CofE regects appointment of female bishops

[StraferJack]

"You are probably right Sean "

ahh... I'm touched

", a number were unsure what voting yes would actually mean in practice " - is this true tho? Sounds a bit fake-concern from anyone so claiming

[????]

er, you can criticise whoever you want religously, I'll join in in the right mood, I'm just chortled by your and other's consistent choice of the easy target, always.....

My original point was actually a criticsim of the C of E if you read it (doubtful) as I said if you are going to do reliogon you may as well make it hellfire and brimstone, absolutes and bigotry...as the trying to be a sort of religous lite touchy feely, slightly enlightened, slightly liberal meh annoys everyone, as the Good old C of E is finding out.

[StraferJack]

"I'm just chortled by your and other's consistent choice of the easy target, always..... "

even

when

presented

with

evidence

he

still

sticks

to

his

theories

but only liberals are wearily predictable right?

[DJKillaQueen]

The other issue is whether an insitition free from equality law should be involved with government and establishment? Most people would say no and they would say no because any standpoint argued or defended, would be done so from a standpoint of gender inequality.

Government is formed by the will of the people. That's the democratic principle anyway. So that says that if the will of the people is secular, then the power of the CofE within that process should be negated. Put it this way....if a referendum were to be held tm asking people if bishops should retain their automoatic rights to seats in the House of Lords, I think it would most definitely be a no vote. Of course that is intrinsically linked to the issue of any kind of hereditary peerage and an issue that will only be solved by transforming the House of Lords into a fully elected second chamber...and a seperate issue for debate....but the point remains, that there is something distinctly foul about allowing any institution to ignore gender equality whilst having guaranteed roles and power within government.

[silverfox]

", a number were unsure what voting yes would actually mean in practice " - is this true tho? Sounds a bit fake-concern from anyone so claiming

The absence og guidelines for those who didn't wish to be under the authority of a woman bishop was a genuine concern to a number of them. Only a fool would vote yes if they didn't know what the exemptions were.

[StraferJack]

a fool is one word I suppose

[DJKillaQueen]

But this is where the rest of us in the real world lose sympathy sf. If a rule changes, you can't then have exemptions for misogynists who can't stomach the new rule. Either the CofE thinks gender inequality is wrong or they don't. And besides, how hard would it be for someone genuinely perturbed by female bishops to avoid them (just as they do female priests)? This need to have opt out rules is just a means to protect some pretty wrong thinking by some members of the church I'm afraid.

[silverfox]

It would appear there were a lot of fools voting yes then without having worked out the remit of the women bishops should they be appointed

[Marmora Man]

As an atheist I'm not sure I have a dog in this fight but .............

Religion is a set of beliefs, mostly of ideas and concepts that cannot be proven - virgin birth, re-incarnation, heaven & hell, transubstantiation, speaking in voices, prophesy and so on.

The CofE which evolved (?) from the Catholic Church has held, for many centuries, a belief that women cannot / should not preside over certain elements of their Christian rites. It seems that this particular belief is also evolving and that within 10 years it will be held by only a small minority of believers. 10 years in over 2,000 years is, comparatively, a very short timescale. Leave them all well alone to deal with this internal crisis of belief in their own way.

To suggest that parliamentary / legislative action is required is just plain wrong. Step down that path and once the CofE is "fixed" then what next? Fixing the English Catholic Church to appoint female priests, instructing mosques to permit women to preach on Fridays, outlawing a belief in re-incarnation?

Leave well alone - government gets far too involved in far too many things. It should stand well clear of religious arguments.

[StraferJack]

And vice versa? I'd be happy with that

Good post tho MM

[Marmora Man]

StraferJack Wrote:

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

> And vice versa? I'd be happy with that

>

Very happy to agree with the vice versa - which would, coincidentally, reduce the size of the House of Lords and, probably, reduce the amount of earnest but ill informed religious comment on politics, an additional benefit.

[DJKillaQueen]

And the vice versa is what I'm arguing for. I have no issue with any aspect of the CofE when they are making decisions amongst themselves. I do have an issue though when 26 male bishops can sit unelected in the House of Lords and have an impact on legislation that does affect me.

[Huguenot]

I'm with DJKQ. Quite happy to opine from the outside if they withdraw their seats from the House of Lords.

[david_carnell]

I'd also add my name to this growing consensus. Let the Church eat itself. Just get them the hell out of parliament.

[uncleglen]

You cannot be Archbishop of Canterbury if your parents weren't married when you were born apparently- (I don't know about bishops though.) This increasingly rules out large swathes of men (let alone women) from becoming A of C. The church is an anachronism and there seems to be an unspoken rule that it is churlish to criticise religion. We should not be funding faith schools from general taxation- it is totally illogical

[Marmora Man]

uncleglen Wrote:

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

> You cannot be Archbishop of Canterbury if your

> parents weren't married when you were born

> apparently- (I don't know about bishops though.)

> This increasingly rules out large swathes of men

> (let alone women) from becoming A of C. The church

> is an anachronism and there seems to be an

> unspoken rule that it is churlish to criticise

> religion. We should not be funding faith schools

> from general taxation- it is totally illogical

I don't think the pool of contenders for the AodC role is so great as to affect the majority of this country.

[Ridgley]

I think C of E should decide for themselves I don?t think there should be government interference on this church and State should be separated so I cannot understand why we have bishop sitting in the house of lords. Also this is not just a Christian issue I don?t think there are female Imams and Rabies in there main stream faiths as well.

[Otta]

The government will want to asvoid this like the plague, and avoid it they should!

Totally agree also with those who say

1. The HOL should not have any seats set aside for bishops (that is not to say that a bishop couldn't become a lord, but to have seats set aside is wrong).

2. The CofE not allowing women bishops means that the HOL is discriminating against women by making a number of seats in the house unavailable to women.

[Saffron]

Interesting... http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/42117

[DJKillaQueen]

Signed it.

[justsaying2]

Rabi yes, Imam absolutely not, unfortunately