Church of England general synod votes against women bishops

tecoyah said:

I ask then...how do we define a party stance without incorporating the individuals and platform that it submits as its stance? Do we use history? As this does not represent the current stance, but instead the past.

Click to expand...

tecoyah said:

Yes, reproductive rights as defined by the highest court our country has. As well as access to healthcare that is unique to the gender, trying to force unneeded and humiliating personal invasions, using legislation to hamper access to screenings and medical proceedures permitted under law.

This is not an abortion debate, as that has been settled by the SCOTUS. This is an attack on the law, based on personal opinion in the guise of Zoning, Protection, and dishonesty.

Click to expand...

myp said:

If it is a casual discussion, something like "some of the X party" or "this group of the X party" or just straightup "candidate X" would suffice. In a more rigorous discussion, you pull out the numbers from reliable polls/statistical analyses.



First off, not ever Republican is against Roe v. Wade, so you still can't stereotype that. Second, if we were to define a fetus as human life, then all of a sudden maybe Roe v. Wade has to be overturned because it allows for murder. That is their viewpoint. I do not agree with the viewpoint because I think the human life point is arguable, but I can understand why someone would stand by it. It is not like it is the first time any member of either party has had an issue with what is the law. We have had Constitutional amendments for one which not only questioned the Supreme Court's past decisions, but questioned the entire basis of what the Supreme Court should be standing by.


And all this aside, even if you think 100% of Republicans are one way on this issue, by framing it in a context that makes their viewpoint seem evil or wrong, you are polarizing them. You are not trying to get them to think about it or open to discussion, but you are just making them feel vilified. We see this in election season way too much and is one reason why those with strong convictions tend to stay with their one side no matter what. It turns into an "us" vs. "them" game. I just don't think it accomplishes much.

Click to expand...

myp said:

And all this aside, even if you think 100% of Republicans are one way on this issue, by framing it in a context that makes their viewpoint seem evil or wrong, you are polarizing them. You are not trying to get them to think about it or open to discussion, but you are just making them feel vilified. We see this in election season way too much and is one reason why those with strong convictions tend to stay with their one side no matter what. It turns into an "us" vs. "them" game. I just don't think it accomplishes much.

Click to expand...

=Zoomer= said:

There is far more Socialism in Utah than any other state in this country. The difference is, it's administered by the Church instead of the State. The 10% church tax is automatically deducted from a Mormon's paycheck in MOST cases (not all), and about 20% of it redistributed to the needy. The rest is divided into church expansion (missionary work), and profit, which is invested. In my view this is "religious persecution" of those that do not wish to take part in "affirming" the validity of religion. Personally, I don't wish to feel "beholden" to something I don't believe in just because I'm having some bad luck.

That said, the vast majority of Mormons here are "conservative", and do vote Republican. So in my opinion it's no stretch at all to link the 2.

Click to expand...

Iolo said:

I see what you mean. The difference, I suppose, is that the C of E is a 'national' church in England (not in the rest of the UK) and is therefore bound to involve itself in what is happening to everyone, because, at least theoretically, they are responsible for them still. Relatives of mine are in the Church of the Latter Day Saints over there, but, on the whole, I prefer Anglicanism, which tends to the scholarly and decent, though I have for some time been accustomed to attend Quaker meetings, a habit I have recently given up.

Click to expand...

=Zoomer= said:

I'm not familiar with what it means for a church to be a "national" one. Does that mean that it has some enforceable jurisdiction over everyone in the surrounding area, or what (just looking to understand!)

Does that mean that those that don't believe, or believe something else are obliged to obey their rules?

Click to expand...

Cerise said:

A very interesting interpretation.
Tell me, do you see the recent vote as humiliation for female clergy?

Click to expand...

Hammer said:

The recent vote shouldn't be the least bit humiliating for female clergy, who shouldn't be clergy in the first place. It's not any sort of judgement on any of them personally.

Click to expand...

" who shouldn't be clergy in the first place"

Click to expand...

tecoyah said:

Perhaps...but as a general rule, when I do stereotype it has a basis in observation. The Church has made it clear for centuries that women do not have the same standing within its structure.

The Republican stance on Womens rights here does very much the same thing. By denying a woman the position of Bishop based purely on gender, or denying a woman the ability to established rights under law....both create an observed agenda that projects a gender bias.

Click to expand...