tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post6233129600179091068..comments2024-03-29T06:58:28.383+13:00Comments on Anglican Down Under: Three Federations?Peter Carrellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comBlogger42125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-5493293817668298692010-12-21T02:44:53.313+13:002010-12-21T02:44:53.313+13:00It’s “Marching TRHOUGH Georgia,” Al. And Americans...It’s “Marching TRHOUGH Georgia,” Al. And Americans (many Northerners and some Southerners as well) attempted to bring about gradual manumission of the slaves without a civil war. The Southern slavocracy refused and fired on the flag at Fort Sumter in Charleston Harbor. (Today, Charleston is a hotbed of anti-women and anti-gay sentiment in TEC. Figures)<br /><br />And your comments seem to peg you as a “Sydney Calvinist” yes? I know a bit about Australian and New Zealand history, Al. I’m probably one of the few Americans you will meet on this site who knows who Arthur Philip and Lachlan Macquarie were. My library has over 100 volumes of Down Under history, literature, political science, etc. Which is why I wrote “servitude” rather than “slavery” in the first place. (By the way, Al, have you ever read Dr. Franklin’s hysterically funny essay on exchanging rattlesnakes for convicts? I first read it in high school and thus learned about penal transportation in the British Empire.)<br /><br />“Americans were Englishmen who went to the New World for the sake of their convictions, and Australians were Englishmen who went there because of their convictions.”—Al<br /><br />Perhaps; though as an Episcopalian, I have little love for Puritans. After all, we were their victims during the English Civil war as well as British Anglicans.<br /><br />Kurt Hill<br />Waiting for Wednesday’s snowfall<br />In Brooklyn, NYKurtnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-29820210561997393812010-12-18T18:14:05.811+13:002010-12-18T18:14:05.811+13:00"For the record, Sarah neither writes for nor..."For the record, Sarah neither writes for nor comments at Virtue's site, nor is she a member of ACNA. She is a happy member of TEC, even while acknowledging that the vast majority of its current national leaders are corrupt and heretical."<br /> - Sarah Hey (?)<br /><br />Indeed, Sarah, if you are not the same Sarah whose anti-TEC hierarchy articles appear regularly on the virtueonline site, I apologise.<br /><br />- only, your theme seems to be remarkably similar - hardly the 'happy' musings of a loyalist in TEC. But then, I suppose it might be quite exciting to be a rebel from within. Having met TEC's Presiding Bishop, I was struck by her intelligence and perspicacity on the need for the world-wide Anglican Communion to be inclusive, rather than merely right every time about everything. <br /><br />She doesn't seem like an abortion-ist warrior, for example. Nor does she expect other Provinces to toe 'her' line on sexuality and gender issues - that remains the dedicated task of ACNA & GAFCON.Father Ron Smithhttp://kiwianglo.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-15854778626922874152010-12-18T08:27:44.462+13:002010-12-18T08:27:44.462+13:00"And they fought a bloody civil war for freed..."And they fought a bloody civil war for freedom of the slaves. Which is more than Australians did to end the disgrace of mass convict servitude Down Under."<br /><br />Which shows the wisdom of the British, who managed to end the slave trade, and then slavery in their colonies, without a war that cost 600,000 lives and left a legacy of hatred and bitterness that lasts to this day. Marching to Georgia, anyone?<br />And thanks, too, to Evangelical Granville Sharp, that lawyer and biblical scholar, who secured freedom for escaped slaves in England. The South itself was not particularly religious in the antebellum days; the North was more a good deal more religious then but that role has reversed since.<br />Your post also suggests you may not understand Australian history.<br />- penal servitude was, er - penal (not chattel slavery). Believe it or not, transportation was seen as better than imprisonment in England. Read the documentation about the First Fleet and you'll see the goal was 18th century Enlightenment *reformation* of convicts.<br />- the goal always was that the convicts wolud be released and become, er - Australians, in <br />Botany Bay.<br />Hmmm, maybe that's why you can't forgive Sydney (which is pretty warm right now, BTW). Americans were Englishmen who went to the New World for the sake of thir convictions, and Australians were Englishmen who went there because of their convictions. :) <br />Al M.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-25591360799628094202010-12-18T03:20:29.478+13:002010-12-18T03:20:29.478+13:00“But you charged Wilberforce with hypocrisy. This ...