Saturday, 24 November 2012

The Game of Ironic Ultimatums

Let's play the game of "Ironic Ultimatums"

"So because one-third of the Laity in the Synod voted against this strategy for introducing women bishops, we'll ban the bishops (who are in favour of it) from the Lords.

Because we don't like the results of your democratic system, we'll ban you from our system. The one we appoint our friends to when they've been voted out, so we can make sure they've a job for life.

So if you don't change your mind, and vote the same way as the people you don't agree with, we'll take the limited power they have away from the people that you don't agree with....."

Of course, these will be the bishops that the Laity who voted against, voted against. And since, by definition, they think those bishops are a bunch of liberals, that will worry this particularly bunch of Laity... how much?

The people against women bishops must be quaking in their boots. It's good of politicians to give the Church of England freedom to decide, as long as it agrees with the politicians.

Meanwhile Frank Field has tabled a motion that, uniquely among religious movements, the Church of England should not to be allowed to discriminate on the grounds of gender. Will he be in breach of Equalities legislation himself should he win?


  1. I could do with having the workings of Synod explained to me in words of one syllawibble, because I don't understand why the Laity don't vote just as their dioceses tell 'em to*. I think I speak for the majority of the country here.

    My reaction to the vote: CHIZ! DOUBLE CHIZ!!

    love Mags B x

    *apologies to W S Gilbert. Iolanthe: still relevant.

  2. Can I read this again tomorrow morning when I haven't had a couple of glasses of red? I would really like to to post what I really think but fortunately I haven't had quite enough to drink to do that :) Suffice to say I have a lovely purple scarf I shall be wearing to Church tomorrow.

  3. Surely if the bishops are consistent in opposing discrimination on the grounds of gender, they should ban themselves for having been selected in a discriminatory manner - except of course for the two or three who opposed the Measure. Which would mean a 2/3 majority in the House of Bishops against women bishops. Then the House of Clergy would be the odd ones out, but maybe the others could find a way to ban all the women from that to make the Houses unanimous - in opposition to those other two Houses across the street in Westminster. Who knows what can happen? "Those whom the gods wish to destroy they first make mad."

  4. MagsB - because that would remove the possibility that the Holy Spirit might actually change someone's mind during debate. In fact, it would remove any rationale for debate at all.

  5. So this demolition of a government is wading in. Tell me again: what proportion of the population elected them?


Drop a thoughtful pebble in the comments bowl