Gay NH Bishop Gets Death Threats Over Pending Marriage

[DoubtingStephen]

The notorious and well-spoken gay Episcopalian Bishop from New Hampshire, Gene Robinson, has begun receiving death threats (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24521220/) as word spreads of his plans to marry his partner Mark Andrew.

Do you believe that gay clergy persons who attempt to marry their same-sex partners should be put to death?

Who would Jesus kill (if there were a Jesus and this hypothetical Jesus actually was a homophobe)?

What percentage of persons issuing death threats to the Bishop self identify as Christian?

If a gay Bishop is executed in Jesus' name, does this help to preserve the Sanctity of Bigotry?

We may disagree with the Bishop on matters of theology, but it is a refreshing change of pace to hear about an American religious leader who is not foaming at the mouth about the existence of homosexuals.

Discuss...

[ponderingturtle]

See this is what happens when you let Bishops Marry!

It is a slipper slope people, and where will it end!

[slingblade]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but does it really say "Thou shalt kill only those who really, really honk you off, provided you do it in My Name?"

Well, they must be right to be making death threats, because everyone knows morals come from God.

[ponderingturtle]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but does it really say "Thou shalt kill only those who really, really honk you off, provided you do it in My Name?"

Well, they must be right to be making death threats, because everyone knows morals come from God.

Now, the bible tells you many situations that you should kill someone because they made god angry. Like disobediant children.

[JoeEllison]

It is about time we grow a spine and stop catering to the terrorist theology of Christianity? :D

[DoubtingStephen]

Now, the bible tells you many situations that you should kill someone because they made god angry. Like disobediant children.

Very true, because God Hates Brats (http://godhatesbrats.com/).

[Safe-Keeper]

If they want to end gay marriage, they should give us rational arguments against it. It's that simple.

[DoubtingStephen]

I suspect that if they had any rational arguments, we would have heard them and pointed out their flaws by now.

[badnewsBH]

You mean, the current crop of arguments (God/Jesus/the Bible/the Pope/etc. says gays are evil, marriage = one man/one woman and words never change definitions, it's "not natural", and so on) aren't rational?!

Whew! Man, I was foncused on that one. Thanks for setting me straight... er, pointing that out, Steve. :p

[zigaretten]

Actually, your article says that the Bishop is inviting death threats, not receiving them.

[slingblade]

Actually, your article says that the Bishop is inviting death threats, not receiving them.

Whose article? Providing a link is a courtesy, not an indication of authorship or ownership.

Moving on, are you able to see the difference between:

"I know some people will react so strongly to this, that they'll threaten my life,"

and

"Come on everybody! Take a pot-shot at me! Kill me! KILL MEEEE!"

or not, I wonder?

[Hokulele]

Actually, your article says that the Bishop is inviting death threats, not receiving them.


Inviting them how? By being gay? By refusing to be ashamed of the fact? By refusing to step down from a calling he so obviously feels strongly about?

[A Christian Sceptic]

Whose article? Providing a link is a courtesy, not an indication of authorship or ownership.

Moving on, are you able to see the difference between:

"I know some people will react so strongly to this, that they'll threaten my life,"

and

"Come on everybody! Take a pot-shot at me! Kill me! KILL MEEEE!"

or not, I wonder?

I think he (Zigaretten) was just pointing out the article linked to in the OP is a rather oddly written piece of news. The OP says the Bishop has begun to get death threats, The title of the article is "Despite death threats, gay bishop plans civil union" but then the article begins with the sentence "Episcopal bishop Gene Robinson knows he is inviting death threats by entering into a civil union with his gay partner on the eve of his church’s biggest ecclesiastical conference." The tense of the sentence implies new threats haven't happened yet. He then goes on talking about death threats he received in the past, and then later he says his life is under threat again. And then the article ends with the fact that yesterday his new book was published telling all about his ordeals. There wasn't a whole lot in the entire article about his current death threats - which is what the title suggests the article is about.

[Egg]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but does it really say "Thou shalt kill only those who really, really honk you off, provided you do it in My Name?"

Well, they must be right to be making death threats, because everyone knows morals come from God.

Absolutely! All you need to do is read where Jesus says stuff like "love your neighbour", "don't judge others lest you be judged" and "he who is without sin throw the first stone" and clearly the obvious interpretation is to murder openly gay bishops.

This is one of those issues that boils my blood somewhat. My local diocese missed out on a guy who would have been a great bishop just because of his sexuality.

As for the death threats, people feel far too strongly over an issue which ranks roughly alongside eating shellfish and getting your hair cut, in biblical terms. My suspicions are that it's a matter of using the bible to back up prejudices rather than basing prejudices on the bible. Where are the death threats for bishops who eat prawns?

[zigaretten]

Whose article? Providing a link is a courtesy, not an indication of authorship or ownership.

Moving on, are you able to see the difference between:

"I know some people will react so strongly to this, that they'll threaten my life,"

and

"Come on everybody! Take a pot-shot at me! Kill me! KILL MEEEE!"

or not, I wonder?

There is only one article mentioned in this thread, see the first post.

"Episcopal bishop Gene Robinson knows he is inviting death threats by entering into a civil union with his gay partner on the eve of his church’s biggest ecclesiastical conference........"

Now, can you see the difference between "I know some people will react so strongly to this, that they'll threaten my life....." and actual death threats?

[Darth Rotor]

There is only one article mentioned in this thread, see the first post.

"Episcopal bishop Gene Robinson knows he is inviting death threats by entering into a civil union with his gay partner on the eve of his church’s biggest ecclesiastical conference........"

Now, can you see the difference between "I know some people will react so strongly to this, that they'll threaten my life....." and actual death threats?

Either he's going for Randi's million, uh, or what used to be, or he's using his past experience on reactions to his profession (pun intended) as a basis for predicting a recurrence of death threats.

I'll bet the over on his prediction, given his experience.

DR

[DoubtingStephen]

Now, can you see the difference between "I know some people will react so strongly to this, that they'll threaten my life....." and actual death threats?

In the first case devout Christians have not heard of the Bishop's marital intentions, and in the second case devout Christians have heard of his plans.

It's mostly a chronological distinction.

[zigaretten]

In the first case devout Christians have not heard of the Bishop's marital intentions, and in the second case devout Christians have heard of his plans.

It appears to me that you have it exactly backwards. He did recieve death threats in the past, prior to his present plans. But now, according to the article which you linked, he merely believes he will receive, or knows he is inviting, death threats.

[slingblade]

There is only one article mentioned in this thread, see the first post.

The question is with the pronoun you used, not with the number of articles. "Your article" is obviously singular, so the number doesn't even enter into it. However, the article doesn't belong to, nor was written by, DoubtingStephen.

"Episcopal bishop Gene Robinson knows he is inviting death threats by entering into a civil union with his gay partner on the eve of his church’s biggest ecclesiastical conference........"

Now, can you see the difference between "I know some people will react so strongly to this, that they'll threaten my life....." and actual death threats?

Not in the way you seem to want or expect, no.

As Darth said, he's had death threats before, and he's betting he'll get them again.

It seems odd that a man proposing to marry another man is enough to cause some Christians to violate their own God-given morals and threaten murder. So, "gay marriage = heinous abomination," while "murdering a man = proper Christian morality?" Got it.

[Darth Rotor]

It seems odd that a man proposing to marry another man is enough to cause some Christians to violate their own God-given morals and threaten murder. So, "gay marriage = heinous abomination," while "murdering a man = proper Christian morality?" Got it.
Why do you assume that it is Christians who intend to kill him?

I just had a thought: he may be setting himself up to be a martyr, and an effective one, knowing that if some brainsurgeon kills him over this, it will incite a powerful reaction, sympathetic to his cause.

I'll bet the under on him choosing martyrdom, but one never knows.

DR

[DoubtingStephen]

It appears to me that you have it exactly backwards. He did recieve death threats in the past, prior to his present plans. But now, according to the article which you linked, he merely believes he will receive, or knows he is inviting, death threats.

I agree that it does seem that way to you.