I wonder if this article will remind anyone of some posters here, as it did for me. Good luck -- you'll need it!

VANCOUVER, British Columbia (RNS) The leader of the Anglican Church of Canada wants his divided flock to get their minds off sex.

"The church is about much more than sex, here and elsewhere. But some Anglicans are obsessed about sex," Anglican Archbishop Fred Hiltz said in an interview.

It's amusing to me, watching the ongoing battles and threats of schisms with churches in Africa and Asia. I almost feel bad for the Canadian bloke, trying to get his church to do something constructive when it seems they'd rather stay in the gutter.

Hiltz, 54, said it's unfortunate some Christians are "preoccupied" with sexual acts between homosexuals -- and "falsely equate homosexuality with promiscuity."

The small number of Canadian Anglican congregations that provide same-sex blessings, he said, offer them only to gay or lesbian couples ready to commit to long-term monogamous relationships.

Makes one wonder what is so fascinating about homosexual sex that these preachers can't make their flocks focus on anything else. I suppose they deserve it, though, and so I don't feel much pity for them when the believers get out of control. Having sought control over the bed, they must now lie in it a spell.

Instead of being known as the denomination that is facing a possible schism over homosexuality, Hiltz wants his church to be recognized for actively trying to "make a difference in the world" by dealing with crises involving global poverty, HIV/AIDS, aboriginal healing, homelessness and climate change.

I certainly see this emphasis on the sexual act here on this board; the obsessive quality of such posters hasn't escaped me. Perhaps it's easier to focus on what's perceived as wrong in the world and attack it than to do something constructive about real problems.

It would certainly seem that they might have other things to think about.

I see it as a wedge issue used by the Conservatives, both national and religious, to drive out those that take a more live-and-let-live attitude to people's private lives (i.e., Progressives). And it has worked in many instances. It is about power more then morality.

BTW, I saw this article from Time that says the schism has fizzismed.

I don't think you've gotten the context right. on the

Perhaps it's easier to focus on what's perceived as wrong in the world and attack it than to do something constructive about real problems.

Because one of the ongoing themes IS the belief that by combating homosexuality, they ARE attacking a real problem that will somehow nebulously fix the world.

The belief that if they can erradicate it, and other sins, It will bring the world back (?) into harmony with what God wills.

How often have you heard Doggy going off on this very belief, he did it again just yesterday.

So... if we eliminate sex outside of heterosexual marriage, do away with various forms of birth control (from some to all, depending) Everyone will become more devout, the world will magically fix itself (or God will fix it) and everything will be all right.

That might be an accurate characterization of certain portions of the evangelical protestant right, and perhaps come conservative Catholics as well, but it doesn't seem to match the Anglicans/Episcopals that I encounter.

The short version is:

CHRISTIANS! Go away and let us corrupt your country as we see fit. We don't think that fornication and adultery is a sin and it doesn't matter what you think.

Sorry, but no group of Christians are not going to go along with legalizing that which is abnormal and sinful.

Freehold, Iowa - After working with several church pastors for the better part of two years, James Montrose, principal of Landover Elementary School, announced last week that an abridged KJV Bible, omitting all references to illicit and deviant sex acts, has been finalized for use at the school next year. Montrose formally proposed to the Board of Deacons that the new Bible, roughly the size of a theater program, be required reading in all classes in place of the salacious unabridged version.

“It is beyond question that the Holy Bible, in unedited form, is simply not appropriate for children,” observed Montrose in testimony to the Board. The unabridged Bible is loaded with passages describing in detail such disgusting topics as premature ejaculation (Leviticus 15:2-15; 22:3-5), wet dreams (Leviticus 15:16-18, 32), voyeurism (Leviticus 18:6-20); damaged testicles (Leviticus 21:20; Deuteronomy 23:1); people taking a dump in the middle of camp (Deuteronomy 23:12-14); hemorrhoids (1 Samuel 5:9; 6:4-5), people urinating on a wall (1 Samuel 25:22; 26:34; 1 Kings 14:10; 16:11; 21:22; 2 Kings 9:8), people eating their own feces and drinking their urine (2 Kings 18:27; Isaiah 36:12; Ezekiel 4:12, 15), menstruation (just about all of Leviticus), etc., etc., etc. And those are just from a few books I reviewed this morning. Some of these topics are too prurient even for an S&M club. In fact, many parts of the Good Book are so tawdry that the Bible would be the first book hurled into the flames at our weekly book burnings - were it not inspired by God, of course.”

Montrose, along with Pastors Seff Stryker and Don Holmes, prepared the new version of the Bible by scratching out all the X-rated passages in one of Montrose’s old copies of the KJV 1611. “By the time we were finished, my old Bible looked like a White House Enron document produced to a Senate subcommittee,” noted Montrose. “But as a result of our work, children will no longer be exposed to Biblical passages too risque for Penthouse Forum. And children will be able to finish reading the Bible within days of the start of the school year. This will afford their teachers plenty of time to have students memorize passages describing the violence God inflicts upon sinners.”

Not all Board members favor the proposed new version. Brother Harry Hardwick led a minority of deacons opposed to the abridged Bible. “Don’t get me wrong,” cautioned Brother Harry. “I recognize that the definitive version of the Lord’s Word was written by that unrepentant sodomite, King James, and therefore contains far more graphic descriptions of intimacy than any heterosexual author would ever have inserted. Nevertheless, many of these passages offer useful information to children, such as the disastrous fate that awaits them if they lust, masturbate or have premarital sex. Without including the passages describing God’s wrath toward the sexually active, many youngsters may believe they have a green light to practice the most deviant of acts.”

In response to Brother Harry’s concern, Pastor Deacon Fred proposed the following amendment to Montrose’s proposal:

“All children will be told each day during homeroom that any sexual activity before marriage, with or without a partner, will send the culprits hurtling toward Hell where red-tailed demons with giant purple penises will sodomize them for eternity.”

After the Board passed his proposal with the amendment, Montrose agreed to instruct teachers to deliver the homeroom lecture ever morning. However, he warned that he was unsure how teachers would explain to their pupils what “sodomize” means - especially since they will no longer have the full Bible as a reference

Wrenn:

I don't think you've gotten the context right. on the

Perhaps it's easier to focus on what's perceived as wrong in the world and attack it than to do something constructive about real problems.

Because one of the ongoing themes IS the belief that by combating homosexuality, they ARE attacking a real problem that will somehow nebulously fix the world.

The belief that if they can erradicate it, and other sins, It will bring the world back (?) into harmony with what God wills.

I see your point, Wrenn. Perhaps the African and Asian anglicans are evangelical protestant conversion material...

The nebulous quality of saving the world by bashing gays, and sex in general, strikes me as rather like the business strategy of the underpants gnomes.

1. Gay-bash
2. ?
3. World fixed!

Nanotech:

The short version is:

CHRISTIANS! Go away and let us corrupt your country as we see fit. We don't think that fornication and adultery is a sin and it doesn't matter what you think.

Sorry, but no group of Christians are not going to go along with legalizing that which is abnormal and sinful.

So I take it that you are in favor of reinstituting the old laws criminalizing fornication and adultery?

Good luck getting that passed!

What percentage of even evangelical Christians would support such legislation? What percentage of evangelical Christians can honestly say they never were guilty of fornication or adultery?

Th Paine:

Nanotech:

The short version is:

CHRISTIANS! Go away and let us corrupt your country as we see fit. We don't think that fornication and adultery is a sin and it doesn't matter what you think.

Sorry, but no group of Christians are not going to go along with legalizing that which is abnormal and sinful.

So I take it that you are in favor of reinstituting the old laws criminalizing fornication and adultery?

Good luck getting that passed!

What percentage of even evangelical Christians would support such legislation? What percentage of evangelical Christians can honestly say they never were guilty of fornication or adultery?

Heck, even the old sodomy laws have collapsed so Nano doesn't even have homosexuality as illegal anymore.

No one gives a fuck that your sick kind are NOT going to go along since the train has already left the station!

Didn't you know that gays are getting married in CA!!!!

ha, ha, ha, ha, ha,

Reptilicus:

“Heck, even the old sodomy laws have collapsed […].”

My state (Oklahoma) still has the good old classic sodomy law on the books. It’s just that certain provisions have become basically non-prosecutable since the Lawrence v. Texas decision in 2004.

Don’t worry. I’m not expecting a response here except perhaps for some expression of bemusement.

Cheers.

I think our current obsession with all things sexual is something of a cultural phase. It’s not that human beings won’t always be obsessed with sex, of course. But I think what’s happening now (and by "now" I mean for the last 100 or 150 years or so is that sex has become charged and burdened with carrying all sorts of cultural and political baggage. And the load has only become heavier in the last 50 years or thereabouts. Almost everyone’s hopes, dreams, fears, and concerns about where society is heading seem to be wrapped up in sex.

We’ve gone through similar infatuations with “sin” before. Usury used to be a sin. Wearing overly fine clothing was once a crime, depending on one’s station. Heck, once upon a time gluttony was considered a major vice, a moral failing, and deeply symptomatic of society’s declining virtue. Now we consider it an issue of mental and physical health. I think the same progression will occur with sex.

In the meantime, we all get to listen to a seemingly never-ending parade of sanctimonious blowhards that love to harangue us on the evils of sex that they don’t enjoy (or don’t want to be known for enjoying).

Goody.

I believe that Utah's sodomy laws are still on the books as well. As I understand, just about anything other than missionary position sex between married partners with the lights out is technically illegal, albeit no longer prosecutable since Lawrence v Texas.

In the old days, it used to be fun to see how many violations you could commit in one encounter. Having goals is always good!

I’m sure multiple discrete (not discreet) acts with the same partner during the same… session… could lead to multiple counts. After all, according to so many of the old statutes, any penetration, however slight, is sufficient to effect the crime. So running the table is a goal one could, umm, shoot for, I suppose.

If one were so inclined, that is. Of course in my capacity as an INFJ I would never counsel anyone to break the law knowingly.

Cheers.

ia m a chistian and do not care if gay people are married or ordained or whatever... i do care that the poor be fed, that those in prison not be forgotten, that the sick are cared for and that those who suffer are comforted, no one has to believe what i believe...my faith is between me and god...faith has nothing to do with sex and everything to do with seeing all other people ( all as in everyone even atheists, buddhists, hindus, etc) as children of god. really..who cares who anyone is sleeping with? didn't christ even address this with the woman who was to be stoned for adultery and the whole"let he who is without sin cast the first stone"?