Apparently substance is too much to expect

Since the launch of the No Anglican Covenant Coalition in November of 2010, we have kept asking for someone - anyone - to put forward a coherent and sensible argument in favour of the Anglican Covenant that was not rooted in namecalling, fearmongering or emotional blackmail.

Seriously.

As discussed in the last post, the first response of the Covenant apologists was to claim that critics of the Covenant were fascists.  Bishop Gregory Cameron has yet to apologize for that filthy accusation, his weasly clarification in the Church of Ireland Gazette notwithstanding.

Apart from that bit of Godwinesque idiocy, the pro-Covenant argument has essentially been:

1. The Communion is in crisis.
2. Something must be done.
3. The Covenant is something.
4. Therefore the Covenant must be done.
5. There is no alternative.
6. If it fails, it would hurt poor Rowan's feelings.

The first five points are, shall we say, highly contentious.  The last is pure and simple emotional blackmail.

Today saw the launch of the Yes to the Covenant page.

At least they didn't claim we were fascists.

Perhaps someday they'll get around to posting something coherent.

I don't think I'll hold my breath.