On Monday the Church of England issued a letter urging the bishops who sit in the House of Lords to vote against the Sexual Orientations Regulations. They hope that if all 26 of the lords attend and vote they will be able to defeat this Bill (well delay it). The Church would prefer too see an exception in this bill aimed at irradiating discrimination for religious institutions. This would allow them to continue to discriminate. Though, what is the point of an anti-discrimination law if you allow caveats? The elected commons has seen the ill logic in allowing an exemption and voted not to include one. That said, I have no problem with the expression of religious views, but it is when the church tries to make it’s own opinion everyone else’s by enshrining it in legislation that it becomes a problem. We have a very bizarre mix of church and state in this country and perhaps it is time, as Lord Carey has suggested, that the church be disestablished. Conflicts like this emphasise that Religion and politics do not mix.
Aside, the homosexual question seems to be crippling the Christian institution in the west. The ordination of a gay bishop has driven the Church into a schism and even to contemplate a radical shift towards Rome. The Church, threatening mass closures of adoption agencies and schools, further reflects the institution’s obsession with our genitals, even to the point where they are willing to deprive society with services for the most needy. The Church, of both denominations, should be concerned with the enduring Christian values such as charity and caring for the sick, as a way of re-engaging with a lost public. They should do this without feeling so insecure that they need to impose their bigotry on everyone else.
This latest conflict shows that it may indeed be time to disestablish the Church, perhaps by House of Lord’s reform first thus removing the 26 bishops.
25/03/2007 at 17:20 |
If you disestablish the Church of England, you are effectively dismantling centuries of cultural tradition. The established Church is one of the few factors in this modern secular world that ties down our legislature to some sort of moral grounding.
Bigotry? No. The Church of England and the Catholic Church are simply going along with their faith, their scriptures, their traditions. Now, they are standing up not just for their own beliefs, but for freedom: freedom of conscience, freedom of expression. When it comes to adoption agencies, it’s standing up for the values of the traditional family. This is something the modern Tory Party is also very keen on, which is why I was very disappointed when Cameron rallied a number of his colleagues to vote in favour of this bill.
A radical shift towards Rome? In what way does opposing this bill mean a “shift towards Rome”? The Anglican Church has NEVER supported homosexuality or any sexual uniformity bill of this kind. For once, the Church is standing up for itself and traditional Christianity, something it hasn’t done at all in recent years.
Obsession with our genitals? The Church of England is one of the most liberal churches in the world when it comes to sexuality. That’s why one of the US wings is threatening to split.
Furthermore, the Anglican Church is by no means attempting to impose its will on others. No: it’s standing up for the right of individuals to express their consciences. If an owner of a B&B doesn’t want gay couples staying in order to keep it as a ‘family place’, good luck to him. Who are you or the Government to say whether he’s right or wrong?
The most ludicrous argument I’ve heard and/or read is that this is somehow related to the Race Relations legislation. You can’t help what you are; you can help what you do.
28/03/2007 at 15:40 |
the point about dis establishing the church is an argument made by former archbishop of canterbury Lord Carey it was his suggestion that the church could better exercise its “conscious” if it was not tied so closely to the legislature. the main point of the blog is to highlight the absurdity of creating a anti discrimination law that allows for discrimination.
the shift towards rome comment is in relation to the troubles the anglican church is in at the moment and it was released recently that the traditional wing of the communion had considered a reunion under the pope.
the church is obsessed with genitals because of the very fact it is creeping toward schism over that very issue who we sleep with.
i did not link this bill to any race legislation, the adoption clauses in part of the provisions on services act, which aims at irradicating discrimination towards homosexuals in the provision of goods. this is right because our elected parliment has allowed homosexuals the right to adopt and marry, therefore they should be treated the same by adoption agencies who operate in this country.
your last point is quite mis guided in its assumption that beiung gay is a choice, you do not choose to be it therefore should be intitled to equal treatment by the state. the church is free to express its conscious but it is not free to have such a huge influence in our legislative body.