Monday, January 19, 2009

The Iker diocese examined

Someone named William L. Fisher has written a blog in which he analyzes that legal status of the Jack Iker Diocese of Fort Worth.

The Iker diocese is so taken with it that they have sent it out to their clergy and convention delegates and to former clergy and delegates. Suzanne Gill sent it out under the heading A Texas Lawyer Looks at the Diocesan Corporation and writes "On Dec. 26, lawyer William L. Fisher published a blog post that provides a clear analysis of our Corporation's structure under Texas law and its practical effect on diocesan operations both before and after the November 2008 convention."

Fisher describes himself as having spent time in law, but the State Bar of Texas web site http://www.texasbar.com/ has no mention of him.

The "Find a Lawyer" field at the bottom of the home page lists even disbarred and retired lawyers. I do not see any listing for a William Fisher or a William L. Fisher.

I'm just sayin'.

His other blog entries make it clear that he is an out and proud conservative politically and spiritually. He's also very worried over Americans who are Muslims.

Here is his post from Wednesday, August 16, 2006:

[Note: It's hard to know where his friend's piece ends and Fisher's opinions start, because Fisher doesn't use quotation marks."]
---------------------------------
Can a Good Muslim be a Good American?


After I forwarded that question to a friend that worked in Saudi Arabia for 20 years, he responded with this reply.

Theologically - no. Because his allegiance is to Allah, the moon God of Arabia.
Religiously - no. Because no other religion is accepted by his Allah except Islam (Koran, 2:256)

Scripturally - no. Because his allegiance is to the five pillars of Islam and the Koran.
Geographically - no. Because his allegiance is to Mecca, to which he turns in prayer five times a day.
Socially - no. Because his allegiance to Islam forbids him to make friends with Christians or Jews.

Politically - no. Because he must submit to the mullah (spiritual leaders), who teach annihilation of Israel and Destruction of America, the great Satan.
Domestically - no. Because he is instructed to marry four women and beat and scourge his wife when she disobeys him (Koran 4:34).
Intellectually - no. Because he cannot accept the American Constitution since it is based on Biblical principles and he believes the Bible to be corrupt.
Philosophically - no. Because Islam, Muhammad, and the Koran do not allow freedom of religion and expression. Democracy and Islam cannot co-exist. Every Muslim government is either dictatorial or autocratic.
Spiritually - no. Because when we declare "one nation under God, the Christian's God is loving and kind, while Allah is NEVER referred to as heavenly father, nor is he ever called love in The Koran's 99 excellent names.


Therefore after much study and deliberation... perhaps we should be very suspicious of ALL MUSLIMS in this country. They obviously cannot be both"good" Muslims and good Americans. Call it what you wish....it's still the truth.

If you find yourself intellectually in agreement with the above statements, perhaps you will share this with your friends. The more who understand this, the better it will be for our country and our future.

This religious war is bigger than many of us know or understand.

-----------------------

And the depth of ignorance about Islam is even bigger. The bigotry of this entry is breathtaking.

Fisher also sincerely believes God speaks to him. He wrote This I Believe in 2008:
--------------------------
"The inspiration for writing this came to me one day as I was praying for my adult children. As I prayed for God to speak to my children, He spoke to me. In seeking God’s help in sending someone to cross the path of my children, who would say the words, or live the Life of Faith as a model for them, He showed me that I am the spiritual head of my family, and it is my responsibility first. So, I embarked on this adventure of sharing my faith with my children. I have always tried to live out my faith in front of my children, and now it seems it’s time to write out what I truly believe as well."
-------------------------
So read it if you want. It's worth every penny you pay to see it.

9 comments:

Robert said...

That is so intellectually inept, morally bankrupt and racist that it boggles the mind.

Leonardo Ricardo said...

Really, do all them thar conservativo fellas down deep in Fort Worth drink heavy dur´n the daytime as well as night?

Fred Schwartz said...

What Robert said. I can only hope that these "beliefs" are held by a majority of 1.

Lynn said...

