If there is a constant refrain in the chorus of denunciations of President Bush over Iraq by the Democratic presidential candidates, it is that his “go it alone” policies have turned our back to our allies and hence turned them against us, that he has led the United States to a morally arrogant hegemonic unilateralism that disregards the sentiments and sage advice of the rest of the world.
How odd, then, that none of them has seen fit to criticize the behavior of the two million or so American Anglicans, who in consecrating a gay bishop have offended and angered the fifty million or so Anglicans in Africa and Latin America (and more than a few of the two million at home), possibly precipitating a schism in the Church.
Well, maybe it’s not so odd after all. An article on this conflict in yesterday’s New York Times ran under the headline “Conservative Anglicans May Not Recognize Gay Bishop.” Nigeria’s Anglican Church leader, Peter Akinola,
bluntly signalled a north-south divide, saying: “We can not and will not recognise the office or ministry of Canon Gene Robinson as a bishop.
“We deplore the act of those bishops who have taken part in the consecration which has now divided the church,” he said in a statement representing over 50 million Anglicans in Latin America, Africa and Asia.
The word “conservative” appeared four times in the 475 word article. A similar article today reported that “[s]imilar sentiments were heard from conservative church leaders around the globe.”
The opposition seemed most vociferous in Africa, where gays remain closeted and popular sentiment regards same-sex relationships as a vice exported from the West. Attacks against homosexuality are a feature of Sunday sermons, and political leaders condemn gays as aggressively as the man on the street does.
This 630 word article also described these international Anglicans as “conservative” four times.
I think the NYT must mean that these millions of international Anglicans are “conservative” by U.S. standards. But whether or not that is what the NYT means, it appears that the Democrats believe that the U.S. should take care to conform its values and behavior to international norms only when those norms aren’t “conservative.”
Shouldn’t be a problem, unless they’re going to ask the African Anglicans to contribute to their building fund.
I think I have to agree with Robert Heinlein on this one: “There’s nothing wrong with religion. Most people have one. And they seem to derive considerable satisfaction from fiddling with it…Religion is fine, as long as you don’t take it seriously.” – quote from the character ‘Lazarus Long’ in “Time Enough for Love. (apologies to R.H.- I quoted from memory as best I could, and my memory isn’t what it used to be…)