Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Biden slipping in the WH2024 betting – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 8,489
edited January 22 in General
imageBiden slipping in the WH2024 betting – politicalbetting.com

After all the fuss about Donald Trump and top secret documents the current president Joe Biden appears to have done something similar by taking classified documents home.

Read the full story here

«1345

Comments

  • WillGWillG Posts: 976
    Sean_F said:

    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    Cookie said:

    HYUFD said:

    DJ41 said:

    Cookie said:

    HYUFD said:

    Cookie said:

    HYUFD said:

    It should have been Penny.

    Penny Mordaunt has urged Church of England bishops to allow gay marriage ahead of their historic vote, marking the first intervention by a cabinet minister on the issue.

    Ms Mordaunt, Leader of the House of Commons and MP for Portsmouth North, has written to the Bishop of Portsmouth, calling on him to to “recognize the pain and trauma” that failure to recognise same-sex marriage causes to “many LGBT+ people who are left feeling that they are treated as second class citizens within our society”.

    Currently, according to canon law, no Church of England minister can bless or marry gay couples. Ms Mordaunt’s interjection marks the first time that a serving cabinet secretary has called for the issue to be reformed within the Church of England. She also warned that if bishops failed to approve same-sex marriage, the issue would only “fester and detract” from any positive contribution from the institution.

    Her comments also come as next month, bishops will present their long-awaited findings to the General Synod – the Church’s legislative body – on whether the ban on gay marriage could be overturned.


    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/01/16/penny-mordaunt-urges-church-england-allow-gay-marriages/

    Given a 2/3 majority for major change is needed in the House of Bishops, House of Clergy and House of Laity, I doubt there will be drastic change at Synod next month.

    Evangelicals will block full endorsement of homosexual marriage and liberals will block retaining only a biblical Old Testament, Pauline view of marriage as between a man and woman.

    So as with women priests or divorcee marriage I expect a fudge.

    Church of England priests who want to bless same sex couples marriages will be able to, those who don't won't be forced to.

    There may even be more flying Bishops in the Church of England as there are now for Parishes which don't agree with women priests
    The problem, in my view, isn't a fusty church failing to reflect modern values. If Christian values (or values of any other religion) reflect the preferences of aj ineffable God, it seems unlikely to me that that God - who, if we are to believe the church, has been pretty anti-gay for tge last two millenia - has now changed his mind. What seems more likely is that the church doesn't really know, and never knew, what God thinks on any given subject, but knows what society thinks and is desperately trying to reflect that back.
    So the problem isn't that the church is wrong, it's that we listen to the church at all. We shouldn't be telling it what to think or do, we should be gently removing it from the decision-making process.
    Western society you mean. In most of Africa and Asia there is no legal homosexual marriage, same with most of Eastern Europe and Italy and in some parts of North Africa and the Middle East and South Asia homosexuality is still illegal.

    For those who are members of churches the position of that Church is significant. If the Church of England as the established church in England allows its clergy to conduct same sex marriage in England if they wish that will be a significant moment (Jesus for example never said anything against homosexual marriage)
    But the church in those places is imply reflecting those societies' value back at it too.
    The problem is not that the church's - any church's views are 'wrong' - it is that the church doesn't have the insight it claims into what 'right' and 'wrong' are: the fact that its views are so mutable, and always seem to match the views of the society it operates within, suggest very strongly that it doesn't 'know' what God thinks, it is just winging it based on what it thinks society wants to hear. It is therefore adding no value to the decision making process.
    I'm not saying religion should be abolished - I do think it has a value - but that value isn't to the decision making process. Those of us who don't believe should neither tell those who do what they should think, nor pay any mind to what churches think the 'right' course of action is - because they have no more insight than anyone else.
    Disestablish.
    Don't let religious organisations act as state registrars.
    Obviously let people get married in any religious ceremony they want. Just make them go to the registry office afterwards if they want a state-registered marriage.
    Of course churches should be allowed to say what they think is right and wrong. (And perhaps they do sometimes have more insight than those who don't think much about what's right and what's wrong. I'll judge that on each issue.)

    No because if the Church of England allows homosexual marriages by its priests then the moment you disestablish the Roman Catholic Church, which takes a much harder anti gay marriage line, almost certainly becomes the largest Christian church in England within a decade again.

    So you end up with an even harder line national Christian Church than you have now.

    I also as a member of the Church of England would object to being forced to go to a registry office service I don't see as validating my marriage as well as the C of E service I do think validated it
    But the Catholic Church doesn't become the national church, because:
    1) If the CofE is any good, it will retain its numbers. And if it isn't, it doesn't deserve to stay as the 'national church'; but more importantly
    2) in the scenario DJ41 describes, we don't have a national church at all. The secular majority simply stop listening to what the church say. The churches are free to say whatever they want, but the rest of us don't have to pay them any heed.

    Do you object to registering the birth of your child in a registry office? If not, why would you object to registering your marriage? It only needs to be a 5 minute job telling the state about it. You can still celebrate it, properly, in as much depth as you consider appropriate, in a church, in front of your friends, family and God. A quick trip to Epping Registry office with your new wife when you return from honeymoon to fill in a form doesn't strike me as onerous.
    Yes it does. In virtually every other nation where Christians are the majority or plurality religious group, the Roman Catholic Church is the largest religious denomination. The only other exceptions are nations like Denmark where the Lutheran Church of Denmark is the established church or South Africa or Ghana where Pentecostal evangelical churches are the largest Christian group.

    If the Church of England was disestablished most of the Anglo Catholics would become Roman Catholic and most of the evangelicals would become Pentecostal or Baptist as is the case in the USA for example where the Episcopalian Church is a smaller largely liberal church with hardline evangelicals and Catholics pushing against abortion and gay marriage.

    The latter of course means the Christian churches become increasingly pushing a political agenda and free of being established don't give a toss what the secular majority think. Indeed with immigrants tending to be more socially conservative Christians and Muslims too.

    Signing a form to register your child is not the same as having to have a second baptism service at a registry office

    Russia?
    Well the Eastern Orthodox Church is basically the Roman Catholic Church just with a Patriarch not Pope and even more ornate ceremony
    Okaaaayyyyyy....

    I clearly missed that time the Catholics allowed lay clergy below the rank of bishop to marry.
    Michael Cerularius would be spinning in his grave at HYUFD's comments.
    I am actually with HYUFD here. The Orthodox and Catholic feud is the narcissism of small differences. They are both the remaining State Church of the Roman Empire. A bit like Italian and Spanish both being legacy vulgar Latin.

    Where I don't agree is the conflating of Pauline marriage and Old Testament marriage. Pauline marriage is the Roman view: the strict lifelong monogamy as demanded by Jesus, but with added homophobia. Old Testament marriage allowed hundreds of wives, plus concubines, plus sex slaves. That's worst than Muslim marriage, which is up to four wives plus sex slaves. Ironically the adaption from polygamy to monogamy between the OT and the NT is exactly the mindset of the religious establishment adapting the views of God to contemporary society that the Anglicans are now doing today.
  • WillGWillG Posts: 976
    P.S. Down with this "first" nonsense.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 107,356
    The latest Morning Consult poll has Biden tied with DeSantis 43% each but leading Trump 44% to 41%

    https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 25,298
    edited January 16
    WillG said:

    P.S. Down with this "first" nonsense.

    Fourth.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 38,072
    FPT @DJ41

    DJ41 said:

    » show previous quotes
    I hope in those circumstances you'd make a donation towards the emigration funds of the poor souls who were bright enough to realise that independence would be muck and therefore to vote against it.

    Only spineless lickspittle morons would vote against it. What kind of crawling creature wants or needs someone else to ru(i)n their affairs, spend their money the way they want and tell you what you will and will not do. Vile useless creatures who deserve to be spineless and crawl on their bellies. I spit on the graves of such cowardly scum.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 32,309
    edited January 16
    WillG said:

    Sean_F said:

    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    Cookie said:

    HYUFD said:

    DJ41 said:

    Cookie said:

    HYUFD said:

    Cookie said:

    HYUFD said:

    It should have been Penny.

    Penny Mordaunt has urged Church of England bishops to allow gay marriage ahead of their historic vote, marking the first intervention by a cabinet minister on the issue.

    Ms Mordaunt, Leader of the House of Commons and MP for Portsmouth North, has written to the Bishop of Portsmouth, calling on him to to “recognize the pain and trauma” that failure to recognise same-sex marriage causes to “many LGBT+ people who are left feeling that they are treated as second class citizens within our society”.

    Currently, according to canon law, no Church of England minister can bless or marry gay couples. Ms Mordaunt’s interjection marks the first time that a serving cabinet secretary has called for the issue to be reformed within the Church of England. She also warned that if bishops failed to approve same-sex marriage, the issue would only “fester and detract” from any positive contribution from the institution.

    Her comments also come as next month, bishops will present their long-awaited findings to the General Synod – the Church’s legislative body – on whether the ban on gay marriage could be overturned.


    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/01/16/penny-mordaunt-urges-church-england-allow-gay-marriages/

    Given a 2/3 majority for major change is needed in the House of Bishops, House of Clergy and House of Laity, I doubt there will be drastic change at Synod next month.

    Evangelicals will block full endorsement of homosexual marriage and liberals will block retaining only a biblical Old Testament, Pauline view of marriage as between a man and woman.

    So as with women priests or divorcee marriage I expect a fudge.

    Church of England priests who want to bless same sex couples marriages will be able to, those who don't won't be forced to.

    There may even be more flying Bishops in the Church of England as there are now for Parishes which don't agree with women priests
    The problem, in my view, isn't a fusty church failing to reflect modern values. If Christian values (or values of any other religion) reflect the preferences of aj ineffable God, it seems unlikely to me that that God - who, if we are to believe the church, has been pretty anti-gay for tge last two millenia - has now changed his mind. What seems more likely is that the church doesn't really know, and never knew, what God thinks on any given subject, but knows what society thinks and is desperately trying to reflect that back.
    So the problem isn't that the church is wrong, it's that we listen to the church at all. We shouldn't be telling it what to think or do, we should be gently removing it from the decision-making process.
    Western society you mean. In most of Africa and Asia there is no legal homosexual marriage, same with most of Eastern Europe and Italy and in some parts of North Africa and the Middle East and South Asia homosexuality is still illegal.

    For those who are members of churches the position of that Church is significant. If the Church of England as the established church in England allows its clergy to conduct same sex marriage in England if they wish that will be a significant moment (Jesus for example never said anything against homosexual marriage)
    But the church in those places is imply reflecting those societies' value back at it too.
    The problem is not that the church's - any church's views are 'wrong' - it is that the church doesn't have the insight it claims into what 'right' and 'wrong' are: the fact that its views are so mutable, and always seem to match the views of the society it operates within, suggest very strongly that it doesn't 'know' what God thinks, it is just winging it based on what it thinks society wants to hear. It is therefore adding no value to the decision making process.
    I'm not saying religion should be abolished - I do think it has a value - but that value isn't to the decision making process. Those of us who don't believe should neither tell those who do what they should think, nor pay any mind to what churches think the 'right' course of action is - because they have no more insight than anyone else.
    Disestablish.
    Don't let religious organisations act as state registrars.
    Obviously let people get married in any religious ceremony they want. Just make them go to the registry office afterwards if they want a state-registered marriage.
    Of course churches should be allowed to say what they think is right and wrong. (And perhaps they do sometimes have more insight than those who don't think much about what's right and what's wrong. I'll judge that on each issue.)

    No because if the Church of England allows homosexual marriages by its priests then the moment you disestablish the Roman Catholic Church, which takes a much harder anti gay marriage line, almost certainly becomes the largest Christian church in England within a decade again.

