Obama and the Gay Bishop: 'Three Private Meetings'

Read on to find out why Barack Obama sought out gay Bishop Gene Robinson not once but three times on the campaign trail for private talks.

Today I had the chance to discuss the US election with Bishop Gene Robinson, who is briefly in London for the annual Stonewall awards where he won 'Hero of the Year'.

I took a tape which means you can if you wish listen one part of the interview or to another part of the interview yourself. The first part is now also available. Or read on for the full transcript that I've summarised also in a news story for The Times.

First, we discussed the present difficulties in the Anglican Communion. The Bishop said he felt the covenant was being pushed towards a document that would deal more with mission than discipline. He said he believed a second province in the US would be a non-starter with The Episcopal Church but that it might happen if the Archbishop of Canterbury used his authority to recognise it. Gafcon might also feel it had the authority to do it anyway, he believed.

'We are in uncharted waters here. If such a thing were desirable who has the authority to do it and where  does that end? Do we then start having parallel churches, not only in so-called liberal provinces for the conservatives, but do we start liberal parallel provinces in conservative ones? Once you start that process I don't know how you put that genie back in the bottle.'

Regarding the effect of the credit crunch on Anglican provinces, he said the full consequences of the financial crisis will 'trickle up'. TEC dioceses and parishes are now doing stewardship campaigns. After that, dioceses will know better the extent of any shortfall and how this will affect giving to the church at national level.

But he was actually most interesting on his private meetings with President-elect Barack Obama. Bishop Gene said: 'I had the great honour of having three private conversations with him.' These took place in May and June last year and were not initiated by Robinson.

'I was actually sought out by his campaign. He had quite an extraordinary outreach to the religious community. By that I mean all religious communities. And through those contacts I had the opportunity to speak to him. And I must say I don't know if it is an expression here in England or not but he is the genuine article. I think he is exactly who he says he is. And I serve on the church pension fund board at the national level and  I serve with someone who has been his friend since Barack was in college and says what you see is exactly who he has been for as long as I've known him.

'He is impressive, he's smart, he is an amazing listener. For someone who's called on to speak all the time when he asks you a question it is not for show, he is actually wanting to know what you think and listens, or at least gives you that impression. I think we've had eight years of someone who has listened to almost no-one. So the thought of having a president who gathers the best people around him and then listens to what they have to say to him, especially the things he doesn't want to hear I think he will be open to, that is very refreshing. So I'm absolutely delighted about him.

'To see the tears in the eyes of African-Americans, it's just been a profoundly, I would say religious, experience, very exciting.'

I asked him how they greeted each other.

Bishop Robinson said: 'The first words out of his mouth were, 'Well you're certainly causing a lot of trouble!' My response to him was, 'Well that makes two of us!'

They did not discuss Anglican issues in great depth. 'He certainly indicated his broad and deep support for the full civil rights for gay and lesbian people but frankly we talked more about - I pressed him on the Millennium Development Goals. I wanted to know whether he thought more about them than just they were a good idea but whether he had any intention of pushing for their full funding and so on.'

The bishop was guarded about Obama's response to this. He had seemed committed 'but now I think given the economic crisis everything is up for grabs.... my own hope is that the US will not shirk its responsibilities in aid to the developing world. That's going to be a hard-fought fight not, just with President Obama but all the powers in Washington.'

They discussed the place of religion and faith in the US.

'The thing that I liked about him and what he said on this issue is that he and I would agree about the rightful place of religion vis-a-vis the secular state. That is to say, we don't impose our religious values on the secular state because God said so. Our faith informs our own values and then we take those values into the civil market place, the civil discourse, and then you argue for them based on the constitution. You don't say to someone, you must believe this because this is what God believes. I think God gives us our values and then we argue for those on the basis of the constitution and care of our neighbour.

'And I think the Bush administration got very very close to the line if not going over the line in terms of offering support to religious-based groups who were using their social service arms to proselytise and evangelise which I would say is inappropriate.'

They did not discuss Israel. 'My sense is that the most important thing about that is that he understands that the United States needs to be a player and that there probably will be no solution to the Israel Palestinian problem unless the United States forces it and acts as a broker.'

Bishop Robinson continued: 'I don't think either side will operate in good faith unless they are forced to much as Jimmy Carter brokered the peace between Israel and Egypt.' The bishop said: 'If we were able to buy the peace in Israel and Palestine I think that would be a very good use of our money.'

He was surprised by what a towering figure the senator is, literally as well as metaphorically.

'The amazing thing is that Barack is he is so tall. You don't notice it on television because Michelle is as tall as he is. I don't know his real height but it must be 6 foot four or five. He is very Lincolnesque in that way. He's just this long and lean, string bean kind of human being.

'He has no hesitation whatsoever to talk about his faith. I find that remarkable not only in a politician but also in a Democrat. For years it's only been Republicans who wanted to talk about religion. All the Democratic candidates felt disposed to do so this year. It's just one of the interesting things about this campaign. It is not a stretch for him.'

Regarding the repeated suggestions of Obama's leanings towards Islam, Bishop Robinson has his own theory. 'I don't know how you could ever prove it. But because some of the claims have been so outrageous - that he's a Muslim, that he wasn't born in the United States, his associations with various incendiary people - I have to wonder if because people couldn't outright say they weren't going to vote for a black man that this became a way of objecting to his presidency, that that was more defensible than racist attacks.'

They discussed what it was like to be 'first' in something - first gay bishop, potentially first black president.

Bishop Gene said: 'One of the things Barack and I did talk about when we were together was just  the experience of being first and the danger of that and we talked about being demonised by one side and, I don't know if the word is angelicised, by the other. Expectations are laid on you both negative and positive and neither are true. And the importance of remaining centred and grounded in the middle of that so that you don't begin to believe either your negative press or your positive press.'

They touched also on security risks.
'We did not talk about assassination specifically but we did talk about the physical risks to ploughing new
territory. I don't think anyone can have observed life in America in the last century without noting that we tend to be a more violent society than most and that the availability of weapons and the willingness of some
people to use them present enormous challenges. At the end of the day you have to decide whether or not
you are going to be paralysed by threats and by violent possibilities  or whether you are just move on and do what you feel called to do despite the risks.'

(Pic by Times photographer Peter Nicholls.)

Comments

[Kate]

Geoffrey Smith: 'With the advent of Dr Napier on this blog,
[snip]

Napier is documented as a self-aggrandising [snip]- all in his own words.

[Geoffrey Smith]

"Dave cannot afford to indulge in arguments over interpretation, given that his modus operandi is to convince gay people that they are intrinsically "wrong"..."
- J Pearce, 4 DEC 2008, 17:01:49

With the advent of Dr Napier on this blog, I'd say that Mr Pearce's case [snip]

[j]

"Stick to your weekly lottery ticket, Mrs J. Ladbrookes have no fear of competition from you."

J, does that look like responding in the sense that you meant and the rest of us took?

I got a lovely reply on the other thread- apparently the words in the bible mean what the church says they means. You know, just like Humpty Dumpty in Alice.

Not interpretation, you understand- no, your actual words.

So if we think we can speak Greek, we need to think again. If the Church tells me the Greek for apple is pantechnikon, apparently it is.

[Christopher]

"....his modus operandi is to convince gay people that they are intrinsically "wrong"..."

Right, JPearce but it is creepier than that. In their efforts to convince unhappy gay men that they truly "love" the sinner (while hating the sin, yadda, yadda,yadda....) these operatives give the lads big manly hugs and cuddles to show them what real heterosexual bonding with a man can be like. I wish I could think of the title but there was a TV film about it a few months; it showed this as one of the perks of the job - sorry, necessary self-sacrificial duties, ahem - for these latter-day pardoners.

[Christopher]

"Stick to your weekly lottery ticket, Mrs J. Ladbrookes have no fear of competition from you."

J, does that look like responding in the sense that you meant and the rest of us took?

[j]

Looking forward to it, GS. Not irrelevant things abut annulment but the core issue of the meaning of the words commonly mistranslated as homosexual men.

[Geoffrey Smith]

"Iam offering odds:
2:1 GS never replies to Potoroo's actual scholarship at all."
- J, 4 DEC 2008, 13:37:53

Stick to your weekly lottery ticket, Mrs J. Ladbrookes have no fear of competition from you.

[J Pearce]

J,

If anyone on this blog can be accused of creating God in his own image, its our Dave. He eschews most canons of Biblical exegisis and promotes an entirely self-centered, conceited interpretation of the Bible and by extension, interpretation of what "God" really wants.

[snip]

Dave cannot afford to indulge in arguments over interpretation, given that his modus operandi is to convince gay people that they are intrinsically "wrong" - he cannot leave his "patients" open to any form of doubt about the arguments he presents them with, otherwise he shoots himself in the foot.

Therefore, as LizR says, no amount of credible, rational, intellectually argued evidence is going to get Dave to change his mind on homosexuality - because he cannot afford to change his mind. He has a vested interest in ignoring anything which might contradict what he's trying to sell. It’s a no-brainer.

If you really want to see how Dave's beliefs are built upon a house of egotistical cards, try telling him that you understand the real truth of Jesus message. That really gets him going...

[j]

"Also, if you read (or maybe re-read) the New Testament,"
David, rest assured that I have read it and am a linguist so am able to read it in more than one language.

I found Poteroo's analysis compelling and well-informed. Is it new information to you, or do you think that it is academically flawed in some way?

As you know, I am not an athiest through hostility to faith, but I do find it difficult to see absolute positions founded on inaccurate interpretations of data, which is why I would be interested in your reaction to the information put forward.

[ElizabethR]

"...any other predications?" J

Yeah J. 100:1 that absolutely no scholarly argument or scrupulously argued form of rationality will change David Smith's mind. He's in up to his neck and does not do massive loss of face...not to mention the jolly old raison d'etre! Bloody shame I reckon.

