+Roskam Accuses Bishops Of Wife Beating

Well as long as the wife beaters aren’t inhospitable, rude to their houseguests, speaking with their mouths full, etc.  Because that’s the real sin.  Inhospitability!

Wife beating? Jeez, next thing you know, them Aferkin savages will be serving their chilled Pinot Grigio with red meat instead of the chicken dinners we bought them.
Probably use the wrong fork, too.

the snarkster

spork, snarkster.

Do any of the bishops wear wife beaters?  I’ll bet some do because thaey come from cultures where it is fully acceptable to wear them.  I think there needs to be an indaba group on that subject.

Many of our bishops come from places where it is culturally acceptable to beat your wife

In that case, isn’t it insensitive to condemn it?  Where are your multiculti beliefs now, Bishop?

I was saddened that Matt+ gave this concern such short shift (or rather no shift if we are talking about hitting keys while blogging) in reporting yesterday in favor of other concerns.  Apparently the issue was raised to program planners for Lambeth 1998 but got no hearing so it is good to hear it addressed.  The implications, however, that this is problem of the GS or Middle East is simply wrong.  It may be that, in certain cultures, it is easier to look at spouses as chattel, but it surely isn’t unique to those cultures.  Clery spouses and families have unique pressures.  They often live in a fish bowl, are constantly on-parade and have expectations placed on them more akin to spouse-of-candidate than any other group.  In the US and Canada, Families of Clergy United in Support aka FOCUS works to address this problem.  CREDO provides some opportunity for clergy to discuss the needs and pressures of family in their lives but, at this date, in my understanding, they provide no real support.

Here is the link to the article by Martin Beckford in the Telegraph, with reactions from several conservatives.

Roskam’s comments were in the daily newspaper being published at Lambeth by Integrity.  If they wanted to make their case appealing this doesn’t seem like the way to go about it.

Boy Emily, you REALLY are like to make false charges on people, don’t you?! Not only has this bishop offered ZERO evidence to make such a charge, but you accuse Matt+ when this post was clearly made by “Jackie Bruchi.”

Many of our bishops come from places where it is culturally acceptable to beat your wife

As opposed to the liberal west where it is culturally acceptable to beat conservatives—especially theological conservatives from the Global South.

Emily, I wish the bishop had been as even handed as you in not pointing a finger at Africa. It is hard not to see revisionists as cultural snobs and this bishop doesn’t help matters.

(cross posted at The Telegraph article)
Apparently it is accepted practice among liberal bishops, when losing a debate on the merits of the case, to smear one’s opponent with dung and so distract them and anyone listening.  “+“Roskam shows herself to be admirably up to the task.

Likely in any gathering of several hundred people, even bishops, there could just possibly be embezzlers, tax cheats, adulterers, or even slanderers bearing false witness against people they wish to discredit with no burden of proof laid on them for the smearing accusation.

OK, I’ll play by +Roskam’s Rules:
And exactly when did each liberal bishop stop beating their spouse/partner/significant other?  Hmmm, the shoe pinches on the other foot, no?

And isn’t it interesting that she says this when there are no representatives from Nigeria, Uganda, Kenya, Rwanda, etc., anywhere about?  So she managed to offend some of the African countries that opted to attend Lambeth.  How very helpful to her cause.

Another ultra-maroon in purple.

Wow, she didn’t even give the bishops the courtesy of inquiring if they had stopped beating their wives.

BTW, I think the saying is short shrift, which is a service Matt is qualified to provide - whether it be short or long. 

We don’t want to get Matt in any trouble with Anne, giving people short shifts and all that…

What an absolutely stupid thing to say!

It’s like saying that there are 250 American Bishops in Lambeth, and, odds are, some of them have been cheating on their taxes, ‘cause that’s what Americans do.

While it could be statistically correct, per chance, it doesn’t mean anything.  And, really, who has ever done a study on male Bishop wife-beating anyway?

What an odd coincidence: “what they do and what they believe expresses who they really are.” I guess Roskam reads this blog and wanted to give us an example. Emily, Roskam isn’t even concerned about this concern. She’s using it as an excuse for slander.

If I remember correctly, this is the same Roskum who, as the HOB in NO was deep in deliberations about the exact wording to be used in their response to Dar, came to the microphone and said, “We must have an ammendment giving thanks for these wonderful prayer shawls.”

Not the brightest bulb in Bishops’ House.

“We have 700 men here. Do you think any of them beat their wives?

(NoelCoward)
I think much of it might depend on whether any of them are married to the Suffragan Bishop of New York…
(/NoelCoward)

Domestic violence is not something to be joked about. Nor is it a political football issue to be hurled at folks to make some obscure political point. The truth is the USA, England, Canada, Africa, all of us live in countries with too much domestic violence. Shame on the bishop for bringing the subject up in such a limited and divisive way when it could have been used to further the cause of civil rights and human rights for women.

Correction, that should have read: ‘the Bishops’ House.’

That’s what happens when you read the blogs of too many liberal TEC bishops; your definite & indefinite articles just start falling out (being church, finding church, listening to spirit, etc.)

So when someone tells me to step up to the “Roskam”
they are not asking me to speak?

‘Chances are they do?’ How about some research to back up your claim? This drives me nuts when people can say whatever they want without any evidence to support it. If it is true, gives us some names. For the implication suggests that it is common. Somoeone once told ne that there are Anglican African polygamy bishops. When asked who ... silence. Most of the time it is just a smoke screen to cover up the real issues. Fortunately for me, I have a big fan but it is still drives me nuts.

We have 700 bishops here. Do you think any of them approve of baby killing? Chances are they do.  Many of our bishops come from places where it is acceptable to kill your baby.

Offensive, really offensive.  But it clearly demonstrates that Roskam uses whatever tactic she thinks will achieve her end goal of making African Anglicans look morally equivilent with those who support a homosexual lifestyle. It’s interesting to note that by trying to bring the African Biships “down,” she is at least admitting on some level that there is a problem with the basic morality “level” of the progressive agenda.

Come on - Give us specific examples, and no hiding behind the curtain of “wife beatings don’t get reported.” If an individual bishop beats his wife, discipline is warrented and no one would think otherwise.  But insinuating that this is pervasive and tolerated is just plain false.

No surprise there - It’s a favorite smoke screen tactic by bubble-headed liberals who have so little LOGIC (and less theology) behind their “beliefs.” They stoop to inuendo and falsehood. Yuck.

Carrie

# 8.  If my reference was not clear, I thought it was Matt who stated that he would not be live-blogging then news conference on these issues in favor of others?  If it was Jackie, I appologize.  I don’t have the ability to backtrack so maybe Matt+ or Jackie can confirm?

This piece refers to an article in a “liberal magazine” - did the bishop also speak on this topic yesterday afternoon?

“When did you stop beating your wife?” Let’s have that discussed in the same indaba group as “When did you stop being so vilely racist?”

Let’s have a little clarity here.  If both partners are of the same sex, is the incidence of “spouse” abuse higher or lower than the percentage in the general man-woman pairing?  The Journal of Interpersonal Violence reports it as >30% “reporting one or more incidents of physical abuse” among lesbians and the Journal of Social Servic Research reports “the incidence of domestic violence among gay men is nearly double that of heterosexuals”.

So on this basis there’s a one in 3 chance that certain prominent married lesbians ffrom All Saints, Pasadena, have engaged in physical abuse and a greater than 50% chance that a certain country bishop from New Hampshire has as well.

The Bureau of Justice Statistics from the USDJ reports that married women have the lowest rate of violence compared with women in other types relationships.  The Medical Institute for Sexual Health concurs reporting that marriage (between a man and a woman) have the least violence compared to dohabiting or dating relationships.

So, if sauce for the gander is sauce for the goose, we can opine that more physical abuse occurs between lesbian couples and male homosexual couples than among heterosexual couple as a percentage and that the stance of the ECUSA/TEC/GCC/EO-PAC is likely to INCREASE partner violence. That’s certainly a justice issue that the gay agendites do NOT want to talk about.

Here’s to Bishop Roskam for raising the issue.  Let’s have her statistics in support of her opinion.

dwstroudmd: “So, if sauce for the gander is sauce for the goose…” Don’t you mean, “if sauce for the gander is sauce for the gander,” or “if sauce for the goose is sauce for the goose…?” This inclusive stuff is hard to grasp.

Correct, FrVan, I merely took a shot across th bow of that sexist saying so beloved of , well, sexists.

Real justice would be to liberate the oppressed at higher percentages from the bonds that trammel them into such relationships, don’t you think?

Ohhh, I don’t know, now you make it sound sexy.

You know, someone should ask Bishop Roskam how she thinks a previous Bishop of New York, Paul Moore, treated his family.  This is Bishop Moore’s daughter, Honor Moore, writing about that in the days after her father’s death: 

Then the telephone rang.

He had a confident voice. Andrew Verver (as I’ll call him) was the only person in my father’s will whose name was unfamiliar when we sat in the lawyer’s office the day before the funeral. Its mention had passed without comment, but later Rosemary identified Andrew as the man who had travelled with my father on a trip he took to Patmos the summer before.

Two months earlier, I had gone to the cathedral press office to pick up copies of my father’s obituaries, and among the papers had been a letter from Andrew Verver dated the day after the funeral. He had been a “very close” friend of my father’s for nearly thirty years, he wrote in a crooked but clear hand. He would like to visit my father’s grave. He would like to see the videos that had been shown at the reception after the funeral.

I wrote him back that day: Of course you can visit Pop’s grave—I will try to get directions for you—I would also very much like to meet you. I’d love to hear about the trip to Patmos. My # is . . . He had not called in September, but now it was my father’s birthday, and here he was.

The beginning of the conversation was formal.

“Your father was a close friend of mine.”

“Yes.”

“For almost thirty years.”

“Yes. You said so in your letter—”

“I’m sorry I didn’t call sooner.”

“I was just about to—”

“I had . . . feelings.”

Andrew had been a student at Columbia, a Roman Catholic. “I was considering being received into the Episcopal Church,” he said. This was in 1975. “I went to your father for advice. He was very helpful. At first it was a pastoral thing, and after a while we became friends.” His voice was soft in texture. “We were very close friends,” he repeated. “Paul came to my father’s funeral. My family knew him.”

“I’m so happy to be talking to you,” I said.

“I would have called sooner—”

“I understand.” Then there was silence. “I want to hear about Patmos,” I said.

“I had been there before,” Andrew said, “but Paul hadn’t. I had had a spiritual experience in the cave, where St. John wrote the Book of Revelation. And Paul wanted to see it, so we went there.”

Should I write this down? I reached for a notebook, and a pen. Andrew was silent, but I could hear him there. I couldn’t get over his humility, the calm in his voice. And how he could wait through a silence.

“Your father was a good friend to me,” he said.

“I’m so glad,” I repeated. We had been talking for about twenty minutes. I kept being afraid he would hang up, that he would stop talking about my father, telling me these things. Oh, please don’t hang up. Suddenly I realized I should take advantage of talking to this man who was so close to my father.

“Did he tell you about us? About . . . me?”

“You had some problems with each other.”

“Yes,” I said, “we did.”

“We were so close, your father and I. He told me a lot of things.” He didn’t want to get off the telephone either.

“About—”

“About your family. About his life. We missed our plane to Patmos, and we had to spend the night on Samos, another island. Something about the missed connection freed Paul, and we really talked that night. It was a beautiful night, we sat outside, we ate fish.” I could hear Andrew breathing. I could imagine this man holding on to my father’s hand with the tenderness with which he was staying on the telephone, waiting. The silence opened, my headache throbbed. All over the floor was the crumpled newspaper.

“Did he talk to you about his sexual life?” Two men in Greece, a beautiful night.

“I was his sexual life,” Andrew said.

“You were?” There was a silence and then we both began to laugh.

“For a long time.”

“I am so happy he had someone like you,” I managed to say.

“Of course, there were other men,” he said.

I asked him whether there was any significance to the table that my father had left him in his will.

“Only that it was next to the bed!” he said. “Your father had a sense of humor.” That quiet laugh again.

“Once, we were on the sofa, talking,” he continued, “and Paul took off his bishop’s ring and put it on my hand for a minute. The New York bishop’s ring has windmills on it, and your father smiled and said, ‘I’m your Dutch uncle.’ ” My father and this man about my age, whom I have never seen, next to him. Playfully, tenderly, he slips the heavy gold ring from his finger and puts it on Andrew’s.

  Bishop Roskam, do you think only Western Bishops know how to treat their wives?

I have noticed a revisionist theme during (and before) Lambeth, a type of accusation that assumes facts that have not been established.

It is really quite funny in a way (though horribly insulting to our faithful brothers and sisters in the Global South) that Roskam would—without a trace of irony—resort to the penultimate example of a biased presumption (i.e., the unfounded assumption that wife-beating occurs).

In America, the classic example of a bias is for an aggressive reporter to ask someone abruptly: “Yes or no, sir, have you stopped beating your wife?” 

As the question is worded, to answer yes would be to admit beating one’s wife in the past, while to answer no (because of the wording of the question) would be to admit that one still beats one’s wife.