    So you end up with an even harder line national Christian Church than you have now.

    I also as a member of the Church of England would object to being forced to go to a registry office service I don't see as validating my marriage as well as the C of E service I do think validated it
    But the Catholic Church doesn't become the national church, because:
    1) If the CofE is any good, it will retain its numbers. And if it isn't, it doesn't deserve to stay as the 'national church'; but more importantly
    2) in the scenario DJ41 describes, we don't have a national church at all. The secular majority simply stop listening to what the church say. The churches are free to say whatever they want, but the rest of us don't have to pay them any heed.

    Do you object to registering the birth of your child in a registry office? If not, why would you object to registering your marriage? It only needs to be a 5 minute job telling the state about it. You can still celebrate it, properly, in as much depth as you consider appropriate, in a church, in front of your friends, family and God. A quick trip to Epping Registry office with your new wife when you return from honeymoon to fill in a form doesn't strike me as onerous.
    Yes it does. In virtually every other nation where Christians are the majority or plurality religious group, the Roman Catholic Church is the largest religious denomination. The only other exceptions are nations like Denmark where the Lutheran Church of Denmark is the established church or South Africa or Ghana where Pentecostal evangelical churches are the largest Christian group.

    If the Church of England was disestablished most of the Anglo Catholics would become Roman Catholic and most of the evangelicals would become Pentecostal or Baptist as is the case in the USA for example where the Episcopalian Church is a smaller largely liberal church with hardline evangelicals and Catholics pushing against abortion and gay marriage.

    The latter of course means the Christian churches become increasingly pushing a political agenda and free of being established don't give a toss what the secular majority think. Indeed with immigrants tending to be more socially conservative Christians and Muslims too.

    Signing a form to register your child is not the same as having to have a second baptism service at a registry office

    Russia?
    Well the Eastern Orthodox Church is basically the Roman Catholic Church just with a Patriarch not Pope and even more ornate ceremony
    Okaaaayyyyyy....

    I clearly missed that time the Catholics allowed lay clergy below the rank of bishop to marry.
    Michael Cerularius would be spinning in his grave at HYUFD's comments.
    I am actually with HYUFD here. The Orthodox and Catholic feud is the narcissism of small differences. They are both the remaining State Church of the Roman Empire. A bit like Italian and Spanish both being legacy vulgar Latin.

    Where I don't agree is the conflating of Pauline marriage and Old Testament marriage. Pauline marriage is the Roman view: the strict lifelong monogamy as demanded by Jesus, but with added homophobia. Old Testament marriage allowed hundreds of wives, plus concubines, plus sex slaves. That's worst than Muslim marriage, which is up to four wives plus sex slaves. Ironically the adaption from polygamy to monogamy between the OT and the NT is exactly the mindset of the religious establishment adapting the views of God to contemporary society that the Anglicans are now doing today.
    The Jews were strictly monogamous, though, long before the New Testament was written.

    Nero was the first Roman to marry a member of the same sex, poor Sporus, who was castrated for the occasion. His fate was a nightmare. Both Nymphidius Sabinus and Otho kept him as a sex slave, and he committed suicide upon learning that Vitellius planned to have him publicly raped in the arena.
  • DJ41DJ41 Posts: 792
    edited January 16
    One of the scariest scenarios is if Biden falls on his sword for the good of the Democratic party, giving Harris a run as the incumbent.

    Against Trump, Harris might perform less well than Hillary did in 2016, being like a red rag to the entire f*ckwit part of US society not only because she is non-white but also because she has some charisma unlike Hillary.

    Same goes for if Biden serves out his term, but even more so if he doesn't.

    I don't reckon Biden will stand for re-election. He could come too big a cropper in the campaign. A lot with Trump is already priced in, barring actual jail time. A big thank you to all the Republican senators who voted for acquittal at his second impeachment trial.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 47,316
    (FPT)
    kinabalu said:

    Cookie said:

    kinabalu said:

    Scott_xP said:

    @robpowellnews: Hello!

    HarperCollins Publishers acquires memoir by former Prime Minister Boris Johnson

    No publication date has yet been set.

    🤑🤑

    It's the upfront dosh he needs. As the second or third deadline approaches he can knock up some old nonsense in a fortnight.

    The working titles for volumes 1 to 3 might be; "World beating governance", "Churchill, my part in his victory", " Brexit: The Haynes Manual".
    So is this being announced now because Boris knows he is entering the twilight of his political career, or because he doesn't see the conflict of interest in taking a massive advance for his memoirs when he is thinking of a second act?

    Could be both, I guess.
    I'd be very surprised if Boris knew what "a conflict of interest" is.
    His Memoirs will be reams of self-serving bullshit. Pass.
    To be fair, that's true of most senior politicians. At least Boris's will be written with a modicum of readability.
    If I want a snappy lurid read in a Memoir - which I often do - I'll go for something like Spare any day of the week over anything BoJo's likely to come up with. I just know what it'll be like. It'll be like him. More entertaining than your average politician but not actually that entertaining. More informative than your average clown but not actually that informative.
    "I never travel without my diary. One should always have something sensational to read in the train."...
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 11,240
    I've been steadfast in thinking that Biden is great value for 2024, because he's the incumbent, his administration isn't doing too badly, and he benefits from Trump's refusal to admit defeat.

    However, my wife and mother-in-law, both absolutely panned Biden for his age when they saw his statement on the documents found in his garage. I was really surprised at how critical and definite they were about it.

    I've long said that I expect a Biden vs Trump rematch in 2024, but does seem as though a lot of people will be very unhappy about that.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 107,356
    DJ41 said:

    One of the scariest scenarios is if Biden falls on his sword for the good of the Democratic party, giving Harris a run as the incumbent.

    Against Trump, Harris might perform less well than Hillary did in 2016, being like a red rag to the entire f*ckwit part of US society not only because she is non-white but also because she has some charisma unlike Hillary.

    I don't reckon Biden will stand for re-election. He could come too big a cropper in the campaign. A lot with Trump is already priced in, barring actual jail time. A big thank you to all the Republican senators who voted for acquittal during his second impeachment trial.

    I agree, Trump would beat Harris as would DeSantis.

    They might not beat Buttigieg though if Biden did not run for re election
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 107,356
    WillG said:

    Sean_F said:

    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    Cookie said:

    HYUFD said:

    DJ41 said:

    Cookie said:

    HYUFD said:

    Cookie said:

    HYUFD said:

    It should have been Penny.

    Penny Mordaunt has urged Church of England bishops to allow gay marriage ahead of their historic vote, marking the first intervention by a cabinet minister on the issue.

    Ms Mordaunt, Leader of the House of Commons and MP for Portsmouth North, has written to the Bishop of Portsmouth, calling on him to to “recognize the pain and trauma” that failure to recognise same-sex marriage causes to “many LGBT+ people who are left feeling that they are treated as second class citizens within our society”.

    Currently, according to canon law, no Church of England minister can bless or marry gay couples. Ms Mordaunt’s interjection marks the first time that a serving cabinet secretary has called for the issue to be reformed within the Church of England. She also warned that if bishops failed to approve same-sex marriage, the issue would only “fester and detract” from any positive contribution from the institution.

    Her comments also come as next month, bishops will present their long-awaited findings to the General Synod – the Church’s legislative body – on whether the ban on gay marriage could be overturned.


    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/01/16/penny-mordaunt-urges-church-england-allow-gay-marriages/

    Given a 2/3 majority for major change is needed in the House of Bishops, House of Clergy and House of Laity, I doubt there will be drastic change at Synod next month.

    Evangelicals will block full endorsement of homosexual marriage and liberals will block retaining only a biblical Old Testament, Pauline view of marriage as between a man and woman.

    So as with women priests or divorcee marriage I expect a fudge.

    Church of England priests who want to bless same sex couples marriages will be able to, those who don't won't be forced to.

    There may even be more flying Bishops in the Church of England as there are now for Parishes which don't agree with women priests
    The problem, in my view, isn't a fusty church failing to reflect modern values. If Christian values (or values of any other religion) reflect the preferences of aj ineffable God, it seems unlikely to me that that God - who, if we are to believe the church, has been pretty anti-gay for tge last two millenia - has now changed his mind. What seems more likely is that the church doesn't really know, and never knew, what God thinks on any given subject, but knows what society thinks and is desperately trying to reflect that back.
    So the problem isn't that the church is wrong, it's that we listen to the church at all. We shouldn't be telling it what to think or do, we should be gently removing it from the decision-making process.
    Western society you mean. In most of Africa and Asia there is no legal homosexual marriage, same with most of Eastern Europe and Italy and in some parts of North Africa and the Middle East and South Asia homosexuality is still illegal.

    For those who are members of churches the position of that Church is significant. If the Church of England as the established church in England allows its clergy to conduct same sex marriage in England if they wish that will be a significant moment (Jesus for example never said anything against homosexual marriage)
    But the church in those places is imply reflecting those societies' value back at it too.
    The problem is not that the church's - any church's views are 'wrong' - it is that the church doesn't have the insight it claims into what 'right' and 'wrong' are: the fact that its views are so mutable, and always seem to match the views of the society it operates within, suggest very strongly that it doesn't 'know' what God thinks, it is just winging it based on what it thinks society wants to hear. It is therefore adding no value to the decision making process.
    I'm not saying religion should be abolished - I do think it has a value - but that value isn't to the decision making process. Those of us who don't believe should neither tell those who do what they should think, nor pay any mind to what churches think the 'right' course of action is - because they have no more insight than anyone else.
    Disestablish.
    Don't let religious organisations act as state registrars.
    Obviously let people get married in any religious ceremony they want. Just make them go to the registry office afterwards if they want a state-registered marriage.
    Of course churches should be allowed to say what they think is right and wrong. (And perhaps they do sometimes have more insight than those who don't think much about what's right and what's wrong. I'll judge that on each issue.)

    No because if the Church of England allows homosexual marriages by its priests then the moment you disestablish the Roman Catholic Church, which takes a much harder anti gay marriage line, almost certainly becomes the largest Christian church in England within a decade again.

    So you end up with an even harder line national Christian Church than you have now.

    I also as a member of the Church of England would object to being forced to go to a registry office service I don't see as validating my marriage as well as the C of E service I do think validated it
    But the Catholic Church doesn't become the national church, because:
    1) If the CofE is any good, it will retain its numbers. And if it isn't, it doesn't deserve to stay as the 'national church'; but more importantly
    2) in the scenario DJ41 describes, we don't have a national church at all. The secular majority simply stop listening to what the church say. The churches are free to say whatever they want, but the rest of us don't have to pay them any heed.

    Do you object to registering the birth of your child in a registry office? If not, why would you object to registering your marriage? It only needs to be a 5 minute job telling the state about it. You can still celebrate it, properly, in as much depth as you consider appropriate, in a church, in front of your friends, family and God. A quick trip to Epping Registry office with your new wife when you return from honeymoon to fill in a form doesn't strike me as onerous.
    Yes it does. In virtually every other nation where Christians are the majority or plurality religious group, the Roman Catholic Church is the largest religious denomination. The only other exceptions are nations like Denmark where the Lutheran Church of Denmark is the established church or South Africa or Ghana where Pentecostal evangelical churches are the largest Christian group.

    If the Church of England was disestablished most of the Anglo Catholics would become Roman Catholic and most of the evangelicals would become Pentecostal or Baptist as is the case in the USA for example where the Episcopalian Church is a smaller largely liberal church with hardline evangelicals and Catholics pushing against abortion and gay marriage.

    The latter of course means the Christian churches become increasingly pushing a political agenda and free of being established don't give a toss what the secular majority think. Indeed with immigrants tending to be more socially conservative Christians and Muslims too.

