From a letter in the Parksville Qualicum News:
For a few years the marriage of same sex partners to live together as a unit is allowed in our country by the law.
There are people in our country who adhere to different faiths, who pay homage to their gods and they too are expected, and required to subordinate their religious practices to Canadian law.
Therefore, who and what are these 21 bishops who, as their Catholic partners in this same faith did for 2,000 years, terrorize and tyrannize the faithful by preaching that their God loves them all. Then by human judgement they reject great numbers, condemn them despite their innocence, ostracize them as being unworthy to socialize with ”” but still taking their tithes to make a living off ”” and beyond all this are unaware, or in demonstrated disregard, that they thereby remove themselves out of the bounds of the protective, but into the sphere of punitive criminal law.
Who is Karl Kurtz, and why is his letter to the editor of a weekly newspaper in British Columbia newsworthy? Other than demonstrating that citizens of Canada still enjoy freedom of expression, I mean.
BillyD: Canon Harmon regularly posts news and views from different places, including letters to editors like this one. It’s newsworthy because it refers to the current situation in the Anglican Church of Canada. I, for one, found it interesting as a barometer of anti-religious feeling in the (liberal) Canadian community.
Mark my words, friends: the persecution is coming. It may not be during our lifetimes, but it will at least be during our children’s lifetimes. Letters like this and the current ‘hate speech’ legislation going through the American Congress make it clear that the time is drawing nigh …
But why do we need more “foaming at the mouth” press releases? There is no rational response to this. Indeed, it doesn’t merit attention. I understand your position #2, but I still doubt tht more foam is necessary to add to the foam we already see. Larry
Well, I don’t know, LM. Again, Canon Harmon links to the things he thinks we might find interesting. I guess you don’t have to read it if you don’t want to. I found it interesting, and it also aided me in a little project I’m working on.
Comments like #1 strike me as similar to a house guest who doesn’t like what’s being served for dinner. If you don’t like the food, you can (1) go to another house, (2) pass the dish without comment, or (3) take a little and pass it along. It seems rude to me, when we are guests here, to say, “Corn AGAIN, Kendall??”
Actually, I thought it was a reasonable question. The letter writer isn’t anyone whose name I recognized, his letter is the opposite of well written, the thoughts expressed don’t seem very deep, and there’s nothing to suggest that the writer is even an Anglican. I’m sure there are scads of crackpots who send letters about Anglicanism into various North American newspapers every day, and except for its charminly broken English there doesn’t seem to be anything noteworthy about this one. I’m wondering if I missed something, and there’s something more that I’m supposed to get from Kendall’s posting it.
I know – don’t think of it as me asking, “Corn AGAIN?” Think of it along the lines as something like, “Hmm, I don’t believe I know what to do with what you’ve put on my plate. How exactly does one eat it?” I’d rather ask the question than drink the contents of the finger bowl by mistake.
This letter to the editor include this phrase[blockquote]they thereby remove themselves out of the bounds of the protective, but into the sphere of punitive criminal law. [/blockquote]Is he suggesting that priests could be prosecuted under criminal law if they accept tithe money from people and then reject them for church membership because they are practicing homosexual behavior?
RE: “The letter writer isn’t anyone whose name I recognized, his letter is the opposite of well written, the thoughts expressed don’t seem very deep, and there’s nothing to suggest that the writer is even an Anglican. I’m sure there are scads of crackpots who send letters about Anglicanism into various North American newspapers every day, and except for its charminly broken English there doesn’t seem to be anything noteworthy about this one. I’m wondering if I missed something, and there’s something more that I’m supposed to get from Kendall’s posting it.”
BillyD . . . you have higher standards than is reasonable. How would Kendall post much of the commentary that he posts were he to keep to your standards.
What I found of interest is the affinity that the man draws between his desire for the state to force Christians to approve of same-sex marriage, and the glories of what he so quaintly describes as “find a less painful end than their disease would otherwise be forcing onto them”, which is his euphamism for legally allowing other people to kill sick people.
required to subordinate their religious practices to Canadian law
Or, perhaps, Roman Law, which was to offer a pinch of incense to the divine Caesar. Of course, who really believed he was divine, so it didn’t matter, did it.