HE makes some interesting assumptions, particularly since the D.FTW was incorporated after the passage of the Dennis canon. I'm not sure if the petition could be considered a contract, but the Diocese certainly received consideration in return (use of the TEC name, clergy benefits, etc.) He certaily doesn't understand that a diocese is, by definition, part of a large and whole church.

And let's face it, "non-profit" just means you don't have to pay taxes under certain circumstances, it provides no holy mantle of respectability...and they are governed by specific laws. If the national church sued to have the word "Episcopal" removed from the Iker-led group's name, it wouldn't be the first time a nationalnon-profit has done so (although usually there's a name change to avoid a lawsuit).

Oh, and what Leonardo said. Something odd in that Co-cola.

Fred Schwartz said...

I will see you one Fisher and raise you one A. S. Haley.

Psssst! Do you know what they call 1,000 lawyers at the bottom of the ocean?

A good start!

Anglican said...

Iker and co. continually point to the C&C as not prohibiting a diocese from leaving TEC. However, the C&C does provide a mechanism whereby dioceses outside the US may leave. These dioceses are all termed Missionary Dioceses - the only definition of which in the C&C is:

"Missionary Dioceses...shall constitute jurisdictions for which this Church as a whole assumes a special responsibility."

In all other respects, however, these dioceses are formed, structured and function just as any other domestic diocese:

- They are admitted into union with General Convention via acknowledging the TEC C&C
- They have a Diocesan Convention and Standing Committee
- They are governed by Diocesan Constitution and Canons
- They elect a bishop by Diocesan Convention
- They elect Deputies to General Convention
- They elect Deputies to Provincial Synod
- They adopt an annual budget and program, and provide for its administration

Structurally, Missionary Dioceses are identical to a domestic diocese. The only difference is that they exist outside of the US, but they are, to all intents and purposes, 'dioceses' of TEC.

If a Missionary Diocese wishes to leave the Episcopal Church for another neighbouring (nb) province, it must:
- pass such a motion at its Diocesan Convention and then forward that request to the General Convention
- undergo a 3 year trial period between conventions
- the next Convention may either grant or deny the request, or extend the trial period

From this we could conclude a number of things:
- that it is an unwritten assumption in the C&C that only non-domestic dioceses may leave TEC, therefore only they are provided with a mechanism to do so. If TEC had contemplated the possibility of a domestic diocese leaving they would have provided a mechanism. Provision is provided for domestic dioceses to revert to Area Mission status, or be subsumed into or unite with a neighbouring diocese, but not leave. The explicit granting of such provision to non-domestic dioceses, while only providing for Area Mission/uniting for domestic ones shows that the C&C does not make it possible. It is unwritten but explicitly assumed.
- However, if we generously grant the possibility that a domestic diocese may leave TEC, then why should their process for leaving be any different from that of a Missionary Diocese? What is different about them that does not require a similar process? Why did the dioceses that are now part of the provinces of Mexico, Central America and the Philippines require permission from General Convention to leave, but those dioceses who now claim to be part of the Southern Cone did not?

It appears clear that the lack of provision in the C&C for a domestic diocese to leave is not affirming that any such diocese may leave at any time without approval by GC. It is a sign that it was not envisaged that a diocese could do so, and so no mechanism was provided. If, however, we grant that a domestic diocese may leave, then it is clear that such a leaving process could not be along lines different from non-domestic dioceses who a formed, structured, and governed identically to domestic ones.

taomikael said...

Since he had so much fun in claiming that a Moslem could not be a good American, perhaps it would be fun to challenge him right back by noting that a Christianist of his persuasion equally could not be a good American. Since he necessarily holds that only his God is sovereign, and the Constitution holds that the people are sovereign, that the highest authority in the land is the Constitution, therefore, he cannot be a good American.

Padre Mickey said...

I agree with taomikael. I'm not a nationalist because of my Christian beliefs. My loyalty is with the Reign of God and not with any nation. Which, of course, makes me a bad estado√ľnidense.

Elizabeth Kaeton said...

"There ain't nothin' more powerful than the odor of mendacity . . .You can smell it. It smells like death."
Tennessee Williams, Cat on a Hot Tin Roof