Episcopal Voices

DISCLAIMER: Episcopal Voices is a public forum and, as such, all messages are the responsibility of the individual authors. Opinions expressed do not necessarily represent the opinions of the forum manager, Hotboards, Topcities, the ECUSA, the Anglican Communion, or Christians in general. Any original material posted belongs to the author, and permission should be sought from the author before publishing it elsewhere. Posters should exercise caution when using previously published material; forum manager is not responsible for copyright violations made by individual posters. Please be sure you have permission to use material not in the public domain.

Subject: first news From: raphael To: All Date Posted: Wed, Oct 15, 2003 at 18:54:32 (EDT) Email Address: angel@archangel.net Message: here is first news from the archbishops' meeting first news www.anglicancommunion.org/acns/articles/36/25/acns3626.html

Subject: Re: first pictures From: Anna To: raphael Date Posted: Thurs, Oct 16, 2003 at 00:49:56 (EDT) Email Address: *** Message: And here are some photos ( Williams and Griswold seem to be dancing a waltz -- it would make a great caption competition on the Ship of Fools website!) ANS Pictures www.anglicancommunion.org/acns/articles/36/00/acns3623.html

Subject: BD posted this on another BB. From: WilliamH To: All Date Posted: Wed, Oct 15, 2003 at 16:45:50 (EDT) Email Address: yeah@right Message: I thought is a little acerbic but them I sure he included me in his diatribe. How am I supposed to be reconsiled to this. Or is he trying to push us out the door? My Apologies... Posted by bd on 10/14/2003, 11:22 pm 216.96.14.38 All along I thought you fundamentalist conservative crybaby's were going to be Schismatic..now I think this has all been a ruse and you are just whining and crying to gather symathy for your little sect. I am convinced that you are all blow and no go...you will be around in ECUSA for the second coming of Christ. The only thing that makes you crybabies happy is spreading hate and discontent and showing disrespect to our Presiding Bishop. I am fully convinced you will be around to whine and cry till hell freezes over. Nothing makes you folks so happy as to cause as much discontent as possible and as long as you are members of ESUSA you are in such a wonderful position to do exactly that. I honestly don't believe any of you whiners have the courage to walk out!!! So keep on threating and help us achieve our goal of 2020!!! Your fellow Episcopalian, bd

Subject: Re: BD posted this on another BB. From: Carl To: WilliamH Date Posted: Wed, Oct 15, 2003 at 19:32:52 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: I am tired of people crossposting posts from here to Orthodox Episcopalians, and vice versa. Some here have done that there, and the only reason I didn't say so before was because I felt that by doing so on Orthodox Episcopalians I might seem to be doing the same thing I was criticizing others for doing. Really - and this isn't aimed at you, William, you certainly aren't the only one who's done it - this 'gotcha' business from one board to another is really unpleasant and unseemly, and it gets very old very fast. How about we keep discussions and/or arguments on each board confined to that board? You have these two boards yelling at each other across a chasm. It does no good whatsoever. I'm really tired of it. From all sides.

Subject: There is an elepant.. From: WilliamH To: Carl Date Posted: Fri, Oct 17, 2003 at 12:18:09 (EDT) Email Address: oh!@my! Message: in the kitchen but you are worried about clearing the table.

Subject: Re: There is an elepant.. From: Carl To: WilliamH Date Posted: Fri, Oct 17, 2003 at 22:16:17 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: If you wish to know what I think of bd's comments, I do not agree with them; but I have said similar things myself, so I'm in no position to judge. Sometimes one gets tired of being called apostate, heretic, satanic, etc., etc., etc., and in a heated moment responds in kind.

Subject: Then we agree.. From: WilliamH To: Carl Date Posted: Mon, Oct 20, 2003 at 11:31:20 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: I too am tired being called homophobe, or whiner, for sincerly holding beliefs of a more traditional nature. Have a blessed day Carl.

Subject: Re: BD posted this on another BB. From: Sojourner To: Carl Date Posted: Wed, Oct 15, 2003 at 22:51:14 (EDT) Email Address: c Message: I have read and ruminated on your post, and since I have been the one who has posted across boards, I must respond. I do not intend to participate in a debate because I am not particularly interested in proving a right or wrong on this issue. However, you deserve a response to your charges, and I offer you this. These are basically public forums. People post because they want other people to read what they have to say. I believe that we are accountable for the whole body of our writings, and when those writings reflect either a purposeful intent to troll or reveal disingenuousness, I believe it is quite permissable to post those writings. You say: 'You have these two boards yelling at each other across a chasm. It does no good whatsoever.' With all due respect, since day one of this board, the same can be said of Episcotalk. And I agree that '(I)t does no good whatsoever.' Yet, this board continues to exist, even when most of the arguments do no good whatsoever. Who knows what the value of these boards are. I do believe that we all get caught up in believing that they are more important than they are. They are entertainment, they are informative, they are recreation, they are maddening. They help people relieve stress, they help people to accumulate stress. They infuriate people. But, for the most part, they don't feed the hungry, heal the sick or clothe the naked. Most of the time they are incomprehensible to the casual observer. While I understand that you are annoyed, I cannot support the establishment of a list of banned topics or sources. I cannot support saying that you can post from this site but not from that site. This board has survived much rancor, and I expect that it will continue to do so. There are posters who make me so angry I sometimes do not sleep. I wish they would not post here. Yet, confronted by a situation such as this, I am glad that they stay the course. Please understand, Carl, that the fact that I cannot concur with your request for these activities to cease does not mean that I disrespect you. I simply don't agree.

Subject: It seems hateful or hate filled to me [nt] From: WilliamH To: WilliamH Date Posted: Wed, Oct 15, 2003 at 16:56:00 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message:

Subject: Abortion & equal protection From: Ray Kidder To: All Date Posted: Wed, Oct 15, 2003 at 15:31:52 (EDT) Email Address: Ray.Kidder@Veridian.Com Message: Dear Readers, This is from the Supreme Court's decsion in the Planned Parenthood of Central Missouri vs. Danforth case of 1976, which prohibied State governments from allowing husbands the right to veto their wife's abortion decision: [59] The appellants, on the other hand, contend that § 3(3) obviously is designed to afford the husband the right unilaterally to prevent or veto an abortion, whether or not he is the father of the fetus, and that this not only violates Roe and Doe but is also in conflict with other decided cases. See, e.g., Poe v. Gerstein, 517 F.2d 787, 794-796 (CA5 1975), appeal docketed, No. 75-713; Wolfe v. Schroering, 388 F. Supp., at 636-637; Doe v. Rampton, 366 F. Supp. 189, 193 (Utah 1973). They also refer to the situation where the husband's consent cannot be obtained because he cannot be located. And they assert that § 3(3) is vague and overbroad. [60] In Roe and Doe we specifically reserved decision on the question whether a requirement for consent by the father of the fetus, by the spouse, or by the parents, or a parent, of an unmarried minor, may be constitutionally imposed. 410 U.S., at 165 n. 67. We now hold that the State may not constitutionally require the consent of the spouse, as is specified under § 3(3) of the Missouri Act, as a condition for abortion during the first 12 weeks of pregnancy. We thus agree with the Dissenting Judge in the present case, and with the courts whose decisions are cited above, that the State cannot 'delegate to a spouse a veto power which the state itself is absolutely and totally prohibited from exercising during the first trimester of pregnancy.' 392 F. Supp., at 1375. Clearly, since the State cannot regulate or proscribe abortion during the first stage, when the physician and his patient make that decision, the State cannot delegate authority to any particular person, even the spouse, to prevent abortion during that same period. We are not unaware of the deep and proper concern and interest that a devoted and protective husband has in his wife's pregnancy and in the growth and development of the fetus she is carrying. Neither has this Court failed to appreciate the importance of the marital relationship in our society. See, e.g., Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 486 (1965); Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190, 211 (1888). *fn10 Moreover, we recognize that the decision whether to undergo or to forgo an abortion may have profound effects on the future of any marriage, effects that are both physical and mental, and possibly deleterious. Notwithstanding these factors, we cannot hold that the State has the constitutional authority to give the spouse unilaterally the ability to prohibit the wife from terminating her pregnancy, when the State itself lacks that right. See Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. 438, 453 (1972). *fn11 [62] It seems manifest that, ideally, the decision to terminate a pregnancy should be one concurred in by both the wife and her husband. No marriage may be viewed as harmonious or successful if the marriage partners are fundamentally divided on so important and vital an issue. But it is difficult to believe that the goal of fostering mutuality and trust in a marriage, and of strengthening the marital relationship and the marriage institution, will be achieved by giving the husband a veto power exercisable for any reason whatsoever or for no reason at all. Even if the State had the ability to delegate to the husband a power it itself could not exercise, it is not at all likely that such action would further, as the District Court majority phrased it, the 'interest of the state in protecting the mutuality of decisions vital to the marriage relationship.' 392 F. Supp., at 1370. [63] We recognize, of course, that when a woman, with the approval of her physician but without the approval of her husband, decides to terminate her pregnancy, it could be said that she is acting unilaterally. The obvious fact is that when the wife and the husband disagree on this decision, the view of only one of the two marriage partners can prevail. Inasmuch as it is the woman who physically bears the child and who is the more directly and immediately affected by the pregnancy, as between the two, the balance weighs in her favor. Cf. Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S., at 153. [64] We conclude that § 3(3) of the Missouri Act is inconsistent with the standards enunciated in Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S., at 164-165, and is unconstitutional. It is therefore unnecessary for us to consider the appellants' additional challenges to § 3(3) based on vagueness and overbreadth. | Can anyone please explain to me how the husband's 14th Amendments rights of equal protection under the law have NOT been violated? In reading this material, it seems to me the Supreme Court was using faulty and inconsistent logic. For example, they claim a state government cannot grant husbands the power to do what a state government cannot do. What about the husband's right to (say) burn the money in his wallet in his fireplace? Can a state government do this? Can a husband nilly-willy decide to do this? Suppose a poor beggar asks a millionare for his spare change. The millionaire says 'No'. The beggar and the millionare disagree on what should be done with his spare change. According to the Supreme Court, when there is a disagreement between two parties, only one view can prevail, and it has to be the view of the beggar since he is the one most directly impacted by the generosity decision. Any comments would be appreciated. Ray Kidder American citizen who's wife has not gone through menopause

Subject: Well reasoned decision From: Karr To: Ray Kidder Date Posted: Thurs, Oct 16, 2003 at 05:52:14 (EDT) Email Address: x Message: The SCOTUS ruling seems imminently reasonable to me. A husband does not have ownership rights in his wife's reproductive apparatus. A man's rights and responsibilities extend to being highly selective in choosing the woman he elects to impregnate, and to exercising due diligence in efforts to remain in that woman's good graces. If he is effective in those areas, he doesn't need the state to intervene with laws. Karr

Subject: Reproductive apparati From: Ray Kidder To: Karr Date Posted: Thurs, Oct 16, 2003 at 10:30:44 (EDT) Email Address: Ray.Kidder@Veridian.Com Message: Dear Karr, I respectfull disagree with you and the ruling of the US Supreme Court in 1976. The wife's reproductive abilities are really just a part of the married couple's reproductive abilities; sort of how a photograph needs a record to play music. Neither the phonograph nor the record alone can produce the music. The Supreme Court has not considered how the husband's rights under the requirment of equal protection have nullified. The wife and the husband started the pregnancy through a bilateral decision. The decision to wilfully abort the pregnancy should require the consent of both parties, just as many other bilateral decisions need the consent of both in order to be nullified. What if you signed a contract for a builder to build and sell you a house? It would be nice if the courts are not needed to excercise the rights of either the buyer or home builder. If either the buyer or home builder violate the terms of the contract, the courts are obligated to administer the laws such that earch person receives equal protection. Can a buyer not decide to buy the house and get his deposit back for no equitable reason? Can the builder decide to sell the house to another party for no equitable reason? How can it be right to force the husband to suffer the emotional consequences of fathering a child who dies in a late term, cruel abortion with no legal recourse? Ray Kidder

Subject: Make that 'eminently reasonable' n/t From: Karr To: Karr Date Posted: Thurs, Oct 16, 2003 at 05:58:33 (EDT) Email Address: x Message:

Subject: Re: Abortion & equal protection From: Carl To: Ray Kidder Date Posted: Wed, Oct 15, 2003 at 16:06:26 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: As long as abortion is legal, Ray, I don't see any other way it can be decided. A husband should CERTAINLY have input into the decision (as an aside, what about a father who ISN'T a husband?). But I don't see how he can overrule the wife, unless there was some way that he would also be the one who carried it to term.

Subject: Being differently abled From: Ray Kidder To: Carl Date Posted: Thurs, Oct 16, 2003 at 10:42:48 (EDT) Email Address: Ray Kidder Message: Dear Carl, The methodology of allowing the husband the right to veto his wife's abortion decision is that the doctor would need the husband's written consent to perform the abortion. I don't quite see the logic of saying that the husband would also have to carry the baby to term in order to have this right of veto. In a way, the husband has responsibilities associated with child birth, for he has to provide for the welfare of his child through the food and housing assistance he provides to his family. The wife did not get pregnant on her own, and she didn't have to marry the man. The only compelling reason I can see how disallowing the husband the right to veto is if the pregnancy results in a life threatening situation for the wife. This would be a case where the pregnancy went significantly differently from what was planned, and was beyond her control. You mentioned cases where the fetus was not the husband's. This would mean that the wife commited adultery. She might want a secret abortion to cover up her adultery. What about the adulterous man's rights? If a husband gets a woman pregnant outside of marrige, he does not have the same liberties as a married woman. He would have to pay child support, and his adultery would be uncovered. The 14th Amenment requires equal protection, and having a special right for a wife to cover up her adultery, but not protect the husband against adultery, is another violation of equal protection. It makes good sense to me that husbands be given this right to veto the abortion. Can you tell me how this right is somehow unjust, unconstitutional, or would lead to problems? Ray Kidder

Subject: Primates arrive at Lambeth From: angli_fan To: All Date Posted: Wed, Oct 15, 2003 at 15:06:33 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Photo-op w/ handshakes all round; Primates arrive at Lambeth www.anglicancommunion.org/acns/articles/36/00/acns3623.html

Subject: Oops! From: Anna To: angli_fan Date Posted: Thurs, Oct 16, 2003 at 08:53:18 (EDT) Email Address: *** Message: Sorry -- I didn't see this when I posted the same link above.

Subject: Anglicans Discuss Issues at Crucial Meeting From: angli_fan To: All Date Posted: Wed, Oct 15, 2003 at 15:05:26 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: By Mike Wendling 'After the first day of meetings, Archbishop of Ireland Robin Eames told reporters that the leaders were 'moving towards consensus.' 'I'm optimistic that the Anglican Church will emerge from this stronger than it has ever been,' Eames said. 'I would also like to predict there will be greater honesty than we have had up to now.'' Anglicans Discuss Homosexual Issues at Crucial Meeting www.cnsnews.com/ViewForeignBureaus.asp?Page=\ForeignBureaus\archive\200310\FOR20031015k.html

Subject: UPDATE: transcript of ArchBp Eames Statement From: angli_fan To: angli_fan Date Posted: Wed, Oct 15, 2003 at 16:20:40 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: from ANGLICAN COMMUNION NEWS SERVICE Archbishop Robin Eames addresses the media at Lambeth Palace www.anglicancommunion.org/acns/articles/36/25/acns3626.html

Subject: The Observer observes From: Sojourner To: All Date Posted: Wed, Oct 15, 2003 at 12:56:18 (EDT) Email Address: 123 Message: The Observer observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,6903,1061298,00.html

Subject: Re: The Observer observes From: Canadian Phil To: Sojourner Date Posted: Wed, Oct 15, 2003 at 15:13:17 (EDT) Email Address: n/a Message: Oh. Disregard my last question. I just looked at the first paragraph or two of the Observer article. Well, you get wingnuts in both camps, I guess. I maintain my point in my first comment. There would be resistance to this decision with or without Mr Ahmanson. Peace, Phil

Subject: Re: The Observer observes From: Karr To: Canadian Phil Date Posted: Fri, Oct 17, 2003 at 13:57:19 (EDT) Email Address: x Message: I accept your thesis that there would have been considerable objection/resistance absent the contributions -- monetary, ideological, and otherwise -- of Mr Ahmanson and cohorts. But I think those contributions have added markedly (and unnecessarily) to the polarization, belligerence, hostility, divisiveness. Seems to me the Ahmanson-aligned interests have tried (fairly sucessfully) to co-opt what should be the subject of a respectful, prayer-informed debate among Christians who disagree and exploit the situation as a causis belli. The organizations Mr Ahmanson supports openly state that they have an 'agenda,' a vision, for our Church and our society. There is some evidence that their 'real' vision strongly resembles the sort of repressive theocracy that Calvin, et al, put in place in Geneva in the 16th century. IMHO, conservatives of a more moderate stripe would be well-advised to be extremely leery of uncritically falling in rank behind these folks. It is unwise, I think, to discount these folks and dismiss them as 'nuts'. Ask moderate Baptists formerly at home in the Southern Baptist Convention if it is possiible for extreme conservatives to 'take over' a denomination, and what happens when they do. Karr

Subject: Re: The Observer observes From: Canadian Phil To: Sojourner Date Posted: Wed, Oct 15, 2003 at 15:10:35 (EDT) Email Address: n/a Message: Just an observation: I think we need to be careful here. Just because Mr. Ahmanson has devoted considerable money to conservative Anglican groups doesn't mean that he is responsible for their opposition to the Robinson issue. There was going to be trouble on this issue with or without Mr. Ahmanson's financial support. A second question: I might be dense or not reading carefully enough, what precisely is so disruptable about Mr. Ahmanson's financial support or his person that it is being wielded in this forum as a weapon. This might help me understand why this article is even important. I hope you'll forgive this poor, busy Canadian if I've missed some of the context here. Peace, Phil

Subject: 'One nation, under God...' From: Sojourner To: All Date Posted: Wed, Oct 15, 2003 at 12:22:36 (EDT) Email Address: d Message: I'm a bit puzzled by the government's argument: The Bush administration opposes the ban, and the court allowed the government to argue its position separately. U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft pointed to religious references in the national anthem and the national motto, 'In God We Trust,' saying they are mostly ceremonial, and added, 'Our religious heritage has been recognized and celebrated for hundreds of years.' Is this simply the government saying that 'you don't have to believe it, just say it?' This line of reasoning strikes me as the government coopting religion for its own purposes. There's just something that doesn't feel right about the government's argument. NY Times Pledge edition.cnn.com/2003/LAW/10/14/scotus.pledge.of.allegiance/

Subject: Re: 'One nation, under God...' From: Carl To: Sojourner Date Posted: Wed, Oct 15, 2003 at 13:24:36 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: 'Is this simply the government saying that 'you don't have to believe it, just say it?'' That's what bothers me about it. There ARE public expressions of religion, and as far as I can tell, every single one of them is lip-service. 'U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft pointed to religious references in the national anthem and the national motto, 'In God We Trust,' saying they are mostly ceremonial, and added, 'Our religious heritage has been recognized and celebrated for hundreds of years.'' Well, are they 'mostly ceremonial' or a 'celebration of our religious heritage'? They can't be both. And 'mostly ceremonial'? I find THAT sort of offensive. Isn't it kind of blasphemous to just mouth 'In God We Trust' when you don't mean it? That fits the definition of taking the Lord's name in vain, IMO. Breaking the third commandment is required by law?

Subject: Very nicely stated (nt) From: A liberal To: Carl Date Posted: Wed, Oct 15, 2003 at 14:03:56 (EDT) Email Address: no Message:

Subject: The sensible, Godly African Primate From: Karr To: All Date Posted: Tues, Oct 14, 2003 at 18:37:43 (EDT) Email Address: x Message: There is at least one African primate who has his head on straight. Karr 13,000 new AIDS infections daily www.christianaid.org.uk/news/media/pressrel/031013p.htm

Subject: Re: The sensible, Godly African Primate From: A liberal To: Karr Date Posted: Wed, Oct 15, 2003 at 11:04:27 (EDT) Email Address: no Message: You know, this sort of thing is in my mind all the time - that we are spending all this time and energy on the homosexuality issue when there are so many terrible things that need our attention. The African bishop is rightly concerned with the AIDS epidemic in Africa. Another big concern of mine is other real threats to God's Creation - biotechnology, genetic modification of plants and animals to carry manmade drugs in their *genes* - and nanotech, which some say may make nature and technology indistinguishable in a few decades or less - this is the really terrible stuff. Homosexuality is a distraction.

