Audio highlights from the Diocese of New Westminster’s synod, May 2011
Reply
I love dogs
So when I see something like this:
It annoys me a lot.
In spite of the fact that – contrary to an enduring suspicion of mine – man is made in God’s image and dogs are not, if I had my way, the little shits who do this kind of thing would be suspended by their testicles until they see the error of their ways.
St. Christopher’s to fly a rainbow flag
When I became a Christian in 1978, I enthusiastically shared my faith with a friend and co-worker. To my great surprise, after a few weeks he also acknowledged Christ as his Lord as Saviour.
I encouraged him to attend a church, so he went to talk to the rector of St. Christopher’s Anglican Church in Burlington. My friend told me that the rector convinced him that he was taking Christianity too seriously, that his initial enthusiasm would only lead to problems and that he should slow down. My friend did attend St. Christopher’s for a while but then, with the rector’s help, gradually drifted away from his faith altogether.
Not to worry, though, because St. Christopher’s is still concentrating on what is really important: it is flying a rainbow flag in support of Halton Pride.
From the Niagara Anglican (not online yet):
A rainbow graced the skies over Bur lington as this article was being written, In the Bible, the rainbow is the sign of God’s mercy to Noah and humankind after the ‘great flood’ (Genesis 9:12-16).
To mark ‘Halton Pride’ at the beginning of June, the Rainbow Flag will fly proudly over St. Christopher’s Church, Burlington, in recognition of the contribution of the LGBTQ community is making in society.
In 1978, Gilbert Baker of San Francisco, designed the first Rainbow Flag to show the diversity of the gay community. Since then the Rainbow Flag has become the, sign for the LGBTQ community worldwide.
Today the six colours of the Rainbow Flag symbolize life (red), healing (orange), sunlight . (yellow), nature (green), harmony (blue) and spirit (Purple).
St. Christopher’s will also have a booth at Halton Pride on June 4, 2011 from 11 am to 4pm in Central Park (New Street and Drury Lane), Burlington.
Perhaps my friend would have fared better had he been gay.
Church of the Universe for Potheads
From here:
Shahrooz Kharaghani, who was found guilty this year for trafficking marijuana and hashish in Toronto, has been sentenced to three months in jail.
The case has had two unusual twists: Mr. Kharaghani, and his co-accused, Peter Styrsky, claimed through the trial that they were part of a religion in which marijuana was the main sacrament. The judge rejected the idea of a religious defense and an expert witness in 2010 said that the Church of the Universe in no way resembles a religious group.
Here is what the Church of the Universe believes:
The Assembly of the Church of the Universe is open to all of God’s Creatures who believe God is God.
The Assembly of the Church of the Universe is a modern expression of a Religious Culture “Cult” more commonly known as the “Agriculture” which has existed since the very beginning of time. God put us in the midst of The Garden of Eden and instructed us “to dress it and to keep it” for them. Genesis, Chapter 2 Verse 15. God, our Father, God our Mother.
Be well and prosper.
In peace, bless you, bless you.
The Assembly of 69
That sounds admirably inclusive.
If a judge can conclude that the Church of the Universe “in no way resembles a religious group”, look out Anglican Church of Canada.
The checklist used to stop Jeffrey John becoming Bishop of Southwark
Jeffrey John was not appointed as bishop of Southwark because he is a homosexual in a same-sex civil partnership; he is now celibate, though that was not always the case.
From here:
The latest evidence of prejudice against homosexual people in the Church of England has come from the leaked Colin Slee memo and advice that Archbishop Rowan Williams sought in order to get around the Equality Act (2010). This counsel was to ensure that a gay man, ie Jeffrey John, was not appointed as bishop of Southwark. A cunning checklist was devised, consisting of five questions:
• whether the candidate had always complied with the Church’s teachings on same-sex sexual activity;
• whether he was in a civil partnership;
• whether he was in a continuing civil partnership with a person with whom he had had an earlier same-sex relationship;
• whether he had expressed repentance for any previous same-sex sexual activity; and
• whether (and to what extent) the appointment of the candidate would cause division and disunity within the diocese in question, the Church of England and the wider Anglican Communion.
By my reckoning, Jeffrey John fails on five out of five. One could be forgiven for thinking that this is a list deliberately designed to exclude him.
[……..]
Of course, these questions seem inappropriate, invasive and irrelevant. The sex life of my bishop is of zero interest to me, as long as it attests to the values of love and faithfulness that we expound in the church.
The author of this article, Lesley Fellows is an Anglican priest and makes some interesting points: it does seem that the questions were framed explicitly to disallow John from being appointed bishop. Of course, the questions are only necessary because the Church of England has lost its way and is incapable of maintaining a coherent front when it comes to sex. If there were no actively homosexual priests – and there shouldn’t be – the five questions would never have been asked.
Apparently, Fellows has no interest in the sex life of her bishop, “as long as it attests to the values of love and faithfulness that we expound in the church.” But if Fellows has absolutely no interest in the sex life of her bishop, how would she know that it really does attest “to the values of love and faithfulness that we expound in the church”? It seems to me that Fellows and, indeed the whole Anglican Church, is exceeding interested to the point of obsession with people’s sex-lives: if men are not allowed to have sex with other men and women with other women, church liberals go into paroxysms of outrage at ecclesiastical injustice, exclusion, prejudice and homophobia.
Never was there a church more preoccupied with sex than Western Anglicanism.
Uplifting music from a few years ago
A new way to offend someone
Compare her to chocolate.
From here:
Cadbury is facing the prospect of a black consumer boycott after it compared Naomi Campbell to a chocolate bar in a new advertising campaign.
The supermodel – hardly known for taking things in her stride – is incensed that Cadbury used her name in the strap line to promote its new chocolate bar called Bliss, accusing the company of racism. The ad says: “Move over Naomi – there is a new diva in town.”
Yesterday Campbell revealed she is considering “every option available” after Cadbury, owned by the US giant Kraft, refused to pull the ad campaign, which ran in newspapers last week: “I am shocked. It’s upsetting to be described as chocolate, not just for me, but for all black women and black people. I do not find any humour in this. It is insulting and hurtful.”
Is this an example of a someone taking a courageous stand in defence of something I can’t quite put my finger on, or is it yet another spoiled brat model spouting drivel because she is too used to everyone cooing over every banality that falls unassisted by mental exertion from her botoxed lips?
Most people would be grateful if the worst thing that happened to them was to be compared to chocolate.
St. Hilda’s Garage Sale Giveaway 2011
Every year St. Hilda’s Anglican Church, ANiC has a garage sale where all the items are free. It is an outreach to the community to illustrate the love, grace and salvation of God which is offered to us free through Jesus 
Christ. For all photos, go here:
A lesson for therapists: don’t give people what they ask for
A man goes to see a counsellor because he is afraid of spiders. The councillor asks the man if he would like to be cured of his fear of spiders; the man says, “Yes”; the doctor asks the man if he was frightened by a spider as a child; the counsellor prays for the man.
After the session, the man, who had been recording everything, complained to the General Medical Council because the counsellor had done what he had asked him to do. The counsellor had failed to take into account that, in the land of the loonies, arachnophobia is a preferred lifestyle choice, a protected human right – and, anyway, there is an arachnophobia gene. The man won and the counsellor was roundly condemned, sanctioned and suspended: the verdict was unanimous.
Preposterous? Of course.
From here:
Two years ago, Patrick Strudwick began challenging therapists who claimed they could change a patient’s sexuality. This week he won his battle against one.
They described her as “reckless”, “disrespectful”, “dogmatic” and “unprofessional”. They said she showed “no empathy” towards her client. Why? Psychotherapist Lesley Pilkington had tried to turn a gay person straight.
In a landmark ruling this week, Pilkington, 60, was found guilty of “treating” a patient for his homosexuality. A hearing of the British Association for Counselling and Psychotherapy – the largest professional body for therapists – concluded that the treatment she gave constituted “professional malpractice”.
The unanimous verdict came with heavy sanctions. Pilkington’s accreditation to the organisation was suspended. She was ordered to complete extensive training and professional development. If she does not file a report in six to 12 months, satisfying the board that she has complied, she will have her membership fully revoked: she will be struck off.
The report concluded: “Mrs Pilkington had allowed her personal preconceived views about gay lifestyle and sexual orientation to affect her professional relationship in a way that was prejudicial.”
The client Pilkington tried to cure was me. I am an out, happily gay man. I was undercover, investigating therapists who practise this so-called conversion therapy (also known as reparative therapy) – who try to “pray away the gay”. I asked her to make me straight. Her attempts to do so flout the advice of every major mental-health body in Britain.
The Ed Snow
Job. Ed grovels to keep it – his job that is, not his dignity. In a characteristic celebrity apology, Ed the talking head emoted effusively over his verbal faux pas – complete with carefully rehearsed suppressed tears – over what he said: namely that Laura Ingram is a ‘‘right-wing slut’”. He made no mention that he had changed his mind, just that he should not have spoken his mind.
I expect Ed’s bosses are possessive, wanting to retain the epithet of “slut” for exclusive application to the left.
Here he is in all his insincerity: