[url]http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-28300618[/url]
[quote]The Church of England has voted to allow women to become bishops for first time in its history.
The General Synod gave final approval to legislation introducing the change by the required two-thirds majority.
The previous vote in 2012 was backed by the Houses of Bishops and Clergy but blocked by traditionalist lay members.
The Archbishop of York asked for the result to be met "with restraint and sensitivity" but there was a flurry of cheers when it was announced.[/quote]
Woo! Go go CoE!
Moving up with the times!
This should hopefully put some pressure on the Mormon Church to do the same, it's been a big issue here lately.
Now could they also vote to get their Bishops out of the House of Lords please
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;45387709]Now could they also vote to get their Bishops out of the House of Lords please[/QUOTE]
Eh, not really.
Of nearly 800 seats the Lords Spiritual only take up a ridiculously tiny amount of seat (30 or less), and I don't think it's fair to exclude some religious presence to address their specific concerns to government while we still have a sizable Anglican population. It's not like they have a veto power.
[QUOTE=MrEndangered;45388340]Eh, not really.
Of nearly 800 seats the Lords Spiritual only take up a ridiculously tiny amount of seat (30 or less), and I don't think it's fair to exclude some religious presence to address their specific concerns to government while we still have a sizable Anglican population. It's not like they have a veto power.[/QUOTE]
Lol you're making excuses to perpetuate government mandated religious influence in your government.
[QUOTE=Explosions;45388364]Lol you're making excuses to perpetuate government mandated religious influence in your government.[/QUOTE]
Ah yes, do tell me more about your hateboner for anything religious/monarchy.
The House of Lords is a counterbalance to the Commons by including people of experience and influence to challenge the government. If that can include old former politicians I have no idea why it can't include people from a religious group who are in a laughable minority.
[QUOTE=MrEndangered;45388437]Ah yes, do tell me more about your hateboner for anything religious/monarchy.
The House of Lords is a counterbalance to the Commons by including people of experience and influence to challenge the government. If that can include old former politicians I have no idea why it can't include people from a religious group who are in a laughable minority.[/QUOTE]
"Experience and influence" including, but not limited too, being born into a tiny noble elite family or happening to hold a particular religious belief.
Give me a break.
[QUOTE=Explosions;45388364]Lol you're making excuses to perpetuate government mandated religious influence in your government.[/QUOTE]
The House of Lords doesn't hold much power though - the House of Commons can force a bill through without it being approved by it, and really they are there to look at and suggest amendments to bills. I'm not really that opposed to the Lords Spiritual, though I'd prefer it they consisted of leaders from various faiths, as opposed to just the Anglican church.
[QUOTE=Explosions;45388873]"Experience and influence" including, but not limited too, being born into a tiny noble elite family or happening to hold a particular religious belief.
Give me a break.[/QUOTE]
Tiny, elite family? Like the Bush's or Kennedy's?
Say what you wanna say because of your giant swinging hateboner, but the Lords and Lords Spiritual do sometimes stop the government being crazy, like right now. I appreciate that in your society your government is always crazy, so. You got to hold everything in context, not swing your tool against anyone who is against your own personal viewpoint.
[QUOTE=MrEndangered;45388942]Tiny, elite family? Like the Bush's or Kennedy's?
Say what you wanna say because of your giant swinging hateboner, but the Lords and Lords Spiritual do sometimes stop the government being crazy, like right now. I appreciate that in your society your government is always crazy, so.[/QUOTE]
Good thing those elites are there to tell the peoples elected government to stop being so wacky! Those nobles know better than the people, after all.
Also I never defended the US or it's problems, so your criticism means nothing. Even if I did defend the bush family, that wouldn't absolve Britain of anything.
[QUOTE=Explosions;45388873]"Experience and influence" including, but not limited too, being born into a tiny noble elite family or happening to hold a particular religious belief.
Give me a break.[/QUOTE]
Majority of Peers are life peers (i.e. selected by the Prime Minister or the House of Lords Appointments Commission). There are hereditary peers (up to 92) but seeing as governments very rarely give them out anymore, they're liable to start fading out in the future.
