Man Who Accused Gay Bishop Regrets Calling it Harassment

http://www.startribune.com/stories/614/4026997.html

And now we find that Fred Barnes, a right-wing Episcop editor of the Weekly Standard pushed the story from an organization financially backed by Richard Allen Scaife, who crammed Monica and Paula Jones down our throats.

The filth of this undeserved attack is sickening. Where do you go to get your reputation back when these guys are through with you?

He's a lying, pro Bush-spining shifty eyed son-of-a-bitch.

I'm suprised Fred Barnes didn't put pressure that was inapropriate on Mr. Robinson's back, arm and wallet.

for the Fred Barnes story? There is no mention of this in the article that you have referrenced. I wouldn't be at all surprised about this, and that is a "greater" story than even this one, but sure would like to see this in writing.

Aw, come on!

http://news.google.com/news?q=gay+bishop+harassment&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&edition=us&scoring=d&start=410&sa=N&filter=0

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=103&topic_id=4882&mesg_id=4882

The Star Trib editorial board did brilliant job of connecting the dots!

Makes me proud to be a native, if no longer resident, Minnesotan. An absolutely scathing and devastating piece.

Anyone who espouses the tradtionalist line, however sincerely, and is not deeply, deeply ashamed of this episode has no intellectual honesty and has lost all my respect. Barnes's little effort here has done more to discredit his own position than anyone on the other side could have hoped for. And the StarTrib makes that exquisitely clear.

Where in MN did you call home?

On the shores of Lake Minnetonka. Before it was quite so unbelievably MacMansioned as it has become since the 90s.

...And it wasn't meant to be made public, we learn, and he has reporters camped on his lawn who he won't talk to, we hear.

Well, no, of course it wasn't "meant to be made public." It was meant to do its dirty work in private, since it obviously couldn't withstand even the most cursory scrutiny. "He touched me, and he was queer!" is the sum total of the righteous, estimable, pillar-of-his-church Mr Lewis's accusation. A hand on his arm and back in a public conversation about public matters. Gee. But our Mr Lewis felt honor bound to report this to someone. "He's queer! and he touched me!"

And now that the actual charges are public, in all their pathetic, transparent baselessness, Mr Lewis "regrets" them having been overblown. Why? Well, all those reporters camped on his lawn for one thing. And the embarrassing national exposure of his own blatant, infantile homophobia, for another. How are your pew-mates looking at you now, Mr Lewis? As an Episcopalian I suppose I should have some sympathy for this poor boob, and I would if there were anything substantive to his complaint--or to the ludicrous allegation about the website--but there was nothing there to begin with other than a last-resort attempt to smear a decent man when they couldn't win by reason and honest debate. So you've earned your shame, Mr Lewis, you've had your reward and I wish you joy of it.

But as often happens, DrBB hit all the bumpers and nailed all the targets.

The story - and the charges - were blown way out of proportion.

"He touched me, and he was queer!"

FAUX, bless their hearts, the first outlet to report, apparently, published the letter. It resides at

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,93752,00.html

The writer claims to have had plenty of experience around gay men. The writer even *claims* to espouse tolerance of same-sex couples.

Is there no one in DU who's had to deal with sexual harrassment charges in their office? What may seem like perfectly normal behavior to one person might seem unprofessional to another, and outright harassment to a third.

Oh course, this is 2003 and we all know that no news organization would ever dream of blowing any story way out of proportion for ratings sake, don't we?

an arm around a shoulder, most often a hug, you know...
human contact...it comes with the job. There is sexual harassment
and then there's pastoral care...I think people know the
difference.

The scary thing is this guy wanted to be an Episcopal priest.
Fortunately someone saw that he wasn't fit for the job.

By the standard the rightwingers used on Rev. Robinson, all politicians are just as guilty of "pressing the flesh."

My concern is that David Lewis was "uncomfortable" just by the act of innocent touching by an openly gay person. This tells volumes about David Lewis's personal issues with gay people. Lewis's own fears about gays are quite evident in his own statement that being touched by another man ``presumed a far greater familiarity or intimacy than was the case'' between the two men. I wonder if Mr. Lewis finds it difficult to even shake hands with a gay person.

I thought the allegation was a smear based on its timing, and the PR role played by Bary Bauer's rabidly homphobic Family Research Council on the TV networks.

an arm around a shoulder, most often a hug, you know...
human contact...it comes with the job. There is sexual harassment
and then there's pastoral care...I think people know the
difference.

The scary thing is this guy wanted to be an Episcopal priest.
Fortunately someone saw that he wasn't fit for the job.

ratings. Roger Aisle's Faux... politics, then ratings.

suggesting that it's not only the media that has a problem with judgement of sexual harassment cases. I don't happen to believe that only conservatives are capable of sexual harassment and am disappointed that so many DUers assume that Robinson must be innocent and therefore Lewis must be an evil bastard. I don't know that Robinson is guilty of harassment but I also don't know that Lewis is a liar, bigot, latent homosexual, or any of the other things he's been called. Why isn't it possible that Lewis misunderstood Robinson's touching of him? Couldn't it be that Robinson meant nothing by touching Lewis but that Lewis honestly misunderstood his intentions?

