Michael Scott-Joynt, the Bishop of Winchester, has written an article for The Guardian in which he explains that the six Lords Spiritual in the House of Lords voted against amendments to the Equality Bill in order to preserve religious pluralism.
Now, agree or disagree, it is internally consistent to argue that the preservation of religious pluralism requires that religious bodies have the ability to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation.
Here's the problem. One of the proposed amendments that +Winton and the other Lords Spiritual present voted against would have allowed the registration of civil partnerships (ie, marriage-like unions which can include same sex relationships) to be conducted in religious houses of worship.
Now, let's be clear. The amendment did NOT say that religious bodies would have been REQUIRED to have anything to do with civil partnerships. It merely allowed religious bodies that choice.
Three religious bodies in the UK - Quakers, Unitarians and Liberal Jews - have indicated that they want the option to perform civil partnership rites in their houses of worship.
But in the name of religious pluralism, +Winton and his ecclesiastical cronies decided that the rights of Quakers, Unitarians and Liberal Jews don't count.
+Winton received a BA (1965) and an MA (1968) from King's College, Cambridge.
Apparently you can get a BA and an MA from Cambridge while still failing to grasp the fundamentals of logic.
If I were the Provost of Kings, I think I'd be asking +Winton to turn back his degree in order to preserve the credibility of the institution.
8 comments:
How big the three groups are, of course, is beside the point. They are all legitimate religious bodies.
Certain homophobic bishops of the Church of England have declared, essentially, that the free exercise of religion by other religious bodies is dependent on the agreement of the established Church.
If Michael Winton is too stupid to grasp that his position is the very opposite of what he pretends it is, then he's too stupid to hold an MA from any post-secondary institution, let alone Cambridge.
If he realizes that his position on the rights of these other bodies is completely at odds with the religious pluralism he pretends to promote, then he is a rogue and a liar, completely unfit to be a bishop,
Assuming he's an idiot is actually the more charitable option.
The issue being discussed here is NOT whether there should be gay marriage or civil partnerships.
The issue being discussed here is whether the established Church should be able to dictate to other religious groups what the can or cannot bless.
- Civil partnerships exist in the UK.
- Some religious bodies in the UK want to perform civil partnership rites in their places of worship.
- To deny these religious organizations the right to conduct such rites is a primae facie violation of their religious freedom.
- The Bishop of Winchester and five of his equally dim mates insisted on violating the religious freedom of Quakers, Unitarians and Liberal Jews.
- +Winton claimed that violating the rights of Quakers, Unitarians and Liberal Jews was necessary to protect the free exercise of religion.
And, btw, wrt "the majority of people in Canada/the US" are in favor of gay rights/marriage" - I've never used that argument to say the Church should do anything. It's a silly argument.
Otoh, "Liberal Jews, Quakers and Unitarians make up about 2.3% of the British population" is a pretty poor argument to support the violation of their religious freedom.
In principle, yes. Establishment is damaging to both the Church and the State.
Ironically, though, I believe that establishment will, at the end of the day, kill the proposed Anglican Covenant stone dead - sweet fruit from a rotted tree.
I may be a little thick... not having received an MA from Cambridge, but I thought that same sex marriages were the law of the land in the UK? I suppose I should say that there is no distinction in marriage in the UK (regardless of the sex of the individuals being married). With the Church of England being "the Church of England" is the body not required, by law, to conform to the laws set forth by Parliament? I would think that the "separation of church and state" in Canada is how the churches can get away with not performing the civil union...it is after all a civil union, but how does the CofE get away with it?
You're slightly off, Alan. Civile partnerships, while for all intents and purposes the same as marriage, are not marriage.
That said, the suggestion that other Churches should be prevented from the free exercise of religion in the name of religious freedom is primae facie evidence that the Bishop of Winchester is either a fool or a liar.
Post a Comment