Tuesday, November 4

wha wha what?

Imagine my confusion when I opened a piece of junk mail mysteriously titled "Seminary" (I was thinking... I don't want to go to seminary, do I?) and it turned out to be a solicitation for prescription drugs, delivered right to my home, with a phone number in Tennessee. Very odd.
So... the gay bishop was installed today in the Episcopalian church. I'm a bit torn on the subject. Being the uber-liberal that I am, some of you may be confused by this. Of course, I am also probably one of the few people you know (if you're reading this) that visits Jesus on a semi-regular basis. Not as regularly as some, sure, but you know, we're still tight. Anyway, here's the deal. If the church is not going to reverse its position on the whole homosexuality is a sin thing, then having an openly sexually active gay man in a position of power in the church is probably more than a little off. The Episcopalian church has priests, and these priests have the option of taking a vow of celibacy. This may be the way to go if you are a gay man or woman and want to devote your life to serving the Lord. Cuz see, everyone sins, and everyone knows it, but kind of the point of being a Christian of any denomonation is that you try not to, and that you're kinda sorry when you do. If being gay is a sin, then acting on it certainly is, and not being sorry about it and "choosing" it as a lifestyle is most definitely bad. So, having a gay bishop, with a male 'life partner' let's say, is more than a little inconsistent. However (and if I had the power to change doctrine, this would be the way to go), if homosexuality is not a sin, then yay! Gays can marry, have legitimate (legally and otherwise) life-long relationships, and be priests or bishops or whathaveyou. Priests get run out of town for having non-marital relations, and technically any gay relationship would have to be non-marital, so... until the church has the *gumption* to rewrite doctrine, they are currently ok-ing a different policy for gays than for straights. A different, and really, if you're the church (which, ok, you're not) more sinful policy, if you're going to start weighing these things out. Speck in your eye, log in mine, if you will.
Also in today's headlines, the Senate approved the Iraqi spending package. All of 6 Senators voted (5 to 1 was the split). If you're doing the math, that means that 94 of our most elite legislators didn't have the cahones to show up for the vote. What's worse is I don't believe that Feingold voted, and I'm a little disappointed. Maybe I'll write him a letter to say so. If he can stand up for what he believes is right against his own party, he sure as hell should be able to stand up against the big Dub. Or stand up for.... at this point I don't even know what I think about the package. What I do know is that if it were my job to appropriate funds, I'd have an opinion on it, and would feel compelled to voice it, as I think it will turn out to be pretty important.
That may be it for the spewing of political and social insight for tonight.
Oh, and my back hurts like hell.


Post a Comment

<< Home