The Church of England votes AGAINST female Bishops

[Kieran_Frost]

A sad day for equality, after the Church of England votes against having female bishops. It was a close; but ultimately the measure was NOT accepted. What are you views on this? Do you support female bishops? And has this effected your view of the Church of England?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20423664
[from the BBC article] The Church of England has "lost a measure of credibility" after rejecting the introduction of women bishops, the Archbishop of Canterbury has said.
The Most Reverend Rowan Williams told the ruling general synod that the Church could be seen as "wilfully blind" to modern trends and priorities.
While 324 synod members voted for women bishops, Church voting rules mean 122 votes against were enough to block it.
However the Archbishop of York said the principle had been accepted.

"There will be women bishops in my lifetime," Dr John Sentamu told BBC Radio 4's Today programme.
"The principle has already been accepted by the general synod. It has already been accepted by all the dioceses.
"So what we need to do is find the legislation - 99.9% of the legislation is there - it's this little business of provision for those who are opposed."

[jesse_custer]

Just to show you how ignorant I can be, someone recently had to inform me that England still has its official church.

I think women should be able to attain leadership positions in religious institutions, ESPECIALLY if the church in question is officially tied to the state.

[Kieran_Frost]

Just to show you how ignorant I can be, someone recently had to inform me that England still has its official church.
I think women should be able to attain leadership positions in religious institutions, ESPECIALLY if the church in question is officially tied to the state.

And especially considering the head of the church is a woman! It was very disappointing news... I liked to believe the church, as a whole, was understanding more the need to change, and embrace new directions. It was a great shame.

[Shellhead]

All religion is completely arbitrary. They should be able to make any arbitrary rules they want (as long as they aren't breaking local laws), because that's the whole point of religion: arbitrary rules for the purpose of controlling behavior. If people don't like it, they should pick another religion or make up a new one. The fact that this particular religion is an official religion of a country is more troubling, but that's the fault of the citizens for allowing a religion to have official governmental status.

[The Black Guardian]

Well, religion should be able to exclude whomever it wants, but if it were left to me, a woman would have an equal chance of being Pope, Dalai Lama, etc. etc. etc.

The Church of England just proved themselves to be as utterly stupid as I've always known every religious institution to be, but it's no skin off my back. /shrug

Among other concepts I'm completely fine with:
Muslim Dalai Lamas
Jewish Imams
Hindu Popes
And a bunch of other crazy stuff, but I don't think any of those groups are asking for my opinions.

[carabas]

I rather believe there should be no bishops at all, but if we absolutely have to have theù, let's make them unisex.

[Charles RB]

Williams is right: the country looks at twelve years of arguing "should women be allowed to have high-ranking jobs", because let's face it that's all this is when you boil it down, and after all that fire and fury we get a vote and for want of six people in one house of three, it doesn't happen even though the majority of the Church obviously backs it (again, six votes way), and they say "that's stupid". And when the Church is already in decline, it can't afford to look that stupid.

[dupont2005]

I can't say I'm shocked that a religious institution practices misogyny.
Before someone says "That's not misogyny!" - Yes it is.

[inferno]

Small potatoes considering they already have a Queen.

[Kieran_Frost]

Small potatoes considering they already have a Queen.

I'm not sure I follow your logic...???

All religion is completely arbitrary. They should be able to make any arbitrary rules they want (as long as they aren't breaking local laws), because that's the whole point of religion: arbitrary rules for the purpose of controlling behavior. If people don't like it, they should pick another religion or make up a new one. The fact that this particular religion is an official religion of a country is more troubling, but that's the fault of the citizens for allowing a religion to have official governmental status.

It's not so much "governmental status" as it is a religion founded by the country. The Queens head of the CofE, not the Prime Minister. I don't believe (but I could be wrong) the Church of England gets funding from the government, for example (but truthful I don't know).

[Spike-X]

It's not so much "governmental status" as it is a religion founded by the country.

Founded specifically to allow the king at the time to divorce.

And now they have the nerve to complain about others wanting to "redefine marriage".

[SUPERECWFAN1]

I had never realized women didn't have the right to being Bishop yet. I had always thought nowadays they had that right over there in the Church. The things ya learn.

[Paradox]

Kieran_Frost should know:

I'm not sure I follow your logic...???

Logic and inferno have nothing to do with each other. He's an annoying, fact-challenged conspiracy nut. He's best ignored.

[Kieran_Frost]

Founded specifically to allow the king at the time to divorce.
And now they have the nerve to complain about others wanting to "redefine marriage".

I do appreciate the irony of that claim, indeed I do. But gay marriage will pass here soon; we already have civil unions, it's only a matter of time.

[The Black Guardian]

It's not so much "governmental status" as it is a religion founded by the country. The Queens head of the CofE, not the Prime Minister. I don't believe (but I could be wrong) the Church of England gets funding from the government, for example (but truthful I don't know).

Well, not because of its official status, anyway. And while technically true, its official status does grant it legal and financial privileges beyond other religions and organizations. Until quite recently, it was criminal to be blasphemous against the Church of England, and it still is a crime to disrupt the church.

Oh, and if you're not of the Church of England, you can forget ever being King/Queen. It cannot happen under law. And the King/Queen cannot marry a Catholic.