Bishop stands up for homosexuals

I’ve not had much time for Anglican Bishop Ewen Ratteray since he kicked Rev. Alan Tilson out of Bermuda and reaffirmed his opposition to the ordination of women priests. But my opinion of him has improved after his announcement that the Anglican Church will not be participating in the multi-denominational “United by Faith” day because, “Part of the agenda for this service seems to be to target particular members of our society, homosexuals, in a way that is deemed to be inappropriate.”

“Churches have been divided far too long,” said Andre Curtis, a member of the group organising the service. “We need to get together to see what we can do to improve the quality of life for all Bermudians.” Except gay Bermudians, it would seem: "We believe the Human Rights Act sufficiently covers all humans and does not need to be amended," said Mr. Curtis. Ah yes, there's that wonderful euphemism again. Too embarrassed to say what you really think?

It’s ironic that an event meant to bring Bermuda’s Christian churches together has instead put the spotlight on one of their differences. Nevertheless, it’s gratifying to learn that not all of them are populated by hypocritical bigots, who frown on homosexuals while turning a blind eye to the adulterers in their midst. Kudos to Bishop Ratteray for taking a stand.

Comments

[texpat on 10.10.06 at 10:24]

To All Believers,

It is my sincere hope that Bishop Ratteray has misread the intent of this gathering. It would certainly not be in keeping with Christ's teaching, if in fact it were a front for "gay bashing", or support for unfair treatment of anyone.

Jesus taught that we should love our neighbor as ourselves, and that those without sin should throw the first stone. It is not my intent to throw stones at anyone.

I believe, as many in Christ's Church, that the act of homosexuality is a sin, but still find it within our hearts to love the individual. Hate the sin, love the sinner. We are all sinners, and in God's eyes the only unforgiveable sin is, unbelief.

I hope that most who will be in attendance are true believers, and do not support the unfair treatment of anyone. In fact, I would suggest that if the gathering took that kind of bent, they speak the words of Jesus, loudly, to show their love of Christ, and the glory of God.

I am a Christian, who is a registered Lutheran, and worship regularly with Anglicans. It is my intent to attend this meeting, and join fellow believers in the worship and glorification of God. I urge all believers (even Bishop Ratteray) to "come and see, listen and learn, and go and tell".

[Raptor on 10.10.06 at 10:44]

Of interest, the Episcopal Church of the USA (part of the Anglican Communion), is going to vote on getting out of the marriage business, as it is discriminatory against gays:

http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2006/10/08/episcopal_diocese_may_quit_marriages

[Blue Eyed Devil on 10.10.06 at 11:05]

The fact is the Christian religion prohibits homosexual behavior. Jesus was a socialist in most aspects but unlike modern liberals in that he was an obsessive sexual moralist. People like to pick and choose what parts of his teachings they like or don't like and for liberals it's usually the part about sex.

Episcopalians have been foolish over this for a long time and have become socially and spiritually irrelevant, I imagine as much in Bermuda and in the US and England. I don't think they will be mcuh missed at the event.

[Yet Another Limey on 10.10.06 at 12:43]

Did anyone see the TV show last night @6 on one of the local channels (I forget which one).

Several members of the local clergy giving their view on the gay issue.

Made for very odd viewing.

It's on again tonight.

And my answer to the final question (after being shown footage of a gay pride parade) of do we want Bermuda to be like this? is Yes.

[smith on 10.10.06 at 12:56]

Bermuda is a baby, in an adult community.

[sandgrownan on 10.10.06 at 13:34]

This is laughable. What a bunch of morons, arguing about how best to interperet an account of something that probably didn't happen anyway and then using that same fairytale or myth, to dictate how to legislate. United by Faith? Pathetic.

[SmokingGun on 10.10.06 at 13:50]

If the church leaders don't go to the meeting then who's going to stand up to the gay-bashers?

[The Right Reverend Uncle Elvis on 10.10.06 at 13:55]

This is the one that got me, regarding adulteres, etc:

"The vast difference between their position and hers is that while the Church is the correct healing ground for all spiritual sickness, including adultery, lying, stealing, etc, the people who commit these acts are not petitioning Government to ask that the acceptance of their behaviour be legislated and legitimised. That is the whole point of this stand.”

-Andre Curtis- Royal Gazette, Oct. 10th, 2006

Um... Riiight.

Dude? Mr. Curtis? Andre? Can I call you Andre?

THEY'RE ALREADY PROTECTED!

Stop setting up straw men and bullshit arguments that have nothing to do with the topic at hand.

Sinister logic. This sort of bigotry and twisted spin should keep any right-thinking person away from this gathering.

$5 says this won't end well and there will, in fact, be at least one poke at gay people and the amendment issue.

Any takers?

[jake on 10.10.06 at 16:28]

I am proud of Bishop Ratteray.

This kind of vitriol is not what Christ wants. We are not supposed to be hating people of any sort or disposition.

When all that is paid to Christ is lip service, very little is dispensed.

I remain a Christian.

[chequered flag on 10.10.06 at 19:32]

I've just watched about 10 mins of "That Program" on TV and feel physically sick, transported back about 100 years to when all manner of 'right-minded people' gave forth on the inferiority of women, blacks, non-blonds and communists. Of course they were all sincere. They looked straight into camera or down from the pulpit. And they were all wrong. Apparently, as recently as the 1960s studies concluded that homosexuality was a mental illness. Woo-hoo. Our gay brothers and sisters deserve better than programs like this. Anyone want to start a fundraiser for an appropriate response?

What really, really gets me every time is the failure of these people to answer a simple question: what harm are they doing to you? Honestly, it's like watching seal clubbers, because yes, the gays fit every conceivable description of victims in my book. They do not wreck marriages, break hetero hearts or leave each other to raise children, and I'd like to tap a few of the 'clubbers' lightly on the head until they cease and desist their interference with other people's lives. I'd like them to stop feeling as though some kind of sea change is expected of them whereby they suddenly 'approve' of this other lifestyle, like some fat, fan-waving potentate.

But it's not going to happen is it, because of the unique position in the pantheon of bigotry that the 'homosexual issue' occupies. It's just too delicious, and both clergy and congregation must be so thankful for the gift. Here's something on which I can claim the moral high ground, knowing I'll never, ever be tempted to do myself. Like giving up ciggies for Lent when I don't even smoke! Unlike infidelity, of course, the Third Rail of sermons.

Well, I'm just about done, but to all of you bigots, understand this. If God is watching, he is mightily unimpressed with you.

[Daedalus on 11.10.06 at 20:10]

My view of Ewan Ratteray's behaviour remains totally negative. I had little time for his performance before his disgraceful treatment of Alan Tilson but that episode did it permanently for me.

As for his stand on the "United by Faith" day, he should be there to counter the bigots. Instead he has chosen to follow an interesting historical precedent by staying away and washing his hands of the matter.

[The Right Reverend Uncle Elvis on 11.10.06 at 23:35]

"As for his stand on the "United by Faith" day, he should be there to counter the bigots. Instead he has chosen to follow an interesting historical precedent by staying away and washing his hands of the matter."

Should all the white guys that don't go to klan rallies be likened to Pilate as well?

Regardless of anything else, this action is a good one and it sends a very strong message that hatred and bigotry are not acceptable.

Limey's first paragraph sums it up perfectly.

[The Right Reverend Uncle Elvis on 11.10.06 at 23:36]

Furthermore, will YOU be there to boo them when the hate speech starts?

[Cyrus on 14.10.06 at 09:15]

40% of our children born out of wedlock (bastards), one out of every 2 marriages ending in divorce (adulterers), and the clergy condemn gays who cannot marry or procreate.

Idiots!

[stefan on 16.10.06 at 10:18]

"Nevertheless, it’s gratifying to learn that not all of them are populated by hypocritical bigots, who frown on homosexuals while turning a blind eye to the adulterers in their midst."

So Phil, as a pastor of one of those churches who didn't boycott the event, am I ,too, a hypocritical bigot? Come on, you may disagree with some of my opinions, but you cannot lump every church person who doesn't agree with your view as "hypocritical bigot". As for the adulterers, how do you know every church, at all times turns a blind eye? Your judgement seems to be based somewhat on ignorance, hear-say, and prejudice.

As for the "gay bashing", I didn't hear the speeches yesterday, so I can't comment on that. "Bashing" is always wrong, whether it's gays who get bashed, or church folk...

[sandgrownan on 16.10.06 at 10:24]

From Today's Gazette "Rev. Lloyd Duncan, of the Pembroke New Testament Church of God, told the crowd at the National Sports Centre: “If you seek continued peace ... don’t amend the Human Rights Act and don’t tear down the wall of morality in our land.”

What a prick.

[Pompous G Windbag III jnr. on 16.10.06 at 10:27]

As for the "gay bashing", I didn't hear the speeches yesterday, so I can't comment on that. "Bashing" is always wrong, whether it's gays who get bashed, or church folk...

Posted by stefan on 16.10.06 at 10:18

I was always told that bashing the bishop would make me go blind.

[Phil on 16.10.06 at 12:35]

stefan

I wasn’t suggesting that everyone who attends the event is a hypocritical bigot.

The question is whether you think it’s OK for people to refuse jobs or accommodation to homosexuals solely because of their sexual orientation?

If you do, should I be allowed to refuse to hire you or rent my apartment to you because you hold that opinion? Because at the moment, my behaviour would be illegal (the Human Rights Act forbids me from discriminating against you because of your religious beliefs), whereas yours would not.

How would you feel if people started campaigning to have religion removed from the Human Rights Act?

[sandgrownan on 16.10.06 at 12:48]

Now Limey, there's an idea!

[SmokingGun on 16.10.06 at 12:52]

“If you seek continued peace ... don't amend?"

sandgrownan - you are right. This is a full on threat against homosexuals and anyone who believes in supporting equality. It is playing on people's fears that the church will rise up and do something that will hurt them. Please explain Rev. Duncan. What? Start telling everyone about all the confessions they've been making?

Well maybe it's time we all got hurt a little. Bermudians have a bad habit. Life tends to come so easy that they think their crap doesn't stink. Well it's all going to be coming to a head sooner than we think and across the board we need to get a reality check. The moral fabric of Bermuda was torn a long long time ago.

[Guilden M. Gilbert, Jr. on 16.10.06 at 13:17]

Limey,

"The question is whether you think it’s OK for people to refuse jobs or accommodation to homosexuals solely because of their sexual orientation?"

The answer to your question is: "Absolutely NO! Nobody should be discriminated against on any basis" However, one question that has been asked and not answered is: "Are homosexuals in Bermuda being discriminated against because of their sexual orientation?"

[Guilden M. Gilbert, Jr. on 16.10.06 at 13:28]

Additionally, I do not condone the church judging homosexuals, adulterers, etc. My view of the church is one of teaching and spreading the word of God. Its role is not to judge anyone. The Bible says, "Judge not lest ye be judged."

Those that accept the word of God should live by the Word as best they can. Being a believer does not make one perfect, just saved.

That does not mean that the church cannot or should not speak on the topics of homosexuality and adultery, etc. but they should be discussed in a manner that does not cast judgement.

[stefan on 16.10.06 at 13:29]

Limey, thanks for the clarification.

I have tried to find a copy of that ammendment somewhere without success--if anyone can provide a link, it'd be appreciated. If the ammendment is solely to do with discrimination in respect to employment and housing, I would agree that it needs to be looked at. I wonder, however, if that is all there is to it.

As for some of the other comments... it seems none of us was actually there, and commenting on a one-liner, without having access to the context, might not help. (is there a transcript of the speech anywhere?)

Sure, I would not agree to have religion removed from a Human Rights Act. But I would respect your right to express your opinion about it.

And PGW, you won't go blind, you'll just get a tennis elbow... ;-)

[SmokingGun on 16.10.06 at 14:05]

stefan - with all due respect, the one-liner was reported in the RG and it's not hard to understand what context it was presented in.

[StacyAnn on 16.10.06 at 14:15]

Smoking Gun, Well said!

I have been refused an apartment by a Christian landlord because my roommate and I were not married. Marriage is a church institution. One could easily say that I was descriminated against for not practicing a religious act that is not mine. After all it was a man and woman situation. Did they have the right to refuse me? What were mine?

Anyhow my point is, It was long ago and I did nothing about it. This behavior is displayed toward gay people quite often and they do not speak of it for whatever reason. Quite possibly because they are not protected in anyway!

I will never believe God would not want protection for ALL of his children regardless.

Shame on the ones who are so judgemental.

[stefan on 16.10.06 at 14:29]

SG, I've just read the article.
(And I'm not here to defend, or attack what that rev was saying)

Did he really utter a threat, as it's been suggested? (wagging the finger) 'If you ammend we'll make sure peace goes out the window'??

I think what he might have tried to say is (in his worldview) that following a certain morality is linked with peace both individually and as a society. It's his right to express that view, as it is the right to call him a p**** for it.

Just because it's reported in the RG doesn't give anyone a proper context, with all due respect to that paper. I've seen 'one liners' on the BBC news website, and when I read the whole speech (which they usually provide the link for) it suddenly doesn't sound half as dramatic as the article made it out to be.

StacyAnn, I would feel upset too, if a humanist landlord refused my tenancy because I am a Christian, and a pastor at that. But would he/she not have the right to chose who to let the appartment to?

There is a lot of behaviour I don't agree with. But I should be mature enough not to discriminate against people who I disagree with.
The question on my mind at the moment is, where do you draw the line, if there is one...

[sandgrownan on 16.10.06 at 14:44]

But that's the point Stefan - it's not about following a certain morality - if you're gay, then you're gay, it's NOT A BEHAVOURIAL CHOICE. How many times do we have to say this. That's why he's a prick and his view is dead wrong. Shame on him.

[SmokingGun on 16.10.06 at 14:57]

stefan - as I said earlier, I respect your opinion on what was said or implied. However in my opinion when someone brings together the cause and effect of "If you amend" and "loss of peace", whether it's on a worldly scale or not, the fact remains he has stated there will be a threat to peace. And openly implies he will likely support that threat. Why else even mention the words?

The reality is there is already a threat to peace and it's being created and manipulated daily by both those in the church and those in politics who choose to intertwine and abuse their respective powers. Did you happen to see the article on TV's 60 Minutes last night? It exposed a lot of how politicians and preachers use each other to push their agendas. Even to the extent that they are willing to deride each other behind their backs.

[ace on 16.10.06 at 15:40]

I have a bad back. Can this "laying of hands" stuff that I heard about on the radio help me?

Do I have to become a fundamentalist Christian for it to work?

If so...forget it. I'll take the pain.

[stefan on 16.10.06 at 15:47]

Sandgrownan, in the rev's world it IS a behavioural choice. Plus, orientation and expression ARE two different things. You may not agree, but that's his view.

SmokingGun, I only get ZBsomething, and then with "snow" so I gave up on TV a while back. It is shameful to read about preachers doing and behaving in the way you mention. But just as there are good politicians, not all preachers are the same either. However, those that are dodgy, in the words of sandgrownan "Shame on [them]".

I agree that differing opinions should not lead to a loss of peace. Maybe there needs to be some more growing and maturing on all sides.
It would be interesting to ask the rev Duncan what exactly he meant by that. If I bump into him, I'll ask him :-)

[stefan on 16.10.06 at 15:52]

Ace, sure, "laying of hands" as in a good threapeutic massage might be quite effective... and it works regardless of religious affiliation, or lack thereof.

[sandgrownan on 16.10.06 at 16:00]

Stefan - the Revs. view is both morally and scientifically wrong. His opinion means nothing when the science proves otherwise. It's like saying smoking doesn't cause cancer over and over again until you believe it. Doesn't mean you are right though.

[SmokingGun on 16.10.06 at 16:08]

And give him a good bump from me too... ;-)

[ace on 16.10.06 at 16:09]

No no...you misunderstood.

I want the "Praise the lord...I'm cured" type of hand laying. The kind that was offered up to the gays to "heal" them on the radio.

[StacyAnn on 16.10.06 at 16:25]

I have heard the same line. "If we do it for the gays, where does it end?". "Will we have to include people that wear white after Labour Day and groups that dont display their natural hair color and people that peel the lable off their beer bottle.......?"

It ends when no one is discriminated against.PERIOD! I say put whatever is neccessary to ensure that everyone is treated equal no matter how many words need to be added to the ammenment. What is the problem?

Oh yeah, its the votes. Six or seven thousand people showed up to push their religion and beliefs on Bermuda. Dont want to lose that many votes. And truthfully will it change they way anyone lives thier daily lives. No it will just protect some of God's children.

[stefan on 16.10.06 at 16:26]

Ace, I didn't hear the radio program so I didn't realise how your post related to this topic, but I didn't misunderstand (I did think you might have referred to the church thing and I was just kidding...)
I'm not sure about this whole "healing" thing. Sure, in my worldview healing is a possibility. But it's not a prerogative.

sandgrownan, morally wrong according to whose standard? Scientifically wrong according to what finding? There is a definite link between cancer and smoking, but the last time (granted it's been a while) I checked science if homosexuality is 'born or bred' the picture was far less conclusive than on cancer and smoking.
Again, I'm not here to defend what he said, only to defend his right to doing so.

[ian on 16.10.06 at 17:32]

Bermuda is a baby, in an adult community.

Posted by smith on 10.10.06 at 12:56

"Amen" to that!

[Chen on 16.10.06 at 18:59]

"“However, one question that has been asked and not answered is: "Are homosexuals in Bermuda being discriminated against because of their sexual orientation?"”

Posted by Guilden M. Gilbert, Jr. on 16.10.06 at 13:17

Actually, that is not true. Evidence of discrimination on the basis of "sexual orientation" has been presented to the Human Rights Commission. In addition to these formal complaints, there is a great deal of anecdotal evidence - you just need to know who to ask. A friend of mine was refused service once at a restaurant purely because the wait staff believed he was gay. RG magazine ran an article not too long ago in which a number of individuals openly expressed their concerns about discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

"I have tried to find a copy of that amendment somewhere without success--if anyone can provide a link, it'd be appreciated. If the amendment is solely to do with discrimination in respect to employment and housing, I would agree that it needs to be looked at. I wonder, however, if that is all there is to it."

Posted by stefan on 16.10.06 at 13:29

Stefan, because of the nature of the Human Rights Act, the proposed amendment will do little more than to guarantee an end to discrimination in areas such as housing and employment. If my understanding is correct, the proposed amendment will add the words, "sexual orientation" to the list of grounds upon which individuals are not permitted to discriminate. The Human Rights Act addresses very few and specific instances of discrimination: discrimination in publications; discrimination in the provision of housing; discrimination in employment; discrimination in the provision of goods and services; and harassment in the workplace. The amendment will not serve as a Bill of Rights for gays and lesbians. It does no more than guarantee the LGBT community are afforded minimum human rights recognition.

The sentiments expressed about the LGBT community at yesterday's gathering are fanciful in the extreme. Suggestions that the LGBT community is or will be the cause of unrest or social turmoil are not based upon reality. Bermuda has serious problems: affordable housing and gang violence are the two that spring quickest to mind. Blaming the LGBT community for causing these or other social ills is as nonsensical as trying to solve an algebra problem by chewing bubble gum (probably not the best analogy however, it's late over here and it's the best I could come up with).

[traditionalist on 16.10.06 at 19:18]

This is a cultural problem about sodomy and buggery. When you live in the savannah you take another wife when yours get pregnant.
When you come from nine months of winter your wife finds other things to do to keep you in the cave to bring you the food. The Anglican Church is defending the european culture. The black church is defending African culture. no big problem.

[spton on 16.10.06 at 19:25]

"This is a cultural problem about sodomy and buggery."

It's only a problem when you make it one...

[Guilden M. Gilbert, Jr. on 16.10.06 at 21:21]

Chen,

"...there is a great deal of anecdotal evidence - you just need to know who to ask."

Why should I have to know who to ask? If people are being discriminated against based on their sexual orientation and they want public support for an amendment to the Human Rights Act, remaining quiet about such discrimination cannot and will not help to bring about such an amendment.

[Deal or no Deal on 16.10.06 at 21:38]

Let us not forget that it is also legal to discriminate against straights too. If I chose to rent my apartment to a couple of gays - and said as much in an ad in the RG, there's nothing anyone could do about it.

[Valentino S. Tear on 17.10.06 at 09:37]

In regards to: Human rights bill and inclusion of sexual minorities.

Members of Bermudian Parliament.

Dear Sirs and Madams:
Subject: Gay people I know in Bermuda.
I recently wrote to the Royal Gazette concerning notable gay and lesbian people in Bermuda (see attached letter). Unfortunately, I fear that it has been censored not to appear.
I have not been allowed to speak openly about my gay life in Bermuda. I feel it is time I spoke out and it is also time that you all own up to your responsibilities. One of which is to stop being cowards on the issue of the human rights bill and how it must include the gay and lesbian community.
There follows a list of people in Bermuda who I know are gay/lesbian or have had gay/lesbian relationships.
These are some of the people I will be including in a forthcoming website about my gay life in Bermuda.
I have suffered as a gay man under the mentoring of a lot of these people and whilst they have all moved on in life they have left me unsupported and having to live in exile from my homeland. I had to leave Bermuda. The lack of any human rights protection in law meant and still means that powerful people are able to abuse the less powerful in situations like this. Slavery days are over my friends. You as members of parliament are supposed to protect those who are unable to protect themselves.
Sincerely,

Valentino Tear, email: vipstudios@hotmail.com

[Valentino S. Tear, Neil J. Carr on 17.10.06 at 09:48]

Supporting the private member’s bill of Renee Webb.

In lieu of recent news that Renne Webs’ private members bill was, I believe, unfairly ignored by the house of parliament, I am writing to you to ask for your support in the effort to encourage a new tabling of that very bill. Further to the letter you received recently from me, I would like to share a personal account of an example of human rights abuse due to homophobic bullying of a gay man.
In late October 2003 I was fired from a local store over this very issue. I felt I was made a scapegoat by a sub-floor manager (Jennifer X) who could not deal with an openly gay man working on floor.
At this time I had asked the human resources at that store whether or not I was protected under the Human Rights Act. She told me during the meeting that unfortunately that, sexual minority (GBLT) rights were not included in the bill. This dispute went straight to the top of the store’s management, whereby the senior was called in to help resolve the dispute.
I told him that it was unfair of the company to consider my dismissal on the grounds that Jennifer X was admittedly homophobic and blatantly lying to them about our past relationship, which had been quite platonic. A few days later I was called into the board room of the store where we had a closed door meeting. After much toing and froing -the basis of which was the store not wanting negative publicity over this issue- I was asked to quietly leave the company on advice from their lawyers, and would I please not embarrass the company publicly. I agreed because as a gay man I had no “leg to stand on”. Jennifer X practically had the company in her grasp because they did not want any public knowledge of the homophobia present in the company.
I feel that this abuse and disrespect has to be outlawed. Parallels can be drawn with women’s rights and with the days of slavery and lack of human rights to people of African origin. Please examine your history books and note how the dehumanising of “The black people” led to similar cases as I have described. It’s only 150 years ago that black people were believed to be only 3/5 human and thus did not deserve full human rights. Compare this with gay and lesbians not even considered to be human. I look forward to hearing from you.

V. S. Tear.

[SmokingGun on 17.10.06 at 10:56]

VST - not sure if you have a list of who's who that you want to expose but as much as I'm sure many people might like to know who the hypocrites are, it's not the way to handle this and I can understand the RG not printing it. I can fully empathise with you as I know of a few gay and lesbian friends who have very similar stories. You shouldn't try to go this alone unless you have strong legal grounds. I'm not a lawyer but I imagine you do based on the fact that our Government thinks you are already protected and do not need to change the laws to be more specific. There must be many others with similar stories. I wonder if a class action suit could be brought to force change? Best of luck.

[Suzanne Mayall on 17.10.06 at 11:35]

Valentino and anyone else who is concerned about this issue...FYI the Human Rights Commission is currently holding a series of forums. The next one is specifically about discrimination in the workplace (Thurs Oct 19 Cathedral Hall 7pm). I encourage concerned people to attend and get the issue back on the HRC agenda.