Total visitors right now: 87

Click here to check your private inbox.

Welcome to Stand Firm!

Blame the Black People (Updated)

Thursday, November 6, 2008 • 11:51 am

WARNING: OFFENSIVE CONTENT

But what happens when those who “stoop low” to help the “uneducated” find that the “ignorant” masses reject the lessons of their betters? What happens when, say, the minority vote makes up a large percentage of the voting electorate that defeated Proposition 8 in California?

Rage. Blinding, ugly, disgusting rage.


One of the many inherent inconsistencies within liberalism in general and theological revisionism in particular is the self-ascribed vanity, embraced universally amongst the “anointed ones”, that liberals “speak truth to power,” stand up for the poor and impoverished, befriend the outcasts, and work tirelessly on their behalf.

This self-image is zealously guarded and maintained…it seems a psychological necessity—in the face of cold hard facts that belie it—namely that the “poor” are generally quite conservative…especially when it comes to religion. Few things irk the liberal soul more than this glaring truth. They deal with it in a variety of ways. The emphasis on “awareness” and “sensitivity training” among liberals is, I think, one outgrowth of this concern. The problem, they persuade themselves, is not that liberalism/revisionism is bankrupt and unworkable (and therefore unpopular), it is just that people are “uneducated”...they have yet to be enlightened…they still are too ignorant to “get it” but once they do we can take our proper roles as the people’s vanguard.

The thrust of this particular vanity tends to run headlong into just the sort of paternalism, racial and otherwise, that they claim to despise and oppose…bearing in many ways a quite distinct similarity with the infamous “white man’s burden”...

But what happens when those who “stoop low” to help the “uneducated” find that the “ignorant” masses reject the lessons of their betters? What happens when, say, the minority vote makes up a large percentage of the voting electorate that defeated Proposition 8 in California?

Rage. Blinding, ugly, disgusting rage.

I warn you that when you follow this PDF link or if you choose to continue reading you will find words (one in particular) with regard to African Americans written by a Church of England priest, Fr. Jonathan of St. Francis parish at Newcastle upon Tyne, that will and should offend you.

image

In the comments Fr. Jonathan defends his post by suggesting that its not that African Americans are inherently inferior, it’s just that they’re stupid.

Why?

Because they are uneducated…without a “good education” after-all they cannot be taught to reason like other humans:

” if they don’t have a good education they are not going to have have good reasoning skills. 

       
So the reason these African Americans do not agree with Bishops Bruno, Andrus, Mathes, et al, is that they are incapable of exercising the faculty of reason unless, that is, they are helped along…because surely if they were capable of reasoning, they would come to the same conclusion as the obviously wise, benevolent, and quite white bishops

But, of course, even if they are incapable of reason…at the very least they should, out of a sense of gratitude, support their betters…what is this world coming to when patrons are no longer respected by their peasants?

This is not the only time we’ve called attention to this particular “liberal” priest nor is his language in this particular post out of character (which is why we’ve decided not to link him). Fr. Jonathan’s blog is featured prominently on Jim Naughton’s “Episcopal Cafe” (a group blog sponsored by the Episcopal Diocese of Washington) among the top tiered “favorite” blogs. Fr. Jonathan is also linked (and regularly quoted) by Fr. Mark Harris, a member of TEC’s Executive Council, one of our old friends, Lisa, from “My Manner of Life”, the “Friends of Jake” blog (many contributing writers on this blog comment on Fr. Jonathan’s post above) and, finally, the Rev. Dr. Elizabeth Kaeton’s “Telling Secrets” who often refers to Fr. Jonathan as her dear “maddie” after his nom-de-plum “Mad Priest”...thankfully she seems to have distanced herself from his words...while, at the same time, maintaining her link to his blog.

His is not an obscure off-beat alley-way, but a prominent destination and a frequently cited writer among revisionist bloggers and readers.

In fact two of the bloggers above, while eschewing Fr. Jonathan’s demeaning language, echo the thrust of his argument. The “Friends of Jake” write:

We even lost LA county. African-Americans voted overwhelmingly in favor of Prop8, thus the history-making vote for Obama hurt us badly. Why is it that one oppressed group is so ready to oppress the ones behind them in line?

And Lisa, from “My Manner of Life” accuses:

While I celebrate Obama’s election, it is difficult to avoid lashing out at the oppressed people who should be our allies. I am reminded of those lily-white students who went into the Deep South in the ‘60s to join the Civil Rights movement. And now…? Now they screwed us. I can’t find a kind way to say that.

I would say that it is surprising that so many good liberals link, promote, and frequent Fr. Jonathan’s blog…but it’s not. And I won’t be surprised when they yawn, laugh at his latest “antics”, and continue to support him with their time, links, comments, and references..after-all, not only do many of them appear to agree with Fr. Jonathan—those “poor” people of color they purport to love and represent are, if Fr. Jonathan is to be believed, probably too ignorant, uneducated and unaware to notice…

UPDATE: See this comment
UPDATE II Fr. Jonathan Clarifies his Position
UPDATE III: You stay classy Fr. Jon


173 Comments • Print-friendlyPrint-friendly w/commentsShare on Facebook
Comments:

Wow. I wonder what Barbara Harris thinks about this.

[1] Posted by Greg Griffith on 11-06-2008 at 03:59 PM • top

Or Michael Curry.

[2] Posted by Greg Griffith on 11-06-2008 at 03:59 PM • top

Greg, I find that your thinking is sort of in line with mine on this election cycle, and that makes me a tad uncomfortable for some reason.  I don’t know why!

This is, of course, racism.  And it’s also a very interesting rejection of the whole “oppressed minority” thing.

In the 50s, you couldn’t hide being black and they MADE you sit behind the line.  You couldn’t vote easily.  Every day was a struggle, and in some places was dangerous.

Gay people can vote.  They can be gay and not tell anyone. They have their own TV shows. They simply want one thing not open to them.  I don’t see the similarity at all.  Apparently those Obama supporters didn’t, either.

[3] Posted by Paul B on 11-06-2008 at 04:13 PM • top

Oh, no.  I just noticed that Matt posted this.  Hmmm.  Should I apologize to Matt or to Greg for saying I was uncomfortable agreeing with the post?

[4] Posted by Paul B on 11-06-2008 at 04:17 PM • top

It’s that entitlement mentality.  They think that people of color are supposed to vote for their interests regardless of the opinions of others.  It’s just so arrogant.

[5] Posted by Piedmont on 11-06-2008 at 04:26 PM • top

I had not visited MadPriest in quite some time, and now I recall why.  He is regularly offensive, and also trite.  But, the problem of racism within the GLBT community that allows people of color to see few commonalities is a very real issue.  Unfortunately, too many are reinforcing the racism rather than challenging it.  If the face of GLBT equality is a white one, there will be some portion of people of color who will not hesitate to punch it.  This will happen as long paternalistic attitudes prevail.  The mindset of doing something for people often leads to resentment.  How about what we can all do together to make the world a freer and better place?

[6] Posted by To the Left on 11-06-2008 at 04:28 PM • top

Oh ... how I wish they would go on “a compassion strike!”

FWIW - I stopped even following links to the “Mad Priest” a long time ago, because his language was lower in standard than the guys in my shop ... his education didn’t seem to result in good reasoning skill!

[7] Posted by Hosea6:6 on 11-06-2008 at 04:28 PM • top

So let them go on strike. (edited).

[8] Posted by DaveG on 11-06-2008 at 04:41 PM • top

The GLBT marriage crowd considers themselves the legitimate heirs of the struggle for racial equality, so no doubt feel betrayed.  It is not without irony, however, that I’ve seen very similar sentiments expressed about the GLBT crowd by those that consider themselves the legitimate heirs to the GLBT cause.

[9] Posted by AndrewA on 11-06-2008 at 04:42 PM • top

Somehow I’m not surprised by this one. Check the name of the blog - talk about priorities. And this is a priest?

[10] Posted by oscewicee on 11-06-2008 at 04:43 PM • top

What a bunch of whiners.  It is just all about their gayness.  This kinda stuff makes me want to puke.  I can’t believe he used the n-word when all those folks sure get in a snit when someone calls them a ****, and then they give you all this ethical speech rap.

Oh, and the latest I heard on the ethical speech thing.  You don’t call STD’s STD’s anymore…they are SDI’s - sexually transmitted infections, rather than diseases.  Soon they will change that into sexually trasmitted inconveniences or something like that.

Love,
A dumb white honkey homophobic cracker in Louisiana
(B.A., J.D.)

[11] Posted by Brad Drell on 11-06-2008 at 04:43 PM • top

“This will be hard for gay people because they tend to be…extremely altruistic and forgiving of others.”

And that’s where I stopped reading.  I was laughing too hard to continue.

[12] Posted by The Pilgrim on 11-06-2008 at 05:14 PM • top

Brad
Just for the record:  What is the difference betweem a cracker and a coon-ass?

[13] Posted by Old Soldier on 11-06-2008 at 05:15 PM • top

It’s been a LONG TIME since I’ve seen the limosine liberals allow their guard to drop this hard, to really show that all the downtrodden folks that they supposedly ‘care’ about are simply leverage, means to the end of keeping them in power.

“We’ll educate them, and then they’ll see how brilliant we are, and then they will love us, and then they will do what we tell them to do!!”

NOT!!!!  Obama and his minions will relegate the religious left to the “back of the bus” for the next four to eight years.  There are only so many Obama-Prizes (with apologies to Chris Rock) to go around.

Sorry, Fr. Jonnie, but the creation has abandoned the creator!  Haven’t you limosine liberals ever read Frankenstein?  Jeeez, I thought they were supposed to be educated.

KTF!!!....mrb

[14] Posted by Mike Bertaut on 11-06-2008 at 05:15 PM • top

Um, amazing. 

FWIW, a few years ago the NAACP held a funeral in Detroit, where they quite literally buried that word.

[15] Posted by J Eppinga on 11-06-2008 at 05:23 PM • top

While I celebrate Obama’s election, it is difficult to avoid lashing out at the oppressed people who should be our allies.

Maybe because they don’t see themselves as “your” allies.  Maybe they have other “allies”; orthodox Christians and Jews for example.  Perhaps they are really sick of your comparing slavery and racism to your “opression”.  Perhaps you should quit lashing out and just ask them.

[16] Posted by Edwin on 11-06-2008 at 05:25 PM • top

Old Soldier:
As a nearly certified “coon-ass” I can say that French/Canadien origin is required to be an l’acadian/Cajun/Coon Ass.  I don’t technically qualify because when my folks were coming over from France in 1712, they didn’t make that pit stop in Nova Scotia, they came straight from France to Louisiana.

I think a “cracker” can be of any extraction.

The important thing to remember is that line Bill Murray nailed in “Stripes”:

We’re Americans! With a capital “A” huh?  Do you know what that means?  It means our ancestors were kicked out of every decent country in the world!

KTF!...mrb

[17] Posted by Mike Bertaut on 11-06-2008 at 05:29 PM • top

Number 13,

A coon ass is a Cajun. A cracker is a white male good ole boy who is not descended from French Canadians.  Good ole boy is meant here with affection.

[18] Posted by BillS on 11-06-2008 at 05:30 PM • top

I thought crackers lived in Georgia.  When did they migrate to Louisiana?

[19] Posted by terrafirma on 11-06-2008 at 05:57 PM • top

A dear friend, who has now passed on, an Afican-American deacon in TEC, whose family carried its own scars from both urban and southern racism, used to go absolutely ballistic when the alleged oppression of gays was compared to the the experience of African Americans.  The life of African Americans over the past almost 400 years is remarkable (and I consider it a great blessing and a witness that the great bulk of them, even as slaves, embraced the Christian faith), and to compare the failure of gay marriage effort in California in any way to the African American experience is absolutely ridiculous.
  BTW, I agree completely with On the Left that the website is trite.  The dog portrait is apparently Laika, the dog orbited by the Soviets in Sputnik Two in 1957, where it perished for the greater good of Marxism-Leninism.  That the dog would be on anyone’s website is bizarre.

[20] Posted by Dick Mitchell on 11-06-2008 at 06:03 PM • top

The irony of the whoile thing is absolutely delicious.  Think about it.  These whitebread lefties call the black community “uneducated.”  Most African Americans live in the large cities of California where the whitebread lefties run the city political machines and the school districts, for all intents and purposes, unopposed.  These should be the best educated African Americans ever.  But wait, I guess political indoctrination isn’t a substitute for the three Rs.

I heard that the various California teachers unions gave millions of rubles to defeat Prop 8.  I guess they need to bring more black kindergarteners to lesbian weddings.

[21] Posted by Bill2 on 11-06-2008 at 07:23 PM • top

Well, I think any of us who read Jim Naughton’s or Jon Chane’s remarks about ++Peter Akinola saw this coming.  Or the nonsense about African churches and their leadership being backwards. 

In my own mind, I am still a liberal.  I say “still” not because I identify with people who now call themselves liberal, but because I still identify with the things that I held dear 40 years ago.  Racial equality, freedom of speech, right to vote, democracy.  I agree with the president-elect on more things than I disagree (not saying those on which I would disagree are minor).  I think it is a blessing for this country that we have indeed put racial discrimination past us to the point that we can elect a black man president.  I also think it is a blessing that people do not move in some sort of lock step.  Oddly enough, what happened on Tuesday disproves the Mad Priest’s theory.  Blacks and other minority voters were discerning enough to choose the candidate they thought would best represent them, and who they identified with.  At the same time, they rejected a part of the agenda that was tied to that candidate.  This shows that they were smart enough, and well enough educated, to study the issue and come to a conclusion based on their knowledge, faith, conscience and moral character, and rejecting what they were told by party organizers.

[22] Posted by tjmcmahon on 11-06-2008 at 08:24 PM • top

What a completely repellent post that is. Thanks for posting and commenting, Matt. How that man can call himself a Christian ...

[23] Posted by PollyPrim on 11-06-2008 at 08:44 PM • top

Well, I have been in the salt mines all day . . . chained to a desk in the bowels of a corporate client.  And now I’m getting caught up.

After the first appalled review, I have to wonder if it is possible that this priest—I believe that he is in the UK—does not understand how grossly insulting, and coldly contemptuous that word is.  If it were merely a word, it’d be one thing, but then he follows it up with rampant stereotypes, smug condescension, and ranting insults about how they should agree with gays because they were once oppressed.  All of it packaged together strikes me as just amazingly awful.

So I return to this question.  Is this a UK thing, like Agatha Christie’s title of one of her mysteries, that had to be re-titled?  Do they not understand or use that word in the same way?  Hard for me to believe that they couldn’t understand or see this from just the globalization of the world and the Internet, but he seems so flippant over its use and his subsequent comments, that maybe we have a British cultural difference.

I mean, basically it looks as if we’re catapulted back to the 1920s and Margaret Sanger.  Or some kind of elitist men’s club in 1930s Mississippi, hanging out in leather club chairs and Morris chairs, drinking whatever they drank at elitist rich men’s clubs.  [And I’m a Mississippian, and no not everyone was a raving bigot, and yes, I love my state.]

But really . . . this is a shocking post, and I can’t quite put it into a context that makes sense of it.

[24] Posted by Sarah on 11-06-2008 at 09:23 PM • top

I’ve seen too at some secular web forums I occasionally visit that I have sometimes seen respectable opinions from, many people in an absolute uproar about proposition 8. Many of these liberal posters claimed that this election was a complete disappointment because the proposition 8 result by far outweighed the fact that most of the elected representatives they favored were elected, including Obama. I saw posts vehemently arguing that anyone who voted for proposition 8 was inhuman and deserved retribution, and similarly singling out African American voters. I simply cannot fathom how these people can even think of themselves as being on the side of “tolerance”, and the opposite side being filled with “hate”. How can someone be so self-deluded? I believe in total depravity but I’ve never seen it manifested in such an obvious way with so many people.

[25] Posted by Avin Fernando on 11-06-2008 at 10:07 PM • top

Any backwoods Appalachian or derrick-working roughneck can sympathize, really.  Remember when backwoods folk and blue-collar workers had the attention and support of the left end of the political spectrum?  Then they started voting the wrong way and they turned into stump-toothed sister-molesters and bitter clingers.  Only left-wing mascots are considered “authentic” anymore in America.

Isn’t it odd how smart all those African-Americans were when they punched Obama’s chad, and how ignorant they got in the down-ballot stuff?

[26] Posted by Jeffersonian on 11-06-2008 at 10:18 PM • top

I find it amazing that Elizabeth Kaeton has not launched herself out of her chair and taken MP to task in a very public and passionate way over his use of “n****r” to describe those who voted yes on Prop 8, especially after coming out so strongly in support of the campaign to convince children to stop saying “that’s so gay.”

Did I say “amazing”? Sorry - I meant, “entirely predictable.”

[27] Posted by Greg Griffith on 11-06-2008 at 10:37 PM • top

Sarah, no, in the UK the term is used in the same way that it was here, as a racial slur. In the ‘70s, a friend of mine was in a punk band that ended up playing a few dates in England, he also happened to be black, and was shocked to be called a “yankee (n-word)”.

Lots of revisionists are used to being able to get away with acting hateful and abusive.. they’ve been getting away with it, and count on that continuing.

Homosexual activists, singers, writers, what have you have been making these outrageous, hateful remarks for more than 24 hours, and no media outlet, no person in authority is speaking out against their hate speech. It will only get worse, because now they feel entitled.

[28] Posted by mari on 11-06-2008 at 11:40 PM • top

a compassion strike isn’t going to help the situation! What a whack-a-doo! When Obama implements his redistribution policy welfare won’t even be able to compete with the amount of money that will be flowing their way that comes from the Hollywood crowd, the sports celebs, the ultra rich who are redecorating the massive homes they have in various locations of the country, and the politicians whose wealth is well very high. Let us not forget the Silicon Vally brainiacs, and the Google & Yahoo geeks!

[29] Posted by TLDillon on 11-06-2008 at 11:48 PM • top

Wow.  I have a story of my own.  Just today we had a salesman come to the house to try to sell us something that would be nice but we didn’t really need.  He spoke and carried himself like several gay men I know, that was fine with me, wouldn’t keep me from buying a product.  He was black, another thing that would not keep me from buying the product.  He then started speaking and from how he spoke I got the feeling he was very liberal.  Again, that’s not something that would keep me from buying the product.

As he went about his presentation and asked us questions, he commented on how much smarter we seemed to be than most people our age and how great it was that we bought a house at such a young age (hubby and I are 26 and 25).  Then he found out we vote Republican.  He asked us why we did so, and my response was that I preferred to not discuss my reasons.  He kept pressuring me to answer (which has absolutely nothing to do with the product he was selling) to which hubby finally explained it in a way that seemed to satisfy him.

Then he commented that he thought we were Democrats because we were “so smart” and thought things through.  He didn’t think Republicans could think (to paraphrase).  Then he went into a tirade about the “poor, downtrodden, black people”.  The final straw was when he began bragging that he made six figures a year doing these sales.  How unprofessional is that?

Well, we showed him exactly how smart we were.  We politely showed him the door.

[30] Posted by Courageous Grace on 11-07-2008 at 12:33 AM • top

As a Brit, can I assure you that the use of language in the article cited above is quite deliberate. The word in question is as offensive here as in the US, it is never used in jest. The smallest child in the playground knows this.

[31] Posted by Anselmic on 11-07-2008 at 04:04 AM • top

“We even lost LA county. African-Americans voted overwhelmingly in favor of Prop8, thus the history-making vote for Obama hurt us badly. Why is it that one oppressed group is so ready to oppress the ones behind them in line?”

It occurs to me that the GLBT crowd, after years of exploiting the “justice” and “civil rights” templates, suddenly find themselves being exploited rather than the exploiters; as if yesterday morning someone handed them an envelope with the definition of Lenin’s phrase “Useful Idiots” inside.

Oh, but I must be wrong.  Uneducated, backwards African Americans just barely past animism could never have come up with that nuanced a game plan, could they?  Could they?

[32] Posted by The Pilgrim on 11-07-2008 at 07:12 AM • top

Amen tjmcmahon #22!  I did here in AZ what these voters did in CA, voted for Obama and the marriage amendment.  This post of Fr Jonathan is truly reprehensible.

[33] Posted by physician without health on 11-07-2008 at 07:42 AM • top

Heh…Fr. Jonathan accuses me of “lying” by selectively quoting his comments.  He provides, as evidence, his full quote from the comments section of his post above that I excerpted:

Well not just black people but Latinos and poor people and poorly educated people and all the others who liberals spend so much effort trying to help without selling something like religion with their help. I suppose it’s one of those things. If people are struggling to survive they are hardly going to worry too much about thinking about other people’s ethical and moral questions. And if they don’t have a good education they are not going to have have good reasoning skills.

Fr. Jonathan, please forgive me for suggesting that your racism extends only to African Americans…clearly you are inclined to hate “Latinos” as well. And, not its not just about race…you apparently include “poor people” and the “poorly educated” among those who cannot exercise the faculty of reason properly without help. I certainly admit my mistake…

[34] Posted by Matt Kennedy on 11-07-2008 at 09:14 AM • top

Funny how you managed to quote out of context whilst showing the whole passage in your post. What a neat trick! I think perhaps Father Jonathan is confusing your post with PB Schori’s approving the Windsor report and disavowing it? No offense, but I doubt you’re all that flexible.

As for madpriest, well, he needs our prayers. Someone who craves attention that much…..


Most reappraiser rhetoric are kindergarten insults, only with larger words.

[35] Posted by Matthew A (formerly mousestalker) on 11-07-2008 at 09:33 AM • top

In my own mind, I am still a liberal.  I say “still” not because I identify with people who now call themselves liberal, but because I still identify with the things that I held dear 40 years ago.  Racial equality, freedom of speech, right to vote, democracy.  I agree with the president-elect on more things than I disagree (not saying those on which I would disagree are minor).  I think it is a blessing for this country that we have indeed put racial discrimination past us to the point that we can elect a black man president.  I also think it is a blessing that people do not move in some sort of lock step.

TJ, your whole post resonates for me, most especially this.

[36] Posted by oscewicee on 11-07-2008 at 09:42 AM • top

you apparently include “poor people” and the “poorly educated” among those who cannot exercise the faculty of reason properly without help

This man just gets scarier. We must be educated up to his standard so we will know how to vote ... like him. If we were all well educated, we would naturally all vote for the same things????

[37] Posted by oscewicee on 11-07-2008 at 09:44 AM • top

I think that the gay activists should see this as the complete repudiation by blacks of the civil rights label the gays are trying to use to frame the discussion.

If the gay activists would simply LISTEN to what is being said to them.

[38] Posted by Paul B on 11-07-2008 at 09:45 AM • top

Jonathan (he doesn’t deserve the title, father, imho) has the same mindset that proponents of slavery, and totalitarian oppression do. He doesn’t believe in civil or human rights, but like all fascists, that there should be no individual liberties, no right to self determination.

They are angry because the majority of California voters insisted on thinking and deciding for themselves.. People like him hate that a free society, like the US, where citizens demand their rights and freedoms, exercise them. What’s the most rewarding is that those who have not had their ability to think and question beated down by Marxist propagandists, still think and decide for themselves.

[39] Posted by mari on 11-07-2008 at 09:46 AM • top

Y’all, he did it again:

[link deleted]

[40] Posted by Brad Drell on 11-07-2008 at 10:25 AM • top

In my own mind, I am still a liberal.  I say “still” not because I identify with people who now call themselves liberal, but because I still identify with the things that I held dear 40 years ago.  Racial equality, freedom of speech, right to vote, democracy.

I had no idea that “Racial equality, freedom of speech, right to vote, democracy” were principles solely belonging to liberals.  All these years I have considered myself a conservative, but I have always believed in those things, so I guess I am a liberal?!?

[41] Posted by CarolynP on 11-07-2008 at 10:27 AM • top

I am now a registered independent, but always considered myself liberal. What TJ doesn’t understand that straight democracy is not about racial or any other kind of equality, freedom of speech, a real right to vote. What made the US what it was, and what I hope it returns to being, was a melding of republican and democratic principles, enshrined with a constitution that provided the basic rights and freedoms that ensured all those good things.

[42] Posted by mari on 11-07-2008 at 10:35 AM • top

And much of the loudest public support for Obama, that which emanates from the cultural elite, has been based on expressing this race etiquette rather than on trying to realise the goal of racial equality.

Baloney. I’m guessing this guy is venting his rage by using the n-word, then trying to dress it up with pretentious nonsense like this?

[43] Posted by oscewicee on 11-07-2008 at 10:39 AM • top

Baloney. I’m guessing this guy is venting his rage by using the n-word, then trying to dress it up with pretentious nonsense like this?

Michael “Kramer” Richards, anyone?

[44] Posted by Jeffersonian on 11-07-2008 at 10:42 AM • top

[14] CarolynP,

Your confusion arises in part from:

  (a) the fact that the term Liberal has come to refer historically to any one of several political philosophies that consider individual liberty to be the most important political goal; and,

  (b) the fact that by the time Franklin D. Roosevelt, a progressive himself, was running for President, the political movement commonly then referred to as Progressivism was falling into disfavor with the electorate in the U.S. and so the progressives (of whom Presidents T. Roosevelt, Wilson, and Hoover were earlier exemplars), especially those with political aspirations, began calling themselves “liberals” as a deliberate act of misdirection.

Blessings and regards,
Martial Artist

[45] Posted by Militaris Artifex on 11-07-2008 at 12:38 PM • top

Hmmm, the more things change, the more they don’t.  I never ceased to be astounded by the rife hypocrisy of the left. 
  The sooner folk come to realize its existence, the sooner the gates of the liberal plantations will be flung wide.  This is the only way that the hedgemony of the left over the economically challenged will be put down.

[46] Posted by aterry on 11-07-2008 at 12:54 PM • top

P.S.  I’m also saddened to see vitriol of this caliber on Jonathan+ ‘s blog.

[47] Posted by aterry on 11-07-2008 at 12:56 PM • top

#46 aterry,
An old saying which rings ever so true…..“Nothing New Under The Sun!” It’s just a different year and a different decade and a different century…but nothing is new!

[48] Posted by TLDillon on 11-07-2008 at 01:20 PM • top

A forty-something adolescent whose potty mouth should be washed out with soap by his mama.

[49] Posted by DaveG on 11-07-2008 at 01:25 PM • top

DaveG….may I suggest Lava Soap! smile

[50] Posted by TLDillon on 11-07-2008 at 01:29 PM • top

Credit where credit is due…looks like Episcopal Cafe took down their link to Mad Priest:
http://www.episcopalcafe.com/the_blogscape/
Kudos

[51] Posted by Matt Kennedy on 11-07-2008 at 01:30 PM • top

Fr. Jonathan further clarifies his position in the comments from this article…I have edited the offensive words…
http://revjph.blogspot.com/2008/11/voting-with-niggers.html

Blogger MadPriest said…

  Ann
  If you mean “q***s[edited by Stand Firm],” “f***s”[edited by Stand Firm] that sort of thing then yes I would and I often do. I am not under any illusion that the word n***er[edited by Stand Firm] is offensive but I think voting for Proposition 8 is offensive and has a physical result which me saying n***er[edited by Stand Firm] to a bunch of white liberals doesn’t. So f*ck[edited by Stand Firm] the n***rs[edited by Stand Firm] for hurting my friends.

words fail me…

[52] Posted by Matt Kennedy on 11-07-2008 at 01:47 PM • top

#52 I hope every African-American reads these words and realizes how much they have in common with GLBT lobbies and how sensitive the GLBT lobby is to the struggles and true barriers the African-Americans have face (as opposed to those faced by the GLBTIOUXZY lobby).

[53] Posted by Hosea6:6 on 11-07-2008 at 01:52 PM • top

#46 Matt+... Ouch  That had to have been a painful transcription.

[54] Posted by aterry on 11-07-2008 at 01:55 PM • top

I had no idea that “Racial equality, freedom of speech, right to vote, democracy” were principles solely belonging to liberals.  All these years I have considered myself a conservative, but I have always believed in those things, so I guess I am a liberal?!?

As Tom Lehrer said in the preamble to his wonderful song, “The Folk Song Army”,

One type of song that has come into increasing prominence in recent months is the folk-song of protest. You have to admire people who sing these songs. It takes a certain amount of courage to get up in a coffee-house or a college auditorium and come out in favor of the things that everybody else in the audience is against, like peace and justice and brotherhood and so on.

The nicest thing about a protest song is that it makes you feel so good. I have a song here which I realise should be accompanied on a folk instrument in which category the piano does not alas qualify so imagine if you will that I am playing an 88 string guitar.

Cheers,

Phil Hobbs

[55] Posted by gone on 11-07-2008 at 02:13 PM • top

Does Fr. Jon eat with that mouth?

[56] Posted by Jeffersonian on 11-07-2008 at 02:19 PM • top

What TJ doesn’t understand that straight democracy is not about racial or any other kind of equality, freedom of speech, a real right to vote. What made the US what it was, and what I hope it returns to being, was a melding of republican and democratic principles, enshrined with a constitution that provided the basic rights and freedoms that ensured all those good things.

I think you misunderstand me.  I hardly laid out my entire political philosophy in that post, just a bit of background on myself.  Do not forget that the Constitution predates both the Democratic and Republican parties. The Constitution is one part English common law, one part Robert’s Rules and one part enlightened Enlightenment.  That somehow produced one of the most brilliant documents of western civilization. I think it might be more accurate to state that the Constitution provides a framework for the existence of the two parties and their ideals, rather than the other way around.  One of the reasons I don’t fit well into either modern party is that I am a firm supporter of the Bill of Rights. All ten.  It seems that most political types want to take 5 literally, and “interpret” the other 5.  What they argue over, is WHICH 5 to take literally.
  If only it were as difficult to amend the constitution and canons of TEC as it is to amend the Constitution, we sure would not be where we are today.

[57] Posted by tjmcmahon on 11-07-2008 at 02:21 PM • top

As I understand it MadPriest is, well, mad.  Something to bear in mind.

[58] Posted by Pageantmaster ن on 11-07-2008 at 02:49 PM • top

As I understand it MadPriest is, well, mad.  Something to bear in mind.

But surely madness is grounds for defrocking or promotion to bishop.

[59] Posted by Jeffersonian on 11-07-2008 at 02:55 PM • top

[58] Pageantmaster,

I am sure that the Mad Priest is mad, as you state. My question is in which of the following two sense are you using the word mad:

(a) angry, or,

(b) insane?

I do also allow that you may intend it in both senses, but am curious as to your response.

Blessings and regards,
Martial Artist

[60] Posted by Militaris Artifex on 11-07-2008 at 03:05 PM • top

[50] One Day Closer,

According to Jean Parker Shepherd (author of the tale A Christmas Story, starring Darren McGavin, Melinda Dillon, and a young Peter Billingsley as Ralphie), there are few soaps that can surpass the “piquant flavor of Lifebuoy,” assuming it is still on the market. Howevwer, I must admit that the presence of pumice in Lava soap does have its attractions for this particular application.

A shame, I suppose, that there isn’t a Lava soap with the flavor of Lifebuoy. And maybe a little Listerine in the mix for the sake of sanitization. wink

Blessings and regards,
Martial Artist

[61] Posted by Militaris Artifex on 11-07-2008 at 03:13 PM • top

Just something based on a post I read a while back which made me think there may be more in the name than pure chance, but I have no particular knowledge of what may be involved.  Such issues are terrible people to have to deal with so that was the reason for what I wrote.  But I may be wrong.

[62] Posted by Pageantmaster ن on 11-07-2008 at 03:17 PM • top

Raskolnikov.  He’s an uerbermensch so it’s OK to take an axe to the lumpenproletarians.

[63] Posted by Timothy Fountain on 11-07-2008 at 03:30 PM • top

Good point Timothy+ all great men “act”; they “do” whatever they must to get what they desire…regardless of the socially percieved brutality

[64] Posted by Matt Kennedy on 11-07-2008 at 03:38 PM • top

And obviously Fr. Jonathan is a great man…the fact that we have a hard time seeing that simply testifies to our simplicity

[65] Posted by Matt Kennedy on 11-07-2008 at 03:39 PM • top

Please don’t threaten to defrock the poor fellow.  From the tone of his remarks, I would guess he’d rather enjoy the experience, especially if there were an audience to watch him covorting around buck naked.

[66] Posted by DaveG on 11-07-2008 at 03:44 PM • top

“The Bishop of Los Angeles has challenged California voters who backed the successful ballot initiative to ban gay marriage to examine their consciences and banish their ignorance on homosexuality.”
http://www.religiousintelligence.co.uk/news/?NewsID=3241

[67] Posted by Moving Forward on 11-07-2008 at 03:55 PM • top

TJ, I did not misunderstand you, rather it’s you who didn’t understand, republican and democratic forms of government is what I was referring to, not the two parties.

Robert’s Rules of Order lays out the rules for civil discussions within governmental, and other bodies. It was NOT an inspiration for the US Constitution (we really need to reimplement civic’s in public education). Also, the Constitution would not have been ratified had it not been for the inclusion of the Bill of Rights.

The Magna Carta, the English Bill of Rights, John Locke’s Two Treatises of Government, Aristotle’s Athenian Constitution, The Roman Constitution and the writings of Polybius, Cicero and others, and the Great Binding Laws of the Iroquois people, were among those that inspired our founding father’s, as well as the Ten Commandments and other parts of scripture.

The US Constitution is unprecedented, there is no other framework for government, like it, in any other country in the world.

[68] Posted by mari on 11-07-2008 at 04:24 PM • top

I’ve been out and about and am now back and I cannot comprehend what on earth this man is doing?

And why is he a priest?

And with the charge of souls?

This is incredible.  It is like we are back in the dark ages of the early 20th century.  I have whiplash.  I never would have believed that this is possible.  From an Anglican too.  A Church of England priest.  I’m amazed, appalled, shocked . . .

Even worse, I do not even see the argument that somehow black people beat Prop 8.  We’re not talking about a whole lot of people.  This was a 5% spread—that was huge, frankly, considering the circumstances.

So why on earth he would blame a particular race for the passage of Prop 8 and then insult and offer racial slurs and stereotype and curse them I cannot imagine.

I’m sure that at times different races have done things that people don’t like.  That’s the whole point of not hurling ethnic slurs, for heaven’s sakes.  It’s not that we agree with what people do all the time of particular groups.  My understanding is that President-elect Obama received a high percentage of Jewish voters.  Does this mean that conservatives are free to insult, and use ethnic slurs and curse words in describing them?  No.

This is simply amazing.

People have the right to disagree.  People don’t always vote the way you want them to.  Life’s hard.  Certainly conservatives got their heads handed to them this time around. 

I’m just stunned. 

And what on earth is the Church of England doing with this man as a priest?

[69] Posted by Sarah on 11-07-2008 at 04:59 PM • top

Does Fr. Jon eat with that mouth?