Subject: ABC to seek middle ground in Primate's Meeting From: angli_fan To: All Date Posted: Mon, Oct 13, 2003 at 17:15:14 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: By Jonathan Petre, Religion Correspondent (from the Telegraph (UK)) Williams gambles to heal division over gays www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/10/13/ngay13.xml

Subject: Hardline archbishops gather on eve of summit From: Robin To: angli_fan Date Posted: Mon, Oct 13, 2003 at 23:55:42 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: By Jonathan Petre, Religion Correspondent (from the Telegraph (UK)) This meeting may put a crimp in Williams' plans. Hardline archbishops gather on eve of summit www.dailytelegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/10/14/nbish14.xml&sSheet=/news/2003/10/14/ixhome.html

Subject: Re: Hardline archbishops gather on eve of summit From: angli_fan To: Robin Date Posted: Tues, Oct 14, 2003 at 09:41:23 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: "They will make clear that they will reject any attempt by Dr Williams to delay disciplining the liberal American Episcopal Church for appointing Anglicanism's first openly active homosexual bishop." Unfortunately for them, they don't get to vote...except with their feet. "The conservative primates, who are likely to number about 20, will be led by the outspoken Archbishop Peter Akinola, the Primate of Nigeria." Sounds as though the man is running for office. Then again, maybe he is...:-) angli_fan

Subject: New Forum From: David To: All Date Posted: Sun, Oct 12, 2003 at 20:03:46 (EDT) Email Address: n Message: Hi all, I have been away for some time. Is this the new forum that replaced Episco Talk? Also, are the regulars still here? Thanks.

Subject: Re: New Forum From: angli_fan To: David Date Posted: Mon, Oct 13, 2003 at 17:17:36 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: 'Is this the new forum that replaced Episco Talk? Also, are the regulars still here?' Greetings! You are most welcome. Yes; and many of them are, yes.

Subject: Some are here From: Robin To: David Date Posted: Sun, Oct 12, 2003 at 22:40:23 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided. Message: And the rest post on the Orthodox Episcopal Bulletin Board. Liberals largely hang out on this forum and conservatives on the Orthodox Episcopal Bulletin Board. However, some people post on both boards. Orthodox Episcopal Bulletin members4.boardhost.com/orkid68/?username=fif

Subject: Happy (Canadian) Thanksgiving From: Canadian Phil To: All Date Posted: Sat, Oct 11, 2003 at 21:12:29 (EDT) Email Address: n/a Message: 'Tis the time of year where the glaring differences between Americans and Canadians come to the fore. Thanksgiving in October, as God ordained :). Happy Canadian Thanksgiving all! Peace, Phil

Subject: Re: Happy (Canadian) Thanksgiving From: Carl To: Canadian Phil Date Posted: Sat, Oct 11, 2003 at 23:20:12 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: The nerve of you northerners, actually having Thanksgiving when it's harvest time. Happy Thanksgiving.

Subject: Jecko to Griswold: Go away... From: EP To: All Date Posted: Sat, Oct 11, 2003 at 07:19:15 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: An Open Letter to The Most Rev. Frank T. Griswold Presiding Bishop of The Episcopal Church Grace and peace be to you, in the Name of our Lord Jesus Christ. I have tried gracefully to reason with you twice, asking your pastoral sensitivities regarding your presence in the Diocese of Florida, and twice you were silent to all our local concerns. I received a fax copy of your letter of October 3, 2003, a letter that would have profound consequences within the Diocese. I am deeply grieved to learn that you released that letter through Episcopal News Service on Thursday evening without my knowledge. Portions of the letter appeared in public press articles on Friday morning, prior to our planned phone conversation and my sharing the letter with our Clergy and Lay leaders. This is not reflective of your stated desire for a graceful handling of these issues. Your attempted manipulation is unmistakable and hurtful. Very painfully I now must tell you that due to the critical logistical decisions that must be made as a result of your public statements causing the Roman Catholic Diocese to withdraw its invitation to host the consecration, we must change the date of the consecration of our Bishop Coadjutor. We refuse to allow this event to become a media circus, back-to-back with New Hampshire. The issue is not about your worthiness or mine; neither is it about Samuel John Howard, or V. Gene Robinson. We all are sinners redeemed at the Cross of Christ our God, if, repentant we choose to be embraced by such incredible Love. Rather, this is about the abuse of the Office of the Presiding Bishop of our Church. You said you are 'called to serve the whole church as Presiding Bishop, not only those who hold one view or another.' You have consistently taken sides and consequently relinquished the reconciling role of the Office of Presiding Bishop. Your public support, your vote, and your intention to consecrate V. Gene Robinson is an abuse of the Office of Presiding Bishop and places you clearly at odds with a majority of the Anglican Communion and the Diocese of Florida. Your self-perception as a reconciler to the whole of The Episcopal Church is compromised and no longer possible. You publicly suggested, despite current scholarship, that Holy Scriptures do not condemn intimate same-sex behavior, because our 'enlightened' 21st century understandings include the notion of sexual orientation. In so doing you abused the Office by ignoring the teaching of the 1958 Lambeth Conference of Bishops that says the Church stands under the Holy Scriptures before it understands them. The authority of the Holy Scriptures in our lives, not simply interpretation of them, is the true issue for Anglicans. Twenty-four hours after Florida you are to be in New Hampshire to consecrate their Coadjutor, manipulating Florida and New Hampshire as media bookends for your Office. Your attempts to posture a reconciling public image in the church are absurd, when, in truth, your abuse of the Office has already abandoned any pretense of objectivity and mutual concern. The Canons give you clear choices that I am asking you to exercise. In your letter you said 'incarnation is a far better way of communicating with one another than in print.' I have to agree. You have 'incarnated' the abuse of the Office of Presiding Bishop and can no longer claim the high ground; my heart is broken and my trust is shattered in the Church that has raised me from childhood. In a second letter in response to my second request, you again ignored the issues I shared and said, 'I can see you are indeed predicting and fearing the worst at this moment and in no way do I wish to treat your anxieties lightly.' I am neither fearful nor anxious, and your condescending attitude is demeaning and offensive. This is more than a difference of opinion. You chose to take a stand that resulted in potentially shattering and certainly straining to the limit the unity of The Episcopal Church, and the entire Anglican Communion. You must accept the consequences of your decision. Likewise, I will stand by my vote, actions and commitments. One of my priests recently reminded me of that great scene in A Man for All Seasons where the antagonist, the Duke of Norfolk, is trying to get Sir Thomas More to sign the Act of Supremacy, in support of the English monarchy. The frustrated Duke asks something like, 'Oh come on Thomas, join us and just sign it . . . for fellowship's sake.' And More replies, 'And when you go to heaven for obeying your conscience and I go to hell for disobeying mine, will you join me . . . for fellowship's sake?' This is not about power politics in the Diocese of Florida. This is about the sacred consciences of our Laity, and the sacred ordination vows of all our Clergy, yours and mine. May God have mercy on us all. Faithfully, The Rt. Rev. Stephen H. Jecko, D.Min. D.D. 7th Bishop of Florida Diocese of Florida www.diocesefl.org/html/news_events/bmail/bmail_10_9_03.html www.diocesefl.org/img/ priest_gifs/s_jecko.gif