You can't lose with either of your sets of odds!

[j]

I think its going to be fun seeing if the anti-gay christians ccan decide what is more dear to them: being true to their faith or being able to attack gay people.

Potoroo has laid out beautifully why their biblical scholarship is a mess. So will they search their conscience, address the issue in humility and faith and follow the word of their god?

or will they say, la la, not listening, gay people are yuck and I am right so there?

I am offering odds:
2:1 GS never replies to Potoroo's actual scholarship at all; 3:1 gets you David Smith saying "homosex" again..any other predications?

[David Smith]

J:
'David I am interested in this post because I see an opportunity to pick up on what Ruth has asked us to do: to treat one another with more courtesy and charity.. '

Your efforts at responding to Ruth's lead, and at 'civilising' debate on this blog are noted and appreciated, J.

However, there are some here for who a confident assertion of a view that opposes theirs is just not palatable, however politely it is put. And when they fail to silence it by more reasoned forms of persuasion, they resort to violence - sometimes in the form of straight abuse and libel.

If you want to know more about the basis for my firm view on homosex, and indeed the firmness of my faith, then you can look at the previous threads where the subject (its roots, consequences, and remedies) has already been discussed in great detail and at great length. And I can reference the key ones for you.

Also, if you read (or maybe re-read) the New Testament, you will see that true faith is actually much more about certainty than faint and vapid hope. I think it is often here more those who simply cannot stand to think that someone else's certainty may be well placed, and so become abusive, than those who firmly but non-abusively express that certainty that need to examine their hearts.

[ElizabethR]

"It goes with the intrinsic disorder." GS

Er what was that? What are you doing!! Are you up for supertroll of the year? You are serially impolite and one presumptuous [snip] Geoff!

Takes one to know one.

No it doesn't.

Yes it does.

Yawn...

[ElizabethR]

'let's not spend our time getting cross...' J

Dear J,

You definitely worry too much! I am not in the least 'cross', quite the opposite and certainly not with you. I often write tongue wedged firmly in cheek and I am amazed at the apparent inability of some of this lot to see themselves! Just because I am, very occasionally, (cough) a bit loud it doesn't detract from some sincerely-held beliefs. Humour is a wonderful thing... I can see we are on the same wavelength, er... basically.

I spend a lot of time assessing argument, pursuing references and wading through other people's writing. So excuse me if I let off steam around here, without chapter and verse. Regards!

[Christopher]

" it is characteristic of a [!!!!!!!!!******] to use such verbals in response to a critique. It goes with the intrinsic disorder." Papa Galfridus (Geoff to you and me) Immaculatus Ipsissimus I.

Your and who else's catechism defines it as such? Ah, Geoff, I hadn't realised you were SUCH a calvinist. No wonder both you Smiths appear to sing from the same hymn-sheet. He's not a Catholic and you have just revealed that you are a heretical one. But at least your belligerence, for all the sad personal bitterness it betrays, is preferable to the kind of Uriah-Heapish faux-charity that your namesake had the rascally cheek to pile on Kate, her son and JPearce, as adeptly as any mediaeval pardoner.

"... in response to a critique". Again what critique? Assertion is your ONLY debating technique, Geoffrey. Why don't you try criticising your new chum David Smith for his constant obsession with "homosex", as he pornographically delights in referring to it? Or is your back-scratching foul-weather friendship blinding you to it? (Thanks Kate for pointing up the Smiths' egoism à deux so neatly.)

[j]

ER I'm sorry if that post was irritating, I think it was drafted in a way that mant you read it one way though I meant something else.

My fault. Apologies.

Let's start again. We have such interesting things to talk about, let's not spend our time getting cross.

[Geoffrey Smith]

Ruth, why is it OK for you to publish a photograph of a homosexual in a gay pride parade using the word 'f*g' in reference to Our Lord, but it deserves a snip when I use it in reference to a poster on your blog? Is Christopher more important than Christ?

(rg writes: those were the words used in the original ad the post is about, i've now posted the ad up as a document so people can see for themselves, hence the pic.)

[Geoffrey Smith]

It would be such a refreshing change to read a post from Christopher which did not contain any ad hominem insults of a sexual nature. No chance of that, though, since it is characteristic of a [snip] to use such verbals in response to a critique. It goes with the intrinsic disorder.

[ElizabethR]

J. It was the "Why are we so fascinated by GS's posts? let's discuss things amongst ourselves instead." that got me going...

Yeah alright!

