It's not about sex, it's about power.

Some members of Changing Attitude Nigeria

The Archbishop says, briefly,

In response to reports of violence and threats towards Christians involved in the debate on human sexuality, the Archbishop of Canterbury has given the following statement:

“The threats recently made against the leaders of Changing Attitudes are disgraceful. The Anglican Communion has repeatedly, through the Lambeth Conference and the statements from its Primates’ Meetings, unequivocally condemned violence and the threat of violence against gay and lesbian people. I hope that this latest round of unchristian bullying will likewise be universally condemned.”

This came after reports that, at the funeral of organized violence against a man at the funeral of the sister of Davis Mac-Iyalla, Director of Changing Attitude, Nigeria reported, amongst other places, at the blog Akinola, Repudiate Anti-Gay Violence.

The thugs who attacked the Port Harcourt leader told him: “We will not rest until we silence you and any who join you to pollute the land with the abominable act of homosexuality. You are perverts who go around corrupting and inducting young people into our evil society. We will kill you and it will be a favour to the country. Nigeria will not contain you or any other person that practices homosexuality.”

(All here)

(It's a pity the Archbishop or his press office can't get organization's the name right.)


Mad Priest says - It's your fault, stupid!!! you're our bloody leader, and you could stop it!

He links to two other recent related stories:

From Australia the Sydney Morning Herald reports an extraordinary verbal attack by an Anglican vicar on a High Court Judge, Michael Kirby

The rector of St Stephen's Church in Bellevue Hill, the Reverend Richard Lane, denounced the judge for calling himself a Christian Anglican while living in an openly gay relationship and warned as a "messenger, watchman and steward of the Lord in the Anglican Church of Australia", he faced God's judgment.

To call himself a Christian Anglican was a "perversion of truth" and to continue to do so without changing his lifestyle would brand him, like Herod, a "coward, a liar, a deceiver" and a "lawless one".

And, less vitriolic but just as idiotic. In Lincolnshire a couple due to have their gay wedding blessed in church had the blessing called off after the vicar concerned consulted his area dean. Which makes you wonder why or how it was booked in the first place.

Temporary St Peter's vicar the Reverend Charles Sowden had originally told the couple he would bless the partnership at the church.

But after taking advice from the rural dean he wrote a letter to Mr Sewell and said it would be "inappropriate" for him to perform the ceremony.

Comments (generally supportive of the couple) include this exchange,

Stephen, the fact you don't persecute homosexuals doesn't make you non-homophobic. An arachnophobe may put up with spiders in their house and not kill them, but it doesn't make them any less arachnophobic. You cannot claim to accept homosexuality whilst at the same time finding it abhorrent. The very fact you find it abhorrent means you don't accept it.
The voice of reason, Everywhere

Dear voice of reason, Gets your facts straight please. Although I freely admit that I dont agree with homosexuality, I certainly dont persecute homosexuals. Just because I find homosexuality abhorent and immoral it dosent make me homophobic. I have homosexual and lesbian friends who know my views and respect them. I in turn accept their sexuality. They dont try to force homosexual militancy on them and I dont try to force hetrosexual militancy on them. The fact is that the vicar in question has taken a brave stance and is upholding his personal religoius beliefs. There are plenty of other churches that may marry these two guys. But at least least I am brave enough to admit I dont agree with homosexuality. I havent insulted them or called them disgusting names. Please respect my opinion.
Stephen, Lincoln


You'll all die one day and then you'll know who was right and who was wrong...
Dean, lincoln

I am not a good person to comment on these things because I cannot get my head around the idea that there should be such visceral hatred of people (of strangers, it's not even personal) simply because of their sexual orientation. I just don't get it. So I can't make any sensible comment on why anyone should think in this way nor, even if you interpret the Bible as condemning homosexuality, why it should have such venom attached. Nobody worries about the much more extensive and explicit biblical condemnation of usury.

But I do see that words breed violence. Attitudes of denigration and abuse towards individuals and groups who are perceived as 'different' are translated into the exclusion and de-humanisation of those people. Those who are perceived to hold authority, even church leaders, who utter such abuse establish the tone.

There may seldom be a direct causal link between leaders' abusive words and acts of violence. But offensive and bullying words predispose a climate of intimidation which can, in certain circumstances, be expressed in violence that the perpetrators feel is legitimate.

So I agree with Mad Priest in his sanity: those with the greatest authority bear the greatest responsibility. And if Anglicanism is the ground in which homophobic attitudes and actions are nurtured then it's time to change the manure.

Paul Bagshaw