    Signing a form to register your child is not the same as having to have a second baptism service at a registry office

    Russia?
    Well the Eastern Orthodox Church is basically the Roman Catholic Church just with a Patriarch not Pope and even more ornate ceremony
    Okaaaayyyyyy....

    I clearly missed that time the Catholics allowed lay clergy below the rank of bishop to marry.
    Michael Cerularius would be spinning in his grave at HYUFD's comments.
    I am actually with HYUFD here. The Orthodox and Catholic feud is the narcissism of small differences. They are both the remaining State Church of the Roman Empire. A bit like Italian and Spanish both being legacy vulgar Latin.

    Where I don't agree is the conflating of Pauline marriage and Old Testament marriage. Pauline marriage is the Roman view: the strict lifelong monogamy as demanded by Jesus, but with added homophobia. Old Testament marriage allowed hundreds of wives, plus concubines, plus sex slaves. That's worst than Muslim marriage, which is up to four wives plus sex slaves. Ironically the adaption from polygamy to monogamy between the OT and the NT is exactly the mindset of the religious establishment adapting the views of God to contemporary society that the Anglicans are now doing today.
    Depends which part, the Ten Commandments forbade adultery
  • SeaShantyIrish2SeaShantyIrish2 Posts: 11,082
    BTW, Happy MLK Day!

    FYI, IMHO only matter of time, before Andrew Jackson gets replaced on $20-bill, by Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

    Think George Washington keeps his spot on $1-bill, because, well, he's George Washington.

    As for Alexander Hamilton, he'd likely get cancelled from $10-bill HOWEVER he's saved by "Hamilton" the musical for another century or so.

    The $2-bill with Tom Jefferson so rare that no one cares.

    As for US Grant on $50-bill, his historical reputation is currently on upswing, which should help keep him around.

    The $100-bill aka "c-note" is preserve of Ben Franklin, and reckon always will be, thanks to fact that old Ben's reputation has rarely dimmed from generation to generation in American history and culture.

    And today the $100-bill is perhaps the closest thing the world has to a universal standard of monetary value?
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 49,020
    Buy the dip
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 11,036
    Sean_F said:

    WillG said:

    Sean_F said:

    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    Cookie said:

    HYUFD said:

    DJ41 said:

    Cookie said:

    HYUFD said:

    Cookie said:

    HYUFD said:

    It should have been Penny.

    Penny Mordaunt has urged Church of England bishops to allow gay marriage ahead of their historic vote, marking the first intervention by a cabinet minister on the issue.

    Ms Mordaunt, Leader of the House of Commons and MP for Portsmouth North, has written to the Bishop of Portsmouth, calling on him to to “recognize the pain and trauma” that failure to recognise same-sex marriage causes to “many LGBT+ people who are left feeling that they are treated as second class citizens within our society”.

    Currently, according to canon law, no Church of England minister can bless or marry gay couples. Ms Mordaunt’s interjection marks the first time that a serving cabinet secretary has called for the issue to be reformed within the Church of England. She also warned that if bishops failed to approve same-sex marriage, the issue would only “fester and detract” from any positive contribution from the institution.

    Her comments also come as next month, bishops will present their long-awaited findings to the General Synod – the Church’s legislative body – on whether the ban on gay marriage could be overturned.


    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/01/16/penny-mordaunt-urges-church-england-allow-gay-marriages/

    Given a 2/3 majority for major change is needed in the House of Bishops, House of Clergy and House of Laity, I doubt there will be drastic change at Synod next month.

    Evangelicals will block full endorsement of homosexual marriage and liberals will block retaining only a biblical Old Testament, Pauline view of marriage as between a man and woman.

    So as with women priests or divorcee marriage I expect a fudge.

    Church of England priests who want to bless same sex couples marriages will be able to, those who don't won't be forced to.

    There may even be more flying Bishops in the Church of England as there are now for Parishes which don't agree with women priests
    The problem, in my view, isn't a fusty church failing to reflect modern values. If Christian values (or values of any other religion) reflect the preferences of aj ineffable God, it seems unlikely to me that that God - who, if we are to believe the church, has been pretty anti-gay for tge last two millenia - has now changed his mind. What seems more likely is that the church doesn't really know, and never knew, what God thinks on any given subject, but knows what society thinks and is desperately trying to reflect that back.
    So the problem isn't that the church is wrong, it's that we listen to the church at all. We shouldn't be telling it what to think or do, we should be gently removing it from the decision-making process.
    Western society you mean. In most of Africa and Asia there is no legal homosexual marriage, same with most of Eastern Europe and Italy and in some parts of North Africa and the Middle East and South Asia homosexuality is still illegal.

    For those who are members of churches the position of that Church is significant. If the Church of England as the established church in England allows its clergy to conduct same sex marriage in England if they wish that will be a significant moment (Jesus for example never said anything against homosexual marriage)
    But the church in those places is imply reflecting those societies' value back at it too.
    The problem is not that the church's - any church's views are 'wrong' - it is that the church doesn't have the insight it claims into what 'right' and 'wrong' are: the fact that its views are so mutable, and always seem to match the views of the society it operates within, suggest very strongly that it doesn't 'know' what God thinks, it is just winging it based on what it thinks society wants to hear. It is therefore adding no value to the decision making process.
    I'm not saying religion should be abolished - I do think it has a value - but that value isn't to the decision making process. Those of us who don't believe should neither tell those who do what they should think, nor pay any mind to what churches think the 'right' course of action is - because they have no more insight than anyone else.
    Disestablish.
    Don't let religious organisations act as state registrars.
    Obviously let people get married in any religious ceremony they want. Just make them go to the registry office afterwards if they want a state-registered marriage.
    Of course churches should be allowed to say what they think is right and wrong. (And perhaps they do sometimes have more insight than those who don't think much about what's right and what's wrong. I'll judge that on each issue.)

    No because if the Church of England allows homosexual marriages by its priests then the moment you disestablish the Roman Catholic Church, which takes a much harder anti gay marriage line, almost certainly becomes the largest Christian church in England within a decade again.

    So you end up with an even harder line national Christian Church than you have now.

    I also as a member of the Church of England would object to being forced to go to a registry office service I don't see as validating my marriage as well as the C of E service I do think validated it
    But the Catholic Church doesn't become the national church, because:
    1) If the CofE is any good, it will retain its numbers. And if it isn't, it doesn't deserve to stay as the 'national church'; but more importantly
    2) in the scenario DJ41 describes, we don't have a national church at all. The secular majority simply stop listening to what the church say. The churches are free to say whatever they want, but the rest of us don't have to pay them any heed.

    Do you object to registering the birth of your child in a registry office? If not, why would you object to registering your marriage? It only needs to be a 5 minute job telling the state about it. You can still celebrate it, properly, in as much depth as you consider appropriate, in a church, in front of your friends, family and God. A quick trip to Epping Registry office with your new wife when you return from honeymoon to fill in a form doesn't strike me as onerous.
    Yes it does. In virtually every other nation where Christians are the majority or plurality religious group, the Roman Catholic Church is the largest religious denomination. The only other exceptions are nations like Denmark where the Lutheran Church of Denmark is the established church or South Africa or Ghana where Pentecostal evangelical churches are the largest Christian group.

    If the Church of England was disestablished most of the Anglo Catholics would become Roman Catholic and most of the evangelicals would become Pentecostal or Baptist as is the case in the USA for example where the Episcopalian Church is a smaller largely liberal church with hardline evangelicals and Catholics pushing against abortion and gay marriage.

    The latter of course means the Christian churches become increasingly pushing a political agenda and free of being established don't give a toss what the secular majority think. Indeed with immigrants tending to be more socially conservative Christians and Muslims too.

    Signing a form to register your child is not the same as having to have a second baptism service at a registry office

    Russia?
    Well the Eastern Orthodox Church is basically the Roman Catholic Church just with a Patriarch not Pope and even more ornate ceremony
    Okaaaayyyyyy....

    I clearly missed that time the Catholics allowed lay clergy below the rank of bishop to marry.
    Michael Cerularius would be spinning in his grave at HYUFD's comments.
    I am actually with HYUFD here. The Orthodox and Catholic feud is the narcissism of small differences. They are both the remaining State Church of the Roman Empire. A bit like Italian and Spanish both being legacy vulgar Latin.

    Where I don't agree is the conflating of Pauline marriage and Old Testament marriage. Pauline marriage is the Roman view: the strict lifelong monogamy as demanded by Jesus, but with added homophobia. Old Testament marriage allowed hundreds of wives, plus concubines, plus sex slaves. That's worst than Muslim marriage, which is up to four wives plus sex slaves. Ironically the adaption from polygamy to monogamy between the OT and the NT is exactly the mindset of the religious establishment adapting the views of God to contemporary society that the Anglicans are now doing today.
    The Jews were strictly monogamous, though, long before the New Testament was written.

    Nero was the first Roman to marry a member of the same sex, poor Sporus, who was castrated for the occasion. His fate was a nightmare. Both Nymphidius Sabinus and Otho kept him as a sex slave, and he committed suicide upon learning that Vitellius planned to have him publicly raped in the arena.
    Blimey, the Romans really were a bunch of bastards weren't they.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 32,976
    Laying all the top 3 isn't a terrible trade imo.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 18,696
    Developers are not sitting on land with planning permission in vast quantities. Getting planning permission is an expensive business (lots of fat fee solicitors) and it generally lapses after 3 years.

    I’ve asked to do a planning law seat, so that should be fun.
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 11,036

    BTW, Happy MLK Day!

    FYI, IMHO only matter of time, before Andrew Jackson gets replaced on $20-bill, by Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

    Think George Washington keeps his spot on $1-bill, because, well, he's George Washington.

    As for Alexander Hamilton, he'd likely get cancelled from $10-bill HOWEVER he's saved by "Hamilton" the musical for another century or so.

    The $2-bill with Tom Jefferson so rare that no one cares.

    As for US Grant on $50-bill, his historical reputation is currently on upswing, which should help keep him around.

    The $100-bill aka "c-note" is preserve of Ben Franklin, and reckon always will be, thanks to fact that old Ben's reputation has rarely dimmed from generation to generation in American history and culture.

    And today the $100-bill is perhaps the closest thing the world has to a universal standard of monetary value?

    That's why it's all about the Benjamins. Hamilton is the "$10 Founding Father without a father," rescued from relative obscurity by Lin Manuel Miranda. I note you don't even raise the status of Lincoln on the $5.
  • I'm having my first week off since I started as a postie. I got offered it off on Thursday (when I was working the ninth of the previous ten days - one was a Sunday, and nobody else had done my route since 9 Dec)

    I've done little with the time off so far bar domestic chores, some successful culinary experiments, and planning the long weekend of my week off

    On Thursday I'm going to London to stay with my Siberian friend. I'm going to meet her from work at 5pm by Green Park, then we're going for her choice of dinner between there and Soho

    Then we're going to the new Soho Place theatre to see As You Like It with Rose Ayling-Ellis and Martha Plimpton

    On Friday she's working from home. I'm going to go out shopping and cook for us at hers. I'm going to make a steak and herb salad

    On Saturday we'll have brunch then venture into town on the tube for some lunch and shopping. We'll then, if weather permits, pubcrawl our way to Hammersmith and Barnes across the river for the evening's entertainment

    We're going to meet my Mum and Dad for dinner at the Rick Stein's in Barnes, and hopefully my piano maestro friend and his wife, before his show that we're going to see at the Bulls Head

    If any of you live near enough to Barnes to be there on Saturday (at 8pm), I couldn't make a stronger recommendation than pay the £13 for a ticket

    It's this guy

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xLTv2BRUxNA

    here

    https://tickets.thebullsheadbarnes.com/events/2023-01-21-dom-pipkins-smokin-boogie-bad-boys-bourbon-and-the-big-easy-bulls-head-barnes
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 11,036
    Nigelb said:

    (FPT)

    kinabalu said:

    Cookie said:

    kinabalu said:

    Scott_xP said:

    @robpowellnews: Hello!

