March 22, 2017

September 15, 2007


Polity Want a Cracker

From Integrity’s latest survey of its members and supporters:

Diversity.


Share this story:


Recent Related Posts

Comments

17 comments

You’re telling me Integrity only has 352 members and supporters?

[1] Posted by Jeff in VA on 9-15-2007 at 03:56 PM · [top]

It’s Unity in Diversity! rolleyes

[2] Posted by Rocks on 9-15-2007 at 04:00 PM · [top]

Greg - I love the title on this…

Our diversity is not to be limited by being diverse.  The same people who want diversity think that diversity is required to BE diverse.

YES!  I get to write the next Bishop’s meeting notes!

[3] Posted by Eclipse on 9-15-2007 at 05:52 PM · [top]

“You’re telling me Integrity only has 352 members and supporters?”
The third category has only 287. I guess they needed an “other” for that too.

[4] Posted by SpongJohn SquarePantheist on 9-15-2007 at 06:27 PM · [top]

(SJSP, I think the last category is a “61,” not a “6.”)

[5] Posted by Jeff in VA on 9-15-2007 at 06:34 PM · [top]

(Although your point is well-taken, of course.)

[6] Posted by Jeff in VA on 9-15-2007 at 06:34 PM · [top]

Tsk!  All those white males!  And they call themselves representative!

[7] Posted by st. anonymous on 9-15-2007 at 07:05 PM · [top]

Our diversity is not to be limited by being diverse.

Oh, but haven’t they been making this clear all along!

[8] Posted by oscewicee on 9-15-2007 at 08:31 PM · [top]

Speaking of diversity the NY Times chimes in:
Episcopal Church Faces Deadline on Gay Issues

with some comments from TEC Bishops and Dr. Radner

[9] Posted by Rocks on 9-15-2007 at 09:31 PM · [top]

Would have been interesting to know the average age of the responding members, too.

[10] Posted by Timothy Fountain on 9-16-2007 at 06:22 AM · [top]

Jeff in CA,

I’ve written pretty extensively about the Worthy Opponent’s low numbers here:
http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/4445/

The section titled “The Categories of Worthy Opponents and How They’ve Evolved—Church Demographics” covers the topic.

Hope this helps.

[11] Posted by Sarah on 9-16-2007 at 08:39 AM · [top]

What cracks me up about this is one of Integrity’s “Talking Points” is that we fundies are a bunch of white males.

Quick somebody call Susan Russell and tell her her group mirrors the reasserters she hates so much!

[12] Posted by TnCANA on 9-16-2007 at 09:39 AM · [top]

I guess those pesky Unitarians have scarfed up their members from them.  They should protest.  maybe they could rent some for their rallies.

[13] Posted by PROPHET MICAIAH on 9-16-2007 at 09:48 AM · [top]

And for this the ABC might chunk the Global South?  Hmmmm…

[14] Posted by PROPHET MICAIAH on 9-16-2007 at 09:49 AM · [top]

OK, given that Integrity apparently has ~352 members *and* friends, according to their own poll - well, this makes their finances suddenly very interesting. How did so few become so influentional. Where *is* their money coming from. Emily?

[15] Posted by oscewicee on 9-16-2007 at 11:40 AM · [top]

I find it so interesting that many on SF are convinced that the ABC is firmly on the side of the revisionists, while the Integrity website says of his presence at the upcoming HoB meeting:

undoubtedly Rowan Williams will try to persuade the bishops to comply with the communiqué.

Perhaps he will surprise everyone this Thursday.

[16] Posted by kyounge1956 on 9-16-2007 at 07:01 PM · [top]

“Integrity” is a very polarizing, polemical group.  It is not surprising to me that their confessing membership is low.  However, their more generalized support, even if shallow, is obviously pervasive.  For right now, “Quean Lutibelle” is advocating partnered pairs.  The next battle will be trios and beyond.  I hear there are gay Catholics dropping out of Catholic seminaries because they are uncomfortable with the prevalence and pressure towards group sex.  The blight of self-congratulating fornicators and adulterers has taken the blush off the cheeks of TEC and what is left is heavily painted angry old spinster ladies and gentlemen. 

“Partnered” is but a euphemism.  It isn’t marriage.  I’m glad people have friends and their civil rights to have friends should not be less than anyone else.  I don’t see an advantage for society in granting tax breaks as if for the formation of the family unless such are granted for the raising of children.  Call it a “justice” issue if you like.

[17] Posted by Pernoctate on 11-12-2007 at 08:54 AM · [top]

Registered members are welcome to leave comments. Log in here, or register here.

Comment Policy: We pride ourselves on having some of the most open, honest debate anywhere. However, we do have a few rules that we enforce strictly. They are: No over-the-top profanity, no racial or ethnic slurs, and no threats real or implied of physical violence. Please see this post for more explanation, and the posts here, here, and here for advice on becoming a valued commenter as opposed to an ex-commenter. Although we rarely do so, we reserve the right to remove or edit comments, as well as suspend users' accounts, solely at the discretion of site administrators. Since we try to err on the side of open debate, you may sometimes see comments which you believe strain the boundaries of our rules. Comments are the opinions of visitors, and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of Stand Firm site administrators or Gri5th Media, LLC.