Nice to see the church living in the real world ........

[DavidinSouthampton]

Probably more so!? What kind of statement is that? Exactly how did you reach that conclusion? I must have missed the church leaders condemning gay marriage and just voting that women shouldn't be allowed positions of authority in the church.

You know I had a sweet little old lady at the door the other day, trying to get me to join her 'flock', and I politely said I felt religion was responsible for the majority of conflict and violence in the world and wasn't interested, and she said in reply 'that's because other people believe in the wrong religion'....That is what belief is - blindness.

That is a statement based on the thought that religion (for me and many others) is about tolerance, acceptance and not being judgemental. And yes, those are qualities that people can exhibit whether or not they have any sort of faith. I mainly wanted to make the point that people can be intolerant and judgemental whatever they do or don't believe.

I am not an Anglican, but i would guess that the majority - possibly the vast majority - of people within the Church of England would be in favour of women priests and bishops. My own conspiracy theory (and I am not given to conspiracy theorising) is that a small well-organised minority is essing it up for the majority.

The Gay Marriage thing is probably slightly different and difficul, but plenty of clergy would have no objection and i personally don't, but then I am a wishy-washy liberal.

And I would have had a major problem with your little old lady and what she said as well.

 

[DavidinSouthampton]

You always come across as a decent, thoughtful sort of chap. But one may as well respond to your post "If you opened your eyes, got off your knees and used the critical faculties you apply to absolutely every other part of your waking life, you might realise that your religion - and your god - is built on an entirely man-made fantasy. And that it's far better to help people through a sense of shared, earthbound compassion than in expectation of reward in some imagined afterlife."

I take your point, but personally the "expectation of reward in some imagined afterlife" is not particularly important to me.

 

[The Spanish]

That is a statement based on the thought that religion (for me and many others) is about tolerance, acceptance and not being judgemental. And yes, those are qualities that people can exhibit whether or not they have any sort of faith. I mainly wanted to make the point that people can be intolerant and judgemental whatever they do or don't believe.

I am not an Anglican, but i would guess that the majority - possibly the vast majority - of people within the Church of England would be in favour of women priests and bishops. My own conspiracy theory (and I am not given to conspiracy theorising) is that a small well-organised minority is essing it up for the majority.

The Gay Marriage thing is probably slightly different and difficul, but plenty of clergy would have no objection and i personally don't, but then I am a wishy-washy liberal.

And I would have had a major problem with your little old lady and what she said as well.

i would get to the bottom of whether she meant those who 'love' rather than 'fear' first, rather than just assuming she meant muslims and catholics as she is a daft old bird.

 

[Acker79]

Not being an Anglican, i am not sure I am the best person to answer this.

But a lot of people (among the laity) seem to be thinking that not enough was being proposed to look after those who objected had the vote been successful - i.e. making sure that those who don't want women bishops have a male bishop somewhere in the hierarchy to look after them.

I have also seen quoted on another thread on here 1 Timothy, chapter 12, verse 12, which states "I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she is to keep silent." That is a letter to Paul, whom a nember of people would hold to be anti-women", but when one silly woman on the news last night was saying that women bishops are anti-scripture, I can't for the life of me think what else they might be basing it on.

Someone else on this thread has said that any human being who can bleed for five days and not die must be unclean ( or something like that) I fear there is actually some truth in that. I heard a woman priest talking at a conference about the place of women in religion a few months ago who made exactly that point as reason for rejection of women priests in the first place.

Finally, if three votes in the House of Laity had been for, rather than against, the vote would have gone through. It is "conservative evangelicals" who tend to be against the idea of women priests - the same people who are more likely to believe in the creation story (that is a sweeping generalisation and I might get shot down in Flames.) The Conservative Evangelicals probably tend to be better organised than other parts of the Church, and will make every effort to maintain the status quo.

But personally, I am disgusted at the whole thing. Whatever or whoever jesus was (i.e. whether you believe in the fairy stories or not), the historical Jesus spent a great deal of his time getting in trouble with and challenging the religious authorities at the time over their hypocrisy, over-zealous sticking to the letter of the law rather than the spirit of the law (for example getting in trouble for healing somebody on a Sunday - should I have let them die?). I can't thinking that he would be angry and consequently busy now.

I think we also shouldn't discount plain old unrelated-to-religion misogyny. Old men will have grown up in old times where women place was in the home, and I imagine some of those that voted are of that generation, maybe just a fear of losing their grip of power.

 

[wellquickwoody]

Let's be honest, who cares? It is not as if the church has any relevance anymore.

The Archbishop of Canterbury, the current one, is partially responsible for the marketing of the Church of England (I use the term marketing as religions of all kinds are basically a business). Congregations are falling, marriage and baptisms are fast falling out of favour with the popullus, and the church has falling income levels. What to do, what to do? I am sure that having a sinister looking, intellectual bloke who is incapable of trimmimg his eyebrows at the helm to 'sell' the core values of the church to the people is bound to be a winner isn't it? And why is it that most of the congregations around the land are full of similar weirdos, male and female. The church should no longer have any sway over our lawmakers and politicians as it is no longer representative of the people in this country, as yesterdays farcical vote demonstrates.

Maybe the next AoC might have better luck.

 

[The Large One]

Not being an Anglican, i am not sure I am the best person to answer this.

But a lot of people (among the laity) seem to be thinking that not enough was being proposed to look after those who objected had the vote been successful - i.e. making sure that those who don't want women bishops have a male bishop somewhere in the hierarchy to look after them.

I have also seen quoted on another thread on here 1 Timothy, chapter 12, verse 12, which states "I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she is to keep silent." That is a letter to Paul, whom a nember of people would hold to be anti-women", but when one silly woman on the news last night was saying that women bishops are anti-scripture, I can't for the life of me think what else they might be basing it on.

Someone else on this thread has said that any human being who can bleed for five days and not die must be unclean ( or something like that) I fear there is actually some truth in that. I heard a woman priest talking at a conference about the place of women in religion a few months ago who made exactly that point as reason for rejection of women priests in the first place.

Finally, if three votes in the House of Laity had been for, rather than against, the vote would have gone through. It is "conservative evangelicals" who tend to be against the idea of women priests - the same people who are more likely to believe in the creation story (that is a sweeping generalisation and I might get shot down in Flames.) The Conservative Evangelicals probably tend to be better organised than other parts of the Church, and will make every effort to maintain the status quo.

But personally, I am disgusted at the whole thing. Whatever or whoever jesus was (i.e. whether you believe in the fairy stories or not), the historical Jesus spent a great deal of his time getting in trouble with and challenging the religious authorities at the time over their hypocrisy, over-zealous sticking to the letter of the law rather than the spirit of the law (for example getting in trouble for healing somebody on a Sunday - should I have let them die?). I can't thinking that he would be angry and consequently busy now.

Cheers for that.

So it appears to be nothing more 'political' than good old-fashioned, dyed-in-the-wool, pig-ignorant, wilful, spiteful misogyny.

The irony is ear-splitting.

 

[Westdene Seagull]

Let's be honest, who cares? It is not as if the church has any relevance anymore.

But unfortunately it does. Our archaic Sunday trading laws are thanks to the church, the current argument around gay marriage is because the church wants to own the term "marriage" and lets not forget the House of Lords has church appointed Lords.

If only we could be more like France in this area !

 

[DavidinSouthampton]

Cheers for that.

So it appears to be nothing more 'political' than good old-fashioned, dyed-in-the-wool, pig-ignorant, wilful, spiteful misogyny.

The irony is ear-splitting.

With the caveat that plenty of those who voted against seem to have been women. Can women be misogynistic?

 

[SeagullSongs]

But unfortunately it does. Our archaic Sunday trading laws are thanks to the church, the current argument around gay marriage is because the church wants to own the term "marriage" and lets not forget the House of Lords has church appointed Lords.

If only we could be more like France in this area !

Now THAT is blasphemy.

 

[The Large One]

With the caveat that plenty of those who voted against seem to have been women. Can women be misogynistic?

Yup.

It's so re-assuring to see contemporary social documents of 1,800 years ago - of little relevance today - still being used as an excuse to denigrate half the population.

 

[turienzo's lovechild]

Congregations are falling, .

not everywhere.....st peter's in brighton has gone from 0 to 1000 in 3 years, many of those are born again christians (myself included)

 

[Acker79]

With the caveat that plenty of those who voted against seem to have been women. Can women be misogynistic?

Seems plenty of women voted republican in the recent US elections, despite an pretty anti-woman's rights manifesto. Maybe we should take the right to vote away from women so that their own interests can be protected.

 

[turienzo's lovechild]

I am not an Anglican, but i would guess that the majority - possibly the vast majority - of people within the Church of England would be in favour of women priests and bishops. My own conspiracy theory (and I am not given to conspiracy theorising) is that a small well-organised minority is essing it up for the majority.

The Gay Marriage thing is probably slightly different and difficul, but plenty of clergy would have no objection and i personally don't, but then I am a wishy-washy liberal.

.

you're correct on the first point in my opinion, certainly with younger anglicans anyway...as for the second point, i can only go on what the bishop of chichester said, and that is that homophobia is a much bigger problem than whether a loving couple can get married or not

 

[Simster]

Let's be honest, who cares? It is not as if the church has any relevance anymore.

I wish this was true, but it isn't.

 

[goldstone]

The first 15 minutes of the PM programme on Radio 4 taken up with this subject this evening.

We don't care. It's irrelevant. There's real news, important news, happening. The women bishops nonsense is at best a footnote.

 

[goldstone]

not everywhere.....st peter's in brighton has gone from 0 to 1000 in 3 years, many of those are born again christians (myself included)

Born again? Wow! How did you manage that? What did your mum think?

 

[Frutos]

Just out of interest, why are the CofE allowed to breach employment law?

The law in this country states that you're not allowed to discriminate on the grounds of race, religion, sexual orientation, age, gender etc... when looking to fill a job vacancy, such as a bishopric for example (and quite rightly so, I might add). Therefore how, based on one interpretation of a 2000+ year old text, are the CofE allowed to circumvent the law of the land?

 

[Barn Door Billy]

The most wonderful thing about it us that the teachings of Christianity are intrinsically pro equality (gender, race etc). "there is neither male nor female...you are all one in Christ". Organised religion is bullshit...don't bother

 

[DavidinSouthampton]

Just out of interest, why are the CofE allowed to breach employment law?

The law in this country states that you're not allowed to discriminate on the grounds of race, religion, sexual orientation, age, gender etc... when looking to fill a job vacancy, such as a bishopric for example (and quite rightly so, I might add). Therefore how, based on one interpretation of a 2000+ year old text, are the CofE allowed to circumvent the law of the land?

The Churches (faith Communities as a whole - I don't know) apparently had an exemption built in to the original legislation.

Frank Field was on the news this evening as he is going to try and introduce a bill to remove that exemption - I don't know if it would need to be a Private member's Bill or whether it could be done through the Parliamentary Ecclesiastical committee (or something similar) of which he is a member.

Good Luck to him and it.

 

[DavidinSouthampton]

The first 15 minutes of the PM programme on Radio 4 taken up with this subject this evening.

We don't care. It's irrelevant. There's real news, important news, happening. The women bishops nonsense is at best a footnote.

Lots of people do think it is important.

I don't complain when the news is full of reality TV shows, The X Factor, Strictly Come dancing and the escapades of countless minor celebrities, about all of which i could't give a stuff.

And it is very relevant if only because the Church of England is an Established Church and the Queen is head of it..... how ironic is that at the moment.