[j]

Elizabeth, when we first posted on the same theme you got very cross when I suggested ignoring the more aggressive and homophobic posts from GS, saying
“I am just saying that ignoring bad behaviour and rewarding the good is worth a go. I will happily debate with GS if he wants to, as he well knows, but I wont swop insults .. "Time and again we try to get back to a serious discussion, and then are fascinated away by some deliberate unpleasantness." “

You said on that:

“Were you the girl at school with the pig tails who whispered in the corner and tried to get everyone else to ignore the one wearing old-fashioned shoes, who was an easy target and the manifestation of loneliness? I bet!" Must be bloody tough! ..'We'? What us what exist separately and can easily define bad behaviour - harrumph! If this happens 'time and again' J are you sure you're a nerdy academic!..Oh my giddy aunt! What do you want, a life in which you merely 'respond', having drawn up a list and filtered out the bits you don't like? Ignore them. And if I bother you ignore me. This is a blog, not a judicial enquiry! “

It seems what infuriates you is anything that suggests you are being left out or that there is exists some body of opinion that thinks it is superior to you. That isn’t what I say, but you react as if it is.

It’s odd because if we look at the content of our posts, we agree. (we=(ER+J))

Shall we try to do better, as Ruth suggests? after all, if anyone is in charge of the blog, she is. Not either of us.

[Christopher]

"Actually Dave, is there NOTHING BLOODY ELSE that you can discuss within the socio-political realms of Christianity? "

Obviously not, ElizabethR, because he enjoys it too much. Both DS and GS take us all not just for simpletons, we are their ventriloquist's dolls so they ask the question, then in their pip-squeak voices, have us, their dolls, that is, give the answers. How else did Geoffrey come up with his priceless analysis of me, that I knew as a gay man I couldn't serve God and Mammon, so I chose Mammon. I'm telling you, ER, these dudes don't have a life, obviously don't have sex (except perhaps the fumbling lights-off, pyjamas-still-on missionary coitus adspectans, sans oral, sans anal, variety), and CERTAINLY they don't want anyone else to.

[Theo Dexter]

Kate

I mean the courteous Reverend Ian.

On reflection perhaps I should have used the word “opponent”.

I apologise for any confusion caused.

[Geoffrey Smith]

"Certainly not dear Geoffrey - an English Roman (sic) Catholic - still in Purgatory over the foibles of Henry VIII, and distinctly unpleasant to Irish RCs posting here in the past."
- Kate, 2 DEC 2008, 18:26:09

I take it that this is a reference to the long-forgotten Niamh Devlin
(I hope I have spelled her name correctly; strange exotic languages never have been my forte)?
Well, Kate, it all depends on how you define the term 'Catholic', and whether it can be applied to Ms Devlin. I'd say there was some considerable doubt about that. One thing is quite certain: it cannot possibly be applied to you, whatever the definition.

[ElizabethR]

"In J Pearce’s case, he works out his own inner stresses and resentments through a kind of ‘life’s work’ of endlessly attacking ‘the religious’ and the ‘Christian religious’ in particular. There’s a lovely guy in there too, but my take is that he has a huge need to endlessly rail against the bad deal that he has had in life" D Smith.

Oh well then, no wonder it takes some experts only four hours to assess their screwed-up patients and provide a remedy for them. Perhaps psychiatry could branch out and psycho-analyse people via a correspondence course.

1."Homosex is wrong" So says the mighty hokey-pokey tippy top-top. He knows, AND actually expects to be taken seriously by everyone else. There's no argument, no grey areas and no alternative view allowed. 'Homosex' (lick lick, slurp slurp) is WRONG. Who is he; God in a bubble?

2. "It is a known fact that a common and major and cause of rejection by men of heterosexual intimacy for homosexual intimacy (and sex) is the rejection of the opposite sex, as modelled by their mother, as desirable and trustworthy for safe intimacy. (The two other major, and some.... [blah blah blah blah!]"

Oh abso-bloody-lutely. And a major rejection of homosexual sex for heterosexual intimacy (and sex) is the rejection of the same sex as modelled by their father? (er...?). These things apply in all cases of course... So this is a secular argument with nothing 'biblical' about it then. Some people may believe this horse shit, I couldn't possibly comment.

But isn't it marvellous that someone has spelt out this 'known fact' for us all. Normal people could have gone on for decades believing that homosexuality, with us since the dawn of time, was just a variant within a spectrum of normality. Fancy, all those mothers - failed models of the opposite sex eh - no wonder they were all rejected.

So, since your explanation is so appropriate Dave, why do you add to the woes of these clearly unfortunate people by labelling them as Godless outcasts that (seemingly) only God (via you of course) can remedy?

Actually Dave, is there NOTHING BLOODY ELSE that you can discuss within the socio-political realms of Christianity? Why is this one issue SO stinkingly important to you that it provokes acres of writing, dark threats of libel and charges of abuse splashed over all those who think you are barking (up the wrong tree)? It's the jolly old buggery isn't it?

"Have no doubt, as you do this, just who, in the mind of the impartial onlooker, is winning the argument just now."

Holy cow! You CANNOT think it's you and Geoff can you? (It's actually far worse than 'we' thought baby!) Perhaps the rest of us simpletons who, naturally, are waiting upon your every word, might hear from the 'impartial onlooker' - not that there are many to be found around here.

How long did it take you to get like this? There is a way back.

[ElizabethR]

"ElizabethR tells us we are pretentious and overcontrolling when [WE} say that [WE} would like some sensible debate and good behaviour on this blog, but I don’t think everyone agrees with her."

That is emphatically NOT what I said. What are you implying - all content in my posts applies generally? I don't think so. If you are looking for a debate in which everyone agrees good luck! Who does 'we' include 'J'?

Is 'good behaviour' defined by you? You may be closer to D Smith than you think!

[Kate]

Theo Dexter: Too, too, quick to presume I fear: "your Irish debating partner"?

Whom, I wonder, might that be?

Certainly not dear Geoffrey - an English Roman Catholic - still in purgatory over the foibles of Henry VIII and distinctly unpleasant to Irish RCs posting here in the past.

[J Pearce]

"In J Pearce’s case, he works out his own inner stresses and resentments through a kind of ‘life’s work’ of endlessly attacking ‘the religious’ and the ‘Christian religious’ in particular."

Well, no, not really. It’s a hobby. I don't have time to dedicate my life to refining irrational prejudices, Dave. I have the real world to deal with, which is a damn sight more complicated than you could ever hope to encapsulate in your paucity of vision.

And I don't attack the religious, Dave. I question the religious zealots, who peddle lies, division and inhumanity masquerading as acceptable religious dogma. And I question the moral failures and naked gerrymandering of corporate religion. Being questioned is clearly not something you are used to, Dave.

"...but my take is that he has a huge need to endlessly rail against the bad deal that he has had in life (especially from what he perceives as, and what I am sure has also actually been, bad authority)..."

Your take is wrong.

"...by becoming a permanent 'complaining guest’ on a blog the subject matter of which in essence in his mind stands for all that he most hates."

We are all guests here, Dave. Although you appear to have bypassed that in your own mind and taken "ownership" of not only who should, or should not actually take part in the blog, but also the subject matters (i.e. almost exclusively Christian, when this is actually a multi-faith blog).

I don't recall saying I hate Judaism or Hinduism, Dave. I repeat - I am opposed to religious extremism, which comes in many forms, some of it seductively subtle. As you are only too well aware, I'm sure.

"This explains why he is so reluctant to find out what true Christianity is."

Ah, of course, the never-ending repetition of the implication that it is only you, Dave, who knows what "true" Christianity is. Credit where credit is due, Dave, you are your own best marketing machine. Unfortunately - for you - some of us can see right through it.

Sorry mate, I'm not one of your "patients". Your coercion techniques are lost on me, I'm afraid.

[j]

David I am interested in this post because I see an opportunity to pick up on what Ruth has asked us to do: to treat one another with more courtesy and charity.
ElizabethR tells us we are pretentious and overcontrolling when we say that we would like some sensible debate and good behaviour on this blog, but I don’t think everyone agrees with her.
There is one thing you could do, if you wanted to. I understand that your position is a sincere one, and grounded in your faith. But you could make a big difference in the way people respond to you if you said: “my faith teaches me that homosex is wrong” rather than just asserting it so bluntly. Also, where you say that something “is a known fact”, you must know that others will have different information- I would challenge your analysis of the sources of gay orientation, for example. Again, you could say, “I have been persuaded by what I have read that…”.
Call me prissy if you like, but it’s a matter of not provoking people- being a lightning rod- for the sake of it. There is something about the blunt assertion of superiority that is bound to upset others.
Call it a lesson in humility?

[J Pearce]

"Homosex is wrong."

According to who? You, Dave. And some other Christians. But not all of them. So the statement needs qualification - it should read, "In my religious opinion..".

Then we can ask you to substantiate why you have formed this opinion. You can give us your reasons. We can then contest these reasons.

But hang on, we've done all that. Ages ago. We have contested every reason you have tried to muster with rational counter-argument. We have proven through rational debate and evidence, that there are no, singular medical, or moral, or legal reasons, why homosexuality and consenting sex between homosexuals is deserving of the perjorative term "wrong".

Tell you what Dave, you give us a bullet point list of the reasons why, in your opinion, homosexuality is "wrong" and we'll counter-argue every bullet. Again. Just for completeness. We'll see who's "winning the argument" then.

"It is a known fact that a common and major and cause of rejection by men of heterosexual intimacy for homosexual intimacy (and sex) is the rejection of the opposite sex, as modelled by their mother, as desirable and trustworthy for safe intimacy. "

A fact? Is it? Where in the international medical community has this been stated? Which major medical luminaries have verified this? Where are the research papers? Where is the medical consensus giving credence to this claim? Who are your sources?

If you would be so kind as to support this claim with evidence, that would be good. Then we can examine that evidence for its credibility. Until then, it is not a "fact", Dave, it is an opinion. Much like what your opinion of what "libel" is.

"I think you have shown enormous strength, guts, and determination in climbing above this - as has Kate in fighting against people who I am sure have wrongly judged and discriminated against the whole person who is her much-loved and gifted son."

Eurgh. That really made my flesh crawl, though. Probably better off sticking to your "facts" Dave. If you have any, that is.

[David Smith]

Geoffrey Smith to Kate:
‘You seem to have hatred on the brain. I wasn't aware that David Smith hates Catholics; in fact, I'm sure he doesn't. He dislikes what he supposes are the doctrines of the Catholic Church, but that is not even remotely similar to an abhorrence for Catholics as people. Really Kate, you are becoming more and more spiteful with every post!’

Thank you for this, Geoffrey.

In J Pearce’s case, he works out his own inner stresses and resentments through a kind of ‘life’s work’ of endlessly attacking ‘the religious’ and the ‘Christian religious’ in particular. There’s a lovely guy in there too, but my take is that he has a huge need to endlessly rail against the bad deal that he has had in life (especially from what he perceives as, and what I am sure has also actually been, bad authority) by becoming a permanent 'complaining guest’ on a blog the subject matter of which in essence in his mind stands for all that he most hates.

This explains why he is so reluctant to find out what true Christianity is. Supposing he found out that the real thing in the right hands actually has the potential to be the greatest force for good in an individual that the world has ever known? That would really cause him a problem: where would he point all his anger then?

[David Smith]

Geoffrey Smith:
‘I think, David, that the best response we can make to this new troll on the blog is to treat her with the derision she deserves.’

Geoffrey, we have had this discussion once before...about J Pearce. I understand your frustration and, sometimes, justified anger at those who are closed to proper, sensible arguments about Christianity and Christian belief, and who resort to abuse of ‘christians’ instead. But I don’t go with you when you suggest doing the same. By all means let’s stand up to and challenge what we see as poor arguments - and gratuitous and lying abuse. But no one should be labeled a troll and singled out for derision.

[snip]

As you know well, we are all ‘sinners,’ and more or less wounded, and it is from these places in us that things like abuse issue.

I think you have shown enormous strength, guts, and determination in climbing above this - as has Kate in fighting against people who I am sure have wrongly judged and discriminated (snip). Have no doubt, as you do this, just who, in the mind of the impartial onlooker, is winning the argument just now.

[j]

"Actually, Mr P, I am still waiting for those "reasoned and historically verifiable" objections you mention! I asked you in a previous post to produce them but you mysteriously declined to do so."

Rather as I am still waiting for a reply to my question to you, GS?

[Geoffrey Smith]

"Any reasoned and historically verifiable objections to the RCC, its behaviour and its dogma are all routinely dismissed as 'hatred'
- J Pearce, 1 DEC 2008, 10:38:58

Actually, Mr P, I am still waiting for those "reasoned and historically verifiable" objections you mention! I asked you in a previous post to produce them but you mysteriously declined to do so.
Yes, you can certainly accuse individual Catholics, or even 'Catholic' nations, of committing serious offences, and produce evidence of them having done so, but in no way can you throw this shit at the Catholic Church and make it stick! Horse, water, drink, as I have already remarked on another thread.

[ElizabethR]

"It must be infuriating to have all that work and effort dismissed by a few well-chosen factual phrases." GS

Geoff - it seems to me that you do for Christianity what the Fleet Air Arm and a posse of destroyers did for the Bismarck. If you think your phrases are either well-chosen or factual I must be reading the wrong blog. You appear to preside over some deluded dystopian nightmare of unpleasantness, where you stand alone defending a world which is not even recognized BY Christians!

Anybody reading Kate's posts could deduce that she is NOT anti-Catholic; so much so that the lady 'J', posting recently decided that Kate WAS a Catholic. Missed that eh?

Anyway, who cares. If you want to keep on like this, connecting nothing with nothing, that's your problem.

Look out! I can feel another "Oh dear, Geoffrey" moment arriving from outer space from the slayer of speculative abusers. No doubt he possesses some deep bizarre formula for absolving you and exterminating the rest! It might involve interminable narrative...

(Anyway if, by some quirk of nature, I should happen arrive at your door with Carol, singing, you will give generously eh? I expect you are nearly incontinent with excitement as the Christian festival approaches, and with it the prospect of joining in with the messages of peace and goodwill!)

[Geoffrey Smith]

"I AM NOT anti-Catholic.... Please look to your foul-weather friend David Smith for hatred of Catholics."
- Kate, 1 DEC 2008, 13:45:02

Don't waste your valuable lunchtime posting about me, Kate!
You seem to have hatred on the brain. I wasn't aware that David Smith hates Catholics; in fact, I'm sure he doesn't. He dislikes what he supposes are the doctrines of the Catholic Church, but that is not even remotely similar to an abhorrence for Catholics as people. Really Kate, you are becoming more and more spiteful with every post!

[Theo Dexter]

Kate

“But I AM NOT anti-Catholic.”

It is so perplexing when people accuse you of being something you know you are not.

BTW I am not a literalist and your Irish debating partner belongs to a denomination and not an independent church.

[Kate]

Geoff: What an unfriendly response. I don't give a damn whether I am right or wrong. I hypothesise in order to make sense of the indefensible. I am often wrong.

About as far removed from Anti-Catholic bigotry as you are. Please look to your foul-weather friend David Smith for hatred of Catholics.

My tentative 'analysis' is just that. I AM somewhat averse to distortion of ordinary Catholics - I care about too many of them. I am averse to distortion of the history of the Catholic church. But I AM NOT anti-Catholic.

[J Pearce]

Actually Geoff, Kate has nailed you to a tee.

You have repeatedly shown as much compassion or empathy as amoebic dysentry. Christianity is a religion supposedly predicated on the compassion of Jesus Christ. You repeatedly fail to act in the manner your religion expects of you.

You show no capacity to argue rationally, in that, you refuse to even acknowledge the basic failures that the RCC has made over the centuries. Any reasoned and historically verifiable objections to the RCC, its behaviour and its dogma as all routinely dismissed as "hatred". This is typical Smithian modus operandi - attack the critic, not the criticism, thereby bypassing the requirement to engage in the argument.

There is no value in even attempting to maintain any rational debate with you, precisely because you always attack the contributor. Your "rebuttals" are invariably insults or sarcasm.

I too have detected a malignant and corrosive venom in you, ranged against almost anything this world has to offer. My guess is that your disability has left you embittered, railing against a world over which you have barely the minimum of personal control. Or perhaps your parents emotionally rejected you because you were disabled and you became ostracised?

Whatever happened has left you paranoid and isolated from the real world - "if you can't defeat me by an attack on Catholic history, or teaching, or doctrine, you will try to destroy me by drawing a mental cartoon of my personality". No-one is trying to destroy you Geoff - the fact you are prepared to air this belief vidicates Kate's assessment entirely.

I can only surmise that there is a gigantic void where your soul should be, so you spend your days instead getting vicarious thrills from unloading your self-hatred onto other people via this blog. Your own religion has manifestly failed you Geoff - it has not prevented you from descending into a well of misery and becoming anaesthetized to your fellow human beings, many of whom suffer equally as you do.

[j]

But, GS, do you accept my point?

You see, your theology seems odd to me.

You predicate a father figure who doles out suffering at whim, and whose word must not be questioned: instead, we should be humbly grateful that he does not hurt us even more.

Abused children of cruel fathers may have to tolerate this. But surely, this is not the Christian teaching?

I thought the Christian god was a loving father to my children, not an abusive one? so I do not see how your theology can be consistent with a Christian message.

Many thanks to Kate for her kindness.

[Geoffrey Smith]

As one pathological monster to another, Kate, I can gleefully say that your analysis of my character is about as far from reality as one can get. I can well understand your anger and dismay when you read my rebuttal of your anti-Catholic rhetoric. It must be infuriating to have all that work and effort dismissed by a few well-chosen factual phrases. Your bigotry seems to know no bounds, if you can't defeat me by an attack on Catholic history, or teaching, or doctrine, you will try to destroy me by drawing a mental cartoon of my personality. The very last word of your post is the give-away - Vatican. Hateful to the last.

[Kate]

J: "It is their misfortune, not mine, that I resent."

My dear J that is quite clear from all you have said about your child. I fear 'charity' in the sense of compassion - which requires empathy - is quite foreign to Geoffrey.

That absence often manifests in individuals who have spent, for whatever reason, a life of isolation. Geoff appears glued to his computer; operates out of a hate-filled vacuum; and likens, without extrapolation, his own position to that of Christ before crucifixion.

Two possibilities

a) Geoff believes he is persecuted - as was Christ - unlike Christ, his response is hate.

b) Geoff genuinely feels despair and aloneness.

Either or both, it is sad; this blog (and possibly others) provide the 'community' and attention he so clearly craves.

As you have said elsewhere, the best response to a child who swears, or behaves badly, is to ignore it. What would happen to Geoff I wonder if we all ignored his attention-seeking?

Whether or not 'elsewhere' would provide the same weird 'comfort' as asserting superiority on a Faith blog, I don't know. Despite the venom Geoff has directed at my son and family, he fails to evoke the cold, reactive - 'an intellectual hatred is the worst' - aversion I experience when reading his namesake.

Geoff has made me very, very angry and at other times doubled up with mirth. Ergo, he is capable of effecting emotional reaction. Reaction which has made me 'lash' back or conversely, laugh out loud.

Instinct (which could be terribly wrong) says that somewhere inside, Geoff harbours a huge wound. Not at all sure he is even conscious of it.

This is not to excuse horrendous inhumanity, but there are occasions when, a bit like 'Father Ted', Geoff in his being, is a perfect satire on the worst excesses of the Vatican.

[j]

"you don't thank God for your 'normal' child, do you, but only berate Him for giving you what appear to be 'abnormal' children. They are His creation, Mrs J, not yours, and you should humbly acknowledge that fact, and thank Him for allowing you to be a genetic parent, when so many women are atheists because of their perceived curse of infertility. You are a very fortunate woman, Mrs J, but you don't have the vision to realise that."

GS you appear to think that I am selfishly annoyed with god for giving me substandard goods.

My post was quite clear. I resent the suffering endured by my own child and other similar children, for their sake, as I believe they deserve better.

It is their misfortune, not mine, that I resent. My own life is, as you might expect, entirely dedicated to their care, and will be until one of us dies.

My atheism is not a selfish position. I am angry on their behalf. Any mother who has to watch her child suffer for no good reason would ask: why does he not deserve better than this?

[Geoffrey Smith]

"Well GS, I am thinking of things you say to devout gay men, for instance."
- J, 27 NOV 2008, 20:24:02

I have already explained on this blog, Mrs J, why the expression 'devout gay' is an oxymoron. You cannot serve both God and Mammon. You are either a physically involved homosexual or you are a Christian; you cannot be both. That is why those gays like Christopher are quite correct in their attitude. They prefer to be gays, ergo they cannot be Christians, so they lose their faith and degenerate into atheists.

"...you know perfectly well what the basis of my atheism is,..."
- op.cit.

Indeed I do. An adequate reply to it may be difficult, as you opine, but it is not impossible. Since it would require a post of about 3000 words, I must content myself with the point that you don't thank God for your 'normal' child, do you, but only berate Him for giving you what appear to be 'abnormal' children. They are His creation, Mrs J, not yours, and you should humbly acknowledge that fact, and thank Him for allowing you to be a genetic parent, when so many women are atheists because of their perceived curse of infertility. You are a very fortunate woman, Mrs J, but you don't have the vision to realise that.

[ElizabethR]

"...you know perfectly well what the basis of my atheism is, and you agreed that you had no easy answer to it." J

What on earth is the matter with you Geoffrey? J has spelt it out and you responded in the way she says. Aggressive? Hardly, she wants to have a discussion about how to deal with the recession morally for heaven's sake. As an activity this is getting you nowhere. Try making a scale model of the Vatican out of matchsticks or something.

Don't forget to eat the fish. An act of utter penitence wouldn't come amiss... (Code of Canon Law 1250)

[j]

""Something wholly unkind and provocative". Such as what, Mrs J?
A contradiction of your atheistic position? A refusal to be browbeaten by an aggressive atheist? An irritated response to yet another waspish remark by an anti-Catholic bigot? You seem to be pretty good at making these baseless allegations, so why don't you offer something in the way of facts to give your accusation substance?"

Well GS I am thinking of things you say to devout gay men, for instance.

As you would have to admit, I am not aggressive in what I say. I do not make waspish remarks and am not bigoted against catholics- you know perfectly well what the basis of my atheism is, and you agreed that you had no easy answer to it (and could not be expected to have).

[Geoffrey Smith]

"You may find your underpants are on inside out - have a look!"
- ElizabethR, 27 NOV 2008, 10:20:53

Yes, your Majesty. No, your Majesty, my underpants are in order.
It's your knickers, your Majesty - they are in a twist.

[ElizabethR]

"Or is it - as it should be [obviously] - you must stop doing such a depraved and immoral act immediately?"

Fantastic advice! you don't work for the Samaritans do you? But why stop at buggery? What else do you have to offer in your holy 'counselling' manual? Anything about the wilfully incontinent, the playfully insane, or the worthless sinners on the verge of suicide?

You may find your underpants are on inside out - have a look!

[andrew holden]

Dare I say it, Mrs J? I can well imagine Our Lord feeling as I do on the day of His death.
Your pompous patronising is no substitute for the truth of the Catholic faith. Truth will always win out against falsehood.

Geoffrey, I'm not going to say this again or respond to any more of your posts (period) but if you do have a spiritual director or confessor I'd seriously advise you to discuss this sentiment with him/her.

[ElizabethR]

"Well, Liz, I don't think you will be given that task!"

Posted by: Geoffrey Smith | 26 Nov 2008 17:2

Sorry Captain; please call me Liz. I thought you sounded funereal. Some of your sworn enemies tend to forget that this is just a blog, not a Commons Select Committee or a NATO meeting of world leaders. Go to the 'Pray G-d I can't Do It' thread, where you can learn to wait! There's music and candles!

[ElizabethR]

"Eh? Elizabeth, you havent been posting here all that long" J

Oh great! So for you that means I haven't been reading the forum either! I read therefore I post, er no... Newcomers must know their place, surely not...

"Time and again we try to get back to a serious discussion, and then are fascinated away by some deliberate unpleasantness."

Must be bloody tough!

'We'? What us what exist separately and can easily define bad behaviour - harrumph! If this happens 'time and again' J are you sure you're a nerdy academic!

I promise as a tiro I won't swap insults either, so this time I'll say no more about it!

I was the tall gangly one with the big feet.