I'm also surprised at the assertions that a person's touching another person's back and arms can't be sexually suggestive, and the hints that this isn't "enough" to be called sexual harassment. Again, I'm not saying it is in this case, but such touching certainly can be quite sexually suggestive and, when unwelcome, a form of harassment.

I'm also surprised at the assertions that a person's touching another person's back and arms can't be sexually suggestive, and the hints that this isn't "enough" to be called sexual harassment. Again, I'm not saying it is in this case, but such touching certainly can be quite sexually suggestive and, when unwelcome, a form of harassment.

Since it's, um, LEWIS who is now disavowing the term "harassment" I don't see where you have a leg to stand on here. That fact alone removes this from equivalence to Hill's situation. Really, the comparison rather tells in the opposite direction: Hill's claim was that she was approached in private in an overtly suggestive way. Lewis himself says that neither the conversation nor the circumstances were suggestive; he just felt uncomfortable being touched this way. And it is evident in what he says that the single factor that made the circumstance uncomfortable for him was the fact that Robinson is gay ("No gay person ever touched me like that before!"--itself a rather confusing statement).

So I don't see the parallel. Nor do I buy the victimolatrous argument that all accusations of "harassment" (in this case, a retracted one) have equal weight. That creates a hypersensitive atmosphere that is ripe for abuse--something I happen to have witnessed at first hand.

Finally, the fact that this accusation was bundled together with one that was even flimsier and utterly indefensible (the website link business) is in my view conclusive evidence of bad faith on the part of those bringing the accusations. Lewis says he was manipulated too. Fine. But I think he bears responsibility for leveling an inflamatory accusation that he now "regrets" and thus making himself available to being manipulated.

Not TOO furkin' intelligent if had NO IDEA that his Email would hit "The Secular Press"...
Gee-whillickers, Mr. Lewis, you ever heard the expression "Throwing raw meat to the dogs"????

Do the Episccopalians "Shun"? I think Mr. Lewis is a prime candidate.
Who do you suppose gave him the 30 pieces of silver to come forward?

"David Lewis described how the Rev. V. Gene Robinson touched him on the arm and back twice in conversation, which made him uncomfortable, according to a report by a bishop who looked into Lewis' complaint."

He calls THAT sexual harassment? What a paranoid doofus! Or more likely an intentional slanderer.

When I first encountered Gene at a Province 1 convocation a couple of years ago he put his hands on me inappropriately every time I engaged him in conversation. NO GAY MAN HAS EVER BEHAVED TOWARDS ME THIS WAY --

To find out that THAT accusation is based on a couple of arm and back touches in public in a non-sexual situation and conversation....sheesh!

and doesn't want to have to confront his tendencies.

remember that one from the 10 Commandments, fellas?

I don't think that he was God incarnate, but that Jesus guy seemed to have some pretty good ideas. I know who's side he'd be on in this brouhaha.

apologized on national news (CNN) this morning if he made the man uncomfortable, but certainly did not realize it did, nor did he have any "seductive intentions" toward the man. I think that is enough.

I believe the Bishop, and so now the question becomes, "Who really has the problem?"

"Steve Kangas was found dead on the 39th floor of his enemy's doorstep at 11:30 p.m. on February 8, 1999, in the bathroom of the offices of Richard Mellon Sciafe...shot (twice?) in the head."

http://www.psnw.com/~bashford/kang-ev0.html

.

he was practically drooling. Further, he lied and said that the "porno" link was on the gay youth website. It was not--it was linked on a page linked to the website. At least the exoneration was a big news story itself. In all, this was a gay rights victory.

And the media that blurts these accusations need to be fined "big time".

Even when the rest of the flacks(like that NPR witch) are against a shrub action or policy, toady-boy Barnes alwasy defends his idol with the flimsiest arguments.

Barnes just can't contain himself sometimes. He fidgets and fusses when Kondracke or others are expressing views that differ with his. He just can't wait to get his opinions heard – and they always coincide with the administration's.

"In the first, Robinson placed one hand on Lewis' arm and the other on Lewis'
upper back. The exchange took place in full view of the public, and Lewis
acknowledged that many who saw it would not have judged it inappropriate.
He said Robinson answered his question and didn't say anything offensive."

Lots of politicians, priests, ministers, coaches are in trouble. As for Fred Barnes, don't expect any mea culpas from him. He has no shame.

putting their careers at risk. Sure, such touching can be innocent, but it can also be sexual, even done in public.

Fred Barnes IS an idiot, however.

you are an evil SOB!!!!

is that for all of these homophobes just being touch by someone that is gay is "innappropriate." He could have shook his hand and that would have been "innappropriate." Of course the right wing media picks it up and runs with it.