Church of England votes against woman bishops

[Martinus]

I'm hearing there is a lot of backlash over this from the government and MPs.

Huh. That's actually really interesting. I never really understood how the whole "official state church" thing worked. It'll be neat to see how this all plays out and how the UK's government will handle things.

Many people (rightly) point out that right now there are 26 seats in the House of Lords reserved for men only (i.e. the anglican bishops). The sheer idiocy of having one religion sending representatives to the government notwithstanding, the Church of England had a chance to rectify this but dropped the ball - so people who have been calling for kicking them out of the HoL have a much better case now.

Incidentally, that's why I think official state churches are a horrible idea. You just can't combine democratic rule of law and freedom of religion - something has to give eventually.

[merithyn]

Many people (rightly) point out that right now there are 26 seats in the House of Lords reserved for men only (i.e. the anglican bishops). The sheer idiocy of having one religion sending representatives to the government notwithstanding, the Church of England had a chance to rectify this but dropped the ball - so people who have been calling for kicking them out of the HoL have a much better case now.

Incidentally, that's why I think official state churches are a horrible idea. You just can't combine democratic rule of law and freedom of religion - something has to give eventually.

Yep. That's why Thomas, John, et al didn't want it here in the states.

The HoL thing is kind of interesting. What is the justification for that? It's a way for them to protect the moral code of the nation?

[Martinus]

The HoL thing is kind of interesting. What is the justification for that? It's a way for them to protect the moral code of the nation?

Don't think so. When the whole thing started, these archbishops and bishops were powerful lords and landholders in their own right. It didn't make much sense to include lords temporal, but not lords spiritual (in fact, from that perspective, lords spiritual were probably somewhat more meritocratic and democratic, as they originated from elections by their respective synods, and not from simply being born with the title).

[Barrister]

Incidentally, that's why I think official state churches are a horrible idea. You just can't combine democratic rule of law and freedom of religion - something has to give eventually.

And why is that?  I don't see any particular evidence that a democracy can't also have an official state church.

[merithyn]

Incidentally, that's why I think official state churches are a horrible idea. You just can't combine democratic rule of law and freedom of religion - something has to give eventually.

And why is that?  I don't see any particular evidence that a democracy can't also have an official state church.

Because it becomes impossible to allow freedom of religion if the state church is allowed to dictate or otherwise influence laws that come in conflict, ie women in management roles and marriage equality.

[The Brain]

Incidentally, that's why I think official state churches are a horrible idea. You just can't combine democratic rule of law and freedom of religion - something has to give eventually.

And why is that?  I don't see any particular evidence that a democracy can't also have an official state church.

Because it becomes impossible to allow freedom of religion if the state church is allowed to dictate or otherwise influence laws that come in conflict, ie women in management roles and marriage equality.

There are a zillion laws that limit freedom of religion. So what if a state church has some input.

[Barrister]

Incidentally, that's why I think official state churches are a horrible idea. You just can't combine democratic rule of law and freedom of religion - something has to give eventually.

And why is that?  I don't see any particular evidence that a democracy can't also have an official state church.

Because it becomes impossible to allow freedom of religion if the state church is allowed to dictate or otherwise influence laws that come in conflict, ie women in management roles and marriage equality.

Dictate?  Sure.  But that's not the situation in Western countries with state churches.

Otherwise influence?  What's the problem?  Policies are influenced by hundreds of factors - why shouldn't the official church be one of them.

[Gups]

Incidentally, that's why I think official state churches are a horrible idea. You just can't combine democratic rule of law and Because it becomes impossible to allow freedom of religion if the state church is allowed to dictate or otherwise influence laws that come in conflict, ie women in management roles and marriage equality.

Nevetheless we appear to have freedom of religion at least equal to other western countries.

[Gups]

[Dictate?  Sure.  But that's not the situation in Western countries with state churches.

Otherwise influence?  What's the problem?  Policies are influenced by hundreds of factors - why shouldn't the official church be one of them.

Influence is one thing. Having seats in the legislature is another.

[merithyn]

Dictate?  Sure.  But that's not the situation in Western countries with state churches.

Otherwise influence?  What's the problem?  Policies are influenced by hundreds of factors - why shouldn't the official church be one of them.

It appears to me that having the bishops in the HoL is an awful lot like giving lobbyists their own seats in the US Senate.

[merithyn]

Nevetheless we appear to have freedom of religion at least equal to other western countries.

Not sure that's a very high bar. I don't believe that the US has nearly as much religious freedom as it should, and that's without an official state religion. We are held hostage by the Christian faith just as surely as if we had a strict guideline of Christians-only in the Senate and House.

[Barrister]

[Dictate?  Sure.  But that's not the situation in Western countries with state churches.

Otherwise influence?  What's the problem?  Policies are influenced by hundreds of factors - why shouldn't the official church be one of them.

Influence is one thing. Having seats in the legislature is another.

I have to admit I didn't know that.

Thinking about it though, and from what I know of the CoE, I'm willing to bet they don't vote as a monolithic block.   And when you consider there are 26 Lords Spiritual, out of a total membership of 760, I wouldn't get all bent out of shape about it.

[Razgovory]

I didn't think the House of Lords did anything.

[derspiess]

Nevetheless we appear to have freedom of religion at least equal to other western countries.

Not sure that's a very high bar. I don't believe that the US has nearly as much religious freedom as it should, and that's without an official state religion. We are held hostage by the Christian faith just as surely as if we had a strict guideline of Christians-only in the Senate and House.

[Razgovory]

Yeah, that's pretty funny.