Introducing the World’s First Lesbian Bishop
November 9, 2009 by James Hipps
Yesterday was a historic one for the church: Eva Brunne, 55, became the world’s first openly lesbian bishop. Only two weeks ago the Lutheran Church of Sweden — the country’s largest — said yes to same-sex marriages. Metro spoke to Eva Brunne before her ordination in Stockholm.
You’ll be the world’s first openly lesbian bishop. How does it feel to have so much public and media attention devoted to your sexual orientation?
I don’t think a heterosexual bishop would ever be asked about his wife or marriage, but I am happy if I, to some degree, can be a symbolic figure. Of course there are other things in my life that qualify me as a bishop.
But it is an important symbolic issue.
Yes, it is important to many people who also live with a same-sex partner that a bishop can also do that. But it’s not a big issue at home in Stockholm. I have yet to be in a workplace where it has been an “issue.”
whoopie! Another deluded gay.
LOL! You’re crackin me up over here!
Isn’t it strange how they gay atheists on this forum feel no qualms whatsoever about insulting any of the other forum members who would happen to be believers?
mykelb is certainly not making GA seem very welcoming to anyone who disagrees with him…
:O
oh my!
exactly like the fundamentalist nut-jobs he despises.
my my, so it seems that you and Maggie Moo share considerably more in common than you would like to admit!
how about making it clear: is GA a gay atheist blog/forum?
if so, you might consider posting that info on your main page.
It is truly insulting to me to suggest that I refrain from voicing my opinion as I do belieive in the U.S. Constitution. I don’t care if that offends anyone on here or elsewhere. I will call out all those who have a belief system mired in mysticism, mythology, contradiction, anti-gay, anti-American views. Until everyone of those who subscribes to a religious point of view keeps those views to himself/herself in the discussion of law, then I will keep on talking about my Constitutional rights and how the separation of church and state needs a higher wall in America.
@ MikeE
Finding humor in a comment is not an indicator of whether I agree or disagree. Neither I, or gayagenda is represented by the comments of viewers.
I would like to offer a sincere apology if I have offended you.
@mykelb: let’s be perfectly clear here.
your goal was to goad / insult anyone with religious beliefs. it was not to “call out” anyone.
This thread is about an article about a religious denomination recognizing the participation of gays and lesbians within its ranks. And to make things PERFECTLY clear – it is for a religious denomination across the atlantic ocean from your precious united states.
It has NOTHING to do with your constitution or the pro or anti american views of anyone.
You’re an offensive hypocrite.
You want the freedom to insult others.
Well, I call YOU out on that.
Don’t fracking insult those of us who believe, particularly when it’s in a thread that has nothing to DO with the law or your american constitution.
This article is SPECIFICALLY about a religious denomination.
And one that shows a great deal more open-mindedness than you appear to be capable of.
And just to repeat it, since you OBVIOUSLY don’t get it: you have NO right to stifle discussion in a thread or insult participants in a thread that has NOTHING TO DO WITH “LAW”.
So please, keep your own brand of red herring in your own kitchen.
@ James Hipps: you finding “humour” in a comment that is completely misplaced and irrelevant (as you can clearly see by mykelb’s weak attempt at a defense of his anti-religious views) is a tacit endorsement of his views.
You are no better than the straight guys who laugh at the fag jokes meanwhile saying “I don’t hate gays”.
@ MikeE,
Sorry you feel that way. You’re wrong. Simply put, you are wrong! Laughter is NOT endorsement and it’s too bad you are unable to see I am not judging you…perhaps because you’re too busy judging me.
MikeE, Obviously, you have some misplaced anger at those of us who do not care to engage in your religious fantasy or who do not care to censor ourselves. If you want to indulge in your religious indoctrination, I suggest you neither address me any longer, or take your delusions where they will be appreciated (maybe over at Free Republic). Please don’t address me any longer. I will come back with facts, not fiction, not emotion, not belief, nor fantasy. To argue using a mythological belief system in relation to real world, observable fact is ridiculous on its face and I will not play into that hand.
I honestly don’t care whether anyone else believes in anything or not. I don’t believe I have, at any point, insisted that my beliefs needed to be everyone else’s beliefs.
What I HAVE insisted upon, was that whether you believe or not, you at least respect other peoples’ right to do so without demeaning and insulting them.
@ James: I haven’t judged anyone. Don’t let mykelb’s delusional “rationalism” cloud your own judgment. What I did ask for was a modicum of respect, which mykelb appears incapable of doing. I was disappointed that you would partake in his lack of respect.
What mykelb is doing is comparing apples and oranges. He’s talking about “real world issues” where the actual topic of the above post is one of faith and religious belief. He is taking his bully pulpit approach to his own atheism and forcing it down other peoples’ throats. I don’t mind if he doesn’t believe in a spiritual aspect to life. That’s his right, and I actually respect people who prefer to examine life under all its aspects from a purely rational point of view.
When you say that I am wrong, you should take a moment to really examine what has gone on in this thread and see who exactly has shown the most disrespect for whom. I accept your explanation that you in no way intended to offend anyone. I suggest, however, that you be aware that your approach might still offend. And not only people with thin skins.
As I said, if this forum is only going to show respect to people who hold atheistic beliefs, then it really should be clearly denoted somewhere. And if that is the stand of this forum, then you may as well not post articles like the above article, since it has nothing to do with law, or “realism”. It is an article about a person of faith, about a particular denomination showing its open-mindedness, and that is all. Nowhere is there any mention of rights, constitutions, or legal matters. Therefore, irrational attacks on those who happen to be believers are really uncalled for. Mykelb was unable to control his hormones. I think you were wrong in endorsing his narrow-mindedness.
@ MikeE
Again, I apologize for being insensitive. I suspect my sensitivity has been greatly reduced by the many who use their theology to justify hate, intolerance and bigotry, which if I’m not careful, I can lose site that I too, may be allowing a few, to reinforce stereotyping the many.
If I didn’t think the article note-worthy, I wouldn’t have posted it. On the other hand, at times, I too laugh at religious ideology, as it has been the main opposition to my equality, and perhaps I laugh to avoid anger.
Thank-you James.
and thank-you for saying “A nice reminder that a religious denomination can’t be stereotyped.”
that was all I ever really needed.
not all religious people are fundamentalists.
some, even many, of us continuously question our faith and why we feel the way we do.
some, even many, of us even question the validity of our faith in any spiritual aspect to life. speaking purely for myself, I have a constant inner debate over whether the rational “scientific” side of me should take precedence, or whether I should allow myself the fancy of some mystical spiritual aspect to the universe. It’s rarely as cut and dry, black and white, right and wrong, as people like Maggie Moo would have others believe.
I DO admire those for whom atheism works. If for them the rational side of our universe is enough then they are, in a way, blessed. For me, I still need the comfort of “something”, I don’t necessarily know what, but something that is more, to answer some of the questions I have that science simply cannot answer at this time and more than likely will not be in a position to answer for a very long time.