“But you charged Wilberforce with hypocrisy. This is not a description Tomkins agrees with you on.” <br /><br />That’s correct; and I said so in my previous comment. But I draw a different conclusion, and not simply from Tomkins’ book. Your focus is far too Anglo-centric. Many people—not just the Wilberforce evangelicals—opposed slavery, and acted against it with much more integrity. They didn’t say one thing, and then do something else, like Wilberforce.<br /><br />All of the Northern states had different policies concerning slavery before the American Revolution. In some areas of the country where religious groups such as the Quakers played a prominent role in political life, there was strong opposition to having slaves. In fact, it was the Quakers who opposed slavery from the very beginnings of settlement. If there is any group that I look to with admiration on this question, it’s the Quakers, not the Clapham sectarians. The Quakers were principled and consistent—both in Britain and America.<br /><br />But in point of fact, Americans began abolishing slavery decades before Wilberforce and his people got any results. Rhode Island was the first state to abolish slavery in 1774, followed by: Vermont in 1777; Pennsylvania in 1780; Massachusetts in 1781; New Hampshire in 1783; Connecticut in 1784; New York in 1799 (as I outlined to you); and New Jersey in 1804. These new states never allowed slavery within their borders: Maine; Michigan; Wisconsin; Ohio; Indiana; Kansas; Oregon; California and Illinois.<br /><br />“That you choose to defend only New York and other Northern Episcopalians against the charge of being slave owners speaks for itself.”<br /><br />How so? That the Northern (generally High Church Episcopalians) were more progressive-looking than the Southern (generally Evangelical Episcopalians)? If you were not so Anglo-centric, Obadiah, you’d know this. Why would I “defend” reactionary, Southern, Evangelical, slave-owning Episcopalians? Southerner Robert E. Lee was an Episcopalian slave owner (who opposed slavery; or so he said). Jefferson Davis was an Episcopalian slave owner, too, in addition to being the leader of the slave-owning Confederacy. Why would I defend them? <br /><br />And, it’s no coincidence that the many of the most vocal anti-women, anti-gay TEC voices in the Church today come from the old South. Figures.<br /><br />Kurt Hill<br />Brooklyn, NYKurtnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-36258980596067610602010-12-16T20:03:02.220+13:002010-12-16T20:03:02.220+13:00The whole of the many decades Wilberforce spend ca...The whole of the many decades Wilberforce spend campaigning against slavery involved defaets and compromises. Tomkins is very good at recounting this. And you really should read his books rather than a short summary article to get the full force of the story. He is a good author and I think that he has weighed the evidence well.<br />Tomkins certainly describes Wiberforce as being complicit in slavery in that the 1807 act had loopholes of which the apprenticeship system was merely one.<br />The crown colonies of which Sierra Leone was one from 1807 were the target of his campaigning over the next decade and a half - Wilberforce wanted to get rid of slavery from them and other lands as well.<br />But you charged Wilberforce with hypocrisy. This is not a description Tomkins agrees with you on.<br />That you choose to defend only New York and other Northern Episcopalians against the charge of being slave owners speaks for itself.John sandemannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-48155728343002331182010-12-16T05:16:46.191+13:002010-12-16T05:16:46.191+13:00RE: "So, Sarah, have you decided yet whether ...RE: "So, Sarah, have you decided yet whether to run for president in 2012?"<br /><br />Eh?<br /><br />So, Kurt, have you decided yet whether to found a grunge band, become "the spokesman of a generation", declaim about your artistic vision being misunderstood by your public, and become a heroin addict?<br /><br />???<br /><br />Or better yet, how about you define the words "juvenile" and "I can't think of much cool to say" for us all.<br /><br /><br /><br />SarahAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-49539670082946383162010-12-16T03:33:22.302+13:002010-12-16T03:33:22.302+13:00Look, Obadiah/John, don’t kid yourself. “Apprentic...Look, Obadiah/John, don’t kid yourself. “Apprenticeship” by any other name is still slavery. At least the Americans of the period were more honest with themselves and others about this “peculiar institution.” (And they fought a bloody civil war for freedom of the slaves. Which is more than Australians did to end the disgrace of mass convict servitude Down Under).