If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Women Bishops: The Vote
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
The whole thing has a distinct whiff of the absurd about it, but I guess that's part of its appeal. It seems bizarre, to me at least, that in 2012 an establishment can be committed - in principle and in practice - to gender discrimination, yet the prevailing mood is still to mollycoddle and speak in couched terms about the church and just how backwards it is. All that being said, it is somewhat of a non-story: an antiquated institution votes to remain in antiquity.
After listening to a few of the post-vote interviews a snippet from a Christopher Hitchens' speech rather springs to mind: "if you hear the Pope saying he believes in God, you think, well, the Pope's just doing his job again today. But, if you hear the Pope saying he's begun to doubt the existence of God, you think he might be onto something".
People's thoughts?
After listening to a few of the post-vote interviews a snippet from a Christopher Hitchens' speech rather springs to mind: "if you hear the Pope saying he believes in God, you think, well, the Pope's just doing his job again today. But, if you hear the Pope saying he's begun to doubt the existence of God, you think he might be onto something".
People's thoughts?
0
Comments
So those who got it thrown out, were a minority of NON ORDAINED members of the church leadership.
I appreciate this is religion, and as such is afforded special dispensation, but seeing as people can work themselves frothy over an ASDA advert, the lack speen-prose being directed this way is rather telling.
Also, all of the 12 were men.
I'm off to administer some rough justice to my slave - justice tempered enough so that he lives through the night, mind. God bless the biblical mandate.
Everyone who has a brain thinks this is retarded, especially when as soon as your allowed the ordination of women, it was a matter of time. Once you've ordained someone, you've said they are magically holy, you can't then say they're holy enough to be a vicar but not a bishop, because then you'd have to stick in bonus holy lessons.
Where this compares to Asda, and advertising in general is that this is overt horseshit, the most upsetting thing about it is how a minority have controlled it. Whereas behind every great christmas etc... is insidious, barely noticable and add to the HUGE range of barely noticible and insidious sexism that's fucking everywhere, before I was even born I was treated to sexist comments ("ooh, isn't your baby active, you must be having another boy").
My problem with the CofE is that they and other religions have this bollocks religious getout clause to treat people like wank.
And frankly, I don't know what you want from this. You ask why they think the way they do. I showed you, no-one gives a shit if you think the bible is a load of fucking wank, its irrelevant what anyone outside the laity think of the bible. The fact is, conservatives take it VERY seriously, especially the new testament.
Folk use the Bible to justify and bolster their pre-existing biases and bigotries. It's the Big Book of Multiple Choice: people selectively pick and choose and the hypocrisy is thick and stinky. The Archbishop of York is a homophobe; he'd be a homophobe with or without the Bible. He just happens to have a few spurious verses to hide his bigotry behind.
What do I want from 'this'? Some light and a little heat, I guess. I want to be part of the constant erosion-by-discourse that exposes people's cognitive dissonance when it comes to religion. And I want to be on the rope that's pulling any organisation, religiously motivated or otherwise, kicking and screaming into modernity.
What heat do you want applying to an organisation who's leadership have publicly said that they're disappointed and also that women bishops are inevitable and people are saying maybe Westminster are going to get on the case? What light do you want applied when the EXACT voting statistics are available and have been reported widely?
Some of their leadership have said they're disappointed: seven out of ten presumably are; three out of ten are very pleased indeed. You seem to be choosing to ignore that a significant minority of the church is still ass-backwards. Enough of them are that way to stop the church updating. And while we can all be pleased 70% of The Board don't appear to be totally archaic, a fuck-load of them still are. And it's 2012. A hundred years ago we worked out women should have equal voting rights. The church is, as usual, fucking tardy.
The church can go and fuck itself for a large number of reasons, there's no defense for saying women can't be bishops, it's discrimination. The only shield they've got is the bible, a document so re-written is frankly laughable, not least of the examples of which is every time a new translation is copyrighted it's a requirement that a certain number of words are different from ALL the other translations in that language.
Really, all you seem to be saying is "the church is a bit shit" and everyone else is saying "yes, we know". Furthermore, all that can be done is boycott the church (not that I've got a lot of choice), and demand Westminster shake that sack of shit up. Which they won't do. But I didn't vote for the bunch of cunts in charge, what now? Shall I go and burn down my local vicarage? Deface the parish church?
What I was told, in the endlessly referenced Asda thread, is "Why don't you go and give a shit about something that matters?". The church doesn't matter to me, mainstream opinions matter to me. There's a big difference between a minority of an archaic institution that is more and more sidelined doing something retarded and predictable, and big shops like tesco, asda, sainsburys etc. perpetuating sexism in a manner that is as disturbing as it it subtle.
Also, it's hilarious that you think there's any kind of defense, quasi or otherwise, being done by me here. If I could dissolve the CofE I would.
The point is that Synod is meant to be a representative sample of congregants, but as it is somewhat self-selecting its members do tend towards the anti-change agenda. And, let's not forget, many will have been elected simply in order to vote against women bishops.
I'm furious, the public attitude towards gay people and women is a large part of the reason I'm not seeking ordination in the CofE. But the point remains that people can find a Biblical basis for their prejudice (as they can for absolutely anything up to and including genocide) and will therefore come to feel that their very faith is at stake. It's not. In fact, in worldly terms, it's not really an issue. You'll notice that it's hard to find a defence of institutional sexism in the gospels (rather, it's in the epistles and the OT).
Maybe those of us who consider ourselves Christian should spend less time arguing about who is offering communion or having their ring kissed, and more time doing this,
Have you wound yourself up a bit? Because this is a strange exchange: you seem to be employing fairly extreme hyperbole to counter points I've either not made or strawmen you've erected. And unless I'm mistaken, 95% of this thread has been populated by the two of us, so I'm not sure how "everyone else" is saying anything. Moreover, I'm not quite sure where I've advocated burning or vandalism as a method of achieving anything.
Who's endlessly referenced the ASDA thread? We're about fifteen posts in. Only four or five of which must contain the word "ASDA". And it's being used as an analogy. I'm happy to have the debate with you about why I think there are parallels to be drawn, but I shan't mention it again if talkin about the ASDA thread pushes your pissy button.
Well trollololololol, then.
That's an interesting point and as someone who's not a church aficionado I have to admit I only know that basics about the General Synod and how it works.
I'm glad we're both pissed off and frustrated with the CofE. Fiend seems to find being frustrated and vocal all rather passé. I'd be interested to hear why and how you think the vote turned out they way it did, and how the CofE should proceed from here if it wants to reclaim credibility?
I think the vote went the way it did because people for some reason feel that women's vocation undermines their own faith. And some people will go to great lengths, therefore, to keep women out (and to persuade others to do the same). It was also the house of laity who prevented women being ordained at all for a long time; in all churches (including my own) it tends to be those who are ordained - and therefore forced to confront all sorts of issues theologically on a daily basis, as well as in the studies that got them to ordination - who are the most likely to be liberal and make these concessions. I can only repeat, too, what I said about the house of laity not necessarily being representative. It's like the houses of clergy and bishops are referenda of those groups whilst the house of laity is a vote of MPs.
To move on, I don't know. I once heard Nick Holtam (former rector of St.-Martin-in-the-Fields and current bishop of Salisbury) say that unless the church becomes as liberal as the population it has no future. And yet, amongst young people at least, the largest growing churches are conservative and evangelical.
Jesus wept. Are you shitting me?
Fine, you're right, whatever point it was you're trying to make.
Stick a fork in me. I'm done.
The fact of the matter is that there was a majority in that vote who wanted to bring the matter into effect, the only reason women were not accepted was a relatively small amount of votes.
Have you thought that this might be because of the male dominated society that existed back then, and that the bible is around 2,000 years old, changed by rewrites and loss in translation etc?
I really struggle to get into a serious argument on this subject, once the Bible is used as a reference point. Sure I understand that people have faith and some find it a consolation but it can be interpreted in so many different way that people use it to support their prejudices IME
Aren't there going to be problems when they all turn up to church and realise they're all wearing the same hat?