Selectively Separating of Church and State

My good friend and fellow Atlanta area blogger Independent Conservative has a sharp mind. But I'm a little jealous because his excellent post on the Bishop Alfred Owens controversy is just what I wanted to tackle in my next installment. So now, I won't have to go into so much detail because IC did such a good job.

I intended to make this and other points, now that I have established that I am disappointed with Bishop Owen's mischaracterization of overcoming ministry to same sex strugglers. I do want to be clear that I and Bishop Owens (as far as I know) are on the same side.

But I am greatly disturbed at the implications of the backlash against Bishop Owens. On the surface, it looks like typical liberal political MO. But what is astounding is that it has always been the liberals who have demanded the enforcement of the fictious "church and state" doctrine. Or at least their selective brand of understanding of that concept. They believe that as long as the church (whomever that might be) advocates strict adherence to Biblical morality and uses its influence to stop the advancement of homo-affirmative legislation, then its "homophobic" efforts must be stopped immediately by the C&S hammer. But here's where the really funny stuff begins. When a church or religious organization affirms homosexuality and uses its influence to promote homosexual legislation, then they do not apply separation of church and state. Its walls suddenly vanish. Now, if the intended goal of said separation is to keep religion out of the government, then please tell me why none of these liberals ever protest progay churches or parareligious organizations who are involved in politics? What the liberals want is religious diversity. That means that all religious expression, whether you are a wiccan witch or a black pentecostal bishop, no religion is greater than the other. That makes them happy, because some "religions" have no teachings about sin. The ones who do, are supposed to keep it to themselves.

DC's Mayor Anthony Williams' (a homosexual marriage supporter) reaction is a perfect example of this hypocritical liberal bigotry. What about the other members of the interfaith council who support gay rights without question and have through political efforts proved it? Yet, in his hypocritical, liberal self righteous anger wants to remove Bishop Owens because of his sermon. Said Earl Fowlkes, a DC gay activist, "The mayor cannot allow someone who is on the council to be a bigot." Don't you mean a selective bigot, Mr. Fowlkes?

Actually, the whole concept of the "interfaith council" being under the express control of the mayor is backwards. The interfaith council should be disbanded and Bishop Owens should resign immediately. That would be a good demonstration of separation of church and state.