Pages

Monday, 25 May 2009

Baying for blood in Bonnie Scotland

The so-called traditionalists within the Kirk have really got it in for gay people.

Although Scott Rennie – the openly gay minister who was accepted by his own parish but not by many of the Kirk's more extremist hatemongers – has now got the approval of the executive body, the General Assembly, there are still bigots who want blood.

A story in the Scotsman tells us:

The Assembly met on Saturday night to consider the legality of Aberdeen Presbytery’s move to call Mr Rennie to become minister of the city’s Queen’s Cross Church. It had been claimed by objecting members of the presbytery that to appoint an openly gay minister was at odds with the Kirk’s current code of ministerial conduct [and] would create a precedent that would force it to take a stance that departed from biblical teachings.

After four hours of debate and evidence, the Assembly voted by 326 to 267 to uphold Mr Rennie’s appointment but also said the decision would not set a precedent affecting any further cases.

A group of evangelical idiots called Forward Together are now speaking of how the Assembly’s decision has brought “great shame” on the church.

The only shame is that there are people like the Forward Together group associated with it. If there were no objection to natural human traits, there would be no shame, because shame would simply not be an issue. The shame is brought by the bigots.
__________
Related link:
Questions of interpretation

No comments:

Post a Comment

We welcome lively and challenging comments. However, please try to stay on topic, be polite and do not use abusive, racist or sexist language, and do not incite your readers to violence or other antisocial behaviour, or your comment will be deleted. This isn't censorship: it's a case of staying within the bounds of decency and having an eye to the law, although we realise the law will be different in different countries.

We do not bar anonymous comments at the moment, but we would prefer that those commenting play fair and use their name or at least a regular nom de plume. It does show a confidence in your convictions. We know, too, that it's easy to use a false name and be effectively anonymous, but, again, we appeal to your sense of good practice. Even a wacky nom de plume is better, since at least readers will come to know that contributor and maybe remember her or his previous comments.

Blatant commercial advertising will be removed.

Comments should not be construed as necessarily the policy or opinion of the Pink Triangle Trust.

Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.