Church Bishop Pavlova

Nitefly

Nitefly

Nitefly

Man of Honour
Joined
24 Sep 2005
Posts
37,437
I know the word is palava, but I really want some pavlova so I used that word instead.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20433152

I don't really pay too much attention to politics but I really admired Cameron's response to the whole Church Bishop debate thing at the end of that video. It seems silly to me that it was blocked under such a rubbish percentage, but Cameron was right, it's for them to decide but they should be rightly criticised for being so behind the times.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/c...bishops-just-as-he-will-do-over-gay-marriage/

The above article seems to be an absolute dross piece, it seems to be intentionally provocative and have no regard for what Cameron said.

Thoughts on either the church vote or pavlova welcomed.
 
My nan used to make amazing pavlova.

In other news, organisation clinging to centuries out of date ideals in 'makes outdated decision' shocker.
 
The point is that he actual Church Authority (as in the Bishops and the Clergy) voted overwhelmingly to accept Women Bishops, and it was the Laity (as in the unordained members of the church) who narrowly voted against, (in fact they also voted for, but not by a large enough margin)

They fell foul of their electoral system rather than their assumed anachronism.
 
Nitefly said:
Because it's a change that really should be cultural and political as opposed to mandatory and legal.
Click to expand...

I agree, and it seems to be accepted culturally and politically. However he voting system for the Church is crazy and therefore it isn't enough for cultural and political will to change things. Anyway, this wouldn't be legislating a change more so enforcing a group to abide by current (albeit amended) legislation.
 
But he said Parliament had to "respect the individual institutions and the way they work".
Click to expand...

So, I can fire all my female employees as they get pregnant and stuff, lots of time off, fire all my disabled employees as putting ramps and stuff in is a major pain, get rid of all the blacks, gays and muslims (Calm down, just trying to make a point!..) and the Govt. will be quite happy with me, because..'Parliament had to respect the individual institutions and the way they work.'

Riiiiiiight.

Can you imagine the outcry if say, the BBC said, we are voting on whether to have Women Managers or not, the Govt. would be all over it, but a religious institution can pull it off no problem.
 
Nitefly said:
Don't you think their electoral system is an anachronism itself? :o :p
Click to expand...

Well, it is democratic, is a democratic system that requires a qualified majority to change constitutional matters anachronistic?

The General Synod system requires a two-thirds majority in all three houses, supermajoritian or qualified majority systems exist in many other democratic systems, modern and otherwise. Whether they are anachronistic or not is probably subjective.
 
Castiel said:
The point is that he actual Church Authority (as in the Bishops and the Clergy) voted overwhelmingly to accept Women Bishops, and it was the Laity (as in the unordained members of the church) who narrowly voted against, (in fact they also voted for, but not by a large enough margin)

They fell foul of their electoral system rather than their assumed anachronism.
Click to expand...

this was quite interesting... the bishops seemed to have the largest portion in favour, then the clergy and then the laity... seems like the church establishment in general is very much in favour of it but there are some lay members trying to throw a spanner in the works
 
Lol at the women in the Church of England defending the inherent sexism of their ridiculous "faith". Good to see numbers ever decreasing in their folds as society gets smart enough to see through religious nonsense.

making his opponents feel they are not the right-thinking people
Click to expand...

They are demonstrate-ably not right thinking people and should be punished and mocked as such.

he refuses to see the Anglican Communion as a separate and distinct sphere.
Click to expand...

Just like Churches try and stay out of Politics? Oh wait, some of the terrible laws we have in this country are based on their nonsense.
 
Why does the telegraph feel the need to defend these fools?
Also lol at telegraph comments, letting gay people get married is not going to affect you. Just live and let live.
I find it flipping hilarious that people care that "marriage" is being redifined. So what if it is? Things can be improved you know, who gives a **** if it is being redifined.
 
Last edited:
RomanNose said:
Why does the telegraph feel the need to defend these fools?
Click to expand...

The telegraph is more concerned with attacking Cameron for his policies which go against the right leaning members of the party, this is just a way to attack him for trying to "impose" on others.
 
Nitefly said:
I'd say so, it's at least as silly as any company that requires an unduly onerous majority to change it's articles.
Click to expand...

The Church is not a company however, it is an institution of its members, it has more in common with a Government than an Executive.

Democracy isn't anachronistic, Qualified majorities are not anachronistic. The issue here is whether the qualified majority should be ascertained from each house individually or from the Synod collectively, currently it is individually and perhaps with this unusual and surprising voting result they may look at that part of the electoral structure or they may simply pass the Draft to the Group of Six and reintroduce it before the General Synod or wait until a new Synod is initiated in 2015....I suspect that this is more of a delay in what the House of Bishops termed the Church of England expressing their view that Women Bishops should be consecrated rather than a refusal of such. The point is that rather than the view that the Church is out of step, it is did in fact express acceptance of Women Bishops and it was the unforeseen vagaries of the electoral system which effectively allowed a small minority to call the result.

There are other avenues to the Establishment of the Church in affecting change, particularly in the face of such overwhelming support within the Clergy.
 
Last edited:
Castiel said:
...it has more in common with a Government than an Executive.
Click to expand...
Haha there is some unintentional and non-consequential irony in your choice of words there as the legal Executive of our country is essentially our Government and it's Ministers (I pity the fact I found that amusing... I am so alone :().

Democracy isn't anachronistic, Qualified majorities are not anachronistic. The issue here is whether the qualified majority should be ascertained from each house individually or from the Synod collectively, currently it is individually and perhaps with this unusual and surprising voting result they may look at that part of the electoral structure or they may simply pass the Draft to the Group of Six and reintroduce it before the General Synod or wait until a new Synod is initiated in 2015....
Click to expand...

I'm not sure if I would prefer that you googled for that terminology or not :p

I suspect that this is more of a delay in what the House of Bishops termed the Church of England expressing their view that Women Bishops should be consecrated rather than a refusal of such. The point is that rather than the view that the Church is out of step, it is did in fact express acceptance of Women Bishops and it was the unforeseen vagaries of the electoral system which effectively allowed a small minority to call the result.

There is other avenues to the Establishment of the Church in affecting change, particularly in the face of such overwhelming support within the Clergy.
Click to expand...
If it is an expression of acceptance, it's a muted one of little practical consequence.
 
Nitefly said:
Haha there is some unintentional and non-consequential irony in your choice of words there as the legal Executive of our country is essentially our Government and it's Ministers (I pity the fact I found that amusing... I am so alone :().
Click to expand...

Parliament and its electorate would have been a better phrase, but I am sure you understand the difference I was pointing to regarding the General Synod of the the Church and an Executive Board of a Company.


Nitefly said:
I'm not sure if I would prefer that you googled for that terminology or not :p
Click to expand...

I don't even know what you are taking about, it was the press release of the Church of England. Address the points or not, random replies are a waste of time.

Nitefly said:
If it is an expression of acceptance, it's a muted one of little practical consequence.
Click to expand...

It's not muted nor without practical consequence. The fact that an overwhelming majority of the General Synod is in favour and that because of that other solutions are very likey to be found as a matter of urgency also infers a level of practical application of the overall intention of the Synod as infered from the collective result.
 
Castiel said:
Parliament and its electorate would have been a better phrase, but I am sure you understand the difference I was pointing to regarding the General Synod of the the Church and an Executive Board of a Company.
Click to expand...

I knew what you meant fear not!

I don't even know what you are taking about, it was the press release of the Church of England. Address the points or not, random replies are a waste of time.
Click to expand...
:_(
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom