Well look at that. Turns out that not all us Christians are out to get people lol ;) Good to see someone using their faith as a positive thing and no using it to justify their own bigotry!
Or rather just changing their opinions when it suits, timing it right to boost their public image.
I welcome this, but with caution. Saying we shouldn’t be demonised doesn’t guarantee that he is in favour of us actually having any rights – or at least extending the ones we have got to the level of full equality. Even Melanie Phillips said that she didn’t actually ‘hate’ gays in their entirety – she just doesn’t want them to have equal rights, especially where it forces a compromise of the privileges of the church.
Hmmm, let’s keep an eye on this one, but I’m not going to dismiss a progressive statement outright. This is, overall, good news.
I still wouldn’t trust a Christian as far as I can piss in a force-9 headwind; but well said that man and kindly take note Melanie Phillips.
“One cleric who did not join the Anglican meeting or sign the statement was Ugandan archbishop Henry Luke Orombi.”
And why hasn’t that vile, bigotted scumbage been kcked out of the Anglican cult,
Oh yes – because church unity is more important to Williams than human life.
Rowan Williams makes my skin crawl.
He is a vile bigot dressed in mildly bigotted clothing.
Rowan WIlliams is a hypocrite and should practice what he is preaching. From marching on a pride march to show solidarity in his youth he has gone on to oppress gay people in order to appease homophobes that he wants to retain in the church. Why keep homophobes? Be true to the edicts of inclusivity and love to all instead of pandering to hate.
I can’t think of anything constructive to say about this man, he flip flops and confuses me so much, so I’ll simply say he reminds me of a rather stern Santa Claus, instead.
Rowan says this whilst supporting homophobia so he is just another opportunistic homophobe trying to be something they aren’t
I think Rowan Williams is a good bloke actually. He’s clearly a very learned man with very modern and tolerant views who is leading a bunch of idiots who don’t like certain groups of people who are different, and have no intention of ever changing their views no matter what.
He’s always getting in trouble with his enlightened views. Remember the stick he got just for uttering the words ‘Shariah law’, and how that got blown out of all context or proportion~
Hes trying to make us (gays et al.) more acceptable to his followers, but he has to use subtlety or else his people will just dismiss him as some sort of heretic and leave his church~
He’s doing what he can, at least he’s bothering to address the issue and trying to change attitudes (in a considered manner) instead of taking the soft option by ignoring the issue entirely in order to keep his church together like so many others would.
He’s doing what he can for us , let’s not be so hard on him.
I wholly agree with FengLong. Rowan Williams is stuck between a rock and a hard place. I strongly believe that he is a friend to the gay community who heads up a notoriously conservative organisation. He has to take the softly softly approach to win over the hearts and minds of some of his followers. If he went in all guns blazing he’d lose the support of the church in no time and be kicked out. It’s better to have him being as much of an ally as he can be than to have him thrown out and have a real bigot heading up the C of E.
the only people who do demonise LGBT are religious bodies. When they’re not doing that, they’re patronising us by ‘loving the sinner not the sin’ and inviting us to repent. They don’t get there is nothing to repent.
words have results
Well he is better than some of them but simply sitting on the fence and pandering to both sides isn’t in my view a sign of leadership…He really needs to come down hard on the likes of Rev Orombi, my feelings is that Africa is a long way away from the UK both in distance and opinions, how can there be agreement in the long term!
…and actions speak louder than words…
Let’s just keep focused here, and ignore those trying to grab the spotlight..
So, David’s spirit is supposed to be comforted with a few crumbs of comfort from the Archbishop … that saying that it is wrong to demonise us … (I didn’t hear an apology or repentence for what the words of anglicans have done) is sufficient.
This man is supposed to be the spiritual leader and good shepherd of all in the UK ; But he still denies our humanity and would exclude us from “his” church and “his” God. and condemns us to life beyond the pale.
Until the Church of England comes to the point of accepting that homosexuality is a perfectly normal, natural and healthy part of nature (the creation, if you like) and to be equally celebrated then it must be rejected as utterly un-christian and a force for wickedness in the world.
No doubt the Archbishop thinks he is doing good by trying to hold his flock of homophobes together but there are times when leadership is demanded. I suppose the Church has so much blood on its hands after two thousand years they think, taken in context, a little more might be overlooked.
Fine words from a man who heads up the only public body in teh UK which is allowed to discriminate against gay and lesbian persons. And how hard they have fought to keep that right and deny us our civil rights. When his words match his deeds, I will believe him.
It is a pity that the Archbishop doesn’t acknowledge that his fellow Anglicans’ bigotry concerning LGBT relationships and rights has contributed to the murder of David cato and the dire situation for all LGBT people in Uganda.”
Regarding Uganda’s Anti-Homosexuality Bill, proposed by MP David Bahat, the Anglican Church of Uganda has said: “We appreciate the spirit of the Bill’s objective of protecting the family, especially in light of a growing propaganda to influence younger people to accept homosexuality as a legitimate way of expressing human sexuality. We particularly appreciate the objectives of the Bill which seek to provide for marriage in Uganda as contracted only between a man and woman; prohibit and penalise homosexual behaviour and related practices in Uganda as they constitute a threat to the traditional family; prohibit ratification of any international treaties, conventions, protocols, agreements and declarations which are contrary or inconsistent with the provisions of the Act; prohibit the licensing of organizations which promote homosexuality.”
Doesn’t the Archbishop realise that the “bigotry of others”, which he refers to, must include members of his own Anglican Church?
More homophobic bigotry in Uganda has come from US religious ministers like Carl Ellis Jenkins, Lou Engle, and Scott Lively, whose hateful and dangerous anti-LGBT rhetoric and actions must also have contributed in no small measure to the death of David Kato and the hostility of the Ugandan population as a whole. Will the Archbishop of Canterbury condemn them?”
Rowan Williams is playing the long game on this issue and I genuinely believe he is trying to steer the Anglican Communion in a positive direction.
There are strong and growing forces for change within the Church of England and I think the Archbishop knows this. I think he also recognises the need to include LGBT worshippers, who make up a not so insignificant part of regular congregations (and clergy) in the Western churches.
The African churches are still lagging some way behind and he needs to find a delicate way of bringing them on board. He has a difficult job on his hands.
Within the Church, arguments in favour of LGBT rights will be won on the basis of biblical and theological discourse. As the clergy become more enlightened and sensitive to the positive and tolerant messages of the bible, things will change. It’s already happening in fact. Many vicars are already writing positive letters in parish magazines on this subject and preaching tolerant sermons from the pulpit on a Sunday morning.
Rowan Williams is steering a course, but there will be no sharp u-turns. I think we should give him some credit rather than castigate him as homophobe in chief.
Too little too late.
Too little too late… Archbish attempting to cover his own craven arse.
But of course holding the Anglican church together is more important than human rights abuses…always self-interest wins out with these religious phoneys.
if he is such a friend to the LBg community why is he supporting and aiding the homophobes? he screwed a LBG adoption idea to keep the church together, day by day all he cares about is keeping peace with the homophobic side of the church
Slopping writing by PinkNews. What does the following mean?
At the press conference on Friday, Archbishop Williams defended him, saying that his position concerned “exclusion from ministry on grounds of behaviour, not orientation”.
Is he referring to Rev. Orombi? If so, he seems to be saying that we shouldn’t be demonised based upon our orientation, but it’s OK to advocate killing us if we act upon it.
As long as these religious cults continue to believe in that one verse in Leviticus, there will NEVER be any acceptance. Its wired in their blood to hate which of course they’ll deny when confronted with the truth. They conveniently dismiss or discard other blblical references, the ones that the likes of Stephen Green and his ilk, Melanie Phillips comes to mind….adhere to, but they’ll use the Leviticus mantra with impunity to make sure we remain unequal. Does anyone really think the religious C of E bigots in the House of Lords would support civil marriage equallity? Of course not!
Have we heard anything similar from Roman Catholics? Did they condemn Cato s murder?
“Have we heard anything similar from Roman Catholics? Did they condemn Cato s murder?”
Of course not.,
But just because the catholic cult is even more bigotted does not give the anglican cult a free pass for its murderous bigotry.
David Kato was beaten to death with a hammer.
In my opinion, that’s the kind of subtle action the Anglican Church deserves…. but I don’t mean to incite violence….just validating the ‘eye for an eye’ thing…
actions speak louder than words:
In transliterated Hebrew, the verse is written:
“V’et zachar lo tishkav mishk’vey eeshah toeyvah hee.”
The first part of this verse is literally translated as
“And with a male you shall not lay lyings of a woman”
the verse is incomplete and Its precise meaning is ambiguous. The phrase “lay lyings” has no obvious interpretation.
…most biblical translations imply when they translate the Hebrew “toeyvah” in this verse into English words such as “abomination,” “enormous sin,” or “detestable.”
Ceremonial uncleanliness is caused by contact with a forbidden object or by engaging in a behavior which might be quite acceptable to non-Hebrews, but which was forbidden to the Children of Israel. Eating birds of prey, eating shellfish, cross breeding livestock, picking up sticks on a Saturday, planting a mixture of seeds in a field, and wearing clothing that is a blend of two textiles are examples of acts of ritual impurity which made a Child of Israel unclean. These were not necessarily minor sins; some called for the ancient Israelite to be executed or expelled from the tribe.
However it is interpreted, the verse applied only to the priestly class of Levites at the time it was written, it had & has no relevance to the behaviour of anyone else then or now whether it is interpreted to condemn all same sex activity, some same sex activity or whether it just condemns same sex activity in a womans bed which was to be reserved solely for heterosexual rogering.
Reference found at:
Am I right that the church is dying, and that every Sunday you can see how the crowds are smaller.
Rowan williams seems to be a decent Eunich, which is his problem.