concord Outright, meant to help gay and lesbian teenagers. Bishop Scruton said the bishop-elect had no involvement with it since 1998. The organization created its Web site last year.


39 posted on 08/06/2003 10:27:37 AM PDT by george wythe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies ]

To: SkyPilot
Editorial are not facts, they are by definition opinion.

Show me where I said otherwise, hothead.

This is not an independent "investigation", this is what is known as a "cover up."

How can there be a cover up when there's nothing to cover up? Unless you think a pastor touching you on the arm (in a public setting where that kind of touch would in no way be considered inappropriate) is sexual harassment, this is obviously overblown and baseless. How much time would you spend investigating such nonsense?

45 posted on 08/06/2003 10:55:47 AM PDT by tdadams
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson