Episcopal Presiding Bishop Michael Curry to preach at Henry and Meghan's Wedding

  • Thread starter Thread starter ComplineSanFran
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I understand that her father belongs to the Episcopal congregation and her mother is African American, so he seems to have been a good choice for this marriage.

Race is still an issue because racism still exists and people are still left by the wayside, even though Christ is for all races and nations and peoples. I think the wedding was beautifully done.
 
Last edited:
Pup7 said:
No, Diana was a commoner.

An Earldom is an inherited title originally bestowed by a monarch as payment for a favor.

Diana and Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon (the daughter of the Earl of Strathmore) were commoners as far as the British line of royalty is concerned.
Click to expand...
True. But didn’t they both have the right to the title “Lady” by birth?
 
The equivalence would be more like insisting on having a Scottish man give the sermon. It would be determining who would perform something based on his blood and not him being the person best suited for the job.
angel12 said:
Why is a decision of an Anglican archbishop and the royal family of another country required to make sense to you?
Click to expand...
Who said it was? I didn’t. This is a discussion forum for you know, discussing things.
 
angel12 said:
You seem offended by something that has nothing to do with you. That is what doesn’t make sense.
Click to expand...
How do you figure? How do you come to the conclusion I am offended? I can maybe help you make sense of it if you explain.
 
I can’t remeber… is Sussex the one that everyone thought he was going to get, or the one he reportedly wanted?
 
Sussex was the one considered to be most likely. I don’t know which one he preferred, though.
 
Yes, if the reason was because the leader was Scottish, unjust discrimination. It is picking someone because of his blood.
 
I hesitate to use strong language like “piffle”, but … piffle.
 
Oh not at all. It is so obvious I can’t imagine how you don’t see it. It is like if I was White insisting that the sermon be given by a White man. You’d call that racism, right? I mean if I was White and refused to consider a Black man for a role or insisted on having a White man for a role that would obviously be racism.
 
QContinuum said:
40.png
jlhargus:
I’m open for evidence from scripture, tradition or even reason but not personnel attacks. Got any
Click to expand...
Too late. Your contempt for Compline’s faith was quite clear.
Click to expand...
I get it no evidence. I notice you didn’t post what that contempt might be.
 
Last edited:
QContinuum said:
You don’t get it. That’s the problem.
Click to expand...
Still not evidence. You are right, I don’t get why anyone thinks they can change the gospel of Our Lord changing a mortal sin into a virtue. If one want to live a homosexual life fine do so.
 
Last edited:
And asking an Anglican to give the address was religious discrimination too, I suppose.
 
Yes, but that is just discrimination.
PickyPicky said:
And who “insisted”? And who “refused to consider”?
Click to expand...
Oh I don’t know in this case. We are all speculating. I was framing it in a way so you could easily see how this could be unjust racial discrimination.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top