    HarperCollins Publishers acquires memoir by former Prime Minister Boris Johnson

    No publication date has yet been set.

    🤑🤑

    It's the upfront dosh he needs. As the second or third deadline approaches he can knock up some old nonsense in a fortnight.

    The working titles for volumes 1 to 3 might be; "World beating governance", "Churchill, my part in his victory", " Brexit: The Haynes Manual".
    So is this being announced now because Boris knows he is entering the twilight of his political career, or because he doesn't see the conflict of interest in taking a massive advance for his memoirs when he is thinking of a second act?

    Could be both, I guess.
    I'd be very surprised if Boris knew what "a conflict of interest" is.
    His Memoirs will be reams of self-serving bullshit. Pass.
    To be fair, that's true of most senior politicians. At least Boris's will be written with a modicum of readability.
    If I want a snappy lurid read in a Memoir - which I often do - I'll go for something like Spare any day of the week over anything BoJo's likely to come up with. I just know what it'll be like. It'll be like him. More entertaining than your average politician but not actually that entertaining. More informative than your average clown but not actually that informative.
    "I never travel without my diary. One should always have something sensational to read in the train."...
    The Importance of Being Ernest?
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 32,976
    HYUFD said:

    WillG said:

    Sean_F said:

    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    Cookie said:

    HYUFD said:

    DJ41 said:

    Cookie said:

    HYUFD said:

    Cookie said:

    HYUFD said:

    It should have been Penny.

    Penny Mordaunt has urged Church of England bishops to allow gay marriage ahead of their historic vote, marking the first intervention by a cabinet minister on the issue.

    Ms Mordaunt, Leader of the House of Commons and MP for Portsmouth North, has written to the Bishop of Portsmouth, calling on him to to “recognize the pain and trauma” that failure to recognise same-sex marriage causes to “many LGBT+ people who are left feeling that they are treated as second class citizens within our society”.

    Currently, according to canon law, no Church of England minister can bless or marry gay couples. Ms Mordaunt’s interjection marks the first time that a serving cabinet secretary has called for the issue to be reformed within the Church of England. She also warned that if bishops failed to approve same-sex marriage, the issue would only “fester and detract” from any positive contribution from the institution.

    Her comments also come as next month, bishops will present their long-awaited findings to the General Synod – the Church’s legislative body – on whether the ban on gay marriage could be overturned.


    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/01/16/penny-mordaunt-urges-church-england-allow-gay-marriages/

    Given a 2/3 majority for major change is needed in the House of Bishops, House of Clergy and House of Laity, I doubt there will be drastic change at Synod next month.

    Evangelicals will block full endorsement of homosexual marriage and liberals will block retaining only a biblical Old Testament, Pauline view of marriage as between a man and woman.

    So as with women priests or divorcee marriage I expect a fudge.

    Church of England priests who want to bless same sex couples marriages will be able to, those who don't won't be forced to.

    There may even be more flying Bishops in the Church of England as there are now for Parishes which don't agree with women priests
    The problem, in my view, isn't a fusty church failing to reflect modern values. If Christian values (or values of any other religion) reflect the preferences of aj ineffable God, it seems unlikely to me that that God - who, if we are to believe the church, has been pretty anti-gay for tge last two millenia - has now changed his mind. What seems more likely is that the church doesn't really know, and never knew, what God thinks on any given subject, but knows what society thinks and is desperately trying to reflect that back.
    So the problem isn't that the church is wrong, it's that we listen to the church at all. We shouldn't be telling it what to think or do, we should be gently removing it from the decision-making process.
    Western society you mean. In most of Africa and Asia there is no legal homosexual marriage, same with most of Eastern Europe and Italy and in some parts of North Africa and the Middle East and South Asia homosexuality is still illegal.

    For those who are members of churches the position of that Church is significant. If the Church of England as the established church in England allows its clergy to conduct same sex marriage in England if they wish that will be a significant moment (Jesus for example never said anything against homosexual marriage)
    But the church in those places is imply reflecting those societies' value back at it too.
    The problem is not that the church's - any church's views are 'wrong' - it is that the church doesn't have the insight it claims into what 'right' and 'wrong' are: the fact that its views are so mutable, and always seem to match the views of the society it operates within, suggest very strongly that it doesn't 'know' what God thinks, it is just winging it based on what it thinks society wants to hear. It is therefore adding no value to the decision making process.
    I'm not saying religion should be abolished - I do think it has a value - but that value isn't to the decision making process. Those of us who don't believe should neither tell those who do what they should think, nor pay any mind to what churches think the 'right' course of action is - because they have no more insight than anyone else.
    Disestablish.
    Don't let religious organisations act as state registrars.
    Obviously let people get married in any religious ceremony they want. Just make them go to the registry office afterwards if they want a state-registered marriage.
    Of course churches should be allowed to say what they think is right and wrong. (And perhaps they do sometimes have more insight than those who don't think much about what's right and what's wrong. I'll judge that on each issue.)

    No because if the Church of England allows homosexual marriages by its priests then the moment you disestablish the Roman Catholic Church, which takes a much harder anti gay marriage line, almost certainly becomes the largest Christian church in England within a decade again.

    So you end up with an even harder line national Christian Church than you have now.

    I also as a member of the Church of England would object to being forced to go to a registry office service I don't see as validating my marriage as well as the C of E service I do think validated it
    But the Catholic Church doesn't become the national church, because:
    1) If the CofE is any good, it will retain its numbers. And if it isn't, it doesn't deserve to stay as the 'national church'; but more importantly
    2) in the scenario DJ41 describes, we don't have a national church at all. The secular majority simply stop listening to what the church say. The churches are free to say whatever they want, but the rest of us don't have to pay them any heed.

    Do you object to registering the birth of your child in a registry office? If not, why would you object to registering your marriage? It only needs to be a 5 minute job telling the state about it. You can still celebrate it, properly, in as much depth as you consider appropriate, in a church, in front of your friends, family and God. A quick trip to Epping Registry office with your new wife when you return from honeymoon to fill in a form doesn't strike me as onerous.
    Yes it does. In virtually every other nation where Christians are the majority or plurality religious group, the Roman Catholic Church is the largest religious denomination. The only other exceptions are nations like Denmark where the Lutheran Church of Denmark is the established church or South Africa or Ghana where Pentecostal evangelical churches are the largest Christian group.

    If the Church of England was disestablished most of the Anglo Catholics would become Roman Catholic and most of the evangelicals would become Pentecostal or Baptist as is the case in the USA for example where the Episcopalian Church is a smaller largely liberal church with hardline evangelicals and Catholics pushing against abortion and gay marriage.

    The latter of course means the Christian churches become increasingly pushing a political agenda and free of being established don't give a toss what the secular majority think. Indeed with immigrants tending to be more socially conservative Christians and Muslims too.

    Signing a form to register your child is not the same as having to have a second baptism service at a registry office

    Russia?
    Well the Eastern Orthodox Church is basically the Roman Catholic Church just with a Patriarch not Pope and even more ornate ceremony
    Okaaaayyyyyy....

    I clearly missed that time the Catholics allowed lay clergy below the rank of bishop to marry.
    Michael Cerularius would be spinning in his grave at HYUFD's comments.
    I am actually with HYUFD here. The Orthodox and Catholic feud is the narcissism of small differences. They are both the remaining State Church of the Roman Empire. A bit like Italian and Spanish both being legacy vulgar Latin.

    Where I don't agree is the conflating of Pauline marriage and Old Testament marriage. Pauline marriage is the Roman view: the strict lifelong monogamy as demanded by Jesus, but with added homophobia. Old Testament marriage allowed hundreds of wives, plus concubines, plus sex slaves. That's worst than Muslim marriage, which is up to four wives plus sex slaves. Ironically the adaption from polygamy to monogamy between the OT and the NT is exactly the mindset of the religious establishment adapting the views of God to contemporary society that the Anglicans are now doing today.
    Depends which part, the Ten Commandments forbade adultery
    Not all of them.
  • SeaShantyIrish2SeaShantyIrish2 Posts: 11,082
    Kamala Harris has just about the lowest VP profile and level of public esteem that I can personally recall, since the days of Dan Quayle. Whom (I'm guessing) has higher name recognition in HIS day (unfortunately for him) than she does today.

    She's nowhere near that deep hole, of course. But neither has she achieved the respect and recognition as VP of Al Gore, Dick Cheney, Joe Biden or (even) Mike Pence.

    As for Secretary of Transportation Pete Buttigieg, recent snafus, fubars, meltdowns, etc., etc. with US airlines have SERIOUSLY taken the shine of his glow (or visa versa). So far with little to no sign that he's pulling American aviation out of current tailspin.

    Unless "I survived Southwest Airlines" T-shirts and similar, are campaign slogans?
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 47,316

    Nigelb said:

    (FPT)

    kinabalu said:

    Cookie said:

    kinabalu said:

    Scott_xP said:

    @robpowellnews: Hello!

    HarperCollins Publishers acquires memoir by former Prime Minister Boris Johnson

    No publication date has yet been set.

    🤑🤑

    It's the upfront dosh he needs. As the second or third deadline approaches he can knock up some old nonsense in a fortnight.

    The working titles for volumes 1 to 3 might be; "World beating governance", "Churchill, my part in his victory", " Brexit: The Haynes Manual".
    So is this being announced now because Boris knows he is entering the twilight of his political career, or because he doesn't see the conflict of interest in taking a massive advance for his memoirs when he is thinking of a second act?

    Could be both, I guess.
    I'd be very surprised if Boris knew what "a conflict of interest" is.
    His Memoirs will be reams of self-serving bullshit. Pass.
    To be fair, that's true of most senior politicians. At least Boris's will be written with a modicum of readability.
    If I want a snappy lurid read in a Memoir - which I often do - I'll go for something like Spare any day of the week over anything BoJo's likely to come up with. I just know what it'll be like. It'll be like him. More entertaining than your average politician but not actually that entertaining. More informative than your average clown but not actually that informative.
    "I never travel without my diary. One should always have something sensational to read in the train."...
    The Importance of Being Ernest?
    Yep.
    A work of enduring brilliance.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 49,002
    WillG said:

    Sean_F said:

    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    Cookie said:

    HYUFD said:

    DJ41 said:

    Cookie said:

    HYUFD said:

    Cookie said:

    HYUFD said:

    It should have been Penny.

    Penny Mordaunt has urged Church of England bishops to allow gay marriage ahead of their historic vote, marking the first intervention by a cabinet minister on the issue.

    Ms Mordaunt, Leader of the House of Commons and MP for Portsmouth North, has written to the Bishop of Portsmouth, calling on him to to “recognize the pain and trauma” that failure to recognise same-sex marriage causes to “many LGBT+ people who are left feeling that they are treated as second class citizens within our society”.

    Currently, according to canon law, no Church of England minister can bless or marry gay couples. Ms Mordaunt’s interjection marks the first time that a serving cabinet secretary has called for the issue to be reformed within the Church of England. She also warned that if bishops failed to approve same-sex marriage, the issue would only “fester and detract” from any positive contribution from the institution.

    Her comments also come as next month, bishops will present their long-awaited findings to the General Synod – the Church’s legislative body – on whether the ban on gay marriage could be overturned.