Having to hear the arguments against this on the radio this morning was infuriating.
Somebody likened allowing women bishops to allowing homosexuality, and then comparing that to having sex with your sister.
[QUOTE=Explosions;45388976]Good thing those elites are there to tell the peoples elected government to stop being so wacky! Those nobles know better than the people, after all.
Also I never defended the US or it's problems, so your criticism means nothing. Even if I did defend the bush family, that wouldn't absolve Britain of anything.[/QUOTE]
Except they are? That's exactly what they're doing? They're doing what the people ask of them? I don't understand how you can claim this is simply a matter of the 'nobles' vs 'the right and just government who aren't but kind of are also not regular people'.
I don't see how keeping a figure head or a counterbalance in a weaker Lords is something that needs absolving.
[editline]14th July 2014[/editline]
[QUOTE=Noss;45389009]Having to hear the arguments against this on the radio this morning was infuriating.
Somebody likened allowing women bishops to allowing homosexuality, and then comparing that to having sex with your sister.[/QUOTE]
What's stranger is that there is a lot of female support for keeping male figureheads. OK, I know most women are not raging feminists but keeping a tradition of a church that famously was created from breaking tradition is really odd to me.
[QUOTE=Explosions;45388364]Lol you're making excuses to perpetuate government mandated religious influence in your government.[/QUOTE]
strangely enough the house of lords has actually been a bastion of civil rights
so I'll take some religious influence if it means good thought
[editline]14th July 2014[/editline]
[QUOTE=Explosions;45388976]Good thing those elites are there to tell the peoples elected government to stop being so wacky! Those nobles know better than the people, after all.
Also I never defended the US or it's problems, so your criticism means nothing. Even if I did defend the bush family, that wouldn't absolve Britain of anything.[/QUOTE]
they actually [I]do know better though[/I]
like, I know it's not democracy in this case, but representative democracy is based around the fact that the 'nobles' know better than the people
[QUOTE=glitchvid;45387688]This should hopefully put some pressure on the Mormon Church to do the same, it's been a big issue here lately.[/QUOTE]
The most conservative Americans.
[QUOTE=Rangergxi;45389094]The most conservative Americans.[/QUOTE]
We recently had some straight up biblical shit happen in the Mormon church recently, a large feminist movement wanted the church to allow female bishops, one of the leaders of the movement was part of the Mormon church.
They actually got so upset at her trying to get equal rights within the church they [b]stripped her of her membership[/b] Pretty crazy shit.
[QUOTE=MrEndangered;45388437]Ah yes, do tell me more about your hateboner for anything religious/monarchy.[/QUOTE]
I don't think anyone that is by their very description biased should be in power, but I guess that won't quell your apologist obsession.
[QUOTE=glitchvid;45389245]I don't think anyone that is by their very description biased should be in power, but I guess that won't quell your apologist erection.[/QUOTE]
So anyone who refuses to vote for anything except their party policies isn't bias? Anyone who won't negotiate with the opposition? Because there are plenty of those in power.
I also don't see how having a body of people that seem to be standing up for the common person when the government doesn't is an apologist.
I'm not religious, nor would I be very sad if they all suddenly died in a horribly ironic incident, but I appreciate it's harder to put things into context and actually follow what's happening to a foreign country instead of automatically hating anyone wearing a silly hat.
[QUOTE=MrEndangered;45389357]So anyone who refuses to vote for anything except their party policies isn't bias? Anyone who won't negotiate with the opposition? Because there are plenty of those in power.
[/QUOTE]
I'm not defending anyone who is biased for other reasons, but someone who is religious is by definition biased towards their religion's dogma.
I also don't see how having a body of people that seem to be standing up for the common person when the government doesn't is an apologist.
[QUOTE=MrEndangered;45389357]
I'm not religious, nor would I be very sad if they all suddenly died in a horribly ironic incident, but I appreciate it's harder to put things into context and actually follow what's happening to a foreign country instead of automatically hating anyone wearing a silly hat.[/QUOTE]
This has nothing to do with silly hats, this is about religious dogma and bias in politics.
[QUOTE=glitchvid;45387688]This should hopefully put some pressure on the Mormon Church to do the same, it's been a big issue here lately.[/QUOTE]
mormons admitting to pressure, right, these are the guys that went off and made utah because ohio and illinois weren't barren enough
If Jesus wanted women to be bishops he wouldn't hang out with 12 men.
I wonder if there'll come a thread, one day, about something even tangentially related to the British monarchy that [I]won't[/I] have explosions demonstrating that he has no idea what the fuck he's talking about.
[QUOTE=Sgt-NiallR;45390521]I wonder if there'll come a thread, one day, about something even tangentially related to the British monarchy that [I]won't[/I] have explosions demonstrating that he has no idea what the fuck he's talking about.[/QUOTE]
He's right here though
Why should there be seats reserved for certain old men of a specific (dying) faith
[QUOTE=glitchvid;45387688]This should hopefully put some pressure on the Mormon Church to do the same, it's been a big issue here lately.[/QUOTE]
Never gonna happen. I am a Mormon, and everybody is fine with not having women bishops because women can bear children, which we see as an equal power to having the Priesthood
[QUOTE=AntonioR;45390028]If Jesus wanted women to be bishops he wouldn't hang out with 12 men.[/QUOTE]
Jesus sounds pretty gay
[QUOTE=Steele92;45390592]He's right here though
Why should there be seats reserved for certain old men of a specific (dying) faith[/QUOTE]
To put it simply, those seats are there because hundreds of years ago the Church would have had a massive influence over politics and everyday life, especially when the House of Lords wouldn't have had as many seats as it does now. Those seats are retained to this day because 30 seats out of 800 is almost completely irrelevant; that's less than 0.5% of the total vote of the Lords. In extension, the House of Lords is not as powerful as the House of Commons. Could the seats be removed, on the principle that it's just a bunch of old religious people? Yes, but those people probably have no influence over the government and the political process, so it would be a waste of time to push for a change when the political process wouldn't change at all.
I'm not even in the UK, I don't know why I'm lecturing someone who does live there on this.
[QUOTE=glitchvid;45389245]We recently had some straight up biblical shit happen in the Mormon church recently, a large feminist movement wanted the church to allow female bishops, one of the leaders of the movement was part of the Mormon church.
They actually got so upset at her trying to get equal rights within the church they [b]stripped her of her membership[/b] Pretty crazy shit.
I don't think anyone that is by their very description biased should be in power, but I guess that won't quell your apologist obsession.[/QUOTE]
It's not only about becoming a bishop in the Mormon church, it's about becoming part of the priesthood which would allow women to become leaders in the church and give blessings. The church is against it for some reason even though Joseph Smith himself viewed women as priesthood holders (right before he was martyred).
[QUOTE=Antdawg;45390975]To put it simply, those seats are there because hundreds of years ago the Church would have had a massive influence over politics and everyday life, especially when the House of Lords wouldn't have had as many seats as it does now. Those seats are retained to this day because 30 seats out of 800 is almost completely irrelevant; that's less than 0.5% of the total vote of the Lords. In extension, the House of Lords is not as powerful as the House of Commons. Could the seats be removed, on the principle that it's just a bunch of old religious people? Yes, but those people probably have no influence over the government and the political process, so it would be a waste of time to push for a change when the political process wouldn't change at all.
I'm not even in the UK, I don't know why I'm lecturing someone who does live there on this.[/QUOTE]
Even if their power is borderline negligible we've still got religion influencing the law regardless when it should be separate, the sentiment remains
[QUOTE=Steele92;45391109]Even if their power is borderline negligible we've still got religion influencing the law regardless when it should be separate, the sentiment remains[/QUOTE]
Yeah as if that's going to happen until something is introduced so that MPs, and in extension the parties, swear to be secular upon assuming office.
[QUOTE=Antdawg;45391186]Yeah as if that's going to happen until something is introduced so that MPs, and in extension the parties, swear to be secular upon assuming office.[/QUOTE]
There's a difference between an MP's religion influencing their own political views and clergy with power, official Christian representatives from the Church. The problem is that there is a small permanent passive Christian agenda there regardless
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.