Church of England votes against woman bishops

[The Brain]

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.

That's a British thing.

[Sheilbh]

What an embarassment of a church. Incapable of making a decision after 12 years of preparation. Trying desperately to balance the homophobic Africans with the liberal Yanks, the evangelicals with the vurtual catholics. Result a messy compromise that everyone hates.

This isn't to do with the Africans and Yanks though - that's the gay issue.  This is just the Church of England so not the rest of the Anglicans, I think everyone else couldn't care less.  But I agree on the messy compromise: allowing female priests but not female bishops

It's not clear enough that they didn't actually vote against it.  The House of Bishops overwhelmingly voted for it, the House of Clergy overwhelmingly voted for it and the House of Laity voted for it pretty strongly too.  But they need a 2/3s majority in each one for it to pass and they were 6 votes short in the House of Laity.  So the CofE voted for women bishops but not enough.

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.

How are we lacking democratic rule of law or freedom of religion?

I'm torn on this.  I think the CofE needs to go for women bishops, but part of the reason they need to is because they're a state church.  On the other hand I don't like the idea that Parliament would legislate what they should do.  Personally I think the Synod should have moved to a nearby tennis court and swore to meet as one House until the issue were resolved, in which case women bishops would pass by 74%.  The old Archbishop of Canterbury Lord Carey has suggested that the CofE should keep going on the issue and perhaps simply increase the pressure - hold an annual synod until they get their way.

[Neil]

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.

[Neil]

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?

No, they were princes of the church.  The Lords were the stakeholders, which meant the nobility and the Church.  They were in Parliament before the concept of a nation, and when the government wasn't much concerned with moral codes, because the Church handled that themselves.

[Ed Anger]

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.

She makes me pine for that Handmaid's Tale Theocratic state.

[Martinus]

How are we lacking democratic rule of law or freedom of religion?

I thought it is pretty obvious. By being an official state church with its own seats in the legislature, the CoE is effectively an arm of a government. It is against the principles of democratic rule of law for an arm of the government to discriminate based on gender. But forcing the CoE to give equality to women violates freedom of religion.

[Martinus]

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.

I fail to see how this matters at all. From your own field, it's like having the defendant's wife sit on the jury. Sure, she is one of many and she may actually dislike him but that wouldn't be tolerated, would it?

[The Brain]

But forcing the CoE to give equality to women violates freedom of religion.

People who want a CoE style church that discriminates against women are free to have just that (as far as I can tell).

[Richard Hakluyt]

I would imagine that the Church of England will be disestablished once the old Queen dies. Charles is on record as saying he wants to alter the coronation oath so that he will be "Defender of Faith" rather than "Defender of The Faith", so it all becomes rather pointless.

Meanwhile the CofE will get round to having female bishops. One of the reasons that the Synod failed to pass the change was that there was a clause that congregations could opt out of having a female bishop doing whatever a bishop does when they visit a parish church and ask for a male bishop. This struck them as the worst of all worlds and I agree with them, if we are going to have female bishops then they should be recognised as being proper 100% bishops.

[The Brain]

What about antidisestablishmentarianism?

[dps]

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.

I fail to see how this matters at all. From your own field, it's like having the defendant's wife sit on the jury. Sure, she is one of many and she may actually dislike him but that wouldn't be tolerated, would it?

Not a good analogy.  It doesn't matter if the defendent's wife is on the jury;  with BB prosecuting, it's going to be an acquittal anyway.

[Neil]

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.

I fail to see how this matters at all. From your own field, it's like having the defendant's wife sit on the jury. Sure, she is one of many and she may actually dislike him but that wouldn't be tolerated, would it?

Not really.  They're stakeholders.  That's the whole point of the Lords.

[Sheilbh]

How are we lacking democratic rule of law or freedom of religion?

I thought it is pretty obvious. By being an official state church with its own seats in the legislature, the CoE is effectively an arm of a government. It is against the principles of democratic rule of law for an arm of the government to discriminate based on gender. But forcing the CoE to give equality to women violates freedom of religion.

How is discrimination against the rule of law?  If women weren't able to use the courts or whatever then I'd see what you meant but non-discrimination in parts of employment legislation isn't a principle of the rule of law.  Surely by that logic the monarchy would also be suspect because - at the moment - a male heir takes precedence.

But that wasn't my question.  How is England lacking the democratic rule of law or freedom of religion given that it has - and has for 500 years - had a state church?

[Gups]

How are we lacking democratic rule of law or freedom of religion?

I thought it is pretty obvious. By being an official state church with its own seats in the legislature, the CoE is effectively an arm of a government. It is against the principles of democratic rule of law for an arm of the government to discriminate based on gender. But forcing the CoE to give equality to women violates freedom of religion.

In other words

1. You are unable to distinguish between government and the legislature

2. You don't know understand the concept of the rule of law.

[Martinus]

How are we lacking democratic rule of law or freedom of religion?

I thought it is pretty obvious. By being an official state church with its own seats in the legislature, the CoE is effectively an arm of a government. It is against the principles of democratic rule of law for an arm of the government to discriminate based on gender. But forcing the CoE to give equality to women violates freedom of religion.

How is discrimination against the rule of law?  If women weren't able to use the courts or whatever then I'd see what you meant but non-discrimination in parts of employment legislation isn't a principle of the rule of law.  Surely by that logic the monarchy would also be suspect because - at the moment - a male heir takes precedence.

But that wasn't my question.  How is England lacking the democratic rule of law or freedom of religion given that it has - and has for 500 years - had a state church?

Equality under law is one of the basic principles of the rule of law.

And yes, I believe in many monarchies in Europe, a male heir precedence has been abolished or is considered being abolished exactly because of these reasons (although, with monarchs being mere figureheads, this is less of a concern, admittedly). And it is not purely a discrimination of employment for reasons I already stated - because these people hold legislative functions. If law stated that women cannot be elected to the parliament or be ministers then it would also be much more than a "discrimination in employment".

And are you seriously asking why having one religion singled out by giving it a right to send its representatives to the legislature violates equality under law and freedom of religion? This is bleeding obvious.