Probably, but since when did eating have to do with needing a clean mouth?

[70] Posted by J Eppinga on 11-07-2008 at 05:06 PM • top

It is the entire self centered world view exhibited on this blog rather than the mere use of an insulting word which is so repugnant.    Without the offensive word it would remain repugnant. 

I don’t know if anyone else noticed it, but I was rather upset by the nasty scribblings over the famous picture of John Henry Cardinal Newman, whom I particularly admire. 

And then the sainted dog? 

A real atmosphere of sickly indulgence in the perverse and hatred of the normal and even more, of the noble, prevails there. 
Susan Peterson

[71] Posted by eulogos on 11-07-2008 at 05:25 PM • top

I am sickened…

[72] Posted by FrVan on 11-07-2008 at 05:29 PM • top

Fr Jonathan is an assistant curate who seems to spend most of his life blogging, and not working in a parish. It seems strange for an Englishman with no connection with TEC to have such a following, and to be an ‘expert’, particularly on ‘gay issues’ in which he is not directly involved.  There are many problems in England in which he could practically involve himself, but he chooses to write mainly on gay issues in the USA from a safe 3000 miles distance.

[73] Posted by Fr David on 11-07-2008 at 06:14 PM • top

There is a bishop somewhere that should seriously reconsider his or her criteria for choosing whom to ordain.  Speech like this is beyond what is appropriate for a human being, let alone an ordained person.  Is it any wonder why it is becoming more and more embarassing to admit our church affiliation when asked?  I’m running out of ways to qualify myself.  “I’m Anglican (or Episcopalian),” hastily adding, “But not like the ones you’ve seen on TV or in the news…  We’re not all like that.”  It is increasingly intolerable to remain in any symblance of affiliation with people like this.

[74] Posted by millie on 11-07-2008 at 06:48 PM • top

Excellent thoughts, Millie.
church_house [at]newcastle.anglican.org
Anglican Communion office:
aco [at] anglicancommunion.org

[75] Posted by JackieB on 11-07-2008 at 07:24 PM • top

Quote from an interesting article, linked from The Site That Shall Not Be Named:

Civil unions granting gays and lesbians the same legal status as married couples have been allowed in Sweden since 1995.

If new legislation is adopted, Sweden, already a pioneer in giving same-sex couples the right to adopt children, would become the first country in the world to allow gays to marry within a major church.

Pastors who do not want to perform a gay wedding ceremony may however have the right to refuse, something gay rights’ activists have criticized.

Emphasis mine.

[76] Posted by st. anonymous on 11-07-2008 at 08:52 PM • top

somebody, please forward this garbage to Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson and the NAACP (publicly, of course so that a response is mandated)  Those guys won’t blink while eating these apparently racist so-and-so’s alive.

[77] Posted by jamesk on 11-07-2008 at 09:59 PM • top

And Damian Thompson and Ruth Gledhill.

Meanwhile, on this side of the pond, liberal blogs react. (Cue the crickets…)
The Swan:

...

And Elizabeth Russell:
<blockquote>...<blockquote>

[78] Posted by The Pilgrim on 11-08-2008 at 03:33 AM • top

[73] Fr. David, a priest of mine once told me, “an expert,” he said to me, “is only someone who lives more than 1,000 miles away, or across a major ocean.” Besides, I find it a little surprise that people call him an expert. It has been my experience that we Americans think all Englishmen are experts. After all, (I am told, though am having second thoughts as of late) “they use the language so much better than we do.”

[74] Millie, I used to do that. This may simply be because I’m in Colorado, and there are more students on my campus than there are Episcopalians in my state, but nobody knows that “Anglican” is. I tell them “it’s like the Church of England…only not in England…of course”. Then they get this “oh I knew that” look on their face, and they say “Oh Okay” as though they know what the Church of England is, but almost everyone I talk to beyond that agrees, nobody knows anything about the CoE. Well…other than it was started by Old King Cole when he divorced his 8th wife.

Okay I’m exaggerating the last part. Most people I talk to know the Church of England exists, but know nothing about it, good or bad. Come to think of it, Colorado is a lot like England in this regard.

Yours in Christ,
jacob

[79] Posted by Jacobsladder on 11-08-2008 at 04:03 AM • top

Fr. (edited)  removed the article from his blog.  Now if he would only remove himself from the minstry.

[80] Posted by DaveG on 11-08-2008 at 05:30 AM • top

And his taking it down does nothing to remove it from the archives, where it will remain forever, next to equally reprehensible articles by The Swan of Newark, Susan Russell and other people who have posted and later gotten caught revealing their true feelings.

Some people never learn.

[81] Posted by The Pilgrim on 11-08-2008 at 06:00 AM • top

Sarah,
Your comment
Even worse, I do not even see the argument that somehow black people beat Prop 8.  We’re not talking about a whole lot of people.  This was a 5% spread—that was huge, frankly, considering the circumstances.

is answered by the following from ABC News:

...It’s a question being hotly debated in the blogosphere and the theory goes something like this: a popular, African-American presidential contender increases black turnout.  Blacks, by in large, oppose gay marriage.  Therefore, proposition eight banning gay marriage in a Democratic-leaning state such as California passes 52-48 percent.

Turns out it’s not quite that simple.

“Whites voted very narrowly against the ban, 51-49 percent. Asian-Americans voted the same. Hispanics voted for it, by 53-47 percent. Blacks voted for it, overwhelmingly, 70-30. Blacks can be said to have put it over the top. Hypothetically, had no blacks voted, we compute a vote of 50-50,” according to an analysis by ABC News Polling Director Gary Langer.

Yes, black Californians who voted for Obama also supported the gay marriage ban by a wide margin but so did Hispanics.  And white and Asian-American opposition to the ban wasn’t large enough to overcome the spread, so to speak…..

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/11/did-blacks-tank.html

I remember hearing a lot on this during the election return.

[82] Posted by Captn Mike on 11-08-2008 at 08:00 AM • top

Judgment Day cannot come soon enough.

[83] Posted by Gayle on 11-08-2008 at 08:43 AM • top

As others have already noticed Fr. Jonathan, caving to pressure from his commenters (it had nothing, of course, to do with common decency), has deleted the incriminating material from his blog…its all been sent down the web-shredder…but he leaves the following note:
http://revjph.blogspot.com/2008/11/blog-announcement.html

blog announcement

As promised “The N Word Monologues” have been removed from the blog.

You will notice I have removed none of the offensive posts concerning Roman Catholic Proposition 8 voters. This is because only FranIAm complains about me stereotyping Roman Catholics and I can cope with Fran. She’s a sweetie.

You stay classy Fr. Jon…

by the way…all of your now shredded material was carefully stored away by Stand Firm so that when we are of a mind, we’ll remind people, lest they forget, of the grand inclusive love of revisionist bloggers…“no outcasts” indeed.

[84] Posted by Matt Kennedy on 11-08-2008 at 09:42 AM • top

Matt, have you read “Accidental Death of an Anarchist” over at Mad Priests?

You’re the star!

[85] Posted by Paul B on 11-08-2008 at 09:48 AM • top

Matt+

First you gain Kaeton’s nastiness now the Mad Priest’s un-endorsement, man you really are striving in your campaign for Anglican Blogger of the Year. Sarah going to have to do a lot of catch up, you seem to be leaving her in the dust in the polls.

[86] Posted by Hosea6:6 on 11-08-2008 at 10:25 AM • top

At first, I thought fr. Matt had gone off the deep end. As I read further, I began to understand.  That priest (if that is what he really is) is truly mad and should be at least disciplined.  The “N” word is a violation of the sixth commandment (do no murder) and even if thought, is a sin to be repented. I was raised in a time when the word and attitude could be expressed.  Now, when I catch myself thinking it, I quickly tell myself “that was a six you just did.”  I tell myself that whenever I break any of the commandments in thought, word, or deed. Now I’m beginning to know how many times a day I break a commmandment and my need of repentance and a better mind.
God grant the Mad Priest repentance and a better mind.
Dumb Sheep.

[87] Posted by dumb sheep on 11-08-2008 at 12:44 PM • top

RE: “Sarah going to have to do a lot of catch up, you seem to be leaving her in the dust in the polls.”

Let us not be hasty.

I feel that my steady, calm, solid blogging, day by day, will surely not be overlooked by worthy voters who would remain unimpressed by the occasional short, unpredictable, and rather brief flashes of inspiration that other SF bloggers may demonstrate. 

I mean—being hated and despised by foaming-at-the-mouth revisionists is, I suppose, something, and there, Matt seems to have pulled away from the rest of the field for some reason.  But one should not vote for Anglican Blogger based solely on an occasional dramatic alley-oop or acrobatic dunk, but rather on the kind of play that wins championships.


Humbly,


Sarah

[88] Posted by Sarah on 11-08-2008 at 03:32 PM • top

Well, goodness me!  I thought I heard this “whirring” sound coming from my computer, so I checked my site meter.  Sure enough, it had been spinning right out of control, which, I’ve learned, can only mean one thing:  Someone in the Lowlands of the Anglican Blogosphere read something on my blog and y’all had been having a veritable field day, feasting on something I thought was inconsequential which y’all find to be an irresistible morsel of bone to jaw on for days and days upon days.

You’ll even archive it, for goodness sake!  Do you know how much power you give away when you do that? 

Never mind. Anyway, turns out that wasn’t exactly the case.  It was just ‘collateral damage’.  It was really something Jonathan (aka “MadPriest”) said, and what I haven’t said - or, apparently, done.

Just so you know:  At that point, when I posted that essay, I had not read OCICBW, MadPriest’s Blog - so I really can’t take any credit for “distancing” myself from Maddy.  My comment about the racist remarks was not about that site, but others in the blogosphere.  I suppose I should be glad you do not know of their existence.

Actually, I was quite astonished that Matt ventures over to sites like mine or OCICBW or ‘My Manner of Life’ - for no particular reason other than to check in.  Must be sort of something akin to an addiction to ‘scriptural porn’ for you, right? 

You simply can’t help yourselves, can you, poor dears?  All these filthy liberal blogs must make it so hard for you to maintain any level of purity of thought.

Shame on us, eh?  Shame on you, right?

Perhaps there’s an online 12-Step Program or Spiritual Healing Group you could join.

Is it a case of seeking vicarious thrills?  Or, perhaps, just old fashioned trolling?

Or - Wait! Dare I say it?  Oh, sure.  Let me have a go at it. Just for old times’ sake - Here I go.  Ready . . . 

. . . . Bottom feeding?

Cue the wailing and moaning and gnashing of teeth and uber-Christian remarks from the peanut gallery. Cue Greg to bring out the T-shirt.  Cue Matt Kennedy to make a snide remark. Cue the outrageous indignation from Ms. Bruchi. Cue Ms. Hey to roll her eyes and tap her foot with just the right amount of discrete, controlled petulance.

I confess, of all of the above SFiF Board Members, it’s really Ms. Hey whose writing stimulates the gray matter in my brain cells. Although I rarely agree with her, she’s really quite good, in a wonderful arcane, Victorian, proper, dignified Southern sort of way.  I’m sure she’s properly horrified that I said that and I certainly didn’t mean to do that or to ‘scare the horses’.  It’s just patently clear that she’s the brightest wick in the bunch and I, even I, lowly unrepentant lesbian grandmother that I am, can see that.  If I could vote for Anglican Blogger of the year, Ms. Hey would get my vote.  Twice.  “Early and often” as they say in Chicago.   

Truth be told, I’ve been busy tending to the pastoral care of my flock and some personal family issues.  This is a difficult time of year for me and my family, as any of you who have actually read my blog will know.  I am appreciative and covetous of any prayers for those who grieve that might come toward my family during this month’s time.

Well, and so it’s back to my cooking.  Someone just sent me “Hoppin’ John’s Lowcountry Cooking” and I’m having a grand time making various versions of Spicy Shrimp and Creamed Grits, She-Crab Soup (which can really best be made in mid-winter, I’m told, when the ‘sooks’ are full of roe) and Sweet Potato Pie in Orange Shells and, but of course, Pecan Pie.

Sorry to bore you with the Very Boring Life of a lesbian grandmother who just celebrated 32 years of committed relationship with her beloved, Ms. Conroy, our six children and five (so far) grandchildren. 

Actually, today happens to be the 31st birthday of Katie, our adopted child, who has profound intellectual and physical handicaps along with Trisomy 21 (AKA ‘Down’s Syndrome’).  We took her to Friendly’s for her favorite lunch:  Chicken Tenders and French Fries and then a cupcake with a candle for dessert.  The entire restaurant sang ‘Happy Birthday’. She was thrilled. 

Oh, and for the record - I’ll not be removing my link to MadPriest’s site.  Jesus loves him, and so do I.

And, you know, you’ll all be so much more at peace about everything when you realize that Jesus loves absolutely everybody - deserving or non-deserving, those who use terrible words ill-advisedly to make an even less significant point, or who those who mistake transvestites at Gay Pride Parades for a certain African American Bishop (Gee, did THAT get archived?) - whether you or I like it or not.

Blessings,

(the Rev’d Dr.) Elizabeth Kaeton
AKA “The Swan of Newark”
AKA “The Evil Lesbian Priestess”
AKA “That Kaeton Woman”

[89] Posted by THATKindofChristian on 11-08-2008 at 05:54 PM • top

Matt, it would seem that you were too sanguine about Ms. Kaeton’s willingness to proffer even the slightest condemnation of Mad Priest’s insane, racist tirades.  No enemies on the Left.

[90] Posted by Jeffersonian on 11-08-2008 at 06:17 PM • top

“You simply can’t help yourselves, can you, poor dears?  All these filthy liberal blogs must make it so hard for you to maintain any level of purity of thought.”

[91] Posted by The Pilgrim on 11-08-2008 at 06:45 PM • top

Elizabeth (89):

I think what strikes me most about your post is the spirit in which it is written - no grace there - no kindness - no vulnerability that should so mark the words and actions of one who walks with Christ.  Makes me very sad for you - and your flock.

I enjoy Sarah’s posts as well - but not because I believe her mentally superior to anyone else, but that at times she reminds me of what is beautiful in life - Autumn, my cats, my family and my Faith. 

She also has a great sense of humor - which I am obnoxious enough to appreciate.

Eclipse
“Only Saved by Christ - Thanks be to God”

[92] Posted by Eclipse on 11-08-2008 at 07:03 PM • top

As for me, I don’t consider Lizzie’s post #89 worthy of a reply.  But then again, most of hers never are.

[93] Posted by Cennydd on 11-08-2008 at 07:39 PM • top

Right on, Eclipse.  So much focus on the down and the dirty, as if the nastier we live the more God ought to be impressed with us!  Maybe a lot of it links to whether we understand Jesus to be the incarnate Son of the Living God or just some kind of hippie Cynic wandering around pulling people’s chains.  Do we know Him, or just entertain trendy opinions about Him? 

But even on the mundane political side of things, y’all, somebody please get me up to speed on this nonsense.  Sense when did unrestrained buggery become a civil, or any kind of, “right?”

Robert at SanctiFusion

[94] Posted by Robert Easter on 11-08-2008 at 07:41 PM • top

This sort of thing happens when Blacks don’t know their place and stay on the liberal plantation.

[95] Posted by Newbie Anglican on 11-08-2008 at 08:06 PM • top

Heh…obviously there is something wrong with Mz. Kaeton. Sarah’s intellect is clearly a mere fraction of my own. But mark me as unsurprised with regard to the rest of her post.

[96] Posted by Matt Kennedy on 11-08-2008 at 08:11 PM • top

Cennydd, making a reply to say that you think something is not worth a reply is… an interesting exercise.

[97] Posted by AndrewA on 11-08-2008 at 08:15 PM • top

Actually, it was a “statement.”

[98] Posted by Cennydd on 11-08-2008 at 08:27 PM • top

((comment deleted)

[99] Posted by mari on 11-08-2008 at 08:28 PM • top

Mari, as I think you know by now, I’m not a religious liberal, but you’re right on the money here.  I have seen the film “Erin Brocavich” several time, and my wife and I have family members who were affected by PG&E;.

[100] Posted by Cennydd on 11-08-2008 at 08:43 PM • top

(Liz uses the word, “goodness,” in prep for granting smarmy left-handed compliments to Sarah Hey)

(something about power.  Whatever)

RE:  “Never mind. Anyway, turns out that wasn’t exactly the case.  It was just ‘collateral damage’.  It was really something Jonathan (aka “MadPriest”) said, and what I haven’t said - or, apparently, done.”

Ah, Liz has graced the bottom-feeders with her Presence so that she can make fun of us for condemning the user of (that word), while at the same time distancing herself from the use thereof, while at the same time whitewashing her friend’s idiocy. 

RE:  “Just so you know:  At that point, when I posted that essay, I had not read OCICBW, MadPriest’s Blog - so I really can’t take any credit for “distancing” myself from Maddy.  My comment about the racist remarks was not about that site, but others in the blogosphere.  I suppose I should be glad you do not know of their existence.”

More snarky remarks at the bottom-feeders, who didn’t use the word and condemn the use of the word.  Liz hasn’t condemned the use of the word so far, or promised to talk to her friend. 

RE:  “Actually, I was quite astonished that Matt ventures over to sites like mine or OCICBW or ‘My Manner of Life’ - for no particular reason other than to check in. 

More feeding of Liz’s ego. 

RE:  “Must be sort of something akin to an addiction to ‘scriptural porn’ for you, right?”

Huh? 

RE:  “You simply can’t help yourselves, can you, poor dears?  All these filthy liberal blogs must make it so hard for you to maintain any level of purity of thought.”

More ego-feeding. 

RE:  “Shame on us, eh?  Shame on you, right?”

Forgive us, but ‘shame’ and ‘right’ are two concepts that you’d be hard-pressed to use against anyone, including yourself. 

RE:  “Perhaps there’s an online 12-Step Program or Spiritual Healing Group you could join.”

Nah.  If we are feeling self-loathed, we’ll just sit around in a circle and affirm one another. 

RE:  “Is it a case of seeking vicarious thrills?  Or, perhaps, just old fashioned trolling?”

‘Trolling’ in the sense of a reasserting blogger doing triage on the schlock that people like you write, or ‘trolling’ in the sense of being bored and throwing a hand-grenade into a blog, then backing off of counter-responses?

RE:  “Or - Wait! Dare I say it?  Oh, sure.  Let me have a go at it. Just for old times’ sake - Here I go.  Ready . . . 

. . . . Bottom feeding?”

Liz is trying to get us riled.  When will she learn that this is a badge of honor?  Should we tell her, or let her continue handing out inept right-handed insults with equally inept left-handed compliments? 

RE:  “Cue the wailing and moaning and gnashing of teeth and uber-Christian remarks from the peanut gallery. Cue Greg to bring out the T-shirt.  Cue Matt Kennedy to make a snide remark. Cue the outrageous indignation from Ms. Bruchi. Cue Ms. Hey to roll her eyes and tap her foot with just the right amount of discrete, controlled petulance.”

More ego indulgence.  (Yawn)

RE:  “I confess, of all of the above SFiF Board Members, it’s really Ms. Hey whose writing stimulates the gray matter in my brain cells.”

Left-handed compliment for Sarah, so that Liz can call herself unbiased. 

RE:  “Truth be told, I’ve been busy tending to the pastoral care of my flock and some personal family issues.”

Liz turns off the sarcasm and talks about “real-life,” another red-herring as far as her friend’s temper-tantrum is concerned. 

RE:  “Well, and so it’s back to my cooking.”

Also irrelevant. 

RE:  “Sorry to bore you with the Very Boring Life of a lesbian grandmother who just celebrated 32 years of committed relationship with her beloved, Ms. Conroy, our six children and five (so far) grandchildren.”

Ah.. so there was a point to the Pecan Pie.  “Baked by a lesbian grandmother - so it’s GOT to be good <sup>(TM)</sup>.  Still irrelevant. 

RE:  “Actually, today happens to be the 31st birthday of Katie, our adopted child,”

Happy birthday, Katie.  Sorry about your Mom(s). 

RE:  “Oh, and for the record - I’ll not be removing my link to MadPriest’s site.  Jesus loves him, and so do I.”

Okay.  Liz won’t remove the link to her sycophantic friend’s site because Jesus loves him, and so does she. 

RE:  “And, you know, you’ll all be so much more at peace about everything when you realize that Jesus loves absolutely everybody”

Even the people He sends to Hell, at the Last Judgment?

RE:  ” - deserving or non-deserving,”

Who would be deserving?

RE: ” those who use terrible words ill-advisedly to make an even less significant point, or who those who mistake transvestites at Gay Pride Parades for a certain African American Bishop (Gee, did THAT get archived?) - whether you or I like it or not.”

Okay, so Liz thinks that using (that word) is as bad as mistaking a transvestite at a gay pride parade, even if an apology was offered in the latter case.  At least we’ve gotten to Liz’s furious condemnation of the use of (that word).  Really Liz, “terrible,” and “ill-advisedly,”?  Do you think your friendship with Maddy can withstand such vitriol? 

RE:  “Blessings,”

No thanks

RE:  “(the Rev’d Dr.) Elizabeth Kaeton
AKA “The Swan of Newark”
AKA “The Evil Lesbian Priestess”
AKA “That Kaeton Woman””

You forgot to mention Wannabe Iconoclast, and Pecan-Pie Bakin’ Cyber-Stalker. 

BTW, thanks for condemning use of (that word) in no uncertain terms.  It was certainly weightier than “knock it off!”, I think(?)

[101] Posted by J Eppinga on 11-08-2008 at 09:07 PM • top

I am afraid that Father John is going to have to trademark his Mad Priest moniker for truly it is not unique and I see Rev Keaton is full on to reaching that status as well.

Such anger, bitterness and vitriol does not speak well for one’s spiritual state.  I will pray for her.  But I fear her heart is so hardened against the approach of Grace it will have as little effect as a pebble being bounced off a cliff.

[102] Posted by Paula Loughlin on 11-08-2008 at 10:24 PM • top

LOL, I guess the revisionist aren’t aware we don’t have to troll their sites.  Our mailboxes are filled daily with examples of their fresh hell.  But then if it helps their egos to think otherwise, go for it. 
For the record, Jesus loves us all - even when we choose to separate ourselves from Him by our actions.

[103] Posted by JackieB on 11-08-2008 at 10:54 PM • top

Well, I’ve just cleaned up the kitchen after a glorious evening of cooking and thought I’d slip into my kevlar vest and tie up my asbestos sneakers and wander back over here to see if anyone noticed I had paid a little visit to this lion’s den.

Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear.  Just look at how these Christians display the love of Jesus!  He did say, “Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven,” did he not?  I mean, it says so in the little reminder you have under the comment box, so it must be True.

And, what an honor! Having my post parsed out like a piece of scripture.  My goodness!

So, here’s my question:  How much credibility does Matt Kennedy have in insisting - demanding! - that those of us who link to OCICBW remove said link IMMEDIATELY as some sort of acid-test of our Christianity when he, himself, went over - uninvited and unprovoked - to that same Blog, fully aware of what “filth” he might find there (as he admitted) - and - and - AND - dragged it back here to share it with you all who wouldn’t have known about it unless he had?

I mean, whatta guy!  Talk about edifying the Body of Christ!  Talk about Philippians 4:8!

Hmm . . . never mind.  Don’t answer that.  The rest of you can have another go at modeling the behavior of Christ. I won’t know one way or the other, and besides, it’s up to God to judge. Not me. I fear I won’t be back for awhile - at least not until I get a new kevlar vest and replace my asbestos sneakers. 

It appears I’ve worn mine out in this visit.

Elizabeth+

[104] Posted by THATKindofChristian on 11-08-2008 at 11:01 PM • top

LOL!  So, Elizabeth you obviously believe that your site as well as others shouldn’t be in the “Whatever is good whatever is noble” category - and therefore, we shouldn’t think on it - shame on Matt for going over there to read it - What WAS he thinking???

LOL!!  You just made my night… that is darned hysterical.

Hey are you the one who has the Umbridge pink-themed site or is it Susan Russell?  I go there so seldom I can never remember…

[105] Posted by Eclipse on 11-08-2008 at 11:15 PM • top

Elizabeth+

In the comments of his post, your friend, Rev. Jonathan Hagger wrote: “F*ck the n***ers”.

Do you consider this “filth”, or actual filth (no quotes)?

You don’t seem to be considered about how these “Christians display the love of Jesus!” when it comes to Rev. Jonathan’s comments.  It was one of the ugliest displays by a clergy member I have seen it, and you slough it off, because it was a slur against people who didn’t voter your way.

[106] Posted by DietofWorms on 11-08-2008 at 11:33 PM • top

Kaeton as much as admits her persecution of Christians, she incoveniently forgets that we are taught to speak up against those who try to trample scripture and the faith. Christ warned all of us about those who are false preachers, who try to feign faith for untoward purposes.

Her life can’t be as fulfilling as she claims, because her entire focus in life seems to be attempting to destroy something she can’t understand and control.

[107] Posted by mari on 11-08-2008 at 11:38 PM • top

Elizabeth, PLEASE….remove the “+” from your name….(edited)

[108] Posted by Cennydd on 11-08-2008 at 11:44 PM • top

Poor Sarah, you’d thing THAT kind of person would give another women more support, but this is twice that hatred and despising of a foaming-at-the-mouth revisionist had un-endorsed Matt+, she really is going that extra mile in trying to swing the vote towards him.

Odd, I thought she had a crush on Greg, but Matt too? confused

Maybe she just likes men? cool hmm

[109] Posted by Hosea6:6 on 11-08-2008 at 11:53 PM • top

I think this conversation has officially reached the “petty and pointless” stage.

[110] Posted by AndrewA on 11-08-2008 at 11:56 PM • top

BTW - Mz Keaton about your demand for love of Christians, did you display that to the Kennedy Family when you attack Anne Kennedy—threaten calling social services and the like? It seems you demand something in which by action you have NOT displayed nor ever apologised for and certainly a LACK of agape on your part.

[111] Posted by Hosea6:6 on 11-08-2008 at 11:57 PM • top

Here is the funny part.  I actually did go to E Keaton’s website with the full intent of saying I would pray for her.  Not in response to her erroneous beliefs but in response to her saying she needed prayers because this being a rough time for her and her family. 
I did not see an appropriate place to post that and I was unable to pull up her Email contact.  So I left the site and returned here.

I then re read her post and unfortunately what stood out was the anger and hate in her words rather than her, what I am sure was, sincere request for prayers.

And wrongly I allowed that aspect of her post close me off from true charity.  Because deep down I believe she needs our prayers.  What she spewed in these pages is I think a sign of someone under spiritual assault.  What a victory it is for the enemy if we forget to pray for those he is assaulting even if they are against us when it comes to what Christianity means. 

E. Keaton is wrong in many, many things. But I think we should pray that whatever is troubling her is defeated through the power of God.  So that she too may be witness for His Glory.

[112] Posted by Paula Loughlin on 11-09-2008 at 12:44 AM • top

Well, I’ve just cleaned up the kitchen

Back in the kitchen.  What is it with all this kitchen talk?  Is Liz setting up a deal with the local cable-channel, where she gets to have her own kitchen-show?  Or does she think that deep down, the Little Susie homemaker bit will make the rest of her bizarre behavior more palatable?  Or is this something far more odious - like closet heterosexuality? 

Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear.  Just look at how these Christians display the love of Jesus!  He did say, “Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven,” did he not?  I mean, it says so in the little reminder you have under the comment box, so it must be True.

Whether or not we’re being persecuted depends on our skin color, now doesn’t it?  I myself am not being persecuted by (that word), yet condemn the use of (that word). 

And, what an honor! Having my post parsed out like a piece of scripture.  My goodness!

You flatter yourself.  Actually, I can’t think of anyplace in Scripture where a narcissistic lunatic is carrying on and on and on and on and on and on and on and saying the same thing over and over and over and over and over and over while avoiding saying the one thing that would save them some face. 

So, here’s my question:  How much credibility does Matt Kennedy have in insisting - demanding!

In light of MP’s offense, who give a crap? 

I mean, whatta guy!  Talk about edifying the Body of Christ!  Talk about Philippians 4:8!

ROFLOL!!!!! Hhhhhhhhhhaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahahaha!!!!  Yeah Liz!  Let’s talk about Phil 4:8 for a minute! 
Hahahahahaha.

Hmm . . . never mind.  Don’t answer that.

Oh… it was a rhetorical question? 

The rest of you can have another go at modeling the behavior of Christ.

Okay.  We’ll start by not using (that word), and discouraging our friends who use it to stop doing so.  Actually, I don’t know anyone who uses (the word), so I’ll have to settle for being on the lookout. 

I won’t know one way or the other, and besides, it’s up to God to judge. Not me.

Tsk.  How fickle of God then, to not give you an inkling of the criteria He will use to judge you or any of us. 

I fear I won’t be back for awhile - at least not until I get a new Kevlar vest and replace my asbestos sneakers. 

LOL.  I’ve heard someone talking about Kevlar vests before.  Did you borrow that from Gene, or he from you?

It appears I’ve worn mine out in this visit.

Entirely your prerogative, provided you don’t do anything that the moderators would deem too outrageous, even by reappraiser “standards.”

Oh and Liz?  Do yourself a favor and tell your friend to knock it off.

[113] Posted by J Eppinga on 11-09-2008 at 12:46 AM • top

Well, Ms. Keaton, your care and concern for your adopted daughter with Downs is touching and entirely commendable.


Would you have been so touched as to advise her biological parents against aborting her when a pre-natal test showed the “tissue-blob” would “not have a life worth living”?  No doubt at least one doctor tried to persuade the mother to avoid unnecessary suffering for Katie.  This would be accomplished by chemically burning her to death quickly, or hacking her to pieces and then suctioning her non-person-status remains out to be disposed of with the rest of the garbage.

Who would do such a thing?  Or who would campaign for the right of others to murder helpless innocents in cold blood?

Oh, that’s right.  The “Religious” Coalition for Reproductive Choice.  Yes, the one that TEC’s Executive Council endorsed for the entire Episcopal “Church” by fiat, with no open debate, no approval from clergy or laity at large.  TEC approves of those who would murder Katie and those like her before she could draw a single breath.

I will believe that there is a single molecule of kindness, grace, or mercy in your heart when you publicly renounce support for that group, and campaign for TEC as an institution to withdraw its endorsement as well.  Your words and actions, or lack thereof, will speak as loudly on that issue as they have on the vileness and arrogant hatred that you dismiss so lightly when it is not directed at “oppressed”, affluent and politically savvy and ruthless gay and lesbian activists.

Jesus loves and always loved everyone, even those He called rightly hypocrites, sons of the devil, blind guides, false shepherds, thieves in the Temple to be driven out with a whip of cords.  Let she and he who has ears, hear!

[114] Posted by Milton on 11-09-2008 at 01:40 AM • top

Elizabeth Kaeton is as much a child of God as any one of us. Jesus Christ specifically told us to love our enemies, to turn our cheek, walk the extra mile and to offer up our cloak to them.

I was dismayed about what Johnathon Hagger expressed on his blog, I don’t think it was appropriate for an ordained minister of Christ to express himself the way he has done. I certainly don’t agree with Johnathon or Elizabeth on same-sex relationships and I think the tone of their blogs is strident and often times mean.

Yet, the same applies here. By all means Christians should work for the Kingdom of God as revealed by his Word. Marriage is between man and woman, a person in a homosexual relationship should not be ordained. Dioceses are leaving so that they can continue with their Christian ministry and I completely agree with why and what they are doing.

But the snide, petty comments I read here are not drawing any one of us closer to seeing the face of Christ.

By all means, don’t trust my flawed judgment, but do please read the “Introduction to the Devout Life” by St Francis de Sales, chapter XXVII, on our unseemly words and the respect which are due to others.

http://books.google.co.nz/books?id=uzLAT8F4UPMC&pg=PA188&source=gbs_toc_r&cad=0_0

I pray that Elizabeth and Johnathon will come to humble themselves before Our Crucified Lord and that they will place themselves under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. I also pray that anything they may read here would lead them on their way towards obedience, chastity and love.

[115] Posted by kailash on 11-09-2008 at 02:10 AM • top

kilash…yes we love our enemies and Jesus loves those who do not love him. I do not think that love requires that we maintain open sewers on our websites.

I can, for example, love and pray for a Grand Wizard of the KKK and yet that love does not mean that I must maintain a public link to the KKK website. I think this has Mz Kaeton confused.

[116] Posted by Matt Kennedy on 11-09-2008 at 03:44 AM • top

And I also agree that it is probably not a good idea to feed trolls…it just leads everyone, even the troll herself, to say very silly and sometimes unkind things.

[117] Posted by Matt Kennedy on 11-09-2008 at 03:53 AM • top

I’m not saying that the ideas that Elizabeth Kaeton puts forward are something that need to be respected, or that the racism displayed by Johnathan Hagger should be ignored. We need to strongly oppose the twisting of marriage and the manipulation of God’s revelation by people who would promote sin as a good. I really think that calling evil, evil, is a Christian duty.

I certainly agree with your highlighting of what Johnathan wrote, it needed to be shown for what it was. I’m not surprised that Elizabeth Kaeton has not distanced herself from the comments he made. From my perspective, I find that often she responds from her emotions rather than from her reason, and I think that the concepts of “passions” and “pride” are something that she considers positive rather than things which draw us away from God.

Reading the saints, pride is a sin and our passions are things to subdue. But then, this is a woman who celebrates her sexual immorality as openly as possible. I can’t speak to her personal culpability or to the state of her soul, but I can say that what she advocates is sin and death.

But she is still deserving of common respect since she is God’s creation and God’s precious child. We should be encouraging her to repent and be washed in the living waters that flow from Jesus’ pierced side.

Would we post as we do if Jesus was physically standing at our side as we wrote them? If he put his hand on our shoulder when we posted them, would we be content with what we had said? We will never have to answer for Elizabeth’s or Johnathan’s sins, but we will have to answer for our own.

[118] Posted by kailash on 11-09-2008 at 04:25 AM • top
[119] Posted by gppp on 11-09-2008 at 07:39 AM • top

As Mark Steyn put it, it looks there will be Klansmen in Abercrombie polos itching for a rumble in WeHo.

Most straights are willing to be nice to gay people.  But most straights think that marriage is something that has an ontology, not something like a limited liability corporation that we can all get together and have the legislature or a court change the essentials of, or abolish altogether as a class of object.

Gays can already act like they’re married if they want to.  But they want to make everybody else agree with them when say they are, usually by having a court claim that the full definition of marriage lay quietly unnoticed for all of history until now, despite being so obvious that an argument for it should not need to be made.

It’s nice that EK loves her children and grandchildren, but I will be crude enough to point out that their existence is predicated on her having been “untrue” to her “authentic” sexuality.  Having used scare quotes, I shall now wash.

Real marriage is no 30 for 30 whenever the People have been asked.  Including in California, Hawai and Wisconsin.

[120] Posted by Ed the Roman on 11-09-2008 at 08:01 AM • top

gppp.  Yellow Card.

Come on, I doubt you meant that as a compliment.

I do pray for Elizabeth every day, and not in a snarky way, either.  I just pray that God will send His Holy Spirit to guide and comfort her.

There’s no reason to hurl insults.

[121] Posted by Paul B on 11-09-2008 at 08:01 AM • top

I often check Ms. Kaeton’s blog because it is such a clear example, a pointed reminder, of how far we can fall from grace even when professing our faith on the trip down.  I was introduced to her first during the period of time she shared such revealing thoughts about Anne Kennedy.  It is not often we are admitted into such a mind.  And yet I still do pray for her.  She is obviously confused and in pain.  It is clear things are not going well at the church and I can’t imagine what it would be like to throw yourself into a faith to the extent you pastor a church, and yet to deny, deny, deny, the voice of her Lord who is so obviously calling to her.  I doubt there is any novel that could portray a conflicted, troubled soul quite as well.  Truth in this case is more compelling than fiction.

[122] Posted by GoodMissMurphy on 11-09-2008 at 08:39 AM • top

Matt, really, this is beneath you. 

I know you’re desperate for that award. 

But creating an “Elizabeth Kaeton” moniker and then proceeding to post rambling, angry, defensive comments that are supposed to somehow up your cred and convince us all that revisionists are slavishly reading your work and gnashing into their keyboards is just taking it too far.

Didn’t you think we’d all notice the timing—directly after Hosea foolishly brings up the award, and I point out that Steady Sarah will win the race—suddenly enters “Elizabeth Kaeton” to alternately fulminate, insult, let everyone know she reads you, reverse course, recover a new emotion, pump up her own cooking and spirituality cred, and then go out in a blaze of glory?

And then you “engage” with “Elizabeth Kaeton” and keep her coming back for more and then she responds by more trolling and, “accidentally” increasing your cred by saying “no I will not do as you demand, you Wicked Matt Kennedy”?

Please.

As if.

You only dream of having all these folks hate you this much and give you this much attention.

But we’re all on to this game.  It’s just too convenient having some wild-eyed revisionist coming over and alternately slipping back and forth amongst spitting-mad and “I’m just letting you know I’m indifferent” and “how dare you demand anything, you Wretch!” emotions.

I hope you know just how low this has made you.

[123] Posted by Sarah on 11-09-2008 at 09:03 AM • top

Well, I was just sitting in my study today, writing my latest missive—Rescuing Gnosticism From Primitive Resurrectionism: Bags of Bones, Jewish Peasants, the Flowers of Springtime, and Why None of Them Really Matter—when my darling little Schnauzer came over and put his head on my keyboard and literally accidentally typed in the words “www.StandFirmInFaith.com” in my browser address bar.

Naturally I have never ever read this site—and will never do so again, since it is clear that all of the bloggers and commenters need Rescuing from life in a major way—but in my very brief perusal of this blog, it’s clear to me that Mr. Matts Lennedy is essentially a nice man—in his own primitive fashion—and I could imagine reading his little missives with some equanimity, were I ever to have the time to wrench myself away from my objective and rational scholarship.

No, the real subversive—the really small and primitive mind who should be stamped out quickly—is this Sarah Hay character.  Her constant assaults, brutal bloggings, and outright cruelties and retributive legalisms are simply appalling—I wonder that anyone can bear to read the grating, grinding prose of her essays.

She is, without a doubt, the Meanest, Most Vicious Blogger Ever, and I will never ever read her again.

Have any of you noticed, for instance, the original post about the delightful and blindingly logical Mad Priest, which Mr. Matts refers to as written by “we” but which in reality was written by this female putrid sore on “Christianity”—Sarah Hay?

I have no doubt that if I had the time I would find more of these same sorts of “essays”—evidence that she is no Christian but is in fact an Outrageous Conformist to Patriarchalism and Hierarchial Discourse with liberal dashes of Literalism and Fundamentalism.  It is the likes of her that Gnosticism needs rescuing from, restoring its good name to the New Christian Faith.  It is exactly for those brutalized by her sort of discourse community that I wrote the book A New Episcopal Church for a New World: Why Traditional Faith Is Moving Over There and How a New Leaner, Higher Quality Church Is Being Born.

Well, I must leave this blog now, never ever to return, since I don’t read such things, unless my Schnauzer accidentally types in the web address, and I have much to do.  Tonight I have been invited to view the play about my life, notably titled A Pebble In My Shoe, [the pebbles being just such people as these “bloggers”]—I have seen it several times, but people just continue to want me to see it again with them, so grateful as they are for being rescued.  So I indulge them by allowing them to repeatedly honor me in this way.

It is hard for one as humble, diffident, and unassuming as I—much less one who prides myself on my clear, cold, rationality—to have to repeatedly bear the standing ovations I receive, but there you are.

One does one’s duty.

[124] Posted by John Selby Sponge on 11-09-2008 at 09:51 AM • top

kilash:

Like what you wrote.

[125] Posted by Eclipse on 11-09-2008 at 10:03 AM • top

This isn’t the first time that revisionism has been caught displaying its true, bilious colors: venomous hatred of anyone who dares to disagree with them, especially those uppity Africans and black Americans who won’t Get With The Program!  They never have displayed any remorse when rebuked for this.  Why would we think they would show any now?

[126] Posted by st. anonymous on 11-09-2008 at 10:22 AM • top

We are admonished to take strong stands, and fight against those who would lead others, especially children to sin. The scripture compares them to ravening predators, it doesn’t shirk.

(comment edited)

[127] Posted by mari on 11-09-2008 at 10:36 AM • top

Now, Sarah, this negative slur campaigning is so unlike you, I know Matt+ gotten some pretty heavy un-endorsements recently, but you’re far too “high and mighty” to stoop so low and use these tactics, at least so early. I’d wait till Thanksgiving for that last push LOL

[128] Posted by Hosea6:6 on 11-09-2008 at 10:44 AM • top

As for Kaeton, why would she take MadPriest to task when she obviously agrees with everything he said?  He’s just saying what she and her confederates are all thinking.

[129] Posted by st. anonymous on 11-09-2008 at 11:02 AM • top

Just to enlarge on my posts #58 and #62 above - notwithstanding any circumstances particular to MadPriest himself the language used is racially offensive and hurtful.  It is as unacceptable in England as it is in the States.  Used in certain circumstances it could constitute a criminal offence.  It has been almost universally decried both on these posts, on the posts on MadPriest and elsewhere.    It is particularly embarrassing and inappropriate for a priest in the Church of England.    MadPriest appears to be about the only one who has not really appreciated the full gravity of what he has done, and as I say there may be circumstances particular to him as to why that is.  It remains completely unacceptable.

Although I differ from MadPriest he produces an incredible number of posts everyday.  Generally it is well informed, some of it is offensive but I rarely leave whithout having a chuckle over something.  It is a great pity that his ministry to some of the parts of the Christian world other parts do not reach is not more focused on ministry, evangelism and pastoral support.  On certain occasions such as this his behaviour verges on the manic.

One can only apologise for this misrepresentation of our church by one of our priests but would also say that some of the comments here are now becoming ugly and I would hate to similarly be ashamed of being a member of this forum.

[130] Posted by Pageantmaster ن on 11-09-2008 at 11:02 AM • top

Mr. Sponge,

I certainly am used to having insults hurled at me—I expect that—but I must protest your use of the words “in his own primitive fashion” with regard to my Fellow Blogger Matt Kennedy.

Matt is someone whom I respect highly, in part because his character has allowed him to exceed expectations so much.  His own hard work and drive and good intentions are, it seems to me, the perfect example of that good steward with the few talents whom Jesus parables about who used them wisely rather than burying them in the ground.

Even people who don’t have a large amount of talent may still contribute and grow in their efforts.  Matt Kennedy is an honor to StandFirm.

For all of these reasons and more I really must object to your casting aspersions on him in this way.  It may be that he does not threaten you as much, but that is no reason to insult him.

[131] Posted by Sarah on 11-09-2008 at 11:04 AM • top

It is a shame he has not followed the example of Father Jake and tried to do something more positive with his ministry.

[132] Posted by Pageantmaster ن on 11-09-2008 at 11:07 AM • top

As witnessed by the several gay marriage bans that passed on Tuesday there are really no political trends to be drawn.  As much as the proponents of SSM would like it to be the issue is social, not political, and they are not the successors to the Civil Rights tradition.  People are just not buying it and buying it less and less each day.  I would suspect the next target would be the 9th Federal Court of Appeals on some trumped up case.

[133] Posted by palagious on 11-09-2008 at 11:31 AM • top

Poor benighted Fr. Matt!  Not being true to his white blood has affected his mind.  Next, I expect he will say that nobody can be lifted up into the meaning of the Message unless he kowtows to that triumphalist dictator, Jesus (of course, it’s a shame they killed him but that hardly counts as qualification for office!)  It’s time people here recognized the true saints of the church, like St. Laika and St. Sam.

[134] Posted by monologistos on 11-09-2008 at 11:32 AM • top

Actually the Swan, supra, asks a valid question: Why bother visiting the lefty websites? The Interwebz has again come to the rescue anytime I want to know what the moonbats think about any given issue. It even comes in two sizes!


We are not called to tell God what to do, but to listen and obey what He expects us to do..

[135] Posted by Matthew A (formerly mousestalker) on 11-09-2008 at 12:00 PM • top

I placed a posting on my own satirical blog (http://fatherdavidheron.blogspot.com) objecting to Fr Jonathan’s bad language and he has taken great objection accusing me of libel. He responds on his blog “I don’t dish anything out to other bloggers not even SFIF unless they attack me first. It’s bad manners. Anyway, you have libeled me on your blog by misquoting and giving no context. I can’t believe you are so thick as to, so conveniently, misread what I said”
As I’m English, I am not one of his devoted American followers, even though I find his blog is often amusing. I don’t wish to attack him. But I suspect that he doesn’t like criticism except when he’s handing it out.

[136] Posted by Fr David on 11-09-2008 at 12:26 PM • top

I am SO confused.  I just cannot understand the mindset… on the one hand to take umbrage and attack any and everyone using the phrase “That’s so gay,” while giving someone who says “F- the n-gg-rs” a free pass. 

It must come from being able to say “I love my Downs Syndrome daughter, but go ahead kill yours if you need to.”

[137] Posted by The Pilgrim on 11-09-2008 at 12:34 PM • top

<blockquote>“Actually, I was quite astonished that Matt ventures over to sites like mine or OCICBW or ‘My Manner of Life’ - for no particular reason other than to check in.</blockuote>
How amazing that she accuses Fr. Matt of this but yet how often does she lurk over here and comment! Hey Pot meet Kettle!  What a hypocrite!

[138] Posted by TLDillon on 11-09-2008 at 12:35 PM • top

#124, #131 - Sarah, I stand (or rather, sit, at my computer) in awe!  Not even the Elves snake inspired you to such heights!

[139] Posted by Milton on 11-09-2008 at 12:44 PM • top

Elves?  Very nasty - I don’t think they are allowed here.

[140] Posted by Pageantmaster ن on 11-09-2008 at 12:49 PM • top

Pageantmaster, they are too allowed over here.  We have many options for elf residence—simple casserole dishes, silver gravy boats, Blue Willow soup ladles, and so forth.

We are broad and inclusive in offering varied housing for elves.

My own cat has lately been prowling around the house, getting into the season a bit early, by singing [in a somewhat raspy voice] “Efllings Roasting On An Open Fire . . . ”

[141] Posted by Sarah on 11-09-2008 at 01:22 PM • top

RE: “Sarah, I stand (or rather, sit, at my computer) in awe!”