Subject: Louie Crew in Confrontation From: Carl To: All Date Posted: Fri, Oct 10, 2003 at 20:12:28 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Louie Crew ‘Shaken’ by Confrontation AAC Ordered Church Official ‘Not to Talk’ to Dallas Conferees By Jack H. Taylor Jr. © TR&I Publishing DALLAS, Oct. 10, 2003 – A security officer for the schismatic American Anglican Council ordered a member of the Episcopal Church’s Executive Council not to talk with anyone attending its recently concluded conference in Dallas, unnerving the council member, angering witnesses and alienating some of their own conservative supporters. “I was pretty shaken by this actually,” said Dr. Louie Crew, a member of the church’s Executive Council, who was in Dallas to monitor the AAC’s meeting. “It was just so wrong. He was basically being a bully.” One priest characterized the confrontation as “harassment.” The AAC security officer involved, a reserve police officer at the suburban DeSoto Police Department, defended his actions to his department superiors, suggesting the incident is being overblown and was no more than polite conversation. Nonetheless, Vincent George Zubras Jr., a communications consultant and one-time candidate for constable in North Dallas, may have used “questionable” judgment and is the subject of an administrative review by the department’s internal affairs division. Dr. Crew has not filed a formal complaint and has indicated he does not plan to do so. Neither Zubras nor Stephen A. Bamberger, the Washington-area lawyer from Woodbridge, VA, who was in charge of AAC security and ordered Zubras to confront Crew, could be reached for comment. Neither responded to inquiries left through the DeSoto Police Department and Bamberger law offices. The Rev. Canon David C. Anderson, president and chief executive officer of the AAC, and Bruce Mason, the AAC’s media officer and program coordinator, did not respond to eight written questions submitted to each of them about the incident. But Crew and the Rev. Susan Russell, president of Integrity, the Episcopal Church’s gay and lesbian peace and justice ministry originally founded by Crew in 1974, both described what happened like this: On Wednesday morning, the second day of the AAC’s conference, Crew was about to enter an elevator of the Wyndham Anatole Hotel, some distance away from the area at one extreme end of the giant hotel where the AAC was meeting. The AAC had been given permission by the hotel’s security office to provide its own security but only in areas of the hotel were the AAC had rented space. Other areas were under the authority of the hotel’s security. “I already had one foot in the elevator,” Crew said, “when I heard someone say, 'May I talk with you for a moment?' I turned to see Mr. Zubras looking at me and it was clear he wanted to talk to me. I approached him and he shook my hand and pulled out his badge, gave me about 5 seconds to look at it, put it away, and said, '’I am a peace officer and I have been told to instruct you that you are not to approach anyone who is wearing one of these registration badges (he pointed to his own AAC badge) nor make any effort to engage such persons in conversation.’” . Crew asked if he was in DeSoto’s jurisdiction since the hotel is in Dallas. Zubras then retorted that as a peace officer he is charged with enforcing the peace anywhere in Texas (which is in fact the law in Texas, but only as it pertains to law enforcement activities, not private meetings such as the AAC’s). Crew then asked if he had disturbed the peace, sensed more trouble and asked a colleague to seek help. The Reverend Russell immediately came downstairs from her room. Sergeant Robert E. Lee, the internal affairs officer at DeSoto, said he talked with Zubras who informed him that he and Crew were having a polite conversation when Russell came over and “butted in where she had no business butting in.” Only at that point did Zubras show his police badge when Russell asked if he was a police officer, Lee said. He said Zubras replied that he was with the DeSoto Police Department but emphasized he was working privately. “Louie invited me into the conversation and asked the officer to show me the badge ‘too,’” Russell said, “which indicated to me that he had clearly already pulled it out. Far from indicating that he was in a private capacity when I asked if we were actually IN DeSoto, Zubras said no, but as a Texas peace officer he was charged with keeping the peace throughout the state of Texas. I drew the comparison that likewise as a priest in the Episcopal Church I was charged with proclaiming the Gospel not just in my own diocese.” To the DeSoto police suggestion that Reverend Russell was a bit confrontational herself, she said sharply: “And was I ‘confrontational?’ Probably so. But if harassment of private citizens and direct abuse of First Amendment rights aren’t worth some confrontation then I’m thinking nothing is.” DeSoto police Captain Don Smith said Zubras has been a reserve officer for about two years and normally works in the criminal investigation division. When informed about the incident – as described by Crew and Russell and noting it occurred away from the AAC’s meeting – and asked if Zubras was acting properly, Smith said: “Given the information that may be a questionable call on his part.” “I was startled and realized that I needed to get all of the details right, so I asked him to show me his badge again. He did so, and seemed annoyed. I explained that I am an old man and need to write this down… He explained that as a peace officer he is authorized to keep the peace anywhere in Texas, not just in DeSoto. 'Has anyone made a complaint against me?' Crew said he asked. “I had been in the habit of speaking only when spoken to, except for my natural tendency to say hello with most when I make eye contact. He did not answer my question, but repeated that he had been told to instruct me not to speak with anyone wearing one of those badges anywhere in the hotel. 'Who told you to instruct me?' I asked. “He did not give names, but said they were officials of the AAC.” Crew said he then asked: '’Am I not allowed to respond to people who speak to me?’ He replied that he could not restrict my replying if someone with an AAC badge initiated a conversation. “At about this time, an elevator behind me opened and I saw The Rev. Susan Russell walking by me. I called out to her and asked her to meet this police officer. Then I asked the policeman (as I took him to be) to tell her what he had told me. He repeated pretty much what he had told me. “At one point I explained to him that I had not even been in AAC areas of the hotel except the night before (Tuesday). He asked why I had done so then and I answered that I had attended the Eucharist, and that I had a printed post card that said 'Cost: Free' and that the service was open to everyone. He and Susan both commented that putting 'Cost: Free' was strange for any church service. “At one point he asked me whether I was staying at the hotel. I said that I was staying with friends in town. ‘Since you cannot attend any of the meetings, I am curious about why you are even here,’ he said. I said that I had many conservative friends who are at the meeting.” “She him that she was appalled as a Christian, as a priest, and as an American that the AAC was resorting to violating my basic human rights and that if this is the kind of church they are trying to birth, she wanted no part of it. ‘ have more important things to do,’ she concluded and left.” '’I did not mean to upset the lady priest,’' Zubras said, according to Crew. Crew said he then asked Zubras: '’Have you been looking for me for the two days that I have been here or did you do so only this morning?’ He replied that had been given his instructions only that morning.” I never said one way or other that I would heed his instructions. Crew said he later met with the hotel’s chief security officer, Tony Hilton, and reported the incident. He said Hilton recognized the name Zubras and commented “that he had explained clearly to the AAC that they had authority to police the areas of the hotel which they had rented and those areas only. Mr. Hilton also clarified that in no way could they inhibit my speaking to anyone outside those areas.” Hilton acknowledged he had been informed about the incident but said he could not comment about the hotel’s security. Crew said that afterward, he mentioned the incident to an AAC official not involved in security who stated “that was ridiculous.” He said during the conference the AAC’s blue-shirted staff and security people were “watching me like a hawk.” He added: “They’re acting irrationally at his point.” Earlier, in describing the reasons for Crew’s denial of press credentials, Mason, the AAC media liaison, that that Crew and others “are highly recognizable and polarizing” figures because of their work for full inclusion of homosexuals in the Church. Crew is founder of Integrity, the church’s gay and lesbian peace and justice ministry, and the AAC’s president, Anderson, stated that “I absolutely do not want him registered as a journalist at our event… he can make whatever plans he wishes but they won’t be on the inside intimidating people who are hurt and injured by the activism that he has been a part of, nor will he be able to work the press room giving interviews and counter-point every minute. He will hang out in the lobby and from time to time be interviewed by the press. But the damage will be less than if he was on the inside.” Ironically, the gag order had no practical affect since many of the AAC’s own hierarchy and apparently all of the conference attendees did not know of it. Many of them have know Crew for years and despite their disagreement on issues of human sexuality, most have a great deal of respect for him. That was evidenced by several who expressed their dismay and apologized privately for Canon Anderson’s brash denial of press credentials to Crew, who is on the Editorial Board of The Witness Magazine. But perhaps the greatest irony was as the conference was ending and several who attended were breaking for lunch on Thursday, Dallas Bishop James M. Stanton, who helped found the AAC in 1995, saw Crew, warmly greeted him and embraced him.

Subject: Re: Louie Crew in Confrontation From: CFK To: Carl Date Posted: Sat, Oct 11, 2003 at 09:12:20 (EDT) Email Address: email Message: The so-called 'news report' begins as follows: DALLAS, Oct. 10, 2003 – A security officer for the schismatic American Anglican Council ordered a member of the Episcopal Church’s Executive Council not to talk with anyone attending its recently concluded conference in Dallas, unnerving the council member, angering witnesses and alienating some of their own conservative supporters. Sounds more like the beginning of an editorial than an objectively reported news article. The writer probably has great career potential with the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, or the National Inquirer. That piece of tripe was obviously written by a hack with an agenda. I'm not surprised that you would rush to post it. Kelley

Subject: If the shoe fits.... From: bd To: CFK Date Posted: Sun, Oct 12, 2003 at 14:50:30 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Kelly, After a while you will get use to 'schismatic' just like we have to 'revisionist'.

Subject: LOL!! From: Robin To: bd Date Posted: Sun, Oct 12, 2003 at 19:56:08 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Actually the liberals in the ECUSA are both the 'schismatics,' breaking unity with the larger Anglican Communion, and the 'revisionists,' advocating radical changes in the Christian faith. How you all love to play word games. I believe that the liberals also were called 'apostate,' departing from the faith once delivered to the apostles, and 'heretical,' subcribing to doctrines contrary to the Bible and two millenia of Church teaching, at the Dallas gathering. Here is what Bishop Bob said. Episcopal Bishop Predicts Rebuke from Anglican Leaders www.crosswalk.com/news/1224476.html

Subject: Thank God you aren't... From: bd To: Robin Date Posted: Tues, Oct 14, 2003 at 20:45:51 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: teaching our children the English language!!! bd

Subject: Re: LOL!! From: Sojourner To: Robin Date Posted: Mon, Oct 13, 2003 at 18:13:17 (EDT) Email Address: b Message: 'This place, Kelley, is accursed. Message: Flee from it for the sake of your soul. Do not let them draw you down into the darkness with themselves. They will twist your words; put their own lies between your lips. They accuse others of hatred and bigotry but they are filled with hate themselves and despise all who do not share their prejudices and opinions.'

Subject: You are absolutely right! From: Robin To: Sojourner Date Posted: Tues, Oct 14, 2003 at 00:49:25 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Give that man a cigar! I knew that I could count on you to demonstrate my point for me. You cannot resist playing the role of 'accuser of the brethren,' doing the devil's dirty work for him. Decidedly accursed, being under or as if under a curse. And I was hoping that with the passage of time the Holy Spirit might have led you to repentence. Foolish me. Now if you had resisted saying what you said, now you might have given me cause to rethink my point of view. But you could not do that, could you? Nope. 'Je accuse...' You really are predictable. Definitally act as if you are under a compulsion if not a curse. How about trying something different for a change...good for the soul.

Subject: Your words (nt) From: Sojourner To: Robin Date Posted: Wed, Oct 15, 2003 at 09:59:57 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message:

Subject: Re: Your words (nt) From: Robin To: Sojourner Date Posted: Thurs, Oct 16, 2003 at 20:31:51 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: are a lantern to my feet and a light upon my path. From Ps. 119.

Subject: You, rethink your point of view? From: A liberal To: Robin Date Posted: Tues, Oct 14, 2003 at 11:17:57 (EDT) Email Address: no Message: How likely is that? I mean, I would love to think that could happen, but I have never seen anything but hardening of your views and increasing stridency, and dare I say, hysteria, in propounding them.

Subject: Re: LOL!! From: Carl To: Robin Date Posted: Mon, Oct 13, 2003 at 09:32:02 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Got the logic here? 'WE'RE the ones leaving, but YOU'RE schismatic!' It seems to be the popular tactic of calling 'black' 'white' and hoping that constantly repetition it will make it make sense.

Subject: How amusing. From: Robin To: Carl Date Posted: Mon, Oct 13, 2003 at 14:16:10 (EDT) Email Address: Not provided Message: Didn't you know? The revisionists are the schismatics, Carl. The revisionists are the ones who broke unity with the Anglican Communion and the one holy catholic and apostolic Church. The Denver meeting has not done anything more than protest what the revisionists have done. The revisionists began the schism when their bishops began to ordain non-celibate homosexual priests and permit the blessing of homosexual relationships. They compounded their schism at the 2000 General Convention with the resolution on human sexuality and persisted in their schism with the 2003 General Convention's consent to the election of a non-celibate homosexual bishop and its tacit approval of the blessing of homosexual relationships at the local church level. The bottom line, Carl, is REVISIONISM = SCHISM. Not only have the revisionists in the ECUSA entered into schism with the world-wide Anglican Communion and the one holy catholic and apostolic Church, but also in departing from the faith once given to the apostles, they have become apostate and in embracing teachings contrary to God's word and 2000 years of Church teaching, they have also become heretical. Isn't that terrible? Schismatic, apostate, and heretical all at once. So the bottom line really is REVISIONISM = SCHISM = APOSTASY = HERESY. It does not sound like revisionism is good for one's spiritual health. I think that Bishop Iker would agree with that observation. I have included a link to an article by him. A protest for the orthodox faith www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/news/opinion/6989308.htm

Subject: Re: How amusing. From: Carl To: Robin Date Posted: Mon, Oct 13, 2003 at 20:27:34 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: >Didn't you know? The revisionists are the schismatics, Carl. No, I don't know, and you are seem to be doing some revising of your own: the revision of the English language. So perhaps you are right about revisionists being schismatics. Not only are you a schismatic, but you are trying to revise the English language to justify it. I know discussion would be easier for you if you got to make like Humpty Dumpty and use words to mean whatever you wanted them to mean, but words means things, and a schismatic is one who splits. You are defining 'schismatic' as 'a church that does something that a schismatic doesn't like.' Sorry. That's horse manure. What's next, Robin? War is peace, freedom is slavery and ignorance is strength? Do you think twisting words into pretzels is from God?

