Nice example of Who-ism
Last night I reprinted or 'bumped' the How-What-Who article just below. This morning I find a golden example of impenetrably alien Who-ism in its densest Roman form.

Roman Potemra at NRO:

...A court has ruled that the Episcopal Church in Virginia must be allowed to keep some of its churches, in the face of challenges by breakaway sects that have joined a more conservative Anglican denomination, the Council of Anglicans in North America (CANA), led by a Nigerian bishop.

Terzian writes that he is “gratified by the decision of the Court”: “If people want to abandon the Episcopal Church, they are free to do so; but they cannot take historic Church property with them, or deprive Episcopalians of their parish homes.” I share his view 100 percent, but want to make clear that I harbor no ill will against the breakaway groups, even though I disagree with the opinions that made them leave. They believe the true church must not allow some of the opinions expressed in U.S. Episcopalianism, so conscience demands that they leave their father’s house; but I think I’m not alone in believing that these man-made divisions are evanescent, and that we will meet again.

Well, I also agree with the decision on property. It's like a family inheritance. The heirs who continue within the rules of the family deserve to keep the property, while the disowned black sheep doesn't have a moral claim. Doesn't matter if the family rules are good or bad.

But I can't comprehend the other part of Potemra's reasoning, and I'm pretty sure old JC wouldn't understand it either.

The purpose of belonging to a church is twofold: (1) to worship your God in a form that you find meaningful and holy; (2) to engage in a community that enforces a culturally positive set of rules.

Old JC and his apostles gave us very clear statements about false earth-based idols, and extremely explicit statements about homosexuality. Both of these rules have led over the centuries to a positive culture within Christian circles, which justifies them on experimental grounds. (How-ism)

The mainstream Anglicans have turned against both of these explicit statements. They no longer follow the New Testament. Instead, they worship the Planet Goddess, fags and bullbitches. We're seeing across the entire post-Christian world that these forms of worship lead to destruction and chaos. Experiment leads us to reject both Gaia and Gay.

Putting it more generally, a Howist approach to religion works in sync with a Howist approach to the visible world. Try to observe the workings of Nature through external senses and measurement; try to observe the workings of God through internal senses and prayer. If the advice of a book or leader agrees with your observations, and seems to improve human lives when implemented, then you might tentatively follow the advice of the book or leader until it seems to go wrong.

But Roman Potemra seems to believe that anything the Dear Leader says is okay by definition. If the Dear Leader says Gay Is Good, then Gay Is Good. If the Dear Leader says Abortion is Good, then Abortion is Good. Regardless of what works, regardless of what produces a functional culture, regardless of your own sense of God's will. This is pure Who-ism.
  ¶ 4:02 AM