On the other hand, if the person refuses to answer the question as worded (on the basis that he has never beat his wife), he is accused of being evasive:  “Why won’t you answer the question, sir, it’s a simple yes or no!”  The next day, the newspaper headline or commentary reads:  “Mr. X refuses to answer whether he has stopped beating his wife”.

The problem with the question, of course, is that it begins with an assumption (here, that wife beating occured in the past) without first establishing that the assumption is based on fact (i.e., that such misconduct in fact previously occurred).

In the legal context, an attorney at trial would interrupt such a question with the formal objection, “assumes facts not in evidence.”  If the questioning attorney could not respond by establishing the underlying facts to support such a question (here, to establish through questioning that such misconduct previously occurred), the judge would then instruct the questioning attorney to drop the question and ask the witness about something else.

With Lambeth 2008, liberal bishops have accused the bishops of the Global South of all sorts of heinous behavior without establishing that such conduct has occurred (i.e., without naming any names or pointing to any specific example of misconduct by any particular African bishop that can be verified).  Many in the media then report the accusation or the demeaming mischaracterization regarding representatives of the Global South without demanding any proof from the accusers.

We saw this earlier with questions along the lines of, “Bishop X refuses to condemn his church’s support for torturing and murdering people of a different orientation!”  If the bishop objects to the underlying assumption, the next response is, “Why won’t you answer the question?” or “Bishop X still refuses to condemn his chuch’s support of torture and murder!”

Even writers whose articles and blogs I have typically enjoyed (such as Ruth Gledhill) have reported uncritically accusations that Global South bishops support persecution.  Some have even made the ludicrous allegation that Global South bishops “refuse” to condemn same-sex rape (while at the same time accusing the same bishops of intolerant homophobia)—a patent non-sequitur.

The press (including ecclesial news outlets) have an affirmative duty to dig into the facts before accusing our brothers and sisters in the Global South.  To do otherwise enables activists to issue unfounded statements that are culturally chauvenistic (references to being bought with “chicken dinners” and to “pre-Newtonian” animists) or even explicitly racist, with full impunity.

—John

<i>The press (including ecclesial news outlets) have an affirmative duty to dig into the facts before accusing our brothers and sisters in the Global South.  To do otherwise enables activists to issue unfounded statements that are culturally chauvenistic (references to being bought with “chicken dinners” and to “pre-Newtonian” animists) or even explicitly racist, with full impunity.<i>

Amen, John Clay. Claims like this should be challenged by the media. Instead, they are too often quoted as if, since a bishop or priest said it, it must be true.

It is rumored that the Middle-easterners are the ones who traditionally beat their wives, rather than Africans. 

This is a re-hash of the earlier polygamy accusation.  They may be aiming at the middle east Archbishops ie, Mouneer and Bishops, ie, Nazir-Ali rather than Akinola and Orombi this time around.

Amen to Dwstroudmd!

This research is a bit older (time-stamp in my folder was from Aug. 28, 2003) but some stats here.

However, when 54% of women in lesbian relationships acknowledge violence in their current relationship, vs. only 11% of heterosexual couples reporting violence, I realized that domestic violence is not an outgrowth of male biology.

“Spouse Abuse a Two-Way Street,” By Warren Farrell, Ph.D. <u>USA Today, June 29, 1994</u>

There are others, but they continue to show roughly equal about with actually women perpetrators having a slightly higher percentage (including severe violence category) in all except in, “partner needed medical help” & “alcohol factor” but women used a weapon three times as much as men. (Family Resources & Research, 2000 edition)

phil swain #22: right on target

GA/FL, somehow I imagine they are all lumped together as the great unwashed, uncultured masses.

Statistically, she makes the mistake of assuming male Bishops are identical to whatever male cohort she is remembering from whatever statistics she can’t quite quote. 
Now that she has made the accusation, the onus is on her to report the Bishops at Lambeth to the authorities responsible for spousal abuse in the U.K.

There is also an undercurrent of gender bias in the good bishop’s comments - that ONLY male bishops are capable of beating a spouse - that somehow female bishops would not be up to the task! How unenlightened and bigoted! For shame.

Actually, for the perfect response to +Roskam’s ridiculous charges, be sure to read this (outrageous) satire. It literally turns the tables on her, in a most amusing way!

It gets worse, in todays Lambeth Witness is this report:

“When a Walk-out is not a Walk-out by Katie Sherrod (Integrity USA)
According to numerous reports from blogging bishops and stewards, at least one hundred male bishops left yesterday’s joint session on gender violence before it was over. Perhaps they were having an allergic reaction to something. Perhaps there was a professional soccer game that took precedence. Maybe someone was giving a stag party. Maybe someone organized a golf tournament and neglected to invite the women. Maybe there was a sale at the ecclesiastical outfitters in the Marketplace.
Or maybe they left because truth was spoken about the violence all too many women live with in every part of the Anglican Communion. Maybe the truth hit too close to
home. While one hundred missing bishops will not get the publicity that the GAFCON bishops have, there ought to be some explanation. Otherwise we are left to infer that perhaps there were too many abusers in the mix and
more truth telling than they were able to hear.
One of the marks of an abuser is that he minimizes the abuse. He denies it, makes light of it, and refuses to take it seriously. He says the abuse didn’t happen, or that it really wasn’t abuse, or she deserved it because _____(fill in the blank).
And then there are those who cover for it, who also minimize the abuse, or refuse to listen to the victim, or to believe her if they do listen to her, or believe her but want to protect the abuser. Someone suggested that all the uproar about homosexuality is very convenient for heterosexual men who do not want to be held accountable for their bad behavior. But then again, maybe it was just allergies.”

Could this possibly be the violence that ++Vicki Gene was taking about?  You know he’s been under threat of violence recently.  Could it be his husband is a wife beater . . . no since Gene’s the wife . . . that would mean that his husband would have to be the Bishop . . .  No that won’t work.  Oh well, just thinking out loud. 

am I bad?

I really am tired of the image of Christianity and the Church as abusive of women.  St. Paul, whom they view as a misogynist, urges husbands to be for their wives as Christ was for the Church.  Jesus tells husbands their wives are “one flesh” with them, and they should leave their childhood homes and cleave only unto their wives.  The Qur’an, on the other hand, allows men to divorce wives for any reason or no reason and advises beating them if they aren’t obedient.  Bishops across central and northern Africa right through India and Southeast Asia face militant Islam on a daily basis, with its abuse of women written loud in its foundational documents.  These Western feminist activists are aiming at the wrong target.

The quote from Katie Sherrod in the “Lambeth Witness” tabloid, from #41 above,  is here, if you want to see the whole thing (PDF file).  I am amazed at the amount of money the gay activists are spending on propaganda at Lambeth.  This is not a little typed newsletter; it’s a full-color professionally produced product.

No different from going to an Integrity meeting and saying, “Chances are, some of you are child molesters.”

Tragically, Monologistos, the statistics seem to suggest another issue might be more apt to charge during an Integrity meeting (those ranges are wide, but ABA & & NYC.gov now has a special page devoted to the issue which indicates that it’s a larger problem than people think and different or misunderstood to warrant a special sub-category instead of providing the general resources).

Or maybe they left because truth was spoken about the violence all too many women live with in every part of the Anglican Communion. Maybe the truth hit too close to

Or maybe they got nauseated with the propaganda and the politicization of a real problem? Maybe they got tired of this insulting way of wagging fingers at them? Maybe they love their wives and resent the implication that they’re all spouse beaters at heart. I’m only sorry that no one has reported a woman leaving.

#46, the cruelty, emotional and physical, reported to me by gay and lesbian friends is truly terrible.  Of course, I can easily think of many straight couples where this is also true. There ought to be laws on the books that protect people from threatening people regardless of gender.  I know a straight man that was sometimes beaten by his straight wife who was a victim of child abuse ... clumsy or demanding attempts to initiate sex on his part would be met with extended violence and the police laughed at him when called.  It’s something for the rescuers, straight or otherwise, among us to keep in mind.  Hell hath no fury…there are a LOT of VERY angry, abused people out there.

#48 Monologistos, I fully concur!!

Riazat Buttt, posted on T19:

What bishops should be more concerned about is her insinuation that a non-white culture leads to domestic violence and that white, western culture is too civilised and too advanced to allow such atrocities to occur. Roskam fails to recognise that domestic violence affects people regardless of their class, ethnicity, religion, gender or geography.

http://www.kendallharmon.net/t19/index.php/t19/article/14978/

Perhaps the bishops left because they were tired of being lectured and wanted to talk about the real issues that the Communion faces.
Or maybe they all had to go the bathroom, got side tracked and went to the local pub to talk to real people.

Apparently the ABC has been ‘riding the fence’ so long, his ballocks got crushed.