Subject: LOL!! From: Robin To: Carl Date Posted: Mon, Oct 13, 2003 at 23:58:38 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Good thing I was not drinking coffee!!

Subject: Re: Louie Crew in Confrontation From: Carl To: CFK Date Posted: Sat, Oct 11, 2003 at 23:19:04 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: 'Sounds more like the beginning of an editorial than an objectively reported news article. The writer probably has great career potential with the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, or the National Inquirer. That piece of tripe was obviously written by a hack with an agenda. I'm not surprised that you would rush to post it. ' 'The New York Times, the Los Angeles Times'? Do you ALWAYS automatically reach for spin points from right-wing talk radio, no matter what the subject? Interesting. You could remove every adjective from the article, and the behavior described would still be disgraceful. I'm not surprised that you would choose to attack the tone of the article and avoid dealing with the substance.

Subject: Re: Louie Crew in Confrontation From: Ginger To: Carl Date Posted: Mon, Oct 13, 2003 at 11:53:15 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Sounds pretty objective to me... Lets look at it: 'DALLAS, Oct. 10, 2003 – A security officer for the schismatic American Anglican Council ordered a member of the Episcopal Church’s Executive Council not to talk with anyone attending its recently concluded conference in Dallas' From all accounts, it appears that this is a factual statement. 'unnerving the council member' I think it is safe to say that Dr. Crew was, at the very least, made uncomfortable, if not unnerved by this situation. 'angering witnesses and alienating some of their own conservative supporters' This is only factual if the rest of the article accurately reports the facts surrounding the various conversations involving Dr. Crew. While I do not believe everything I read, I also do not cavalierly dismiss information that I do not immediately agree with just because I have a different opinion. Sometimes I dont like the facts, but that doesnt mean they are not facts.

Subject: Re: Louie Crew in Confrontation From: CFK To: Ginger Date Posted: Mon, Oct 13, 2003 at 23:04:31 (EDT) Email Address: email Message: ::Sounds pretty objective to me... Really? Let's examine this, Ginger. ::'DALLAS, Oct. 10, 2003 – A security officer for the schismatic American Anglican Council ordered a member of the Episcopal Church’s Executive Council not to talk with anyone attending its recently concluded conference in Dallas' ::From all accounts, it appears that this is a factual statement. The article begins with the straightforward statement that the AAC is 'schismatic' - but nowhere in the article does it examine the proposition that it is ECUSA's liberals who have gone over the edge, especially considering the actions of GC since Lambeth 1998. Opening a supposedly objective news article with an unsupported condemnation of AAC as schismatic immediately calls into question the objecivity of the writer. ::'unnerving the council member' Which council member? ::I think it is safe to say that Dr. Crew was, at the very least, made uncomfortable, if not unnerved by this situation. Crew is not a member of the council, and as I read the article, there is no 'unnerved' council member identified. Crew was there for one purpose only - to spin the proceedings in order to prop up his own schismatic agenda. ::'angering witnesses and alienating some of their own conservative supporters' Whom did he interview/quote to support his conclusion that there were angered and aliented witnesses? Their names are not to be found in the 'article/editorial' - so one is left to conclude that the writer was not very diligent about reporting his facts objectively, Ginger. ::This is only factual if the rest of the article accurately reports the facts surrounding the various conversations involving Dr. Crew. I advise taking any of Crew's accounts regarding what happened at the conference with a very large shaker of Morton salt. ::While I do not believe everything I read, I also do not cavalierly dismiss information that I do not immediately agree with just because I have a different opinion. Sometimes I dont like the facts, but that doesnt mean they are not facts. Yes, you do, especially if it doesn't support a very liberal agenda for the Church. One must also consider the source. Carl ought to know that, but he seems incapable of understanding that Crew's agenda colors his perception of what happens outside of his circle of revisionist buddies. Kelley

Subject: Re: Louie Crew in Confrontation From: Carl To: CFK Date Posted: Tues, Oct 14, 2003 at 10:39:08 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: 'The article begins with the straightforward statement that the AAC is 'schismatic' ' It is. Objectively. By the definition of the word. You have just demonstrated that the bias is YOURS, and you objection is that it doesn't parrot you biases.

Subject: Re: Louie Crew in Confrontation From: dj To: Carl Date Posted: Tues, Oct 14, 2003 at 13:05:02 (EDT) Email Address: dking@malf.net Message: Hi Carl, Objectively speaking, there has not yet been a schism within ECUSA, though there has been within the Anglican Communion. Likely there will be, but speaking entirely from within the frame-of-reference of the Anglican Communion, no one can say which side is schismatic until at least following the 'Primates' Meeting'. If ECUSA is rebuked and holds its course, and if then some of the primates break communion with them, then ECUSA will clearly be the schismatic party. If on the other hand there is 'more study', AND the global south primates pull out and form their own communion, AND they break communion with Canturbury, AND they take ECUSA parishes and dioceses with them, then THEY and the ECUSA members who follow them will be schismatic. The bottom line is that any accusation of 'schism' is nonsense until there is an actual, effectual break in communion. The story was simply wrong. In other ways, the story in question was at best poor journalism, and at worst unethical journalism... for instance, the fact that Dr. Crew is a member of the ECUSA Executive Council had no place in the story since his standing at the AAC meeting was that of simple bystander... Since he had exactly no 'standing' at the AAC meeting, the mention of his ECUSA position in the 'story' was editorializing. Since, however, he had tried to register at the conference *as a journalist*, and had been refused credentials, THAT fact was relevant as to Dr. Crew's and AAC Security's respective motivations. But THAT was ignored by the 'reporter'. For three years I was managing editor of one of the largest advocacy websites on the internet (Orthodox News). This 'story' would not have passed muster on our site without substantial re-write... and then, only as commentary. If this 'reporter' were to submit a second 'story' of this quality and try to pass it off as 'news', EVEN IF HE WERE ADVOCATING OUR POSITION, I would have fired him. I really thought your standards were higher than this. Cheers, dj

Subject: Re: Louie Crew in Confrontation From: Carl To: dj Date Posted: Wed, Oct 15, 2003 at 11:29:50 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Hmmmm. Let's see: You are correct: technically, at this point, nobody is schismatic. But do you really think it's all that much of a stretch to call AAC schismatic in relation to the Episcopal Church? They are certainly calling for schism. It is normal in journalism to designate people with a brief handy pocket description when they are first mentioned. You can't just type 'Louie Crew.' You have to describe him somehow in a way that quickly lets the readers know who he is. What description would you use? Dr. Crew's being refused as a journalist was certainly relevant, but which way that information would cut as bias is questionable. I know quite a few Episcopalians - some conservatives - who think this action on the part of AAC made them look really bad. More than one has pointed out that Integrity (Crew's organization) has always allowed David Virtue to attend their meetings as a journalist and never refused him admission because he was ideologically hostile. As far as I can see, the story - stripped of all emotive terms - describes some seriously disgraceful behavior, and somebody owes Louie Crew a genuine apology.

Subject: Re: Louie Crew in Confrontation From: dj To: Carl Date Posted: Wed, Oct 15, 2003 at 12:54:34 (EDT) Email Address: dking@malf.net Message: Hi Carl, As to your first point, no... not until this plays out a little further... And I think that at the end of the day it is more likely that ECUSA is the schismatic party... but we'll just have to wait and see. As to your second point, Crew could have been labeled a bystander, or an uncredentialed journelist, both of which were more relevant descriptions in the given context. As to the rest, if I stipulate that all of what you say is true, the piece is NOT news, but a really really poorly written editorial. The fact that the AAC denied him credentials IS news... but that wasn't what this story was about, but rather a manufactured 'confrontation'. There is just no way to defend this story as journalism. Cheers, dj

Subject: Re: Louie Crew on Exec Council From: Anna To: CFK Date Posted: Tues, Oct 14, 2003 at 00:15:03 (EDT) Email Address: *** Message: Kelley: 'Crew is not a member of the council...' Dr. Crew has been a member of Executive Council since 2000. His current term expires in 2006.

Subject: Re: Louie Crew on Exec Council From: CFK To: Anna Date Posted: Tues, Oct 14, 2003 at 01:30:48 (EDT) Email Address: email Message: The members of the Executive Council of whatever it is that Crew is a member of were not invited to the conference. The only council members who were there were members of the AAC. Crew is NOT a member of the AAC. Kelley

Subject: Re: Louie Crew on Exec Council From: Anna To: CFK Date Posted: Tues, Oct 14, 2003 at 08:56:54 (EDT) Email Address: *** Message: No one ever accused Dr. Crew of being a member of the AAC. The quote says 'A security officer for the schismatic American Anglican Council ordered A MEMBER OF THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH'S EXECUTIVE COUNCIL not to talk with anyone attending its recently concluded conference in Dallas...'

Subject: Re: Louie Crew on Exec Council From: CFK To: Anna Date Posted: Wed, Oct 15, 2003 at 01:15:39 (EDT) Email Address: email Message: ::The quote says 'A security officer for the schismatic Amercan Anglican Council ordered A MEMBER OF THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH'S EXECUTIVE COUNCIL not to talk with anyone attending its recently concluded conference in Dallas...' There you go again. You are as shameless as Carl in your zeal to discredit others. Crew showed up on this website with one objective only: to cause trouble and to promote his schismatic brand of homoerotic Anglicanism. That you and the anti-Anglican Carl are willing/able to buy into this crap is further evidence of the base level that pseudo-Anglicans can stoop to under the guidance of liberals. Kelley

Subject: Back under your bridge, troll (NT) From: Carl To: CFK Date Posted: Wed, Oct 15, 2003 at 11:32:00 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message:

Subject: Goose and Gander From: Sojourner To: CFK Date Posted: Wed, Oct 15, 2003 at 10:25:34 (EDT) Email Address: d Message: Crew showed up on this website with one objective only: to cause trouble and to promote his schismatic brand of homoerotic Anglicanism. Seems like an honorable tradition and very similar to the thoughts you have expressed. 'I rattle their cages, and they bark like mad dogs. I rattle their cages, and they bark like mad dogs. I rattle their cages, and they bark like mad dogs. I rattle their cages, and ... you guessed it ... they bark like mad dogs. Not a very loving, inclusive bunch! ;-) I think I'll rattle their cages again.'

Subject: You can tell it's reactionary 'spin'... From: Karr To: CFK Date Posted: Wed, Oct 15, 2003 at 02:29:58 (EDT) Email Address: x Message: You can tell it's reactionary 'spin' when it twists words like pretzels and keeps repeating the same things over and over like a broken record spinning on the turntable. Karr

Subject: Re: You can tell it's reactionary 'spin'... From: Anna To: Karr Date Posted: Wed, Oct 15, 2003 at 09:32:36 (EDT) Email Address: *** Message: A friend just sent me this today (author unknown): 'Arguing with anonymous strangers on the Internet is a sucker's game because they almost always turn out to be -- or to be indistinguishable from -- self-righteous sixteen-year-olds possessing infinite amounts of free time.'

Subject: This is the dirty little secret From: A liberal To: Anna Date Posted: Wed, Oct 15, 2003 at 10:47:57 (EDT) Email Address: no Message: of this online pastime. It's only too true that this is in many ways a sucker's game. What I get out of coming here is that I do stay informed in many ways. But arguing - especially with people who are prone to the use of abuse in their posts - is pretty unproductive, I think.

Subject: Re: This is the dirty little secret From: Anna To: A liberal Date Posted: Wed, Oct 15, 2003 at 15:33:17 (EDT) Email Address: *** Message: There are several versions of the saying about wrestling with pigs, but the gist of them all is that you accomplish nothing, the pig enjoys it, and you get covered with mud. I do enjoy a lively debate or an exchange of ideas -- most of the people on this board, I am happy to say, are not in the 'wrestling with pigs' category :o)

Subject: No independent news coverage From: Robin To: Anna Date Posted: Tues, Oct 14, 2003 at 00:35:31 (EDT) Email Address: Not provided Message: of the incident to my knowledge. The incident had all the earmarks of being contrived to promote sympathy for the liberal cause. No collateral witnesses who can be interviewed to verify what happened. Nothing but hearsay on the part of the journalist.

Subject: Thank you From: Carl To: Ginger Date Posted: Mon, Oct 13, 2003 at 20:29:39 (EDT) Email Address: Not Provided Message: You certainly did better than me. An actual analysis is much more helpful. Some folks use 'biased' to mean 'anything that doesn't reflect my biases.'

Subject: Some Baptismal Regeneration Statements From: EP To: All Date Posted: Fri, Oct 10, 2003 at 14:33:41 (EDT) Email Address: * Message: I plucked this from another board. These are more evangelical. I am interested in contrary points of view, even dj's: From, Bishop John Howe, Bishop of Central Florida, in his book, Our Anglican Heritage (Elgin, IL: David C. Cook, 1977). Baptismal Regeneration…'It was this nterpretation that so greatly confused the matter. As early as the middle of the second century, teachers such as Hermas of Rome and Justin Martyr had all but obliterated the distinction between symbol and reality. [Howe's footnote, see Walker, History of Christian Church, p. 87.) To be baptized with or to receive the Holy Spirit – to be born again by the power of God. That the New Testament does not teach this is very clear. It consistently distinguishes between rebirth itself and baptism as a symbol of it. The New Testament uses several terms interchangeably such as being reborn, becoming regenerate, becoming a child of God, and receiving the Spirit. But its typical pattern was that people were first reborn – or converted and then baptized in water as a public demonstration of their faith. The experience of Cornelius and his family is an example. Cornelius, a centurion, was a Gentile, and there was considerable question in the minds of Jewish Christians as to whether he could join them…Cornelius and his family having already been born again or baptized in the Spirit, were baptized in wat