UKC

That rare thing, a piece of unambiguously good news:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/14/church-england-synod-votes-all...

I was sitting listening to a conference paper this afternoon when I heard this. I nearly whooped and danced

In reply to Tim Chappell:

Why is it good news? "Organisation based on superstition allows women to hold rank in a desperate attempt to keep membership up."

In reply to Tim Chappell:
Yep, seems a bit pointless to me. Listening to some men, and horrifically, women yesterday on the gogglebox saying that they think that women being subservient to men in the church was a beautiful thing.

Those blind followers arent obliged to seek guidance from the women bishops either.

Remind me again, what century is this?

In reply to Tim Chappell:





There, fixed that for you.

In reply to Tim Chappell:

Had the headline been something like this :

"Church of England and Catholic church go into voluntary liquidation"

then I'd join you in whooping and dancing !

In reply to Tim Chappell:

About time.

Bad news for the nay sayers in the synod, presumably, and for disestablishmentarianists.

In reply to Tim Chappell:
I guess they have voted to ignore a few more bible passages, we must remember that it's the infallible word of god when suits us, if we don't like it - "It was a different time".

In reply to JimboWizbo:
Trouble is - even if you believe in such things - the bible is the infallible word of god filtered through some very fallible humans, who were indeed writing in their time.

To flog the point some more, one could argue that it was then copied by another lot of fallible humans, some of whom may - or may not - have had agendas (or is it agendae?)

What we then end up with 2,000-4,000 years later I think can be taken with a pinch of salt.

In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:

There was a great interview with some woman on radio 2. Apparently the bit in Genesis about women being created as helpers to men is part of why they shouldnt have authority in church or marriage.
Unfortunately I had a conference call so couldnt listen to whatever else she came up with.

In reply to Tim Chappell:

Really?... the majority of people just dont care and a significant minority of Anglican Christians (let alone other denominations) think its pretty bad news (and I would have expected proper Christians who did support the move not to be so keen to dance on the grave of those alternative beleifs).

In reply to Tim Chappell:

Yes, excellent news. I heard two General Synod members being interviewed on R4 yesterday (one evangelical I think, one Anglo-Catholic). Ostensibly they were both people who had voted against last time and were going to vote for this time (so a perfect opportunity for them to appear conciliatory and generous) but getting them to actually say it was like drawing teeth. Any attempt to clarify their positions was met by breathtakingly pompous and political nit-picking ending up with one of them complaining about what a responsibility it was having to explain to dullards like the rest of us what the will of God was on this subject. Horrible people at either end of the Anglican spectrum.

In reply to Tim Chappell: Yay indeed. It's great to see the CoE stepping boldly into the 20th century.

In reply to Tim Chappell:

Yes, it's nice to see that an established organisation can look at itself, identify bigotry and move forwards. Especially as doing so undermines the use - by many people - of religious grounds as an excuse to legitimise discriminate. Too many people believe that the historical precedent of a religion should be used to marginalise some people, even though that precedent derives more from the social norms from when the religion became established than it does from the spirit of the religion itself.

Sadly I imagine that this will drive more people from the main stream church into some of the loonier fundamentalist nut-boxes that are quietly growing around my way, but good on the CofE.

In reply to Tim Chappell:

Religion. In its 'organised' form, one of the irrelevances of the 21st Century.
Religion. In its 'organised' form, one of the continuing causes of human conflict in the 21st Century.

In reply to Tim Chappell:

I'm pleased too. Yay indeed.

In reply to Tim Chappell:

Of course it is good news. And whatever people think of churches and of religion, it is an example of people being, or becoming, able to change their minds, even in a context that matters deeply to them. And that is amazing.

In reply to Tim Chappell:

Out of interest, do you think the change has come about because they have to or that they want to?

In reply to Tim Chappell:

I'd be interested to hear what God had to say about it. (",)

In reply to Tim Chappell:

It does seem a bit silly that women weren't allowed to be bishops (and, before that, vicars) - after all, wasn't the archest of bishops already a woman? Hard to see how people could object after QEII got the top slot.

In reply to Tim Chappell:

This kind of nonsense is akin to how people were carping about progression when the law was changed to allow a first born daughter to become monarch.

In reply to FactorXXX:


They didn't have to because the Equalities Act 2010 gives them a special exemption. It might help slow their gradual slide into irrelevance however.

In reply to wintertree:

They didn't have to because the Equalities Act 2010 gives them a special exemption. It might help slow their gradual slide into irrelevance however.

I meant more politically as opposed to legally.

In reply to Tim Chappell:

Though I notice churches can still decide that they don't want to be 'ruled' by a female bishop and request a man......can you imagine the outrage if someone suggested this approach for other parts of society (e.g. in the workplace, politics, other voluntary organisations)

In reply to Tim Chappell:

I was amused by the discussion on Today this morning, about the decision to drop the references to the Devil in baptism services. One rather self-aware religious type noted the difficulty of dropping references to one mythical entity whilst continuing to worship another...

In reply to Tim Chappell:

Unambiguosly Liking your work Although I see Coel has yet to bite.

In reply to Tim Chappell:

I'm sorry for you that your post hasn't had a more positive response.

But if it makes you happy...

In reply to BusyLizzie:
As an atheist, I couldn't agree more, Lizzie. I'll be even happier when I see a female ayatollah on the news.

In reply to Tom Valentine:


Improved it.

In reply to Removed User:

I would like it to go on record that the post with the word "lesbian" inserted is not mine but yours, and I am wondering how you are able to edit my posts for me without my permission and then publish them under my name.. Any advice, moderators?

In reply to Tom Valentine:


I'd like to know if that is a genuine question?

In reply to duchessofmalfi:

You are missing the point.Biped is ascribing words to me that I did not publish. It's a bit like me altering one of your posts to make out that you were freely using words like "nigger" and " queer". Would you be OK with that?

In reply to Tom Valentine:

I think we can all work out who said what - it isn't as if biped is trying to conceal it - in fact biped is pointing it out and no one here is under any illusion that you wrote this.

You are over-reacting to what is a standard format internet forum joke (not a particular good version I'll admit) and your counter example is ridiculous.

In reply to Tom Valentine:


We can go back to you original post and see what you actually said.

In reply to duchessofmalfi:
You are right, of course. I will have to get the hang of c*ntpaste and have a bit of fun of my own. Many thanks for the advice.

In reply to Tim Chappell:


The Catholics aren't too happy about it, and I think even the wettest Anglican would have to say it causes an ecumenical problem.

Still it shows that the bible isn't the word of god and people have been misled that it was, so that is good news and to be widely welcomed.

In reply to The New NickB:

Nice one Centurion.

Tom V: I didn't reply as I was out. I thought your suggestion of female ayatollahs was quite good, so I added to it. Doesn't really work when it needs explained. Dried your eyes now?

In reply to winhill:


They probably are fairly happy since they can get on with trying to poach the peeps who got voted against. They will even be flexible about the whole married priest thing in order to tempt them across.

In reply to Removed User:
Purely out of technical interest, how do you normally add to someone else's post?
If it involves cut and pasting and altering the original, then clearly I am out of my depth.

In reply to Tom Valentine:

When you select 'Reply to Post', there is a button called 'Quote Original' which, as it says, quotes the original text with a > and is usually in faint text. It isn't locked so you can do what you like with it. Almost, if not actually all instances that I have seen of adjusted quotes were sly digs or added humour, as I tried to with your post, albeit with limited success.

If you want to give it a go, reply to this post, quote the original text and put words in my mouth, preferably bad ones

In reply to Removed User:

A pretty yucky thing to do, that reflects badly on the tamperer, I submit.

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:
Can be, but most I have seen on here are harmless jokes. No harm or ridicule intended by me in this case. My intention with the 'lesbians' one earlier, which I thought would be bloody obvious, was to add another level of humanity which religious hardliners disapprove of; first we have female priests, then female ayatollahs (which I thought was a funny and in the context of the thread quite salient riposte to the OP) so I thought I'd add another level by using Tom V's original text rather than repeat it in my own words.

It wouldn't surprise me if there had been instances of quote fiddling on here by some of the more argumentally challenged but that's a different kettle of worms. This is just fuss over nothing, though clearly TomV didn't realise that one could do this and got the wrong end of the stick.

In reply to Removed User:

I got all that, thanks. But I think there's no harm in being a bit more transparent with how one messes with other people's quotes.

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

Fair enough, I thought it was obvious but if someone doesn't get it perhaps the forum users guide (if there is one) needs an update.