<br /><br />Steven Tomkins, in the “Guardian” article cited also writes: “William Wilberforce, the most celebrated campaigner against the slave trade, was also implicated in slavery and the trade, according to a forthcoming book about him and the Clapham sect, written, it so happens, by me. Having given 20 years of his life to the struggle, after the Abolition Act was passed in 1807, he allowed the abolitionist colony of Sierra Leone, which the Clapham sect managed, to use slave labour and buy and sell slaves.<br /><br />“This is not a claim I make with the relish of trying to bring down an over-venerated icon a peg or two. I'm a critical fan of Wilberforce for his central role in the astounding achievement in abolition, which without his stamina would certainly have failed.”<br /><br />Tomkins adds, “Neither is it [the charge of complicity with slavery] a case of reading too much between the lines of meagre evidence.”<br /><br />“Meanwhile in the USA, good episcopalians [sic] continued to own slaves for decades longer.”—John/Obadiah<br /><br />Southern Episcopalians, perhaps. The South has always been the most backward part of the nation. But here in the North, things were somewhat different, even in New York State, which was one of the last in the northland to emancipate. In 1799 New York enacted legislation to end slavery in the state gradually, by freeing future slaves, starting with any children born to slave parents after July 4, 1799. Called "An Act for the Gradual Abolition of Slavery," it deemed all slaves born after the date would be made free at the age of 28 for males, 25 for women. Until then, they remained property of their mother's owner. The act was based on similar legislation passed in progressive Pennsylvania in 1780, but still a full 66 years before the 13th Amendment to the Constitution was passed in December 1865. (Abolition in the New England states was accomplished much earlier.)<br /><br />New Yorkers were more honest, both with themselves and the world, than Wilberforce and his Clapham evangelicals. In New York, unlike Sierra Leone, abolition was openly acknowledged as “gradual.” The reality was not hypocritically hidden from the world, as Sierra Leone’s governor Lt Thomas Perronet Thompson, so well expressed to the Colonial Office—only to be fired by Wilberforce and his gang for telling the unpleasant truth.<br /><br />Perhaps Tomkins is unwilling to call the Wilberforce evangelicals hypocrites, but as far as I'm concerned, they certainly are.<br /><br />Kurt Hill<br />In frigid (-4.4C) Brooklyn, NYKurtnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-54980044706800086562010-12-15T11:44:50.199+13:002010-12-15T11:44:50.199+13:00Kurt,
I went back to my copy of Stephen Tomkins b...Kurt, <br />I went back to my copy of Stephen Tomkins book on Wilberforce and re read the passges on Sierra Leone carefully.<br /><br />He does not make the case for Wiberforce being a hypocrite in the book.<br />Neither does he in the Guardian article you quote. In fact the par after the one you quote says<br />"What are we to make of it all? No interpretation that involves Wilberforce being corrupt, or insincere in his abolitionism, can possibly hold water. Vast amounts of his private letters and even privater journals are publicly available, and they reveal a man of extraordinary integrity and an implacable and lifelong (if slightly sentimental) hatred of slavery."<br /><br />And Tomkins goes on to outline that <br />the 1807 act contained compromises including the apprentice ship system. The fight to stop slavery in the corwn colonies occupile Wilberforce up to the 1833 act.<br /><br />Tomkins adds "My theory is that Wilberforce and the Clapham sect believed that the Abolition Act would not get through the House of Lords without the apprenticeship clause, and once it was passed felt duty bound to support the system against Thompson's maverick actions.<br /><br />But if so, and if Wilberforce was right that without apprenticeship the abolition bill would not have been passed, then it follows that he made the right choice to support it. Before abolition, 40,000 African people each year were being made slaves by the British. After abolition, several hundred of them a year were still ending up as slaves in Freetown.<br /><br />It is a bitter irony, and a disappointment, but it does seem that Wilberforce was faced with a choice between two evils, and chose the less."<br /><br />After a great deal of campagning, and reverses came the final success of 1833.<br />Meanwhile in the USA, good episcopalians continued to own slaves for decades longer.John Sandemanhttp://eternity.biznoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-28820445048747369752010-12-15T05:19:49.044+13:002010-12-15T05:19:49.044+13:00So, Sarah, have you decided yet whether to run for...So, Sarah, have you decided yet whether to run for president in 2012?<br /><br />Kurt Hill<br />Brooklyn, NYKurtnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-54723929013720875462010-12-15T04:58:29.750+13:002010-12-15T04:58:29.750+13:00For the record, Sarah neither writes for nor comme...For the record, Sarah neither writes for nor comments at Virtue's site, nor is she a member of ACNA. She is a happy member of TEC, even while acknowledging that the vast majority of its current national leaders are corrupt and heretical. The poor French people had to endure something similar from July 1940 to August 1944. ; > ) <br /><br /><br />SarahAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-27096547190483827752010-12-15T03:08:16.770+13:002010-12-15T03:08:16.770+13:00As the “Guardian” newspaper reported: “They [the A...As the “Guardian” newspaper reported: “They [the Africans] were called ‘apprentices’, but they were slaves. The governor of Sierra Leone paid the navy a bounty per head, put some of the men to work for the government, and sold the rest to landowners. They did forced labor, under threat of punishment, without pay, and those who escaped to neighboring African villages to work for wages were arrested and brought back [in chains]. Women were ‘given away’”. <br /><br />The first crown governor of Sierra Leone, Lt Thomas Perronet Thompson would also beg to differ with you, Obadiah/John. Thompson was an abolitionist protégé of Wilberforce, chosen by that evangelical for the job. Thompson was appalled at what was happening. "These apprenticeships", he complained, "have after 16 years successful struggle at last introduced actual slavery into the colony", was his opinion. He wrote that Wilberforce and the Sierra Leone Company had "by means of their agents become slave traders themselves". In fact, it was Thompson himself, not the Clapham sectarians, who single-handedly abolished “apprenticeship” and freed the slaves. He filed scandalized reports to the colonial office. He threatened to expose this situation, so he was fired, with Wilberforce himself agreeing to the sacking. Wilberforce advised him to “go quietly” for the sake of his career, which he did and indeed eventually became a general and MP.<br /><br />During our Colonial Period in America, we had a system called Indentured Servitude, whereby one could voluntarily agree to be “apprenticed” for various periods of time. It was a written contract, the provisions of which were enforceable by law. If a master violated the contract, the indentured servant could—and often did—take the master to court to enforce his rights. The Sierra Leone slaves—oops, I mean “apprentices”—<br />on the other hand, had no contract and no rights. Even under gradual manumission, slaves remain slaves, no matter what word is used to justify the practice.<br /> <br />Kurt Hill<br />In snowy Brooklyn, NYKurtnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-83170864407690201632010-12-14T12:13:46.379+13:002010-12-14T12:13:46.379+13:00Kurt,
I am sure there were flaws in the Sierra Le...Kurt, <br />I am sure there were flaws in the Sierra Leone Company's management of the colony. I am not sure your charge against Wiberforce stands. But lets remember that the colony sheltered slaves who had fled the American Revolution. It would be fair to say that among the slave owners they were fleeing were Episcopalians.<br /><br />The Word verification is jingo - perhaps this is a jingoistic postJohn Sandemannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-59419297618931983612010-12-14T02:43:05.306+13:002010-12-14T02:43:05.306+13:00“And they still aren't part of 'Catholic p...“And they still aren't part of 'Catholic practice' if you define by that what Catholics and Orthodox hold in common. If you define 'Catholicism' by dressing up and using incense, then I wish you a Merry Krishnas. The worst thing about historical myopia is not knowing one has it.”--Al<br /><br />You think so, do you Al? Well, let me tell you there are plenty of both Anglo and Roman Catholics who agree with me and who disagree with you. I even have a couple of Greek Orthodox friends who agree with TEC’s stands on WO and gay people.<br /><br />Our Prayer Book, Al, demonstrates the essentially Catholic nature of TEC. It always has, even in the days of Bishop Seabury. (Although it is true that Episcopalians re-introduced incense into Anglican worship c. 1825 or 1828, a whole generation before the Tractarians/Ritualists did in England.)<br /><br />Good work, Fr. Bryan is showing Al TEC’s actual position on abortion. You hit the bull’s eye on this one! As David says, it’s much more complex than Al thinks.<br /><br />And Al, I thought everyone knew that William Wilberforce was complicit in slavery.<br />Wilberforce and his supporters permitted slave labor in Sierra Leone. Yes, he had given<br />Twenty or so years of his life to the abolition effort. But after the Abolition Act was passed in 1807, he allowed the abolitionist colony of Sierra Leone, which the evangelical Clapham sect managed, to use slave labor and buy and sell slaves. Didn’t you know this piece of evangelical hypocrisy, Al?<br /><br />I agree with Fr. Carrell, that you are not “USA based.” We also know that you are not a member of TEC. So, Al, I think it’s time for you to tell us a bit about yourself. Are you a Sydney Calvinist? If so, that would go far to explain your rather peculiar “Anglican” take on things TEC.<br /><br />Kurt Hill<br />Who is not hiding the fact that he is an American who lives in dynamic<br />Brooklyn, NYKurtnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-82221000644714331512010-12-13T21:38:39.025+13:002010-12-13T21:38:39.025+13:00"Well, for the record let me say that I am pe..."Well, for the record let me say that I am personally opposed to slavery but I think any decision about slavery should be made by a slaveholder and his bank manager. So, yes, I am pro-freedom and pro-economic choice.<br />Mr Wilberforce: damn you, sir!"<br /><br />Colonel Al M., 1st Virginia VolunteersAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-78598710250427772492010-12-13T18:05:48.601+13:002010-12-13T18:05:48.601+13:00PS
Honestly: could you imagine anyone calling slav...PS<br /><i>Honestly: could you imagine anyone calling slavery a 'moral tragedy' but not a crime against humanity?</i><br />We have no record to think other than that Jesus and then the Church for centuries did just that!Brother Davidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06333089314994730330noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-59009163390292522552010-12-13T18:02:32.563+13:002010-12-13T18:02:32.563+13:00I had not considered that I needed to stop and tra...I had not considered that I needed to stop and translate the English!<br /><br />Yes, there are plenty of folks in North America who equate being anti-abortion and being pro-life as equal. I should have recalled that the signs that most anti-abortionists carry say pro-life.<br /><br />But many of us who are pro-choice, do not equate pro-life with anti-abortion. We equate it that we are pro-choice and pro-life at the same time. Meaning that our stance on abortion is that it is a personal matter of choice of the woman, with a proviso that abortion is a resource of last resort as outlined by Bryan above; in cases of rape or incest, cases in which a mother's physical or mental health is at risk or cases involving fetal abnormalities and not to be casually used as he also outlined; as a means of birth control, family planning, sex selection or any reason of mere convenience.Brother Davidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06333089314994730330noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-6917204736392391612010-12-13T14:21:03.812+13:002010-12-13T14:21:03.812+13:00Consideration will be given by the editorial board...Consideration will be given by the editorial board to suggested topics for discussion!Peter Carrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-18087337054332818042010-12-13T12:51:19.946+13:002010-12-13T12:51:19.946+13:00Let me rephrase that then, Peter.
In a country wi...Let me rephrase that then, Peter.<br /><br />In a country with such a high abortion rate, is it not surprising (read shocking) that there has not, to our recollection been a debate, report, review, discussion, motion about this at either diocesan or general synod level?<br /><br />What about debate and motions on the "Liturgy for Recognising the End of a Marriage"?<br /><br />What about discussion about limits to endlessly remarrying divorcees (top I'm aware of clergy three, and taking weddings seven)?<br /><br />The here-often-much-maligned TEC at least appears from my distance to be engaging in debate. For a down under site, maybe there could be occasionally some starting of a down under discussion rather than waiting for what you call the "non-conservatives" to always take the initiative?liturgyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11822769747947139669noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-54805080533385461182010-12-13T10:49:17.203+13:002010-12-13T10:49:17.203+13:00Hi Bosco,
NZ indeed has a very high rate of aborti...Hi Bosco,<br />NZ indeed has a very high rate of abortions. I am not aware of any GS resolutions on abortion in the last decade or so. However my comment re NZ and pro choice / pro life was a reflection on the wider debate in our society and churches through many decades.<br /><br />I am not quite sure how a discussion about abortion becomes an occasion to defend conservatives from the charge of being obsessed with gays. My recollection of GS motions about homosexuality in recent decades is that most have been brought by non-conservatives, and conservatives, reasonably and unobsessedly, have risen to the challenge of defending Scripture and tradition.<br /><br />I imagine that if (say) a GS motion was brought seeking even more choice re abortion, or seeking to name abortion as a blessing, that conservatives would rise to defend Scripture and tradition on that too.Peter Carrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-91952016000147230282010-12-13T09:28:13.472+13:002010-12-13T09:28:13.472+13:00Add to that list Ragsdale, the Dean of EDS, who ca...Add to that list Ragsdale, the Dean of EDS, who called 'abortion' 'a blessing' in 2009, and Schori, who called abortion 'a moral tragedy' (well, who can doubt that?) but not a sin per se or anything to be restricted or discouraged by the force of law - not even partial birth abortion.<br />Honestly: could you imagine anyone calling slavery a 'moral tragedy' but not a crime against humanity?<br /><br />Al M.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-78541717965506799922010-12-13T09:17:36.721+13:002010-12-13T09:17:36.721+13:00Hermano David, I am not lying but I'm not both...Hermano David, I am not lying but I'm not bothered by your intemperate ad hominems either. Look up 'Episcopal Life' April 27 2004 for the photo - you can fnd it easily enough. 'Pro-choice' and 'Pro-life' are opposites in American political discourse. 'Pro-choice' means opposing legal restrictions on abortion. That describes Crewe, Vanderstam and others on the Tec leadership. <br />Al M.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-77708823041566530922010-12-13T08:19:13.647+13:002010-12-13T08:19:13.647+13:00Thanks Bryan for bringing some actual cited facts ...Thanks Bryan for bringing some actual cited facts to the comments. <br /><br />With NZ being one of the highest aborting countries in the "developed" world, Peter, could you provide please any of our own General Synod discussions and resolutions on this, in case the impression is given that what you call "conservatives" here are obsessed with gays ("them") and extremely reticent to speak at all about heterosexuals ("us") be it on divorce, extramarital sex, or abortion?liturgyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11822769747947139669noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-84108336306005913012010-12-13T07:48:16.399+13:002010-12-13T07:48:16.399+13:00I wonder if I might intrude a small point in this ...I wonder if I might intrude a small point in this particular sequence of comments re abortion and the alleged stance of TEC on it? I write on the basis that I think "Al M" is not USA based:<br /><br />(1) I ask care to be taken to distinguish (a) leading commentators who belong to TEC (e.g. Louie Crew or +Gene Robinson) and (b) "TEC" and its stance/view/policy on any matter (which must be nailed down to GC or House of Bishop or (possibly) Presiding Bishop statement or resolution (but in the last case, an unchallenged statement, that is the PB does not speak as a metropolitan for TEC, but I imagine does sometimes speak in a manner which attempts to represent TEC's view on a matter).<br /><br />(2) In a country such as my own, New Zealand, the descriptors "pro-choice" and "pro-life" in respect of the matter of abortion tend to be opposites not apposites. <br /><br />Thus, David, when you write that X is both pro-choice and pro-life I can make a socio-cultural adjustment which acknowledges a difference in the use of these terms in the USA (perhaps within the whole of North America?) compared to NZ (and, I think, Oz and the UK). But I am wondering if Al M, like me, struggles to comprehend how one can be pro-choice and pro-life ...Peter Carrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-72560606544782764542010-12-13T07:34:01.008+13:002010-12-13T07:34:01.008+13:00None of what you are stating is true Al M. If you ...None of what you are stating is true Al M. If you believe it to be so, then provide the evidence, point us to the links.<br /><br />I think that you are purposely misconstruing the stand of TEC so that you can continue to denigrate the leadership of TEC. The TEC stand is pro-life. That stand is exactly as Bryan has stated it above. It is nuts to me that a gay man would be avidly supporting abortion. Dr Crew is pro-choice on the side of pro-life.<br /><br />Please stop lying.Brother Davidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06333089314994730330noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-67645275455006525642010-12-12T22:14:27.136+13:002010-12-12T22:14:27.136+13:00I can't copy the http but Crewe and Vanderstar...I can't copy the http but Crewe and Vanderstar and other Tec Exec proudly marched under the Episcopal banner in a pro-abortion rally in 2004 - as 'Episcopal Life' Apil 27, 2004 proudly report.<br /><br />Al M.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com