Lets just keep the apples away from the oranges.

“I frankly don’t understand why any Christian with a soul isn’t squirming with shame and embarrassment.”

That’s curious. I thought that everyone had a soul - christian or not, sydney anglican or not.

As distinct from having “soul” which Aretha has but Celine does not.

Else that’s two beers you owe me g. And two standards of everyone else.

*wipes eyes*

I think you popped an o-ring. It’s letting the bile out.

I frankly don’t understand why any Christian with a soul isn’t squirming with shame

Besides, isn’t that the point of the Abraham religions? Sin here, sin there, here a sin, there a sin, everywhere a sin sin.

Well I’ll start. Perhaps it is because they are squealing with laughter at

(a) The phrase “any Christian with a soul” which betrays a more Gnostic anthropology than a Christian one. Maybe rethink that Ken.

(b) Kirby’s hermeneutics which betray more queer theology than historical Christian theology and a profound ignorance of some present day realities (invoking the authority of the World Council of Churches-no-one-goes-to-any-more was a particular hoot); we will leave is obvious inabilities as a textual critic and philologist aside.

(c) Victimology is alive and well on our High Court bench. Who knew.

(d) Did Kirby really cite Kinsey? Yikes he really did *snort*

(e) Did he really mention Haggard? *rolls around the floor laughing*

(d) While the priest in question was klutzy and pompous (I do so like the underlining someone (Kirby?) did on Lane’s letters, very revealing) he really did not need to write those letters. What a duh. It’s not like the rest of us don’t know Kirby’s persistent, consistent and open opposition to Christian teaching on many issues over many years, and it’s not like Kirby is unaware of that himself. It’s been a large part of his life’s work. Whoopee, so the SMH gets to publish another article to trash a Sydney Anglican, and lionize Kirby. Hallelujah folks! Your redemption is nigh.

*wipes eyes*

Kirby can proclaim himself a Christian and even an Anglican Christian all he likes. He can even cry homophobia and Heffernan all he likes. The media and other commentators may want to portray this as an issue over homosexuality all they like. It’s not.

There is always the Metropolitican Community Church where Justice Kirby himself has attended (confirmed in one of his letters). Why not proclaim yourself a “metropolitan community christian” and eat, drink and be merry for tomorrow you die? And if he wants to be an Anglican maybe he can run over to the States and join the Episcopal Church whose hierarchy at the moment is presently deposing every orthodox bishop in its midst and suing the pants off any parish that dares question its political left agenda? TEC can certainly do with an influx of numbers. And there is always the Canadian Anglicans. Or what’s left of them. Hiltz would welcome him with open arms.

Why do Kirby and others - some not even calling themselves Christian - persist in wanting to impose their theology on all churches, indeed all other Christians (with in Kirby’s case, a particular focus on Archbishops Jensen and Pell)?

Ah questions of authority perhaps?

As a judge I would hope Kirby would know the history of separation of church and state and that the big impetus for that change came from people wanting to keep the state out of the affairs of the church. Here in Australia, I suspect separation of church and state as enshrined in our constitution can be summarised as no established church and no religious requirement for public office. But I still don’t think that means a homosexual requirement for clerical office much less mandatory queer theology from church pulpits.

Frankly I’d take Camille Paglia and others like her over Kirby any day. She doesn’t pretend to be anyone else but who she is. And she’s smart enough to understand the oppressiveness and tyranny of Kirby’s identity politics and his theology of the immaculate gay conception.

I’m not really that diligent - I was up at sparrow’s fart anyway.