In reply to Removed User:

No, no update required or wanted to that v old thing called manners.

In reply to Removed User:

Thanks for the offer and thanks for the advice, sincerely.

In reply to Tim Chappell:

Please everyone, no bashing the bishops if you don't mind....


Someone had to...

In reply to Tim Chappell:

so the CofE have been dragged kicking and screaming up to about the mid 20th century. Let's see if they can make it all the way to oooh, say the 1980s? There's a Betamax recorder in it for them if they can manage it.

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/jun/22/second-priest-defies-church-...

In reply to Tom Valentine:
I know more than one gay woman in holy orders. And all the folks in question would make excellent bishops. As would Jeffrey John. The sooner the better, if you ask me. And when it happens I for one will be pogoing in the chancel

Last Sunday in Little St Mary's in Cambridge (which was *packed*, standing room only, don't tell me the church is tottering) we sang this:

There’s a wideness in God’s mercy,
Like the wideness of the sea;
There’s a kindness in His justice,
Which is more than liberty.

For the love of God is broader
Than the measure of our mind;
And the heart of the Eternal
Is most wonderfully kind.

But we make His love too narrow
By false limits of our own;
And we magnify His strictness
With a zeal He will not own.

Faber wrote that in *1854*.

In reply to Tim Chappell:


OK we wont. We will ignore the average weekly attendance figures which replaced the average sunday figures since they were getting to bad.
Although it does seem to have stabilised somewhat.

In reply to Tim Chappell:


If there's one thing that I really dislike about organised religion it is the notion of worship.

The worship of God would appear to be one sided. No end of praying or singing of hymns bestows any advantage upon humanity. Disasters continue to happen, people die horrible deaths from incurable disease or accidents. But I forget, God moves in mysterious ways !

What a complete waste of time, except perhaps for the smug hypocrites that attend this weekly praise of a God who will continue to exist in the minds of the weak or those that have a much more pragmatic and dangerous use for these misguided beliefs.

In reply to Tim Chappell:

Tim, I think you should be replying to Biped, not me. But your mistake is understandable.

In reply to Pyreneenemec:


There are plenty of things I too dislike about organised religion... hypocrisy, coercion, legalism, dog in the manger attitudes, child abuse, clinging to the past...

and indeed about disorganised religion, probably a better description of the CoE most of the time

But it's interesting that it's *worship*, of all things, that you should pick on.

Where there's love, it will express itself (in both directions: believers to God, God to believers). And by expressing itself, it effects a change of perspective on everything else.

Worship is the most positive and the most joyous and the most transformative thing we humans can do. It's what we're for. You should try it some time.

By all means be against all sorts of other bits of religion, I probably am too... but *that* bit? Strange.

In reply to Tim Chappell:

Agreed.
Great news ))

Even the most hardened cynics must have raised a faint twitch of the lip in happiness

In reply to Tim Chappell:
>>

In reply to Babika:


Why? That they are slowly catching up is not really any reason to rejoice but just to be slightly less depressed. Bit like someone stopping kicking you in the balls. be nice if they stopped but isnt something they should be congratulated for doing.

In reply to dissonance:

Oh, I don't know. Perhaps Luke 15.7 applies: "There is more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents, than over ninety-nine just people who need no repentance."

When someone (in this case the CoE) has got something badly wrong, it's SO great when they stop. Even when, of course, they should have stopped long before.

Progress towards the real objective of Christianity--full and unqualified human liberation--is unfortunately not so commonplace that we can afford to be sniffy about when and where it comes

In reply to dissonance:

.... and that way of looking at the world is pretty much the definition of depression.

In reply to Tim Chappell:


It's not just the CofE, it's the whole Christian church.

When you find out what else they're SO wrong about, you'll wet yourself.

sides, I thought the Christian thing was no crowing but respectful acknowledgement of the theological positions of other Christians? Is it pick 'n' mix again?

In reply to Tim Chappell:

"liberation" is an odd choice of word. "Obedience" was the word that seemed to crop up rather more back when I was slightly more familiar with the interior of a church.

In reply to Tim Chappell:


Liberation from what? Isn't being under constant judgement celebrated by Christians?

"There’s a kindness in His justice,
Which is more than liberty"

In reply to knthrak1982:


Err, not. Absolutely not. 180 degrees not. Have you read Romans 5-6 recently???

And coming back to worship--here's one particularly marvellous bit...

youtube.com/watch?v=8q4JWHvSmMI&

In reply to Tim Chappell:

I have now.

22 But now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves of God, the benefit you reap leads to holiness, and the result is eternal life.

Maybe the word "slaves" is a mis-translation?

In reply to knthrak1982:

Doulos means both slave and servant. Nothing wrong with it as a translation.

And nothing wrong with the notion of serving God; if he is who Christianity says, then service follows naturally. As Jesus points out, he came to be our doulos: "the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve others and to give his life as a ransom for many", Mt 20.28. There's also the Book of Common Prayer's rather nice phrase "whose service is perfect freedom".

In reply to Dave Garnett:


I would prefer more practical steps like removing their exemptions from equality legislation. Why piss around waiting for them to catch up?

In reply to dissonance:


You could start by appointing an equalities minister who believes in equality over the historical bigotry of their religion... Or not!

In reply to dissonance:


Wasn't Cameron threatening to do precisely that?

Such a move wouldn't go very well with trying to be tolerant of those who oppose the ordination of women and gays on conscientious grounds.

Nonetheless, I personally don't see why the Church should get away with such bigotry when no one else does

In reply to dissonance:

They are not mutually exclusive, although persuasion usually works better than compulsion.

I'm not disagreeing with you, I just think that generally it's possible to be pleased about a step in the right direction without conceding that it's the complete solution. People tend to react better with a little encouragement. Or maybe you haven't noticed.

In reply to Dave Garnett:



In which case why have any equality law at all? We could just wait for everyone to fall in line.

In reply to winhill:

Jeez. Which part of my saying that it's OK to be pleased when someone does the right thing implies that we shouldn't have rules for those who don't?

In reply to dissonance:

I'm a glass half full person so I don't take this view.

However this thread, and the C of E's belated decision has got me musing how long it might take for Islam to take similar steps?

decades?

centuries?

millennia?

In reply to Dave Garnett:

I think that would be your claim that "persuasion usually works better than compulsion"

In reply to Tim Chappell:


I'm glad you enjoy it, and it makes you feel good. That's the point of it, though; to make you feel good, and thus help maintain your faith. I doubt that it is innately enjoyable*, and is only enjoyable because you've come to think of it as enjoyable by association. Another religious enforcing function.

* although the increased breathing rate due to a good sing-song can cause mild euphoria, and one might consider the litany to be a form of meditation that might lead to a euphoric state.


I can think of plenty of other more practical things I could do with my time that might make me feel good. And I don't mean purely hedonistic things.

In reply to Greenbanks:



Trying to change what people think when it comes to the validity of religion by using webforums...a definition of futility?

()

In reply to Tim Chappell:






I like singing traditional Ecclesfield carols at Christmas, which can be non religious, so I can see why gathering together and singing can help make one happy, but I dunno about worship, rejoicing in being alive, definitely.

I strikes me that the key ingredients are probably the sharing of love and a feeling of togetherness with other people, as I do like community things in Sheffield.

Whatever, I'm also glad women are now allowed.

In reply to Timmd:



Trying to change what people think when it comes to the validity of religion by using webforums...a definition of futility?

()


Saying both Greenbanks' things at once... make your mind up?

In reply to Tim Chappell:

How big a sin has it been to deny women the opportunity to lead the Church?

Be a bit annoying to get rejected at the Pearly Gates because you'd got god's work so wrong.

Would they be in hell with the murderers, misanthropes, mormons, muslims and methodists?

In reply to Tim Chappell:


I hope, then, that you would heartily disapprove of the legally required and coerced "worship" demanded of schoolchildren by the law? That is not freely given "love", with resentful kids threatened with being disciplined if they don't join in the "worship".

Yet, whenever anyone tries to update this, the Church of England pulls out all the stops and uses its influence with the Establishment to maintain the legally required worship.

Well, so far, anyhow, though the current Bishop of Oxford (current CofE head of education) did say recently that the times they are a'changing, so perhaps there is hope that even the CofE will leave the medieval era behind.

In reply to winhill:





I'm not actually in the business of sending anyone to hell.

As Voltaire nicely put it, Dieu pardonnera. C'est son métier.

In reply to Tim Chappell:




I knew nobody would listen anyway. ()

Just airing my thoughts really to distract myself from coursework stress(for what they're worth). I didn't notice it might come across like that.

In reply to Tim Chappell:

This is no time to be making enemies.

In reply to Tim Chappell:




Yes, and when people are killed by collapsing churches, or floods at Lourdes, or catching fire off votive candles, or giant crucifixes collapsing one them, or other means, that's just god showing his fun sense of humour as well as his love...

In reply to Coel Hellier:


I think the deepest question in this area is: What, if anything, do we want schoolkids to learn about religion/ spirituality in school?

My answer would be that I'd like them to learn that there are possibilities there that many (maybe even most) humans have found transformative and liberating. I'd like schools' approach to religion (and to atheism) to be critical, sure, but I'd also like schools to be imaginative and exploratory and just a little daring in what they try out.

I can't see that giving schoolkids a taste of what it might be to worship is inconsistent with those aims. And I don't share the secularists' apparent terror of being exposed not only to other people's belief-systems, but also to their affective systems--not just what theists believe, but also (and for most people probably more importantly) what they feel.

This isn't necessarily, as the secularist hardliners evidently believe, brainwashing or indoctrination. It can be a taster, a suck it and see exercise.

In any case it's quite wrong to think, as the secularist hardliners apparently also believe, that children are natural atheists until the wicked old theist schoolteachers get hold of them. If anything the opposite is true; they're natural theists, but school religion is often so badly done that it tends to confuse them or put them off. Certainly in my own case, I knew God was there as soon as I knew anything. Sure, other people helped me understand what my awareness of God meant (though not at school), but no one brainwashed me or even tried. School certainly didn't make me a theist; on the contrary, I didn't think much of assemblies. I thought the worship was rubbish, and needed to be done much, much better

But certainly the idea that they're coercion is a load of ordure, as an objection to having them in school. Sure, they ARE coercion, but if you're going to be against ever coercing anyone in school, you're not going to have much of school left...

In reply to stroppygob:



So let me see; you're saying we should never ever worship, just in case the building falls on us?

Sigh...

In reply to stroppygob:


Nah thats him punishing them for gay marriage/women bishops etc. Its just he is a pretty shit shot.

In reply to Tim Chappell:


It's a bit like Abbie Hoffman and the Yippies threatening to put LSD in Chicago's water supply, if only people would turn on everything will be alright after all.

Some religious nutters just see schools as a resource they can exploit.

Why not just invite people to bring their kids to church? Oh wait, that ain't working for you is it?

In reply to Tim Chappell:

The existence of varied spiritual beliefs, different all round the world, presented as equal and contradictory, and showing no regard for consistency with the facts of the universe (its age, structure, history, etc) will suffice for me, thanks. Once what you teach kids as true starts to deviate from the scientific consensus around what exists and what doesn't exist, we're in trouble I think. What's real and what's made up all becomes subjective and the entire value of knowledge is undermined. No ta.


I can't understand how "suck it and see" worship can be implemented without teaching an assumption that god exists. So the message is: God may or not exist; if you'd like to try believing in Him, here's how you'd go about it. Let's do it for a few weeks, then we'll have a think about what it's like not believing God. Then each of you can have a think about which seems right for you. Have I got that right?


A fascinating question. I would agree with you that there's an element in natural human nature that is expressed as theism where that is the cultural norm. How we educate our children in view of that is tremendously interesting - my view would be that we start telling our kids about the big bang and evolution as stories right from the start and see how the theist instinct plays out then.


It's all about the content, not the method. If it's neutral stuff we can agree on, like the facts of the universe and the fun we can have exploring the world of the imagination, fine. If it's controversial, like which political party to vote for, or which version of which god to worship, then I think any sensible person would agree it's off-limits for schools which everyone pays for.

In reply to Tim Chappell:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion

Might be a good start; that there are lots of religions, most of which think they're the One True Religion, worshipping the One True God (or not worshipping, in the case of some non-theistic religions...). They can't all be right, surely?

I'd also like to see teaching of the origins and development of religious belief, so that they're aware of how religion came about, and the psychological phenomena that help to encourage the development and continuance of faith. Help them to understand why people believe, and why their faith is important to them, and why it makes them and Churches (of all flavours) do things, both good and bad.


You're right; their wicked old theist parents have already got hold of them...


Then let's replace the 'broadly Christian nature' daily worship with a round-robin, 'religion of the day' worship, and let them suck and see the full palette of religious flavour. Although I'd rather only see education about religion in schools, and no worship of any kind. But of course, I'm one of those secularist hardliners who doesn't believe in any fundamental human need for 'spirituality'.


Children (and humans generally) try to make sense of the world around them, by creating mental models of how the world works. Some observe natural phenomena and try to rationalise cause and effect. Some invent an invisible bogeyman who makes things happen in mysterious ways.

At four and a half, I observed that sheep didn't fall off the side of steep hills, and hypothesised that they had magnets in their feet, and that there were iron 'axles' in the ground that allowed them to stick, based on my observations whilst playing with magnets and iron pieces. I don't recall ever hypothesising the existence of an invisible, omnipotent being who created and controlled the world. I never had an invisible friend, either.

My parents loved me, and I loved them, and my brother and sister. And that was real love that involved care and hugs and kisses and kind words and deeds. And that was all the love I needed. And when I did bad things to other people, my parents asked me how I would feel if someone did those things to me, and I saw that I should try not to do them, and try not to hurt people. And that was all the moral guidance I needed, or have ever needed.

So I was certainly never a 'natural theist'.

I was wrong about the sheep, of course...

In reply to Tim Chappell:


And of course you simply misrepresent the secularists case. It is *not* a "terror" of being exposed to other people's ideas; what an absurd idea. The problem is one of *religious* *freedom*.

A basic principle of Western liberal democracies is that people should be free to decide for themselves whether to worship a god and which gods to worship. The state should not dictate that. If Parliament passed a law requiring adult Jews to worship Jesus then all hell would break lose.

Well children are people also, and 14-yr-olds, for example, are quite capable of having opinions and feelings on such issues. It is simply morally wrong (not to mention arrogant and bigoted) to pass laws mandating religious worship like this.

Christians would not like it if there were laws requiring them to worship non-Christian gods, would they? And if your response is that the feelings of 14-yr-olds simply don't matter (as indeed stated in the House of Lords by unelected defenders of these laws) then don't complain if people decide that the feelings of Christians don't matter.


Wrong again, "secularist hardliners" are not objecting because they see it as "brainwashing or indoctrination". (Are you suggesting that it can't be wrong if it stops short of those?) But it is certainly not a matter of a "taster". The law requires these "tasters" every school day, so about 2000 occasions through school life. To suggest that 2000 doses of required worship are required to give pupils a "taster" is simply dishonest. The rules (especially if you look at the history of the rules) are quite blatantly an attempt to promote Christianity as normative and to impose it on children as something that they should adopt.

This stuff about "tasters" is also dishonest since if that were the aim then you would do it for a wide range of religions and other belief systems. Yet the typical approach -- especially in "faith" schools where the religious groups have control -- is to continually push their own particular religious view.


So if you really believed what you are saying (which you don't, of course, you are just inventing excuses for the pushing of Christianity in schools) then you would have children from Jewish families required to worship Jesus, children from Muslim families require to worship Hindu gods, children of Catholic families required to participate in denial of Catholicism, et cetera, with the children's feelings about this not mattering. And there would be nothing wrong in coercing these things, since there is nothing wrong with coercing religious participation and worship, is there?

In reply to Coel Hellier:

Perhaps you could end this thread by getting away from your hijacks, and instead telling us how pleased you are that women can now become bishops in the CoE?

Or is it still your attitude that this is a bad thing, as you said before?

In reply to Tim Chappell:


I didn't think you'd come back to this, nearly posted same to Coel.

But you were the one who suggested all kids should be forced into worship.

To pretend it is someone else's derail is really poor, very shady.

Are you sure you have anything to do with Ethics?

In reply to Tim Chappell:


Wasn't that Heinrich Heine?

In reply to hokkyokusei:

Google suggests it was, yes. A good thought to have, anyway, whoever had it first.

In reply to hokkyokusei:

thank you, I didn't know about him before. Sounds like a good egg - I particularly like this quote:

If the Romans had been obliged to learn Latin, they would never have found time to conquer the world.

In reply to Bob Hughes:

That's a cracker. This hijack of the thread is much more fun than the other one

In reply to Coel Hellier:

What about the other religions..
..freedom from football...
..freedom from capitalism...
..freedom from socialism...
Capitalism, for example, is clearly a far more essentially destructive religion embedded in culture, driving the world toward rapid resource depletion, global warming, pollution, species extinction etc etc. So it is quite clear that you choose your religious hates according to taste, and not according to true belief in a freedom of ideas.

In reply to Tim Chappell:


I'm neither pleased nor displeased really. The sight of the CofE shooting itself in the foot is entertaining, and that is obviously not the case here, but I don't see why I should actually be pleased about women being bishops or about anyone being bishops for that matter.

What I am displeased about is *yet* *another* militant Christian appointed as Education Secretary. Why can't we have someone normal, just for a change? Only about 4% of the population are church-going Christians and fully half the population nowadays is non-religious, yet the former get all the influence and the latter get a very poor deal.

In reply to contrariousjim:


Exactly where are people required to express their approval of capitalism, or socialism for that matter? Don't we have freedom to our opinion on these things?

I'm not aware of any schoolchild ever being required to express a pro-capitalist or pro-socialist sentiment. Any good politics teacher would try to develop knowledge and understanding, but would accept pupils personally siding with one or the other. Indeed a good politics teacher would probably encourage different pupils advocating different viewpoints as a way of exploring them.

That is very different from the attitude that pupils must have a dose of religion inflicted on them and must worship the Christian god every day, whether they like it or not.

In reply to contrariousjim:


...freedom from games periods...

...freedom from maths lessons...

...freedom from school dinners...

If pupils are going to assert their inalienable human rights not to have RE lessons "shoved down their throats" (as a spokesman, with delightful originality, put it), surely the next step is not having PE lesson shoved down their throats either?

School, as I said above, is all about coercion. If you're going to object to the coercion involved in the religious bits, why not object to all the rest of the coercion?

The grownup debate is about what we teach at school, not about whether school involves coercion, or as old fashioned types like me will call it, discipline.

Anyway, enough of Coel's hijack (and yes, it is HIS hijack, he started this topic, not me). Hurrah for women bishops. That's the point.

In reply to Tim Chappell:

I can see benefit to society and the individual by forcing everyone to do PE - I'm less convinced about RE...

In reply to Tim Chappell:


Can you give a citation for this quote? Are you sure it is about RE *lessons* -- that is, learning about religion -- and not about compulsory *worship*? Most of the secularist campaigners on this fully support *learning* *about* religion.

Tell me Tim, would you object to a law requiring you yourself to worship a god that you didn't believe in?


No-one is objecting to pupils *learning* *about* religion. As I explained to you, a politics class would not require pupils to hold and express a pro-capitalist or a pro-socialist viewpoint, but would require pupils to learn about those viewpoints.

If you tried a bit harder you might understand this distinction (though perhaps you are well aware of it, but are pretending not to be as a way of avoiding the issue).

In reply to Coel Hellier:



Worship is not a matter of imposed ritual, it is a matter of the heart. No one can make you worship. What nonsense is that.

..Now back to 1st night of the proms!

In reply to contrariousjim:


Not my wording; address your comments to those who passed and support the current law requiring pupils to worship. Or perhaps you might agree with us secularists who consider it a thoroughly bad law that should be repealed?

How about you, by the way, would you object to a law requiring you yourself to worship a god that you didn't believe in?

(Saying that such a law would be nonsense doesn't answer the question, which is whether you'd object to such a law being passed.)

In reply to contrariousjim:



Tell that to the governmenthttps://www.gov.uk/government/publications/collective-worship-in-schools

In reply to Coel Hellier:


It doesn't make any sense. You can't worship without wanting to. If you mean take part in rituals that mean nothing to me.. ..its a fag and nothing more, there's alot of that at school and it teaches at the least a bit of self discipline to endure the things which we must.

In reply to contrariousjim:



Bollocks.

In reply to stroppygob:


Says someone who evidentially believes in it.. ..not so easy when the shoes on the other foot.

In reply to contrariousjim:

Your statement makes no sense.

In reply to contrariousjim:

So in reply to this:


You reply:


How come the Christians don't have the intellectual honesty to give a straight answer to a straight question? The question is not whether such a law makes sense, it is whether you would you *object* to a law requiring you yourself to worship a god that you didn't believe in?