homepage
  roll on christmas  
click here to find out more about ship of fools click here to sign up for the ship of fools newsletter click here to support ship of fools
community the mystery worshipper gadgets for god caption competition foolishness features ship stuff
discussion boards live chat cafe avatars frequently-asked questions the ten commandments gallery private boards register for the boards
 
Ship of Fools


Post new thread  Post a reply
My profile login | Register | Directory | Search | FAQs | Board home
   - Printer-friendly view Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
» Ship of Fools   » Special interest discussion   » Dead Horses   » Tim Farron (Page 3)

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.  
Pages in this thread: 1  2  3 
 
Source: (consider it) Thread: Tim Farron
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520

 - Posted      Profile for mdijon     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
The fantasist in me wondered if the Holy Spirit was getting to them; why else would they care? It's not as if the man was planning to establish a theocracy.

I can imagine that a gay person who is used to marginalization and contempt might want to know what a proposed political leader thinks of them. And as I say, the word sin carries some heavy connotations.

--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon

Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
Leprechaun

Ship's Poison Elf
# 5408

 - Posted      Profile for Leprechaun     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
And if you did count it as a reason not to vote Corbyn I wouldn't consider that anti-pluralistic or intolerant on your part, rather a reaction to Corbyn's (hypothetical) anti-pluralism and intolerance.

quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
I think I would count it as such if it became something like a defining reason over and above his policy positions.

That would perhaps be overvaluing it but not intolerant if the word is to have a narrow and political meaning - or I'll describe your intolerance of my intolerance of Corbyn as intolerant and we'll swirl around in vicious circle of meta-intolerance.

Well yes, intolerance by itself is not really that useful a term. I think that's why pluralism is also a useful term: which to me means seeing as a positive value that people with different views and presuppositions to me have voices in the system. This is particularly easy to value, ISTM, if there are certain areas where someone is willing to pipe down about their views in order to respect my rights, but I still get the positive impact of their different worldview.

For example, a Con-Lib Dem coalition with Tim Farron as DPM would have been much better for most people in mainland Britain than a DUP deal committed as he was to social justice etc, and would also have had no negative effect on gay rights as I understand it.

Posts: 3097 | From: England - far from home... | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967

 - Posted      Profile for SvitlanaV2   Email SvitlanaV2   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
The fantasist in me wondered if the Holy Spirit was getting to them; why else would they care? It's not as if the man was planning to establish a theocracy.

I can imagine that a gay person who is used to marginalization and contempt might want to know what a proposed political leader thinks of them. And as I say, the word sin carries some heavy connotations.
But what if a political leader respects them and their rights as human beings? Why would that not take priority over a religious concept that most British people probably don't even believe in? Sin has no place in a post-Christian political world, so it's very strange that journalists should be so obsessed with it.

As I say, one solution is for Christians whose religious beliefs don't align neatly with the moral values of their culture to do their civic duty away from party politics. Or else, in true political style, be economical with the truth when asked irrelevant questions.

Posts: 6338 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012  |  IP: Logged
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520

 - Posted      Profile for mdijon     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Sin has no place in a post-Christian political world, so it's very strange that journalists should be so obsessed with it.

It is the ideas behind the concept and associated attitudes which are the obsession.

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Or else, in true political style, be economical with the truth when asked irrelevant questions.

Absolutely my preferred choice. And more convincing if being generous (liberal even) with the explanation as to why the question is irrelevant.

--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon

Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967

 - Posted      Profile for SvitlanaV2   Email SvitlanaV2   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
'Generous' yes, but 'astute' would be better! Easier said than done, but these are supposed to be highly intelligent people.

It should be straightforward these days to show if someone has 'contemptuous' attitudes. Look at what they do, look at how they relate to people. But asking them to reveal their innermost religious beliefs is unBritish. And expecting them to do it in a soundbite is daft.

[ 28. June 2017, 11:25: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]

Posts: 6338 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012  |  IP: Logged
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520

 - Posted      Profile for mdijon     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I pretty much agree with that. But that said it isn't the job of a free press to shy away from curve balls, and I don't think Farron handled it very well.

His resignation speech which implied that he really did think gay sex was a sin after all was especially misjudged.

--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon

Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238

 - Posted      Profile for Crœsos     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
The fantasist in me wondered if the Holy Spirit was getting to them; why else would they care? It's not as if the man was planning to establish a theocracy.

I can imagine that a gay person who is used to marginalization and contempt might want to know what a proposed political leader thinks of them. And as I say, the word sin carries some heavy connotations.
But what if a political leader respects them and their rights as human beings?
That's a pretty big "what if" to simply stipulate, especially given that "it's sinful" has historically been the justification for most restrictions on the rights of gay people, plus the U.K. (and U.S.) are only a few years removed from what you refer to as "a theocracy". I mean, if you're going to claim that religiously motivated restrictions on the rights of gay people constitutes "theocracy" then non-theocratic government is a fairly recent development.

There are all kinds of 'what ifs' we could hypothesize, such as "what if a politician's faith includes the belief in the natural inferiority of certain races of people but he also asserts he respects their rights as human beings?" It's not that we believe the combination is impossible so much as the first assertion casts a whole lot of historically well-founded doubt on the second. A certain amount of healthy skepticism is warranted, particularly if you're a member of the purportedly 'inferior' race(s).

[ 28. June 2017, 19:22: Message edited by: Crœsos ]

--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto

Posts: 10334 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967

 - Posted      Profile for SvitlanaV2   Email SvitlanaV2   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I'm not a white person. I don't care what any individual thinks about the 'taint' of my skin colour, or the curse of Ham, or whatever, so long as they allow me to live my life, and don't obstruct my ability to do the best I can with the abilities I have.

If they do cause me problems, then I'll have to fight them, or refuse to vote for them, etc., as required. But I have no interest in policing someone else's thoughts, or interrogating them on their relationship with God.

The USA is different from the UK, however, and people may have more cause for concern there. In the UK, Christianity and its 'sins' are quietly fizzling away (although it might not seem like it down in London), and I don't think there's much chance of gay-hating, racial supremacist armies of angry evangelicals taking over our political parties and destroying the country.

Mind you, England still has a state church that hasn't got with the post-sin programme. I await with interest to see at what point the country realises that this is an anachronistic and politically dangerous state of affairs.

Posts: 6338 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012  |  IP: Logged
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520

 - Posted      Profile for mdijon     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I don't care what any individual thinks about the 'taint' of my skin colour, or the curse of Ham, or whatever, so long as they allow me to live my life, and don't obstruct my ability to do the best I can with the abilities I have.

So while you personally might take that stance I'm sure you can imagine how one could feel a little odd looking at someone and wondering if they believe you to be inferior, and particularly if they are a political leader. And how one might wonder about their commitment to your rights if they can't believe you are an equal human being.

(BTW on any given morning there's always a first to be had with SoF. I don't think I've ever met a non-white Svitlana before).

--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon

Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368

 - Posted      Profile for Martin60   Email Martin60   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
In my mind, the greatest religious conservative beloved of even the counter-cultural, radical left was C. Everett Koop, Reagan's Surgeon General. Someone who kept his church and state separate.

From the link:

'Koop, an opponent of abortion, resisted pressure from the Reagan administration in 1987 to prepare a report stating that abortion was psychologically harmful to women. He said it was not a public health issue but a moral one.'

'Writing for The New Yorker, Michael Specter said, "I don’t think I have ever met anyone for whom I had more respect... In this era, during which progress, facts, and science are under unrelenting siege, it is thrilling to remember that even ideologues can love the truth.'

[ 29. June 2017, 15:40: Message edited by: Martin60 ]

--------------------
Love wins

Posts: 16587 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967

 - Posted      Profile for SvitlanaV2   Email SvitlanaV2   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
While you personally might take that stance I'm sure you can imagine how one could feel a little odd looking at someone and wondering if they believe you to be inferior, and particularly if they are a political leader. And how one might wonder about their commitment to your rights if they can't believe you are an equal human being.

I suppose I can understand it if the basic position is that Christians tend to see themselves as superior to other people. The very marginality and aberrancy of Christianity no doubt creates and reinforces this suspicion in our society. That being so, modern people will obviously be quite nervous of Christians who seek public office - or of certain kinds of Christians.

Moreover, we seem very keen to identify with our leaders these days. Anything that makes them seem distant or 'other' is a PR problem. Both Corbyn and May have faced this challenge. Farron faced it in a religious context, but I think his status as a leader of the third political also othered him. Sadly, he also had the misfortune to emit an insufficiently commanding vibe. Some commentators found him too boyish, too drippy.

However, since we're now looking at Vince Cable, I see, he wasn't always unequivocally pro-SSM, although he did vote in favour of it. He abstained from voting on whether or not registrars should be able to opt out of conducting such marriages.

Googling reveals very little about Cable's religious beliefs, although some websites say he's Jewish. Jewish politicians in the UK seem to identify successfully as either liberal or non-religious, so he should be able to avoid questions about 'sin'.

[ 29. June 2017, 20:12: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]

Posts: 6338 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012  |  IP: Logged
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520

 - Posted      Profile for mdijon     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
In my mind, the greatest religious conservative beloved of even the counter-cultural, radical left was C. Everett Koop, Reagan's Surgeon General. Someone who kept his church and state separate.

I thought of him reading about Farron as well. Koop was a dude. I wonder how he would fair now. In fact it didn't end very well for him then - grudging respect from the Left but hardly anything approaching warm support and expelled for treachery by the Right.

--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon

Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520

 - Posted      Profile for mdijon     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
While you personally might take that stance I'm sure you can imagine how one could feel a little odd looking at someone and wondering if they believe you to be inferior, and particularly if they are a political leader. And how one might wonder about their commitment to your rights if they can't believe you are an equal human being.

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I suppose I can understand it if the basic position is that Christians tend to see themselves as superior to other people.

I read as a non sequitur. You had said you wouldn't mind an individual looking down on your skin colour provided they supported your rights. My response is that even if you personally think that I'm sure you can understand others feeling a bit odd about it and doubting a political leader's commitment.

I don't understand how you get from there to talking about Christians being seen as looking down on people.

--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon

Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967

 - Posted      Profile for SvitlanaV2   Email SvitlanaV2   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
You had said you wouldn't mind an individual looking down on your skin colour provided they supported your rights. My response is that even if you personally think that I'm sure you can understand others feeling a bit odd about it and doubting a political leader's commitment.

I don't understand how you get from there to talking about Christians being seen as looking down on people.

Looking down on people means seeing them as inferior. In the popular mind, Christians routinely see other people as inferior. That being so, I can understand non-religious people feeling odd about Christian leaders whose faith seems to be too visible - and connecting religion with sexual morality is something that many modern people find especially distasteful. People hate feeling judged for their sexual behaviour, and won't trust the 'commitment' of someone who appears to be disapproving, no matter what their actual behaviour may be.

But my perspective is that politicians are creatures of their upbringing, like everyone else. IMO racism and classism are so commonplace that waiting to find a politician who believes unambiguously that a dark-skinned person is equal to themselves, or that the rights of the poor are as important as the rights of the rich, would mean waiting a long time. Myself, I just vote and hope they'll do some good.

Moreover, you can't necessarily trust what people tell you about their beliefs anyway (and self-praise is no recommendation). Even good actions can't be completely trusted; many abolitionists didn't see black people as equal to themselves.

Maybe I'm rather cynical. I don't have particularly high expectations of leaders. But others are free to take a different view.

[ 30. June 2017, 13:17: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]

Posts: 6338 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012  |  IP: Logged
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520

 - Posted      Profile for mdijon     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
But my perspective is that politicians are creatures of their upbringing, like everyone else. IMO racism and classism are so commonplace that waiting to find a politician who believes unambiguously that a dark-skinned person is equal to themselves, or that the rights of the poor are as important as the rights of the rich, would mean waiting a long time.

Jeremy Corbyn? Tim Farron? Caroline Lucas?

I think there were a few choices on offer, I don't think it was a rarity at all. For all her failings on the rights of the poor, I don't see any reason to suspect Theresa May of racism.

[ 30. June 2017, 14:06: Message edited by: mdijon ]

--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon

Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967

 - Posted      Profile for SvitlanaV2   Email SvitlanaV2   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Racism isn't always obvious, though. Even well-meaning people can have some odd ideas.

But as I say, it doesn't really matter to me what they think about that. The world is as it is, and there are other issues that are more urgent.

Posts: 6338 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012  |  IP: Logged
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333

 - Posted      Profile for lilBuddha     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
The difference between Racism and Anti-LGBT+ is that laws and standards for Racism are well established. LGBT+ rights, not so much. If a bakery said no darkies, they'd be on charges. If they say no queers, there is a debate.

--------------------
So goodnight moon, I want the sun
If it's not here soon, I might be done
No it won't be too soon 'til I say goodnight moon

- A. N. Parsley, D. Mcvinni

Posts: 16601 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008  |  IP: Logged
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967

 - Posted      Profile for SvitlanaV2   Email SvitlanaV2   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I agree that the two things are different, in several ways.
Posts: 6338 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012  |  IP: Logged
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333

 - Posted      Profile for lilBuddha     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I'm listening

--------------------
So goodnight moon, I want the sun
If it's not here soon, I might be done
No it won't be too soon 'til I say goodnight moon

- A. N. Parsley, D. Mcvinni

Posts: 16601 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008  |  IP: Logged
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967

 - Posted      Profile for SvitlanaV2   Email SvitlanaV2   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I'm agreeing with you! You've just said that the two things are different.

On an obvious level, one difference is that people of colour aren't able to 'hide' in a society where everyone else is white. People who identify as LGBT+ may be able to hide in a 'straight' world.

I suppose someone somewhere has compared the curse of Ham and sexual morality in the Bible, but I'm not sure how interesting or relevant that would be for this thread.

Similarities between the civil rights movement and the gay rights movement are often highlighted in discussions like these. I'm not so convinced. From the outside, gay rights seems to be a less conflicted movement. The American civil rights movement has a number of critics among African Americans, not least because in many respects African American communities are worse off now than they were then. And that has little to do with the attitudes of horrible redneck evangelicals.

But this is nothing to do with Tim Farron.

[ 30. June 2017, 19:37: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]

Posts: 6338 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012  |  IP: Logged
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333

 - Posted      Profile for lilBuddha     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
My bad. I had thought the 'several ways' was a qualification, instead of a continuance. Apologies.
Just some quick notes. The LGBT+ movement isn't as homogenous as might appear. Not everyone contained within that alphabet understands or accepts each other. Nor is acceptance of the same from outside equal.
It is much better in this now than it has been previously, but not unconflicted.
The similarities and contrasts of the different civil rights issues can be instructive.
Yes, one can hide one's sexuality. But one shouldn't have to.
Returning to Tim Farron, he illustrates this problem.
I don't care if any given person accepts anyone's sexuality if they respect the right to be equally treated by the law and society as a whole.
IMO, Farron didn't adequately assure his commitment to this outlook.

--------------------
So goodnight moon, I want the sun
If it's not here soon, I might be done
No it won't be too soon 'til I say goodnight moon

- A. N. Parsley, D. Mcvinni

Posts: 16601 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008  |  IP: Logged
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757

 - Posted      Profile for Ricardus   Author's homepage   Email Ricardus   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Analogy I just thought of: what if someone thinks male circumcision is wrong?

I don't think it would necessarily be fair to describe that person as anti-Semitic. On the other hand, I could understand if Jews were reluctant to vote for them.

--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)

Posts: 7101 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333

 - Posted      Profile for lilBuddha     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
If that is supposed to be an analogy for LGBT+ rights, it fails miserably.


ETA: As, apparently, do my attempts at spelling.

[ 01. July 2017, 14:45: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]

--------------------
So goodnight moon, I want the sun
If it's not here soon, I might be done
No it won't be too soon 'til I say goodnight moon

- A. N. Parsley, D. Mcvinni

Posts: 16601 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008  |  IP: Logged
leo
Shipmate
# 1458

 - Posted      Profile for leo   Author's homepage   Email leo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Analogy I just thought of: what if someone thinks male circumcision is wrong?

I don't think it would necessarily be fair to describe that person as anti-Semitic. On the other hand, I could understand if Jews were reluctant to vote for them.

Unless he decided to pass a law making it illegal.

--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com

Posts: 23019 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757

 - Posted      Profile for Ricardus   Author's homepage   Email Ricardus   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
If that is supposed to be an analogy for LGBT+ rights, it fails miserably.


ETA: As, apparently, do my attempts at spelling.

I thought we were discussing the situation in which Mr Farron personally believes that gay sex is sinful but does not intend to legislate for it and has no objection to gay people as such.

The 'classical liberal' part of me agrees with Leprechaun that his private views shouldn't matter unless he intends to legislate for them. But the circumcision analogy suggests that it would be reasonable for people who would be affected to be wary.

--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)

Posts: 7101 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76

 - Posted      Profile for Karl: Liberal Backslider   Author's homepage   Email Karl: Liberal Backslider   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Analogy I just thought of: what if someone thinks male circumcision is wrong?

I don't think it would necessarily be fair to describe that person as anti-Semitic. On the other hand, I could understand if Jews were reluctant to vote for them.

Unless he decided to pass a law making it illegal.
Which would not, I submit, inherently make him anti-Semitic.

--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.

Posts: 17444 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520

 - Posted      Profile for mdijon     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
An analogy would be if one believed circumcision was sinful (i.e. wrong on a theological basis rather than worrying about health effects on secular grounds). Such a position would raise other questions - like why one believed that, does it imply something inherently sinful about Jews, does one regard people who are circumcised as evil etc.

I think describing circumcision as sinful in a TV interview would be a bad move for a politician seeking election.

On the other hand one could perhaps get away with something along the lines "I personally wouldn't circumcise my child and I do have some concerns about the medical justification for it, but the practice has cultural and religious justification for many and I don't believe we should interfere".

[ 02. July 2017, 09:24: Message edited by: mdijon ]

--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon

Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
PaulTH*
Shipmate
# 320

 - Posted      Profile for PaulTH*   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I read today that Theresa May has asked the Church of England to think again about the question of gay marriage and this raises issues for me. When the C of E failed to vote in favour of women bishops in 2012, David Cameron, as PM, warned it to sort the matter out, as a priority, or parliament might have to intervene. Because of the C of E's position as a state church, parliament may indeed have this power. Mrs May is a committed member of the C of E and therefore she's likely to be sympathetic to it, but could a future PM with less sympathy force the C of E to conduct gay marriages?

The appalling way in which gay people were treated 50 years ago has led, quite rightly, to pushes for equality and freedom which all fair minded people would support. But does a point ever come that the pendulum of freedom swings so far in another direction that it then restricts someone else's freedom and becomes oppressive? It doesn't much matter with the C of E because it embraces every social fad going in an attempt to stay relevant, while its numbers are in freefall, so it will surely be a push over to get it to make this change. But what about the Catholic Church for example? It's still growing worldwide, even as a percentage of world population, so it has no need to be relevant to modern British values.

Though Catholic countries such as Ireland and Malta have voted strongly to make gay marriage legal, which few, Catholic or Protestant Christians like Tim Farron would disagree with, the Catholic Church isn't going to permit same sex marriage, ever. So should the state have the right to force it on them? Or on Muslim communities? If so, we would be starting a new era of religious persecution. Don't forget that many of the idols and regimes so loved by Jeremy Corbyn and his pals have been guilty of serious religious oppression.

So my point would be: does the state have the right to force compliance with equality to the point that it damages the freedoms of people whose faith won't allow for that? Is that exchanging one form of oppression for another?

--------------------
Yours in Christ
Paul

Posts: 6383 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330

 - Posted      Profile for mr cheesy   Email mr cheesy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I think there is a basic problem with establishment. It is hard for the CofE to resist this or any other issue that is being pushed onto it by the government.

I support marriage equality. But I also believe in freedom of religion, I don't think the government should be able to put pressure on anyone to do anything.

--------------------
overheard on a Welsh bus-stop: Jesus don't care about you, he's only interested in your soul

Posts: 9825 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333

 - Posted      Profile for lilBuddha     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
Because of the C of E's position as a state church, parliament may indeed have this power. Mrs May is a committed member of the C of E and therefore she's likely to be sympathetic to it, but could a future PM with less sympathy force the C of E to conduct gay marriages?

Forcing people to be Christlike is a bit contradictory, isn't it.
Disestablish and let the old girl die quietly if she cannot keep up with Jesus. Preserve her final resting place though, churches are lovely structures and historical.

--------------------
So goodnight moon, I want the sun
If it's not here soon, I might be done
No it won't be too soon 'til I say goodnight moon

- A. N. Parsley, D. Mcvinni

Posts: 16601 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008  |  IP: Logged
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238

 - Posted      Profile for Crœsos     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
I read today that Theresa May has asked the Church of England to think again about the question of gay marriage and this raises issues for me. When the C of E failed to vote in favour of women bishops in 2012, David Cameron, as PM, warned it to sort the matter out, as a priority, or parliament might have to intervene. Because of the C of E's position as a state church, parliament may indeed have this power. Mrs May is a committed member of the C of E and therefore she's likely to be sympathetic to it, but could a future PM with less sympathy force the C of E to conduct gay marriages?

I'm a bit of an outsider on this, but my understanding is that the justification for the Church of England as a state church is to provide a church for any English subject who wants a church. It seems a bit problematic start adding qualifiers, so that the Church of Straight England exists to provide a church for any straight English subject who wants a church.

quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
But what about the Catholic Church for example? It's still growing worldwide, even as a percentage of world population, so it has no need to be relevant to modern British values.

Though Catholic countries such as Ireland and Malta have voted strongly to make gay marriage legal, which few, Catholic or Protestant Christians like Tim Farron would disagree with, the Catholic Church isn't going to permit same sex marriage, ever. So should the state have the right to force it on them?

The Catholic Church is on familiar ground here, having long refused to marry certain couples who have an otherwise legal right to marry in the eyes of the state. I'll worry about the Catholic Church being forced to marry same-sex couples if they're ever forced to marry the previously divorced. Of course, things are a bit different when you're an official arm of the state.

--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto

Posts: 10334 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Louise
Shipmate
# 30

 - Posted      Profile for Louise   Email Louise   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
I'll worry about the Catholic Church being forced to marry same-sex couples if they're ever forced to marry the previously divorced. Of course, things are a bit different when you're an official arm of the state.

Yes exactly. I sometimes wonder if a bad conscience about the extent of the church's persecution of others fuels these persecution fantasies - surely someone must want to do to us what we've been doing to them...

Corbyn doesn't share platforms with religious fascists like Hamas and Hezbollah because he supports religious compulsion but because he has some terrible un-nuanced ideas about anti-imperialism. Anti-American/anti American ally = Good. Pro Russian - also used to be good. The idea that his 1970s-style love of anti-imperialist 'liberation ' movements will lead to potential Catholic persecution is completely off-the-wall. Jezza is just an old fashioned anti-Imperialist lefty. Unless the Vatican offers to host US nuclear missiles, or the Pope pops over to bless Trident, I doubt you'll be having any problems with him.

--------------------
Now you need never click a Daily Mail link again! Kittenblock replaces Mail links with calming pics of tea and kittens! http://www.teaandkittens.co.uk/ Click under 'other stuff' to find it.

Posts: 6891 | From: Scotland | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757

 - Posted      Profile for Ricardus   Author's homepage   Email Ricardus   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
I'm a bit of an outsider on this, but my understanding is that the justification for the Church of England as a state church is to provide a church for any English subject who wants a church.

I think the main justification is that it saves the bother of having to disestablish it.

--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)

Posts: 7101 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330

 - Posted      Profile for mr cheesy   Email mr cheesy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
I'm a bit of an outsider on this, but my understanding is that the justification for the Church of England as a state church is to provide a church for any English subject who wants a church. It seems a bit problematic start adding qualifiers, so that the Church of Straight England exists to provide a church for any straight English subject who wants a church.

OK but is it reasonable to have the state insist that a church provides every English subject with it?

It maybe makes sense when the majority of the population identify with the church and the religion, but surely makes little sense when it is so engrained into the state that it can be told what to do.

And what would be next? Mosques, temples and synagogues with state determined theology - on the basis that Muslims, Sikhs, Jews and others ought to have a religious body they can go to with state approved practices?

--------------------
overheard on a Welsh bus-stop: Jesus don't care about you, he's only interested in your soul

Posts: 9825 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Callan
Shipmate
# 525

 - Posted      Profile for Callan     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I think there is a basic problem with establishment. It is hard for the CofE to resist this or any other issue that is being pushed onto it by the government.

I support marriage equality. But I also believe in freedom of religion, I don't think the government should be able to put pressure on anyone to do anything.

A more likely outcome is that, eventually, it gets left to the discretion of the individual clergy. Which is what happened with divorce. The government liberalised the divorce laws, first the church refused to conduct second marriages, then it was made the decision of Diocesan bishops and finally the decision was passed on to the parochial clergy. You can get remarried in the C of E, but your vicar can refuse if conscience points him in that direction. I suspect that no-one will be obliged to conduct a gay marriage if they really don't want to.

I suspect the real problem will come up when someone decides that a position of not appointing gay marrieds to posts comes up against human rights law. The issue with not having women bishops was that you had effective sexual discrimination as the official policy of the Established Church, which may have encouraged Dave to raise an eyebrow and say: "nice quasi-independence from the state you have here, shame if anything happened to it". I wouldn't be surprised if something like that happened in the future.

--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton

Posts: 9677 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330

 - Posted      Profile for mr cheesy   Email mr cheesy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:

A more likely outcome is that, eventually, it gets left to the discretion of the individual clergy. Which is what happened with divorce.

I'm not sure it is so clear cut as that. I suspect the state would be very pleased to insist that the state church marries everyone as if it were a register office. I don't think it is very hard to imagine a scenario where pressure is put to make that so - and I understand there are discussions happening in Downing Street at the moment between clergy and government about how to make it happen.

quote:
The government liberalised the divorce laws, first the church refused to conduct second marriages, then it was made the decision of Diocesan bishops and finally the decision was passed on to the parochial clergy. You can get remarried in the C of E, but your vicar can refuse if conscience points him in that direction. I suspect that no-one will be obliged to conduct a gay marriage if they really don't want to.
I suppose the strange thing in this debate is that only England has an established church (at least in the sense that the CofE is) and so the state only has pressure it can bear onto the church in England. Which seems to be to say that the state wants the church to conform to civil marriage laws and expectations - but only in England. If you are gay and want to marry in a church wherever you live in Scotland (and who knows exactly what would happen to the Church in Wales..) puh, nothing we can do. Of course the whole thing is an even greater divide in Northern Ireland.

Which just smacks of the state trying to force the CofE to do what it wants because it has the powers to try to make it so. Of course, it doesn't help that the CofE is so deep into the establishment as to be indistinguishable from the government at times (as I saw for the first time during the recent state opening of parliament - a truly eye-opening event which seemed to be put on under the auspices of the monarch and the Archbishop of Canterbury).

quote:
I suspect the real problem will come up when someone decides that a position of not appointing gay marrieds to posts comes up against human rights law. The issue with not having women bishops was that you had effective sexual discrimination as the official policy of the Established Church, which may have encouraged Dave to raise an eyebrow and say: "nice quasi-independence from the state you have here, shame if anything happened to it". I wouldn't be surprised if something like that happened in the future.
I think this would be incredibly destructive and an obvious sign of government inference with religion.

You or I don't have to like it (and obviously if you or I are part of whatever religious group we can try to change it), but how can human rights law insist that x religion cannot have rules about who becomes leaders? What next, insisting that Mosques have to appoint women, that Jews have to appoint the uncircumcised etc? Simply not going to work.

--------------------
overheard on a Welsh bus-stop: Jesus don't care about you, he's only interested in your soul

Posts: 9825 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967

 - Posted      Profile for SvitlanaV2   Email SvitlanaV2   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
Because of the C of E's position as a state church, parliament may indeed have this power. Mrs May is a committed member of the C of E and therefore she's likely to be sympathetic to it, but could a future PM with less sympathy force the C of E to conduct gay marriages?

Forcing people to be Christlike is a bit contradictory, isn't it.
Disestablish and let the old girl die quietly if she cannot keep up with Jesus. Preserve her final resting place though, churches are lovely structures and historical.

Whether or not Christ would have conducted SSMs is an interesting question, but I don't think the state is all that concerned about theology.

I do tend to feel that the CofE should be disestablished, though. It'll probably take something like this to do it, because no one seems bothered otherwise.

Alternatively, if the state offers to support the state church financially, as happens in Scandinavia, then the CofE will no longer need the evangelicals' money. The CofE will be free to perform SSMs, as the state expects, and the evangelicals will leave. There will be fewer people in the Church, but the Church will be closer to the values of the English people at large.

Posts: 6338 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012  |  IP: Logged
Callan
Shipmate
# 525

 - Posted      Profile for Callan     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Originally posted by Mr Cheesy:

quote:
I'm not sure it is so clear cut as that. I suspect the state would be very pleased to insist that the state church marries everyone as if it were a register office. I don't think it is very hard to imagine a scenario where pressure is put to make that so - and I understand there are discussions happening in Downing Street at the moment between clergy and government about how to make it happen.
I find this unlikely. I don't think that I know a single clergy-person who would be prepared to conduct weddings in any circumstance whatsoever. I, for example, am fairly liberal in these matters but I would go to the stake before I solemnised a marriage between two persons whose relationship had caused the end of their previous marriage. The House of Bishops wouldn't accept it and frankly, why would the government bother. C of E weddings are losing market share at the moment to agreeable venues where the registrar will let you write your own vows. There is also the small matter of Mrs May's priorities and Parliamentary majority. I don't think that the Parliamentary arithmetic stacks up and it's hard to see someone who is quite invested in her Anglicanism picking a massive fight with the C of E.

--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton

Posts: 9677 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128

 - Posted      Profile for Baptist Trainfan   Email Baptist Trainfan   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
There will be fewer people in the Church, but the Church will be closer to the values of the English people at large.

And will have lost any evangelistic "cutting edge" and Christian distinctiveness.
Posts: 9218 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009  |  IP: Logged
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238

 - Posted      Profile for Crœsos     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
I'm a bit of an outsider on this, but my understanding is that the justification for the Church of England as a state church is to provide a church for any English subject who wants a church. It seems a bit problematic start adding qualifiers, so that the Church of Straight England exists to provide a church for any straight English subject who wants a church.

OK but is it reasonable to have the state insist that a church provides every English subject with it?
Reasonable or not, that's the decision that was made. That decision can be revisited but, as Ricardus points out, it would be a lot of bother.

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
And what would be next? Mosques, temples and synagogues with state determined theology - on the basis that Muslims, Sikhs, Jews and others ought to have a religious body they can go to with state approved practices?

The state has not decided that "Muslims, Sikhs, Jews and others" should have their own official state religious bodies. Or rather, it seems to have decided that the state religious body provided to all English subjects will be the Church of England. The fact that this does not fit the religious preference of all English subjects, while acknowledged, was not considered an important enough point to provide alternatives. Or, put another way, if you're English and want an alternative to the Church of England, you can't rely on the state to provide it.

--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto

Posts: 10334 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757

 - Posted      Profile for Ricardus   Author's homepage   Email Ricardus   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Reasonable or not, that's the decision that was made. That decision can be revisited but, as Ricardus points out, it would be a lot of bother.

Well, the point I was making is that there isn't really a principled reason why the Church of England exists.

Various post hoc justifications can be advanced, of course, but the main reason why it exists, apart from Henry VIII's odd ideas about marriage, is because in the Olden Days it was perfectly normal for the King to appoint Bishops and generally interfere with the running of the Church, and nobody has ever got round to decoupling the two.

--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)

Posts: 7101 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333

 - Posted      Profile for lilBuddha     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:

Various post hoc justifications can be advanced, of course, but the main reason why it exists, apart from Henry VIII's odd ideas about marriage, is because in the Olden Days it was perfectly normal for the King to appoint Bishops and generally interfere with the running of the Church, and nobody has ever got round to decoupling the two.

No, no. That was just amazingly coincidental. They were really always going to Protest and seperate. Henry also had the exact same idea and reasons but hid it behind his murdeous mate switching.

--------------------
So goodnight moon, I want the sun
If it's not here soon, I might be done
No it won't be too soon 'til I say goodnight moon

- A. N. Parsley, D. Mcvinni

Posts: 16601 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008  |  IP: Logged
PaulTH*
Shipmate
# 320

 - Posted      Profile for PaulTH*   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
I suspect the real problem will come up when someone decides that a position of not appointing gay marrieds to posts comes up against human rights law. The issue with not having women bishops was that you had effective sexual discrimination as the official policy of the Established Church, which may have encouraged Dave to raise an eyebrow and say: "nice quasi-independence from the state you have here, shame if anything happened to it". I wouldn't be surprised if something like that happened in the future.

This is what worries me most, and I repeat the analogy of the pendulum. If equality in marriage for gays becomes such a god, then any organisation which opposes it, be it church, mosque or synagogue may find itself on the wrong side of the law. Then the pendulum of freedom for gays becomes the pendulum of oppression for religious groups which disagree with the modern god. There's a great case for disestablishment. Establishment has served our country well, IMO, but it's an anachronism. Nowadays there are more Catholic Sunday worshippers than Anglican. Yet Anglican bishops sit in the legislature. I've read in the past that the Prince of Wales is a disestablishmentarian. When the Queen goes to her rest it will happen.

--------------------
Yours in Christ
Paul

Posts: 6383 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
stonespring
Shipmate
# 15530

 - Posted      Profile for stonespring     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Reasonable or not, that's the decision that was made. That decision can be revisited but, as Ricardus points out, it would be a lot of bother.

Well, the point I was making is that there isn't really a principled reason why the Church of England exists.

Various post hoc justifications can be advanced, of course, but the main reason why it exists, apart from Henry VIII's odd ideas about marriage, is because in the Olden Days it was perfectly normal for the King to appoint Bishops and generally interfere with the running of the Church, and nobody has ever got round to decoupling the two.

I would argue that the acceptance of Lutheranism by various German rulers and by the kings of Denmark and Sweden was just as much about Crown control of the Church and seizing monastic property as it was about theology. And there often was a transitional period of those countries being nominally Catholic before that country's Church was officially reformed.
Posts: 1485 | Registered: Mar 2010  |  IP: Logged
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333

 - Posted      Profile for lilBuddha     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
If equality in marriage for gays becomes such a god, then any organisation which opposes it, be it church, mosque or synagogue may find itself on the wrong side of the law. Then the pendulum of freedom for gays becomes the pendulum of oppression for religious groups which disagree with the modern god.

This isn't a fucked up, prejudicial and inaccurate thing to say, nope. [Roll Eyes]


quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
I would argue that the acceptance of Lutheranism by various German rulers and by the kings of Denmark and Sweden was just as much about Crown control of the Church and seizing monastic property as it was about theology. And there often was a transitional period of those countries being nominally Catholic before that country's Church was officially reformed.

If it didn't benefit the powerful, it wouldn't have happened. Or at least not without revolution as well.

--------------------
So goodnight moon, I want the sun
If it's not here soon, I might be done
No it won't be too soon 'til I say goodnight moon

- A. N. Parsley, D. Mcvinni

Posts: 16601 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008  |  IP: Logged
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757

 - Posted      Profile for Ricardus   Author's homepage   Email Ricardus   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I think the question of the authority of the secular power over the Church was largely orthogonal to the various Reformation controversies.

The King of France was in a standoff with the Pope about the rights of the Papacy in France. There is some fairly vicious anti-Papal satire in Rabelais, which leads the uninitiated to think Rabelais was a Protestant, when in reality he was just siding with the King. In Spain Ferdinand and Isabella seem to have had enormous power over the Church (one reason why the Spanish Inquisition was so much nastier than the Roman Inquisition was that the reyes católicos were a lot nastier than the Pope). IOW, you could want secular control over the Church without any sympathy towards Protestant ideas.

Henry VIII seems to have adopted bits of Reformation theology as and when it suited him and as and when he thought it might buy him favour with the Germans. But I think the Church of England's current form owes more to Edward VI, under whom the Book of Common Prayer was written, and Elizabeth I, who re-established the Church after Mary Tudor had abolished it.

[ 22. July 2017, 08:47: Message edited by: Ricardus ]

--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)

Posts: 7101 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967

 - Posted      Profile for SvitlanaV2   Email SvitlanaV2   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
There will be fewer people in the Church, but the Church will be closer to the values of the English people at large.

And will have lost any evangelistic "cutting edge" and Christian distinctiveness.
Would you say this is the case with the Lutheran Churches in Scandinavia? Maybe so. Yet they have higher rates of church weddings, baptisms, conformations and funerals than England does.

The question is whether the CofE wants to represent a diffusive Christianity with a cultural significance for large numbers of people, or become an evangelistic institution whose impact will reach relatively few.

At the moment the Church wants to do both, but I sense that at some point in the future it's going to have to choose.

Posts: 6338 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012  |  IP: Logged
Forthview
Shipmate
# 12376

 - Posted      Profile for Forthview   Email Forthview   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
In most European countries the King controlled the church,irrespective of whether the outward form of Christianity was Catholicism or other.
Although I cannot give figures the state (or non- state controlled)Lutheran church in the Scandinavian lands has few rivals, such as the various non-Conformists in England. Virtually everyone pays the church tax and if using the church for 'rites of passsge' it will normally be the 'established' Lutheran church.

One of the few exceptions to royal (or state) control of the Church was Scotland,which the Kings left in 1603. They tried with varying degrees of success and failure to control the Scottish Church from England,leading indirectly to the English civil war,as well as later to the various dissenting bodies,to the Disruption of the Church of Scotland in 1843 and the change from Established Church to National Church in the early years of the 20th century.

Posts: 3396 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2007  |  IP: Logged
Callan
Shipmate
# 525

 - Posted      Profile for Callan     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
I suspect the real problem will come up when someone decides that a position of not appointing gay marrieds to posts comes up against human rights law. The issue with not having women bishops was that you had effective sexual discrimination as the official policy of the Established Church, which may have encouraged Dave to raise an eyebrow and say: "nice quasi-independence from the state you have here, shame if anything happened to it". I wouldn't be surprised if something like that happened in the future.

This is what worries me most, and I repeat the analogy of the pendulum. If equality in marriage for gays becomes such a god, then any organisation which opposes it, be it church, mosque or synagogue may find itself on the wrong side of the law. Then the pendulum of freedom for gays becomes the pendulum of oppression for religious groups which disagree with the modern god. There's a great case for disestablishment. Establishment has served our country well, IMO, but it's an anachronism. Nowadays there are more Catholic Sunday worshippers than Anglican. Yet Anglican bishops sit in the legislature. I've read in the past that the Prince of Wales is a disestablishmentarian. When the Queen goes to her rest it will happen.
I suspect it won't happen like that. What I think will happen is that someone will bring a case pointing out that the CofE allows gays in civil partnerships to be ordained so why not gay marrieds? When divorce was delegated to the parishes we were all warned that whatever our views we needed to have a consistent policy, otherwise we could end up being taken to court. I suspect the C of E's position may be vulnerable on this front in a way that your local Synagogue, Mosque, Catholic Church, Kingdom Hall and so forth are not. Contra Boris Johnson it is not always a good idea to try to have one's cake and eat it.

--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton

Posts: 9677 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Net Spinster
Shipmate
# 16058

 - Posted      Profile for Net Spinster   Email Net Spinster   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
Although I cannot give figures the state (or non- state controlled)Lutheran church in the Scandinavian lands has few rivals, such as the various non-Conformists in England. Virtually everyone pays the church tax and if using the church for 'rites of passsge' it will normally be the 'established' Lutheran church.

Actually there are figures for Norway. The percentage that belong to the Church of Norway is 71.5% down from about 78% in 2010. The Catholics are about 2.8% (from church tax records) of the population (mostly immigrants) though there was the scandal of a couple of years ago of the Catholic church signing people up as Catholic without their knowledge. Humanists are about 1.7% of the population and the Humanist confirmation rite is quite popular even among non-Humanists. Those unaffiliated seem to be about 16% (note, in contrast to Germany, paying the church tax doesn't increase your tax bill, if you aren't affiliated it goes to the general coffers). Muslims are about 2.8% of the population.

Other Protestants are a bit scarce.

--------------------
spinner of webs

Posts: 1077 | From: San Francisco Bay area | Registered: Dec 2010  |  IP: Logged



Pages in this thread: 1  2  3 
 
Post new thread  Post a reply Close thread   Feature thread   Move thread   Delete thread Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
 - Printer-friendly view
Go to:

Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement

© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0

 
Check out Reform magazine
sip of fools mugs from your favourite nautical website
 
  ship of fools