Thank you Milton.  It is good to be appreciated by conservative Anglicans, even if one is so Rudely Dissed by a revisionist theologian such as Jack Spong, for which I suppose I must be grateful.  But these things happen when one is writing the sort of stuff that I am churning out—Ravingly Heretical Theologians quite naturally recognize a threat when they see one.

However, I believe that you got your numbers mixed up—I assume you meant to comment about my comments #123 and #131.

[142] Posted by Sarah on 11-09-2008 at 01:27 PM • top

At least she didn’t complain about the smell this time…

[143] Posted by Derek Smith on 11-09-2008 at 01:46 PM • top

I believe that the blog rants of MadPotter are really offensive and I am surprised that kaeton would take the time to defend him…
Intercessor

[144] Posted by Intercessor on 11-09-2008 at 02:53 PM • top

She defends him because in her heart of hearts she agrees with him.  There’s no other conclusion to be made.

[145] Posted by st. anonymous on 11-09-2008 at 02:55 PM • top

Ladies and Gentlemen,
You will note some editing throughout the comment thread.  As you know, editing is not the preferred method of discipline here at Stand Firm.  You will also note that the revisionist comments have been allowed to stand.  You are reminded that reasserters are called to a higher standard here at Stand Firm. 

As Fr. Matthew pointed out neither the content of the subject post nor provocative responses by revisionists,  give us license to respond with ugliness about individuals—even if they are trolling.  As a reminder, judgement of a person is reserved to the Lord. It is only actions that we are called to discern.

With a stern reminder to confine your comments to the subject of the post and refrain from any personal attacks, you are invited to carry on.

[146] Posted by commenatrix on 11-09-2008 at 02:59 PM • top

[comment deleted—off topic]

[147] Posted by Intercessor on 11-09-2008 at 03:07 PM • top

Sarah, you are a hoot!  Sometimes you just make my day.  Thanks for the good laughs you have given me.

[148] Posted by terrafirma on 11-09-2008 at 03:21 PM • top

a.  Don’t confuse ‘Mad Potter’s’ name for ‘Mad Priest’.  They are two completely different blokes at the opposite end of the liberal spectrum and literary quality and appropriateness.  (Mad Potter -you might even consider changing you moniker to ‘Unhinged Potter’ buth then it doesn’t have the same ring to it)

b.  No yellow card here.  The post may have Ok to put up but most of the comments here should get ‘Red Cards’.  Actually, this post is deserving of absolute silence (written ‘silence’, that is).

[149] Posted by Bill C on 11-09-2008 at 04:02 PM • top

Kaeton:

Cue the wailing and moaning and gnashing of teeth and uber-Christian remarks from the peanut gallery. Cue Greg to bring out the T-shirt.  Cue Matt Kennedy to make a snide remark. Cue the outrageous indignation from Ms. Bruchi. Cue Ms. Hey to roll her eyes and tap her foot with just the right amount of discrete, controlled petulance.

Oh for goodness sake. THIS is what really annoys me about these liberals - they can’t even remember that I’m here.
They mention some priest from Central New York but “conveniently” forget me.
Puritans have feelings too.

[150] Posted by David Ould on 11-09-2008 at 04:34 PM • top

Did somebody say something?

[151] Posted by Pageantmaster ن on 11-09-2008 at 04:36 PM • top

This is an example of Christian love and compassion, 11 year old Brenden Foster, has but a short time left to live, his last wish was to help the homeless, he inspired others to do so for him. It just broke my heart, this young boy is an example of an angel, the sort of person that is in far too short supply.

Watch the video interview with Brenden here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fPQObH8gAL8
LYNNWOOD, Wash.—Doctors gave 11-year-old Brenden Foster two weeks to live.

[152] Posted by mari on 11-09-2008 at 04:46 PM • top

David, I for one am outrageously indignant over this slight of such a fine, upstanding puritan as yourself.  :p

[153] Posted by JackieB on 11-09-2008 at 05:07 PM • top

Well, Sarah, I meant to comment about your #123, #131, and your #124!  wink

[154] Posted by Milton on 11-09-2008 at 08:31 PM • top

[154] Milton

Well, Sarah, I meant to comment about your #123, #131, and your #124!

I agree, Milton.  She can disguise the name, but she cannot disguise the style.  As with Pennyfeather, so with John Selby Sponge.

carl

[155] Posted by carl on 11-09-2008 at 08:42 PM • top

A suggestion for Polemics courses at TESM and Nashotah House. 

Hey man - gotta change with the times.

[156] Posted by J Eppinga on 11-09-2008 at 09:34 PM • top

Here is what Elizabeth Kaeton wrote on her blog about teenagers using the phrase “That’s so gay”:

Elizabeth Kaeton said…

  Here’s what I know to be true for me: The amount of prejudice or oppression or disrespct I experience is in exact proportion to the amount prejudice, oppression or disrespect I allow.

  If it’s going to be used as a pejorative term, it’s not just about me - it’s about all LGBT people.

  The correction doesn’t have to be harsh. Kids know how much they can get away with. No matter the situation, no joke is funny or innocent when made at the expense of another person. That’s the lesson we all need to learn - no matter our age.

  Nuff said.
  Wed Oct 15, 08:31:00 AM

That was less than a month ago.

And yet, when her friend Jonathan Hagger says “F**k the n*ggers”, she has no problem with it, and sees the whole uproar as a conspiracy lead by SFIF.

Think about that.  She is indignant about teenagers saying “that’s so gay”, but she shrugs off an Anglican priest who says “F**k the n*ggers”.  Ah yes, according to the crazy SFIFers are just crazy fundamentalists because they are making a BIG DEAL about a priest saying “F**k the n*ggers”.

[157] Posted by DietofWorms on 11-09-2008 at 11:05 PM • top

I had spoken with the offices of my members of congress, and a few others, including Obama’s senate office after reading Mad Priest’s racist blog articles. Each one asked me to send the links, in email, which I did, with a screen cap as an attachment, on the off chance it was deleted. After reading Kaeton’s most recent blog article, about how she, “lost it” today during service speaking about Obama’s election, I decided also to forward her comments here, excusing Mad Priest’s racist rants.

[158] Posted by mari on 11-09-2008 at 11:17 PM • top

Apparently it is also Rick Warren’s fault, and All Saint’s Pasadena is declaring they will continue SSB.  Picture of moratorium complience, TEC is.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/11/10/gay.marriage.protests.ap/index.html

[159] Posted by AndrewA on 11-10-2008 at 07:55 AM • top

I noticed the following comment

“Support for the ballot initiative was tantamount to “religious oppression,” Bishop Bruno charged as Proposition 8 was “a lamentable expression of fear-based discrimination that attempts to deny the constitutional rights of some Californians on the basis of sexual orientation.”

What right did they lose aside from the word “marriage”? I thought gays in California had many protections which prevent them from discrimination…please advise.

[160] Posted by Conoscenzo on 11-10-2008 at 08:14 AM • top

Gay men in California can marry any woman who’ll have them; gay women can marry any man who’ll have them.

There is no disparity of rights.  There is a frustrated desire to recast an institution according to one’s likes.  It’s like complaining that corporations are not allowed to adopt.

[161] Posted by Ed the Roman on 11-10-2008 at 09:33 AM • top

Just a question about All Saints Pasadena.  Even with Bruno’s obvious encouragement, how can they move out of the realm of “pastoral care” and into the realm of political action and media events and not incur any sanctions?

If 815 has no control, and no disciplinary power, in what happens in Bruno’s Land, then how can they scream when a diocese leaves?  I would think this would hurt them in court in other places.

[162] Posted by Paul B on 11-10-2008 at 09:43 AM • top

You are correct Ed the Roman.  The hindrance to the glbt community is the same as it is to the polygamous and polyamory communities to name but two.

[163] Posted by JackieB on 11-10-2008 at 10:14 AM • top

My former Marine, African-American brother in law would love to have a private audience and conversation with the potty mouthed priest.  I don’t think he would ever repeat his vile epithet again.

[164] Posted by DaveG on 11-10-2008 at 10:49 AM • top

Early in the weekend I emailed the diocesan secretary about what Fr Jonathan wrote.

I’ve had an email back from Philip Davies (the dio secretary) who offered me his sincere apologies on behalf of the diocese. He said that Ven Geoff Miller (archdeacon of Northumberland) is dealing with this matter.

I had been commenting over at Fr Jonathan’s blog explaining why I sent a message to the Bishop, but the comments back have become abusive enough for me to give it away.

[165] Posted by kailash on 11-10-2008 at 02:31 PM • top

I agree, Milton.  She can disguise the name, but she cannot disguise the style.  As with Pennyfeather, so with John Selby Sponge.

Heheh. That’s part of the fun—she’s not trying to.
Peace,
Pat Kashtock
Take It for What It’s Worth

[166] Posted by Pat Kashtock on 11-11-2008 at 09:18 PM • top

Looks like none other than Rosanne Barr has weighed in on this issue.  From her blog:

They voted to “uphold the sanctity of marriage” by making a mockery of it. They showed themselves every inch as bigoted and ignorant as their white christian right wing counterpartners who voted for mccain-palin and bush-cheney.

This is from her blog which you can read it all here.
http://www.roseanneworld.com/blog/

[167] Posted by Think Again on 11-12-2008 at 03:53 PM • top

This grows worse and worse. I could just weep…sigh..

[168] Posted by FrVan on 11-12-2008 at 04:22 PM • top

Whenever you see comments such as the one noted by RoseAnne Barr, that great philosopher of the left, please ask their position on polygamy, polamory, polyandry and marriage between wo/man and beast (as some countries allow) or two or three brothers for that matter.
Let’s find out exactly how much these people want to change marriage and put it on the table.

[169] Posted by JackieB on 11-13-2008 at 08:52 AM • top

Lisa at “My Manner of Life” and many other young people seem to think that:

“students who went into the Deep South in the ‘60s to join the Civil Rights movement”

were liberals but if she would study the history of the era she would find that many who joined “the Civil Rights movement” in the late 50’s and 60’s were Republicans. During that time a two party system did not exist in the South (if you wanted to vote in local elections you had to register Democrat) and the only people who seemed to defend the rights of black people, in public, were Republicans, Christians and Jews. I would remind Lisa that Dr. Martin Luther King was a Bible believing Christian Minister of the faith.
Many of us did not have the courage to buck the system even though we realized that segregation and the brutality of it conflicted with our Christian beliefs as expressed in Scripture. I pray that God will forgive us, and thank God for those religious people who had the courage to transform our country.

[170] Posted by Betty See on 11-15-2008 at 12:32 AM • top

All these comments are reflective of the stupidity and ignorance that people who are otherwise plagued by an inferiority complex and seek to belittle others to make themselves feel important. After forcing people to work withpout pay as well as fobidding them to receive a quality education you dare to speak concerning the African-American community( or any other minority suspect class) in this manner. And for those who would say slavery is over I am bold to let you know that systemic oppression remains to this day in the form of low wages as well as purposefully hiring mediocre persons to continue to miseducate certain suspect classes in our country. Instead of blaming others look at your own premature placement of this issue on the ballot. Rather than allowing yourself to be a patient educator you choose to set in the seat of satan and falsely accuse. You who come from the “Brood of vipers.”                                    The fruit of your efforts may never come forth while you are alive and you as well as all others have to both realize and humbly accept this truth. You sound as nothing more than a ” sore looser”. It is most disgusting to me to find that there exist such a thing as homosexuals who are biggots.

[171] Posted by RAPHAEL on 01-27-2009 at 02:14 PM • 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 about the crisis in our church. 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. 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 that you believe strain the boundaries of our rules. Comments are the opinions of visitors, and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of Stand Firm, its board of directors, or its site administrators.