CofE regects appointment of female bishops

[DJKillaQueen]

I think your point on Bishops in the House of lords and exclusion of women is a very good demonstration of how what the CofE thinks and does, impacts on what should a democratic chamber with equality at it's core. Could you imagine if such a thing existed in Parliament? That women were not eligible to stand for any number of seats? There would be an uproar, yet we tolerate it of the Lords.

My view is that until thre IS equality for those seats, that Bishops should not be allowed anywhere near the Lords, or any aspect of governement whatsoever.

[edhistory]

And the bible says:

http://www.biblegateway.com/verse/en/1%20Timothy%202:12

[StraferJack]

And an excellent demolition of that Timothy nonsense here

http://botherer.org/2012/11/21/why-the-argument-against-women-in-church-leadership-is-theological-rubbish/

[????]

Last time I looked at the abortion thread it was an argument bewteen you and a fellow Irish person - I don't think there's much to argue about that case in general a sthe thread seemed to be reaching a consensus on.

Now this IS interesting....."And all you do is complain how Catholics and Muslims get a free ride", the use of Catholoics and Muslims by you.

No I don't \anywhere, I actually discuss ISLAM and CATHOLICISM. You're so Guardian wired up for percieved racial prejudice that that is what you infer (and probbaly think) is meant by any criticsim of religon, especilally THAT one. I really hope the raeson that you just can't bring yourself to criticise an ethnic minority RELIGON, is not on the absurd grounds that it makes you not look like a Guardian reader. That would be most illiberal and stupid....and typical foooking Guardian reader I might add. "Don't talk about it people might think we're racist"

I would also like to see some proof, that I say catholics and muslims get a free ride...ever, anywhere on this forum. Choose your words more wisely in these areas please.

[El Pibe]

Apologies, it read to me like you were saying that women won't be allowed to become bishops because of those 26 places in the house of Lords. I think that comma introduces the ambiguity, ditch it and it's what you're saying ;)

[StraferJack]

the conflation re individuals practicing a religion and the religion itself was indeed my mistake. Apologies on that score.

At no point do I mean to imply that your or anyone is playing a race card. despite your wish to see me as some Guardian-wired-racism-detector I saw no racist slurs in your posts. But that said, your point is still wrong

I might have clumsily used the terms catholics/catholic church muslims/Islam interchangably, but your argument still seems to run - those other two religions are often uncriticised, when in fact I was merely trying to point out that that is rubbish. You may summarise the abortion thread as reaching a consensus but the fact is I was damning the Catholic church (and yes by extension many catholics)

so the question remains - why do you think those other churches don't get criticised?

"No I don't \anywhere, I actually discuss ISLAM and CATHOLICISM. You're so Guardian wired up for percieved racial prejudice that that is what you infer (and probbaly think) is meant by any criticsim of religon, especilally THAT one. I really hope the raeson that you just can't bring yourself to criticise an ethnic minority RELIGON, is not on the absurd grounds that it makes you not look like a Guardian reader. That would be most illiberal and stupid....and typical foooking Guardian reader I might add. "Don't talk about it people might think we're racist" "

apart from my word conflation, most of your point here is way off beam.. you thought your were being called racist - you weren't. But yeah I should choose words more carefully here

[????]

Ok, thank you.

Well, actually Catholicism does get a bashing reasonably frequently on here and in social media (and quite rightly so). So why doesn't Islam? I dunno, not as many of us from a muslim tradition, the 'i don't know much about it' cop out and a fair old dose of PCness would be my verdict. Also whilst the Cof E would make its critics a nice cup of tea, and the Catholic church would threaten them with hell, a very, small minority of followers of Islam would try and arrange for them to go there. I think it has an effect (on wider social media/media coverage)

To my original point on a whole range of issues from women to homosexulaity the C of E looks miles ahaed of Catholicism/Islam, and though I take your point about it being the established church/religon it still seems an easy target with less baggage for the 'attacker'. The tweetersphere is rammed with outrgae on this....I feel slightly sorry (with a touch of amusemant) for the the wooly, pretty liberal (for a dogmatic faith based creed) 'nice' C of E.

[StraferJack]

"The tweetersphere is rammed with outrgae on this....I feel slightly sorry (with a touch of amusemant) for the the wooly, pretty liberal (for a dogmatic faith based creed) 'nice' C of E."

to be fair, it's not just social media. Many senior (and not so senior) players within the church are just as outraged and just as vexed and just as vocal. It's a genuine issue, and not just a social media storm

The league table of various religions and their current states of enlightenment (or not) is an interesting discussion but not really what the subject at hand is about

[Huguenot]

Well, since the CofE not only inherit a right to rule over me by merit of adhering to their medieval dogma, they also take the name of my nation in vain, so I feel singularly justified in critiquing their performance.

I'm not bashing the CofE because they're easy targets, I'm calling into question their right for dominion over me.

I suspect the Italians, Irish and Spanish may feel the same about the Catholic Church, Israelis regarding Judaism, and Iranians about their particular brand of Islam.

The fact that Catholics and Muslims may also pursue gender discrimination is neither here nor there, it certainly doesn't justify the CofE position, and it doesn't make me feel sympathetic - 'There, there, it's okay to by bigoted because other people are too...' ?? Bizarre logic.

[silverfox]

I wonder how many of the indignant tweeters will now pull their children out of CoE schools in protest?

[Huguenot]

The implication presumably being that we shouldn't criticise CofE gender discrimination because their charitable status allows them to control schools?

Is that like saying you can't criticise expense fiddling by MPs because they control our hospitals?

[silverfox]

No, rather there's a lot of hypocritical nonsense being spoken on this issue.

Some seem to be saying a religious organisation should reflect the (non-religious) make up and views of a secular society, which appears slightly illogical to me.

If the majority of society considers religion and it's rituals to be medieval claptrap and have never darkened the door of a CoE church in their lives why are they getting so upset over how the church is configured? Surely the no vote has done women a favour if you subscribe to those views?

[Huguenot]

Except as SJ pointed out, that self same organisation has positions of authority in government and our chief representative, HM the Queen, is the Supreme Governor.

So it's not correct to assert that the CofE is entitled to do as it wishes without recourse to the people: both the church and the Queen retain their roles at our indulgence.

[silverfox]

I understand those concerns but as one of the people who voted no said on Newsnight last night, the CoE is the established church, not a state church.

If it is to be treated as any other company employing people then yes, equality rules should be applied. However, at the moment it is specifically excluded from some of the equality legislation for the fact it is a religious body.

It is an important issue and raises the question 'to what extent a secular society can dictate the form a religious body should take?'

The CoE will eventually vote for women bishops once it has sorted out it's own doctrinal issues rather than in response to Twitterarti mob-rule.

[StraferJack]

"The CoE will eventually vote for women bishops once it has sorted out it's own doctrinal issues rather than in response to Twitterarti mob-rule."

And a large part of that internal wish to have women bishops is the knowledge that the world has moved on and they don't want to be left behind. Ie external not internal factors

Easy to ignore secular or wider views if your religion is based on intimidation, fear and control (boom! Islam reference!) but when you have become a softer cuddly religion and a dwindling custo... Er... Congregation then you simply have to adapt

[????]

But my original point SJ was because it has bowed to secular, emlightened liberalism the most - for Huges reference the C of E actually has woman priests, go and check out the others and yes relativism is important, bizzare to think it's not - hence the decline. But this is just an intellectual position not a political stance, I couldn't give a monkeys about christianity of any flavour or Islam, all superstitious, not fit for pupose in the 21st Century and certainly cusing far more probllems than the good they do. I still have my 'prejudice' about which partivcular one is CURRENTLY turning in the nastiest direction and significantly so. But hey ho....Personally I'd like to give one hemisphere to religous nut jobs of the world and let the rest of us muddle along to our inevitable and final lonely death.

[silverfox]

True, I can't disagree with that. However, you have to bear in mind that those in the CoE who voted no have not done anything wrong - no rules or laws have been broken here.

It is not unusual for a religious group to be out of step with the wider society and this issue has only served to convince many that the CoE (and most other religions) are out of touch with today's world.

The matter is still one of Is and Ought. There are probably a great many things different religions ought to change if they wish to be seen to be relevant to people's lives today. At the same time, if they jump to every whim and current fad they risk losing their religious identity.

[StraferJack]

"But my original point SJ was "... sorry I've read ita couple of times now and still not sure what that last post's point is/was?

I think we agree on religions generally, and if we were discussing which are the worst at the moment we would agree there too. And we probably agree on CoE being more enlightened than most others

So what are we disagreeing on? Because it has bowed to some secular trends, it is beyond reproach? External or Internal?

Look the thread was about this specific (and non-trivial) vote which looks to have harpooned the church. It's a big deal to both the faithful and the leaders of that church. There will be fallout. Enlightened leaders of the church are in despair over some of the militant wing

It's worth talking about frankly. And it's a discussion that doesn't really need other religions being yanked into it because they just aren't relevant to the point at hand

But that doesn't mean we can't have THAT conversation (again) - I just don't see it's relevance here

[StraferJack]

"It is not unusual for a religious group to be out of step with the wider society and this issue has only served to convince many that the CoE (and most other religions) are out of touch with today's world. "

But this is the point entirely. I don't think the CoE IS out of step on this point. I think, for the most part it is totally on board. But what we have is several small, loud, militant sections who are getting to skew the outcome. Which is a different thing entirely

[????]

So threads have to stick within strict paramaters set by a single person or the originator? Sounds a bit religous to me

[StraferJack]

"So threads have to stick within strict paramaters set by a single person or the originator? Sounds a bit religous to me"

didn't say anything of the sort. In fact I would argue that what I did say

"But that doesn't mean we can't have THAT conversation (again) - I just don't see it's relevance here"

was the opposite of that

[????]

it was sort of a joke, u know deity/religon/single source/strict parameters of behaviour etc???

Anyway, for huge

Is voting against a woman becoming a bishop on religous grounds the same as shooting a girl in the head, on religous grounds, for wanting to go to school, say?

[Huguenot]

"for Huges reference the C of E actually has woman priests, go and check out the others"

As I pointed out, I don't remotely see the reason for this? The fact that other religions do some weird stuff doesn't suddenly make the CofE above criticism. This is a non-argument.

As it happens, and as I pointed out earlier in the thread, Islam has many women Imams.

[silverfox]

You are probably right Sean that for the most part the CoE is in favour of Women Bishops (difficult not to be given its women priests). However, I've no reason to question the figures given on your link to Brother.org:

"...Of 47 bishops, only 3 voted against it. Of 193 clergy in the synod, just 45 voted against. And of the House of Laity, of the 206 members with a vote, 74 said no. That?s 6% of bishops, 23% of clergy, and 36% of the laity..."

These figures actually show a quite substantial disagreement between the elected representatives that would suggest the CoE is not quite as united on this issue as many assume. Although I will qualify this as in my first post, ie, a number were unsure what voting yes would actually mean in practice and further qualifications as to the remit of women bishops were to e discussed and debated at a later stage.

[Huguenot]

Quids, now you're going on about shooting people in the head - this bizarre assertion somehow claiming I can't criticise the CofE because no Christians have committed murder recently? (BTW Erm.. Anders Breivik demanding a mono cultural Christian Europe?)

This is silly, can I not criticise members of parliament because they haven't bombarded islands under disputed ownership with South Korea recently?

Can I not criticise Shell until I've criticised BP enough?