Right on cue, Karen Winter snipped to focus on the least relevant
point and to whine about being ***:

> <snip>

Why did you snip everything of importance, Karen?

> > questions about my
> > motivations, e.g., "What denomination are you and why are you here?"
>
> That's reasonable. I don't know why you are so hostile to
> *** people in the church

I'm not hostile to anyone who wants to go to church. I have suspicions
about, concern for, and a bit of antipathy for those who demand the
church accept and embrace them on their own terms. It's not radical to
think that men should only marry women instead of each other -- that's
pretty conventional. It IS radical to suggest 2000+ years of history
and tradition are wrong, that sin isn't sin, and that your alternative
lifestyle -- YOURS OF ALL PEOPLE! -- is the moral equivalent of anyone
else's. It's not.

> unless I know what religious group you came from.

You needn't know which particular one because you've already made up
your mind:

> A lot of it is cultural ignorance
> or literalist Biblical interpretation.

Is that the case at St Bede's and Church of the Holy Faith? Are they
literalists? Cultural ignorants? Or are they just simple Christians
trying to make sense of church-wreckers like you?

> People who come
> from denominations with a different approach to studying
> the Bible, like classical Anglicans/Episcopalians, are
> often more open to other interpretations.

How many interpretations can you put on Romans 16:17? How many for any
of the other passages that tell the church how to handle schismatics
and heretics?

> And a lot of it comes from *** people being more visible.

How the hell would I know if someone sitting next to me at church is
a homosexual unless he told me? How would I know that he wants to cause
schism and harm by forcing a radical agenda over and against the
established order in the church?

You made yourself visible, Karen, and it wasn't because you're ***.

> Derek couldn't have done what he did to us while we were
> in California, because people in the church there knew us.

He could've, and I'm willing to bet the members of your congregation in
Antioch would've been every bit as concerned about your posts as the
people in Santa Fe have been. People are funny like that, especially
about their children. You may think their children are old enough to
decide with whom to have sex; they likely disagree and don't want your
influence anywhere near them.

You say they "knew" you in Antioch, but did they really? Did they know
you were an open advocate of bestiality and pedophilia? Did they know
Sylvia wrote such vile stuff about children?

I doubt they knew you at all.

> We had friends

You had them in Santa Fe, too. They now know what kind of person you
are. They'd prefer not to have you around their kids. And it has
nothing to do with your being ***. It has to do with your being an
apologist for things that harm children, and with Sylvia's public
displays of hatred for children and those who have them.

> I'd been involved in altar guild and
> licensed by the bishop as a Lay Eucharistic Minister,
> been sponsored for Cursillo and attended, given altar
> vessels and other things to my parish, and so on.

Did they know that you'd introduce your son to your pedophile
*FRIENDS*? Did they know you were attending NAMBLA meetings and
receiving their newsletter? Did they know you were an advocate for
those who have sex with animals?

> People would have known what Derek claimed was ridiculous.

Derek, as far as I know, didn't make claims. He merely made your vicar
aware of your posts in defense of things that most people will not
accept. It wasn't a list of posts about your homosexuality, it was
about your ARDENT defense of pedophilia and bestiality in YOUR own
words.

> But here, no one knew us very well

They read your and Sylvia's posts and now they indeed know you well.

> and they were willing
> to accept Derek's wild accusations at face value.

It's not a "wild accusation" to forward your posts, or links to them,
to show what matters most to you.

> I think
> that was why he waited to attack us until we moved.

He didn't attack you. He informed the clergy and staff at the
congregations where you and Sylvia were attending of your posting
history and the kinds of things you support and defend.

> The same is true of *** people in general.

Derek, to my knowledge, didn't make a deal of your homosexuality, but
rather your chronic defense of pedophilia and bestiality. Most
congregations -- even in the "fundamentalist" literalist churches you
(and *I*) have a problem with -- can deal with the homosexuality issue;
even far out liberal ones will have issues with pedophiles and those
who embrace that subject the way you have, particularly when they have
children in the congregation.

<...>

I dealt with your whining. Now deal with the more salient points I
raised:

---------- RESTORE -----------
> If you are
> Episcopalian, then you know there are people of
> good will and learning on both sides of the
> issues.

I know that you're not one of them. I've read your posts and observed
your contentious spirit regarding the division in your church. You've
admitted to being part of it for a long time. You've disrespectfully
likened your depraved cause to other more noble causes. You've been
very "in-your-face" about it in our discussions. You're not a person of
good will, Karen.

> If you are not, why should those issues
> concern you?

Because the issues transcend all of Christianity. Episcopal Christians
shouldn't fear the onslaught of radical change you schismatics have
been pushing. But it's not enough for you to screw up your own
denomination -- the radicals want to hijack other ones, too. You see it
in PCUSA and UMC. Those church bodies are almost as divided as yours is
now, and I hope they can deal with it more peaceably than people like
you have in yours.

> Yes, I have strong opinions on some
> of the issues,

Strong enough to cause all this division in the first place.

> but I am tired of the fighting,

Hint: the traditionalists didn't go looking for one. YOU did.

> and I don't want to be involved in it any more

Then why did you start it? Why did you get involved? Why are you on
written record with various groups on the side of radical change? You
made yourself part of the division. You've done nothing to heal it,
only to exacerbate it.

> until the whole thing is settled one way or the
> other. I want to focus on God.

IOW, you're too weary to start what you finished. Maybe you need to
take another look at yourself, your church, and the whole nature of the
controversy. I admit I'm on the outside of it. I can see from where I
am that it's not doing anyone any good, not even the radicals when they
"win," because it divides your church even further -- past the point of
no return.

You've been a very willing party to the alienation of simple
Christians, Karen -- people with a simple faith who only want to go to
church to worship their God. You say that's what you want, but you
wouldn't allow them the same comfort in their pews that you seek for
yourself. They weren't asking YOU to change. You were demanding THEY
change. They didn't go looking for fights. You brought it to them. When
you brought it to them, you brought it to the global fellowship of
Anglicans. And when you did that, you brought it to the wider body of
believers.

Is it worth it, Karen? Is it worth telling people just a couple months
ago "don't let the door hit you on the way out" when traditionalists
said they couldn't support this travesty? Is it worth being chastised
by the African bishops yours have repeatedly alienated? Is it worth
watching congregations leave your fold? Is it worth the grief and
confusion you've caused little old ladies who wonder just what their
church really stands for anymore?

You got what you wanted. Go ahead and enjoy it. Nobody else is.
------ END RESTORE -----------