    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/01/16/penny-mordaunt-urges-church-england-allow-gay-marriages/

    Given a 2/3 majority for major change is needed in the House of Bishops, House of Clergy and House of Laity, I doubt there will be drastic change at Synod next month.

    Evangelicals will block full endorsement of homosexual marriage and liberals will block retaining only a biblical Old Testament, Pauline view of marriage as between a man and woman.

    So as with women priests or divorcee marriage I expect a fudge.

    Church of England priests who want to bless same sex couples marriages will be able to, those who don't won't be forced to.

    There may even be more flying Bishops in the Church of England as there are now for Parishes which don't agree with women priests
    The problem, in my view, isn't a fusty church failing to reflect modern values. If Christian values (or values of any other religion) reflect the preferences of aj ineffable God, it seems unlikely to me that that God - who, if we are to believe the church, has been pretty anti-gay for tge last two millenia - has now changed his mind. What seems more likely is that the church doesn't really know, and never knew, what God thinks on any given subject, but knows what society thinks and is desperately trying to reflect that back.
    So the problem isn't that the church is wrong, it's that we listen to the church at all. We shouldn't be telling it what to think or do, we should be gently removing it from the decision-making process.
    Western society you mean. In most of Africa and Asia there is no legal homosexual marriage, same with most of Eastern Europe and Italy and in some parts of North Africa and the Middle East and South Asia homosexuality is still illegal.

    For those who are members of churches the position of that Church is significant. If the Church of England as the established church in England allows its clergy to conduct same sex marriage in England if they wish that will be a significant moment (Jesus for example never said anything against homosexual marriage)
    But the church in those places is imply reflecting those societies' value back at it too.
    The problem is not that the church's - any church's views are 'wrong' - it is that the church doesn't have the insight it claims into what 'right' and 'wrong' are: the fact that its views are so mutable, and always seem to match the views of the society it operates within, suggest very strongly that it doesn't 'know' what God thinks, it is just winging it based on what it thinks society wants to hear. It is therefore adding no value to the decision making process.
    I'm not saying religion should be abolished - I do think it has a value - but that value isn't to the decision making process. Those of us who don't believe should neither tell those who do what they should think, nor pay any mind to what churches think the 'right' course of action is - because they have no more insight than anyone else.
    Disestablish.
    Don't let religious organisations act as state registrars.
    Obviously let people get married in any religious ceremony they want. Just make them go to the registry office afterwards if they want a state-registered marriage.
    Of course churches should be allowed to say what they think is right and wrong. (And perhaps they do sometimes have more insight than those who don't think much about what's right and what's wrong. I'll judge that on each issue.)

    No because if the Church of England allows homosexual marriages by its priests then the moment you disestablish the Roman Catholic Church, which takes a much harder anti gay marriage line, almost certainly becomes the largest Christian church in England within a decade again.

    So you end up with an even harder line national Christian Church than you have now.

    I also as a member of the Church of England would object to being forced to go to a registry office service I don't see as validating my marriage as well as the C of E service I do think validated it
    But the Catholic Church doesn't become the national church, because:
    1) If the CofE is any good, it will retain its numbers. And if it isn't, it doesn't deserve to stay as the 'national church'; but more importantly
    2) in the scenario DJ41 describes, we don't have a national church at all. The secular majority simply stop listening to what the church say. The churches are free to say whatever they want, but the rest of us don't have to pay them any heed.

    Do you object to registering the birth of your child in a registry office? If not, why would you object to registering your marriage? It only needs to be a 5 minute job telling the state about it. You can still celebrate it, properly, in as much depth as you consider appropriate, in a church, in front of your friends, family and God. A quick trip to Epping Registry office with your new wife when you return from honeymoon to fill in a form doesn't strike me as onerous.
    Yes it does. In virtually every other nation where Christians are the majority or plurality religious group, the Roman Catholic Church is the largest religious denomination. The only other exceptions are nations like Denmark where the Lutheran Church of Denmark is the established church or South Africa or Ghana where Pentecostal evangelical churches are the largest Christian group.

    If the Church of England was disestablished most of the Anglo Catholics would become Roman Catholic and most of the evangelicals would become Pentecostal or Baptist as is the case in the USA for example where the Episcopalian Church is a smaller largely liberal church with hardline evangelicals and Catholics pushing against abortion and gay marriage.

    The latter of course means the Christian churches become increasingly pushing a political agenda and free of being established don't give a toss what the secular majority think. Indeed with immigrants tending to be more socially conservative Christians and Muslims too.

    Signing a form to register your child is not the same as having to have a second baptism service at a registry office

    Russia?
    Well the Eastern Orthodox Church is basically the Roman Catholic Church just with a Patriarch not Pope and even more ornate ceremony
    Okaaaayyyyyy....

    I clearly missed that time the Catholics allowed lay clergy below the rank of bishop to marry.
    Michael Cerularius would be spinning in his grave at HYUFD's comments.
    I am actually with HYUFD here. The Orthodox and Catholic feud is the narcissism of small differences. They are both the remaining State Church of the Roman Empire. A bit like Italian and Spanish both being legacy vulgar Latin.

    Where I don't agree is the conflating of Pauline marriage and Old Testament marriage. Pauline marriage is the Roman view: the strict lifelong monogamy as demanded by Jesus, but with added homophobia. Old Testament marriage allowed hundreds of wives, plus concubines, plus sex slaves. That's worst than Muslim marriage, which is up to four wives plus sex slaves. Ironically the adaption from polygamy to monogamy between the OT and the NT is exactly the mindset of the religious establishment adapting the views of God to contemporary society that the Anglicans are now doing today.
    Why would anyone want more than one wife?
  • beinndeargbeinndearg Posts: 676

    Nigelb said:

    (FPT)

    kinabalu said:

    Cookie said:

    kinabalu said:

    Scott_xP said:

    @robpowellnews: Hello!

    HarperCollins Publishers acquires memoir by former Prime Minister Boris Johnson

    No publication date has yet been set.

    🤑🤑

    It's the upfront dosh he needs. As the second or third deadline approaches he can knock up some old nonsense in a fortnight.

    The working titles for volumes 1 to 3 might be; "World beating governance", "Churchill, my part in his victory", " Brexit: The Haynes Manual".
    So is this being announced now because Boris knows he is entering the twilight of his political career, or because he doesn't see the conflict of interest in taking a massive advance for his memoirs when he is thinking of a second act?

    Could be both, I guess.
    I'd be very surprised if Boris knew what "a conflict of interest" is.
    His Memoirs will be reams of self-serving bullshit. Pass.
    To be fair, that's true of most senior politicians. At least Boris's will be written with a modicum of readability.
    If I want a snappy lurid read in a Memoir - which I often do - I'll go for something like Spare any day of the week over anything BoJo's likely to come up with. I just know what it'll be like. It'll be like him. More entertaining than your average politician but not actually that entertaining. More informative than your average clown but not actually that informative.
    "I never travel without my diary. One should always have something sensational to read in the train."...
    The Importance of Being Ernest?
    Earnest. Crucial distinction.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 47,316

    Kamala Harris has just about the lowest VP profile and level of public esteem that I can personally recall, since the days of Dan Quayle. Whom (I'm guessing) has higher name recognition in HIS day (unfortunately for him) than she does today.

    She's nowhere near that deep hole, of course. But neither has she achieved the respect and recognition as VP of Al Gore, Dick Cheney, Joe Biden or (even) Mike Pence.

    As for Secretary of Transportation Pete Buttigieg, recent snafus, fubars, meltdowns, etc., etc. with US airlines have SERIOUSLY taken the shine of his glow (or visa versa). So far with little to no sign that he's pulling American aviation out of current tailspin.

    Unless "I survived Southwest Airlines" T-shirts and similar, are campaign slogans?

    Opinions vary on that.
    https://www.politico.com/news/2023/01/14/pete-buttigieg-airlines-transportation-00077957
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 49,002
    Sean_F said:

    WillG said:

    Sean_F said:

    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    Cookie said:

    HYUFD said:

    DJ41 said:

    Cookie said:

    HYUFD said:

    Cookie said:

    HYUFD said:

    It should have been Penny.

    Penny Mordaunt has urged Church of England bishops to allow gay marriage ahead of their historic vote, marking the first intervention by a cabinet minister on the issue.

    Ms Mordaunt, Leader of the House of Commons and MP for Portsmouth North, has written to the Bishop of Portsmouth, calling on him to to “recognize the pain and trauma” that failure to recognise same-sex marriage causes to “many LGBT+ people who are left feeling that they are treated as second class citizens within our society”.

    Currently, according to canon law, no Church of England minister can bless or marry gay couples. Ms Mordaunt’s interjection marks the first time that a serving cabinet secretary has called for the issue to be reformed within the Church of England. She also warned that if bishops failed to approve same-sex marriage, the issue would only “fester and detract” from any positive contribution from the institution.

    Her comments also come as next month, bishops will present their long-awaited findings to the General Synod – the Church’s legislative body – on whether the ban on gay marriage could be overturned.


    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/01/16/penny-mordaunt-urges-church-england-allow-gay-marriages/

    Given a 2/3 majority for major change is needed in the House of Bishops, House of Clergy and House of Laity, I doubt there will be drastic change at Synod next month.

    Evangelicals will block full endorsement of homosexual marriage and liberals will block retaining only a biblical Old Testament, Pauline view of marriage as between a man and woman.

    So as with women priests or divorcee marriage I expect a fudge.

    Church of England priests who want to bless same sex couples marriages will be able to, those who don't won't be forced to.

    There may even be more flying Bishops in the Church of England as there are now for Parishes which don't agree with women priests
    The problem, in my view, isn't a fusty church failing to reflect modern values. If Christian values (or values of any other religion) reflect the preferences of aj ineffable God, it seems unlikely to me that that God - who, if we are to believe the church, has been pretty anti-gay for tge last two millenia - has now changed his mind. What seems more likely is that the church doesn't really know, and never knew, what God thinks on any given subject, but knows what society thinks and is desperately trying to reflect that back.
    So the problem isn't that the church is wrong, it's that we listen to the church at all. We shouldn't be telling it what to think or do, we should be gently removing it from the decision-making process.
    Western society you mean. In most of Africa and Asia there is no legal homosexual marriage, same with most of Eastern Europe and Italy and in some parts of North Africa and the Middle East and South Asia homosexuality is still illegal.

    For those who are members of churches the position of that Church is significant. If the Church of England as the established church in England allows its clergy to conduct same sex marriage in England if they wish that will be a significant moment (Jesus for example never said anything against homosexual marriage)
    But the church in those places is imply reflecting those societies' value back at it too.
    The problem is not that the church's - any church's views are 'wrong' - it is that the church doesn't have the insight it claims into what 'right' and 'wrong' are: the fact that its views are so mutable, and always seem to match the views of the society it operates within, suggest very strongly that it doesn't 'know' what God thinks, it is just winging it based on what it thinks society wants to hear. It is therefore adding no value to the decision making process.
    I'm not saying religion should be abolished - I do think it has a value - but that value isn't to the decision making process. Those of us who don't believe should neither tell those who do what they should think, nor pay any mind to what churches think the 'right' course of action is - because they have no more insight than anyone else.
    Disestablish.
    Don't let religious organisations act as state registrars.
    Obviously let people get married in any religious ceremony they want. Just make them go to the registry office afterwards if they want a state-registered marriage.
    Of course churches should be allowed to say what they think is right and wrong. (And perhaps they do sometimes have more insight than those who don't think much about what's right and what's wrong. I'll judge that on each issue.)

    No because if the Church of England allows homosexual marriages by its priests then the moment you disestablish the Roman Catholic Church, which takes a much harder anti gay marriage line, almost certainly becomes the largest Christian church in England within a decade again.

    So you end up with an even harder line national Christian Church than you have now.

    I also as a member of the Church of England would object to being forced to go to a registry office service I don't see as validating my marriage as well as the C of E service I do think validated it
    But the Catholic Church doesn't become the national church, because:
    1) If the CofE is any good, it will retain its numbers. And if it isn't, it doesn't deserve to stay as the 'national church'; but more importantly
    2) in the scenario DJ41 describes, we don't have a national church at all. The secular majority simply stop listening to what the church say. The churches are free to say whatever they want, but the rest of us don't have to pay them any heed.

    Do you object to registering the birth of your child in a registry office? If not, why would you object to registering your marriage? It only needs to be a 5 minute job telling the state about it. You can still celebrate it, properly, in as much depth as you consider appropriate, in a church, in front of your friends, family and God. A quick trip to Epping Registry office with your new wife when you return from honeymoon to fill in a form doesn't strike me as onerous.
    Yes it does. In virtually every other nation where Christians are the majority or plurality religious group, the Roman Catholic Church is the largest religious denomination. The only other exceptions are nations like Denmark where the Lutheran Church of Denmark is the established church or South Africa or Ghana where Pentecostal evangelical churches are the largest Christian group.

    If the Church of England was disestablished most of the Anglo Catholics would become Roman Catholic and most of the evangelicals would become Pentecostal or Baptist as is the case in the USA for example where the Episcopalian Church is a smaller largely liberal church with hardline evangelicals and Catholics pushing against abortion and gay marriage.

    The latter of course means the Christian churches become increasingly pushing a political agenda and free of being established don't give a toss what the secular majority think. Indeed with immigrants tending to be more socially conservative Christians and Muslims too.

    Signing a form to register your child is not the same as having to have a second baptism service at a registry office

    Russia?
    Well the Eastern Orthodox Church is basically the Roman Catholic Church just with a Patriarch not Pope and even more ornate ceremony
    Okaaaayyyyyy....

    I clearly missed that time the Catholics allowed lay clergy below the rank of bishop to marry.
    Michael Cerularius would be spinning in his grave at HYUFD's comments.
    I am actually with HYUFD here. The Orthodox and Catholic feud is the narcissism of small differences. They are both the remaining State Church of the Roman Empire. A bit like Italian and Spanish both being legacy vulgar Latin.

    Where I don't agree is the conflating of Pauline marriage and Old Testament marriage. Pauline marriage is the Roman view: the strict lifelong monogamy as demanded by Jesus, but with added homophobia. Old Testament marriage allowed hundreds of wives, plus concubines, plus sex slaves. That's worst than Muslim marriage, which is up to four wives plus sex slaves. Ironically the adaption from polygamy to monogamy between the OT and the NT is exactly the mindset of the religious establishment adapting the views of God to contemporary society that the Anglicans are now doing today.
    The Jews were strictly monogamous, though, long before the New Testament was written.

    Nero was the first Roman to marry a member of the same sex, poor Sporus, who was castrated for the occasion. His fate was a nightmare. Both Nymphidius Sabinus and Otho kept him as a sex slave, and he committed suicide upon learning that Vitellius planned to have him publicly raped in the arena.
    Traditional values, that's what I like to see.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 49,002
    HYUFD said:

    WillG said:

    Sean_F said:

    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    Cookie said:

    HYUFD said:

    DJ41 said:

    Cookie said:

    HYUFD said:

    Cookie said:

    HYUFD said:

    It should have been Penny.

    Penny Mordaunt has urged Church of England bishops to allow gay marriage ahead of their historic vote, marking the first intervention by a cabinet minister on the issue.

    Ms Mordaunt, Leader of the House of Commons and MP for Portsmouth North, has written to the Bishop of Portsmouth, calling on him to to “recognize the pain and trauma” that failure to recognise same-sex marriage causes to “many LGBT+ people who are left feeling that they are treated as second class citizens within our society”.

    Currently, according to canon law, no Church of England minister can bless or marry gay couples. Ms Mordaunt’s interjection marks the first time that a serving cabinet secretary has called for the issue to be reformed within the Church of England. She also warned that if bishops failed to approve same-sex marriage, the issue would only “fester and detract” from any positive contribution from the institution.

    Her comments also come as next month, bishops will present their long-awaited findings to the General Synod – the Church’s legislative body – on whether the ban on gay marriage could be overturned.


    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/01/16/penny-mordaunt-urges-church-england-allow-gay-marriages/

    Given a 2/3 majority for major change is needed in the House of Bishops, House of Clergy and House of Laity, I doubt there will be drastic change at Synod next month.

    Evangelicals will block full endorsement of homosexual marriage and liberals will block retaining only a biblical Old Testament, Pauline view of marriage as between a man and woman.

    So as with women priests or divorcee marriage I expect a fudge.

    Church of England priests who want to bless same sex couples marriages will be able to, those who don't won't be forced to.

    There may even be more flying Bishops in the Church of England as there are now for Parishes which don't agree with women priests
    The problem, in my view, isn't a fusty church failing to reflect modern values. If Christian values (or values of any other religion) reflect the preferences of aj ineffable God, it seems unlikely to me that that God - who, if we are to believe the church, has been pretty anti-gay for tge last two millenia - has now changed his mind. What seems more likely is that the church doesn't really know, and never knew, what God thinks on any given subject, but knows what society thinks and is desperately trying to reflect that back.
    So the problem isn't that the church is wrong, it's that we listen to the church at all. We shouldn't be telling it what to think or do, we should be gently removing it from the decision-making process.
    Western society you mean. In most of Africa and Asia there is no legal homosexual marriage, same with most of Eastern Europe and Italy and in some parts of North Africa and the Middle East and South Asia homosexuality is still illegal.

    For those who are members of churches the position of that Church is significant. If the Church of England as the established church in England allows its clergy to conduct same sex marriage in England if they wish that will be a significant moment (Jesus for example never said anything against homosexual marriage)
    But the church in those places is imply reflecting those societies' value back at it too.
    The problem is not that the church's - any church's views are 'wrong' - it is that the church doesn't have the insight it claims into what 'right' and 'wrong' are: the fact that its views are so mutable, and always seem to match the views of the society it operates within, suggest very strongly that it doesn't 'know' what God thinks, it is just winging it based on what it thinks society wants to hear. It is therefore adding no value to the decision making process.
    I'm not saying religion should be abolished - I do think it has a value - but that value isn't to the decision making process. Those of us who don't believe should neither tell those who do what they should think, nor pay any mind to what churches think the 'right' course of action is - because they have no more insight than anyone else.
    Disestablish.
    Don't let religious organisations act as state registrars.
    Obviously let people get married in any religious ceremony they want. Just make them go to the registry office afterwards if they want a state-registered marriage.
    Of course churches should be allowed to say what they think is right and wrong. (And perhaps they do sometimes have more insight than those who don't think much about what's right and what's wrong. I'll judge that on each issue.)

    No because if the Church of England allows homosexual marriages by its priests then the moment you disestablish the Roman Catholic Church, which takes a much harder anti gay marriage line, almost certainly becomes the largest Christian church in England within a decade again.

    So you end up with an even harder line national Christian Church than you have now.

    I also as a member of the Church of England would object to being forced to go to a registry office service I don't see as validating my marriage as well as the C of E service I do think validated it
    But the Catholic Church doesn't become the national church, because:
    1) If the CofE is any good, it will retain its numbers. And if it isn't, it doesn't deserve to stay as the 'national church'; but more importantly
    2) in the scenario DJ41 describes, we don't have a national church at all. The secular majority simply stop listening to what the church say. The churches are free to say whatever they want, but the rest of us don't have to pay them any heed.

    Do you object to registering the birth of your child in a registry office? If not, why would you object to registering your marriage? It only needs to be a 5 minute job telling the state about it. You can still celebrate it, properly, in as much depth as you consider appropriate, in a church, in front of your friends, family and God. A quick trip to Epping Registry office with your new wife when you return from honeymoon to fill in a form doesn't strike me as onerous.
    Yes it does. In virtually every other nation where Christians are the majority or plurality religious group, the Roman Catholic Church is the largest religious denomination. The only other exceptions are nations like Denmark where the Lutheran Church of Denmark is the established church or South Africa or Ghana where Pentecostal evangelical churches are the largest Christian group.

    If the Church of England was disestablished most of the Anglo Catholics would become Roman Catholic and most of the evangelicals would become Pentecostal or Baptist as is the case in the USA for example where the Episcopalian Church is a smaller largely liberal church with hardline evangelicals and Catholics pushing against abortion and gay marriage.

    The latter of course means the Christian churches become increasingly pushing a political agenda and free of being established don't give a toss what the secular majority think. Indeed with immigrants tending to be more socially conservative Christians and Muslims too.

    Signing a form to register your child is not the same as having to have a second baptism service at a registry office

    Russia?
    Well the Eastern Orthodox Church is basically the Roman Catholic Church just with a Patriarch not Pope and even more ornate ceremony
    Okaaaayyyyyy....

    I clearly missed that time the Catholics allowed lay clergy below the rank of bishop to marry.
    Michael Cerularius would be spinning in his grave at HYUFD's comments.
    I am actually with HYUFD here. The Orthodox and Catholic feud is the narcissism of small differences. They are both the remaining State Church of the Roman Empire. A bit like Italian and Spanish both being legacy vulgar Latin.

    Where I don't agree is the conflating of Pauline marriage and Old Testament marriage. Pauline marriage is the Roman view: the strict lifelong monogamy as demanded by Jesus, but with added homophobia. Old Testament marriage allowed hundreds of wives, plus concubines, plus sex slaves. That's worst than Muslim marriage, which is up to four wives plus sex slaves. Ironically the adaption from polygamy to monogamy between the OT and the NT is exactly the mindset of the religious establishment adapting the views of God to contemporary society that the Anglicans are now doing today.
    Depends which part, the Ten Commandments forbade adultery
    Remember, it's not premarital sex if you never get married.
  • SelebianSelebian Posts: 4,941
    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    WillG said:

    Sean_F said:

    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    Cookie said:

    HYUFD said:

    DJ41 said:

    Cookie said:

    HYUFD said:

    Cookie said:

    HYUFD said:

    It should have been Penny.

    Penny Mordaunt has urged Church of England bishops to allow gay marriage ahead of their historic vote, marking the first intervention by a cabinet minister on the issue.

    Ms Mordaunt, Leader of the House of Commons and MP for Portsmouth North, has written to the Bishop of Portsmouth, calling on him to to “recognize the pain and trauma” that failure to recognise same-sex marriage causes to “many LGBT+ people who are left feeling that they are treated as second class citizens within our society”.

    Currently, according to canon law, no Church of England minister can bless or marry gay couples. Ms Mordaunt’s interjection marks the first time that a serving cabinet secretary has called for the issue to be reformed within the Church of England. She also warned that if bishops failed to approve same-sex marriage, the issue would only “fester and detract” from any positive contribution from the institution.

    Her comments also come as next month, bishops will present their long-awaited findings to the General Synod – the Church’s legislative body – on whether the ban on gay marriage could be overturned.


    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/01/16/penny-mordaunt-urges-church-england-allow-gay-marriages/

    Given a 2/3 majority for major change is needed in the House of Bishops, House of Clergy and House of Laity, I doubt there will be drastic change at Synod next month.

    Evangelicals will block full endorsement of homosexual marriage and liberals will block retaining only a biblical Old Testament, Pauline view of marriage as between a man and woman.

    So as with women priests or divorcee marriage I expect a fudge.

    Church of England priests who want to bless same sex couples marriages will be able to, those who don't won't be forced to.

    There may even be more flying Bishops in the Church of England as there are now for Parishes which don't agree with women priests
    The problem, in my view, isn't a fusty church failing to reflect modern values. If Christian values (or values of any other religion) reflect the preferences of aj ineffable God, it seems unlikely to me that that God - who, if we are to believe the church, has been pretty anti-gay for tge last two millenia - has now changed his mind. What seems more likely is that the church doesn't really know, and never knew, what God thinks on any given subject, but knows what society thinks and is desperately trying to reflect that back.
    So the problem isn't that the church is wrong, it's that we listen to the church at all. We shouldn't be telling it what to think or do, we should be gently removing it from the decision-making process.
    Western society you mean. In most of Africa and Asia there is no legal homosexual marriage, same with most of Eastern Europe and Italy and in some parts of North Africa and the Middle East and South Asia homosexuality is still illegal.

    For those who are members of churches the position of that Church is significant. If the Church of England as the established church in England allows its clergy to conduct same sex marriage in England if they wish that will be a significant moment (Jesus for example never said anything against homosexual marriage)
    But the church in those places is imply reflecting those societies' value back at it too.
    The problem is not that the church's - any church's views are 'wrong' - it is that the church doesn't have the insight it claims into what 'right' and 'wrong' are: the fact that its views are so mutable, and always seem to match the views of the society it operates within, suggest very strongly that it doesn't 'know' what God thinks, it is just winging it based on what it thinks society wants to hear. It is therefore adding no value to the decision making process.
    I'm not saying religion should be abolished - I do think it has a value - but that value isn't to the decision making process. Those of us who don't believe should neither tell those who do what they should think, nor pay any mind to what churches think the 'right' course of action is - because they have no more insight than anyone else.
    Disestablish.
    Don't let religious organisations act as state registrars.
    Obviously let people get married in any religious ceremony they want. Just make them go to the registry office afterwards if they want a state-registered marriage.
    Of course churches should be allowed to say what they think is right and wrong. (And perhaps they do sometimes have more insight than those who don't think much about what's right and what's wrong. I'll judge that on each issue.)

    No because if the Church of England allows homosexual marriages by its priests then the moment you disestablish the Roman Catholic Church, which takes a much harder anti gay marriage line, almost certainly becomes the largest Christian church in England within a decade again.

    So you end up with an even harder line national Christian Church than you have now.

    I also as a member of the Church of England would object to being forced to go to a registry office service I don't see as validating my marriage as well as the C of E service I do think validated it
    But the Catholic Church doesn't become the national church, because:
    1) If the CofE is any good, it will retain its numbers. And if it isn't, it doesn't deserve to stay as the 'national church'; but more importantly
    2) in the scenario DJ41 describes, we don't have a national church at all. The secular majority simply stop listening to what the church say. The churches are free to say whatever they want, but the rest of us don't have to pay them any heed.

    Do you object to registering the birth of your child in a registry office? If not, why would you object to registering your marriage? It only needs to be a 5 minute job telling the state about it. You can still celebrate it, properly, in as much depth as you consider appropriate, in a church, in front of your friends, family and God. A quick trip to Epping Registry office with your new wife when you return from honeymoon to fill in a form doesn't strike me as onerous.
    Yes it does. In virtually every other nation where Christians are the majority or plurality religious group, the Roman Catholic Church is the largest religious denomination. The only other exceptions are nations like Denmark where the Lutheran Church of Denmark is the established church or South Africa or Ghana where Pentecostal evangelical churches are the largest Christian group.

    If the Church of England was disestablished most of the Anglo Catholics would become Roman Catholic and most of the evangelicals would become Pentecostal or Baptist as is the case in the USA for example where the Episcopalian Church is a smaller largely liberal church with hardline evangelicals and Catholics pushing against abortion and gay marriage.

    The latter of course means the Christian churches become increasingly pushing a political agenda and free of being established don't give a toss what the secular majority think. Indeed with immigrants tending to be more socially conservative Christians and Muslims too.

    Signing a form to register your child is not the same as having to have a second baptism service at a registry office

    Russia?
    Well the Eastern Orthodox Church is basically the Roman Catholic Church just with a Patriarch not Pope and even more ornate ceremony
    Okaaaayyyyyy....

    I clearly missed that time the Catholics allowed lay clergy below the rank of bishop to marry.
    Michael Cerularius would be spinning in his grave at HYUFD's comments.
    I am actually with HYUFD here. The Orthodox and Catholic feud is the narcissism of small differences. They are both the remaining State Church of the Roman Empire. A bit like Italian and Spanish both being legacy vulgar Latin.

    Where I don't agree is the conflating of Pauline marriage and Old Testament marriage. Pauline marriage is the Roman view: the strict lifelong monogamy as demanded by Jesus, but with added homophobia. Old Testament marriage allowed hundreds of wives, plus concubines, plus sex slaves. That's worst than Muslim marriage, which is up to four wives plus sex slaves. Ironically the adaption from polygamy to monogamy between the OT and the NT is exactly the mindset of the religious establishment adapting the views of God to contemporary society that the Anglicans are now doing today.
    Depends which part, the Ten Commandments forbade adultery
    Remember, it's not premarital sex if you never get married.
    My one regret in getting married is that it put to an end my days of fornication :disappointed:
  • SeaShantyIrish2SeaShantyIrish2 Posts: 11,082

    BTW, Happy MLK Day!

    FYI, IMHO only matter of time, before Andrew Jackson gets replaced on $20-bill, by Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

    Think George Washington keeps his spot on $1-bill, because, well, he's George Washington.

    As for Alexander Hamilton, he'd likely get cancelled from $10-bill HOWEVER he's saved by "Hamilton" the musical for another century or so.

    The $2-bill with Tom Jefferson so rare that no one cares.

    As for US Grant on $50-bill, his historical reputation is currently on upswing, which should help keep him around.

    The $100-bill aka "c-note" is preserve of Ben Franklin, and reckon always will be, thanks to fact that old Ben's reputation has rarely dimmed from generation to generation in American history and culture.

    And today the $100-bill is perhaps the closest thing the world has to a universal standard of monetary value?

    That's why it's all about the Benjamins. Hamilton is the "$10 Founding Father without a father," rescued from relative obscurity by Lin Manuel Miranda. I note you don't even raise the status of Lincoln on the $5.
    Good catch re: Abe Lincoln. He's got a lock on the Five-spot, for same reason as GW on the $1-bill.

    PLUS less likelihood of getting replaced by a coin, as the value of $1 today is somewhere in neighborhood of a dime when I was a lad!

    As for Alexander Hamilton, think you are wrong re: "relative obscurity" certainly NOT in historiography and controversy, as a conservative icon that even liberals (for example Elizabeth Warren) credit for his "present at the creation" role in American fiscal policy & high finance.

    Another Secretary of Treasury who made (and still makes) the face of a US bank note = Salmon B Chase on the $10,000.

    BTW (and FYI) if any PB has a spare one of THOSE, could you please forward to yours truly, as it would make a dandy addition to by own collection of US currency?
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 47,316

    BTW, Happy MLK Day!

    FYI, IMHO only matter of time, before Andrew Jackson gets replaced on $20-bill, by Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

    Think George Washington keeps his spot on $1-bill, because, well, he's George Washington.

    As for Alexander Hamilton, he'd likely get cancelled from $10-bill HOWEVER he's saved by "Hamilton" the musical for another century or so.

    The $2-bill with Tom Jefferson so rare that no one cares.

    As for US Grant on $50-bill, his historical reputation is currently on upswing, which should help keep him around.

    The $100-bill aka "c-note" is preserve of Ben Franklin, and reckon always will be, thanks to fact that old Ben's reputation has rarely dimmed from generation to generation in American history and culture.

    And today the $100-bill is perhaps the closest thing the world has to a universal standard of monetary value?

    That's why it's all about the Benjamins. Hamilton is the "$10 Founding Father without a father," rescued from relative obscurity by Lin Manuel Miranda. I note you don't even raise the status of Lincoln on the $5.
    Good catch re: Abe Lincoln. He's got a lock on the Five-spot, for same reason as GW on the $1-bill.

    PLUS less likelihood of getting replaced by a coin, as the value of $1 today is somewhere in neighborhood of a dime when I was a lad!

    As for Alexander Hamilton, think you are wrong re: "relative obscurity" certainly NOT in historiography and controversy, as a conservative icon that even liberals (for example Elizabeth Warren) credit for his "present at the creation" role in American fiscal policy & high finance.

    Another Secretary of Treasury who made (and still makes) the face of a US bank note = Salmon B Chase on the $10,000.

    BTW (and FYI) if any PB has a spare one of THOSE, could you please forward to yours truly, as it would make a dandy addition to by own collection of US currency?
    The Madison, despite a lower face value, is probably worth more than that owing to its rarity.

    I remember it from one of the Chandler novels.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 32,309
    edited January 16

    Sean_F said:

    WillG said:

    Sean_F said:

    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    Cookie said:

    HYUFD said:

    DJ41 said:

    Cookie said:

    HYUFD said:

    Cookie said:

    HYUFD said:

    It should have been Penny.

    Penny Mordaunt has urged Church of England bishops to allow gay marriage ahead of their historic vote, marking the first intervention by a cabinet minister on the issue.

    Ms Mordaunt, Leader of the House of Commons and MP for Portsmouth North, has written to the Bishop of Portsmouth, calling on him to to “recognize the pain and trauma” that failure to recognise same-sex marriage causes to “many LGBT+ people who are left feeling that they are treated as second class citizens within our society”.

    Currently, according to canon law, no Church of England minister can bless or marry gay couples. Ms Mordaunt’s interjection marks the first time that a serving cabinet secretary has called for the issue to be reformed within the Church of England. She also warned that if bishops failed to approve same-sex marriage, the issue would only “fester and detract” from any positive contribution from the institution.

    Her comments also come as next month, bishops will present their long-awaited findings to the General Synod – the Church’s legislative body – on whether the ban on gay marriage could be overturned.


    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/01/16/penny-mordaunt-urges-church-england-allow-gay-marriages/

    Given a 2/3 majority for major change is needed in the House of Bishops, House of Clergy and House of Laity, I doubt there will be drastic change at Synod next month.

    Evangelicals will block full endorsement of homosexual marriage and liberals will block retaining only a biblical Old Testament, Pauline view of marriage as between a man and woman.

    So as with women priests or divorcee marriage I expect a fudge.

    Church of England priests who want to bless same sex couples marriages will be able to, those who don't won't be forced to.

    There may even be more flying Bishops in the Church of England as there are now for Parishes which don't agree with women priests
    The problem, in my view, isn't a fusty church failing to reflect modern values. If Christian values (or values of any other religion) reflect the preferences of aj ineffable God, it seems unlikely to me that that God - who, if we are to believe the church, has been pretty anti-gay for tge last two millenia - has now changed his mind. What seems more likely is that the church doesn't really know, and never knew, what God thinks on any given subject, but knows what society thinks and is desperately trying to reflect that back.
    So the problem isn't that the church is wrong, it's that we listen to the church at all. We shouldn't be telling it what to think or do, we should be gently removing it from the decision-making process.
    Western society you mean. In most of Africa and Asia there is no legal homosexual marriage, same with most of Eastern Europe and Italy and in some parts of North Africa and the Middle East and South Asia homosexuality is still illegal.

    For those who are members of churches the position of that Church is significant. If the Church of England as the established church in England allows its clergy to conduct same sex marriage in England if they wish that will be a significant moment (Jesus for example never said anything against homosexual marriage)
    But the church in those places is imply reflecting those societies' value back at it too.
    The problem is not that the church's - any church's views are 'wrong' - it is that the church doesn't have the insight it claims into what 'right' and 'wrong' are: the fact that its views are so mutable, and always seem to match the views of the society it operates within, suggest very strongly that it doesn't 'know' what God thinks, it is just winging it based on what it thinks society wants to hear. It is therefore adding no value to the decision making process.
    I'm not saying religion should be abolished - I do think it has a value - but that value isn't to the decision making process. Those of us who don't believe should neither tell those who do what they should think, nor pay any mind to what churches think the 'right' course of action is - because they have no more insight than anyone else.
    Disestablish.
    Don't let religious organisations act as state registrars.
    Obviously let people get married in any religious ceremony they want. Just make them go to the registry office afterwards if they want a state-registered marriage.
    Of course churches should be allowed to say what they think is right and wrong. (And perhaps they do sometimes have more insight than those who don't think much about what's right and what's wrong. I'll judge that on each issue.)

    No because if the Church of England allows homosexual marriages by its priests then the moment you disestablish the Roman Catholic Church, which takes a much harder anti gay marriage line, almost certainly becomes the largest Christian church in England within a decade again.

    So you end up with an even harder line national Christian Church than you have now.

    I also as a member of the Church of England would object to being forced to go to a registry office service I don't see as validating my marriage as well as the C of E service I do think validated it
    But the Catholic Church doesn't become the national church, because:
    1) If the CofE is any good, it will retain its numbers. And if it isn't, it doesn't deserve to stay as the 'national church'; but more importantly
    2) in the scenario DJ41 describes, we don't have a national church at all. The secular majority simply stop listening to what the church say. The churches are free to say whatever they want, but the rest of us don't have to pay them any heed.

    Do you object to registering the birth of your child in a registry office? If not, why would you object to registering your marriage? It only needs to be a 5 minute job telling the state about it. You can still celebrate it, properly, in as much depth as you consider appropriate, in a church, in front of your friends, family and God. A quick trip to Epping Registry office with your new wife when you return from honeymoon to fill in a form doesn't strike me as onerous.
    Yes it does. In virtually every other nation where Christians are the majority or plurality religious group, the Roman Catholic Church is the largest religious denomination. The only other exceptions are nations like Denmark where the Lutheran Church of Denmark is the established church or South Africa or Ghana where Pentecostal evangelical churches are the largest Christian group.

    If the Church of England was disestablished most of the Anglo Catholics would become Roman Catholic and most of the evangelicals would become Pentecostal or Baptist as is the case in the USA for example where the Episcopalian Church is a smaller largely liberal church with hardline evangelicals and Catholics pushing against abortion and gay marriage.

    The latter of course means the Christian churches become increasingly pushing a political agenda and free of being established don't give a toss what the secular majority think. Indeed with immigrants tending to be more socially conservative Christians and Muslims too.

    Signing a form to register your child is not the same as having to have a second baptism service at a registry office

    Russia?
    Well the Eastern Orthodox Church is basically the Roman Catholic Church just with a Patriarch not Pope and even more ornate ceremony
    Okaaaayyyyyy....

    I clearly missed that time the Catholics allowed lay clergy below the rank of bishop to marry.
    Michael Cerularius would be spinning in his grave at HYUFD's comments.
    I am actually with HYUFD here. The Orthodox and Catholic feud is the narcissism of small differences. They are both the remaining State Church of the Roman Empire. A bit like Italian and Spanish both being legacy vulgar Latin.

    Where I don't agree is the conflating of Pauline marriage and Old Testament marriage. Pauline marriage is the Roman view: the strict lifelong monogamy as demanded by Jesus, but with added homophobia. Old Testament marriage allowed hundreds of wives, plus concubines, plus sex slaves. That's worst than Muslim marriage, which is up to four wives plus sex slaves. Ironically the adaption from polygamy to monogamy between the OT and the NT is exactly the mindset of the religious establishment adapting the views of God to contemporary society that the Anglicans are now doing today.
    The Jews were strictly monogamous, though, long before the New Testament was written.

    Nero was the first Roman to marry a member of the same sex, poor Sporus, who was castrated for the occasion. His fate was a nightmare. Both Nymphidius Sabinus and Otho kept him as a sex slave, and he committed suicide upon learning that Vitellius planned to have him publicly raped in the arena.
    Blimey, the Romans really were a bunch of bastards weren't they.
    That would be a fair description of them. Watching condemned women being raped by animals, trained for the purpose, was a popular pastime during the lunchtime break in gladiatorial contests.

    Martial writes about how he's seen Pasiphae being mated to a bull being re-enacted in the arena

    Rather like the Aztecs' obsession with human sacrifice, I think there was something unhinged about the Romans' love of sexual degradation.
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 11,036

    Nigelb said:

    (FPT)

    kinabalu said:

    Cookie said:

    kinabalu said:

    Scott_xP said:

    @robpowellnews: Hello!

    HarperCollins Publishers acquires memoir by former Prime Minister Boris Johnson

    No publication date has yet been set.

    🤑🤑

    It's the upfront dosh he needs. As the second or third deadline approaches he can knock up some old nonsense in a fortnight.

    The working titles for volumes 1 to 3 might be; "World beating governance", "Churchill, my part in his victory", " Brexit: The Haynes Manual".
    So is this being announced now because Boris knows he is entering the twilight of his political career, or because he doesn't see the conflict of interest in taking a massive advance for his memoirs when he is thinking of a second act?

    Could be both, I guess.
    I'd be very surprised if Boris knew what "a conflict of interest" is.
    His Memoirs will be reams of self-serving bullshit. Pass.
    To be fair, that's true of most senior politicians. At least Boris's will be written with a modicum of readability.
    If I want a snappy lurid read in a Memoir - which I often do - I'll go for something like Spare any day of the week over anything BoJo's likely to come up with. I just know what it'll be like. It'll be like him. More entertaining than your average politician but not actually that entertaining. More informative than your average clown but not actually that informative.
    "I never travel without my diary. One should always have something sensational to read in the train."...
    The Importance of Being Ernest?
    Earnest. Crucial distinction.
    Ha, I should have known that since I've been in a production of it!
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 107,356
    edited January 16
    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    WillG said:

    Sean_F said:

    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    Cookie said:

    HYUFD said:

    DJ41 said:

    Cookie said:

    HYUFD said:

    Cookie said:

    HYUFD said:

    It should have been Penny.

    Penny Mordaunt has urged Church of England bishops to allow gay marriage ahead of their historic vote, marking the first intervention by a cabinet minister on the issue.

    Ms Mordaunt, Leader of the House of Commons and MP for Portsmouth North, has written to the Bishop of Portsmouth, calling on him to to “recognize the pain and trauma” that failure to recognise same-sex marriage causes to “many LGBT+ people who are left feeling that they are treated as second class citizens within our society”.

    Currently, according to canon law, no Church of England minister can bless or marry gay couples. Ms Mordaunt’s interjection marks the first time that a serving cabinet secretary has called for the issue to be reformed within the Church of England. She also warned that if bishops failed to approve same-sex marriage, the issue would only “fester and detract” from any positive contribution from the institution.

    Her comments also come as next month, bishops will present their long-awaited findings to the General Synod – the Church’s legislative body – on whether the ban on gay marriage could be overturned.


    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/01/16/penny-mordaunt-urges-church-england-allow-gay-marriages/

    Given a 2/3 majority for major change is needed in the House of Bishops, House of Clergy and House of Laity, I doubt there will be drastic change at Synod next month.

    Evangelicals will block full endorsement of homosexual marriage and liberals will block retaining only a biblical Old Testament, Pauline view of marriage as between a man and woman.

    So as with women priests or divorcee marriage I expect a fudge.

    Church of England priests who want to bless same sex couples marriages will be able to, those who don't won't be forced to.

    There may even be more flying Bishops in the Church of England as there are now for Parishes which don't agree with women priests
    The problem, in my view, isn't a fusty church failing to reflect modern values. If Christian values (or values of any other religion) reflect the preferences of aj ineffable God, it seems unlikely to me that that God - who, if we are to believe the church, has been pretty anti-gay for tge last two millenia - has now changed his mind. What seems more likely is that the church doesn't really know, and never knew, what God thinks on any given subject, but knows what society thinks and is desperately trying to reflect that back.
    So the problem isn't that the church is wrong, it's that we listen to the church at all. We shouldn't be telling it what to think or do, we should be gently removing it from the decision-making process.
    Western society you mean. In most of Africa and Asia there is no legal homosexual marriage, same with most of Eastern Europe and Italy and in some parts of North Africa and the Middle East and South Asia homosexuality is still illegal.

    For those who are members of churches the position of that Church is significant. If the Church of England as the established church in England allows its clergy to conduct same sex marriage in England if they wish that will be a significant moment (Jesus for example never said anything against homosexual marriage)
    But the church in those places is imply reflecting those societies' value back at it too.
    The problem is not that the church's - any church's views are 'wrong' - it is that the church doesn't have the insight it claims into what 'right' and 'wrong' are: the fact that its views are so mutable, and always seem to match the views of the society it operates within, suggest very strongly that it doesn't 'know' what God thinks, it is just winging it based on what it thinks society wants to hear. It is therefore adding no value to the decision making process.
    I'm not saying religion should be abolished - I do think it has a value - but that value isn't to the decision making process. Those of us who don't believe should neither tell those who do what they should think, nor pay any mind to what churches think the 'right' course of action is - because they have no more insight than anyone else.
    Disestablish.
    Don't let religious organisations act as state registrars.
    Obviously let people get married in any religious ceremony they want. Just make them go to the registry office afterwards if they want a state-registered marriage.
    Of course churches should be allowed to say what they think is right and wrong. (And perhaps they do sometimes have more insight than those who don't think much about what's right and what's wrong. I'll judge that on each issue.)

    No because if the Church of England allows homosexual marriages by its priests then the moment you disestablish the Roman Catholic Church, which takes a much harder anti gay marriage line, almost certainly becomes the largest Christian church in England within a decade again.

    So you end up with an even harder line national Christian Church than you have now.

    I also as a member of the Church of England would object to being forced to go to a registry office service I don't see as validating my marriage as well as the C of E service I do think validated it
    But the Catholic Church doesn't become the national church, because:
    1) If the CofE is any good, it will retain its numbers. And if it isn't, it doesn't deserve to stay as the 'national church'; but more importantly
    2) in the scenario DJ41 describes, we don't have a national church at all. The secular majority simply stop listening to what the church say. The churches are free to say whatever they want, but the rest of us don't have to pay them any heed.

    Do you object to registering the birth of your child in a registry office? If not, why would you object to registering your marriage? It only needs to be a 5 minute job telling the state about it. You can still celebrate it, properly, in as much depth as you consider appropriate, in a church, in front of your friends, family and God. A quick trip to Epping Registry office with your new wife when you return from honeymoon to fill in a form doesn't strike me as onerous.
    Yes it does. In virtually every other nation where Christians are the majority or plurality religious group, the Roman Catholic Church is the largest religious denomination. The only other exceptions are nations like Denmark where the Lutheran Church of Denmark is the established church or South Africa or Ghana where Pentecostal evangelical churches are the largest Christian group.

    If the Church of England was disestablished most of the Anglo Catholics would become Roman Catholic and most of the evangelicals would become Pentecostal or Baptist as is the case in the USA for example where the Episcopalian Church is a smaller largely liberal church with hardline evangelicals and Catholics pushing against abortion and gay marriage.

    The latter of course means the Christian churches become increasingly pushing a political agenda and free of being established don't give a toss what the secular majority think. Indeed with immigrants tending to be more socially conservative Christians and Muslims too.

    Signing a form to register your child is not the same as having to have a second baptism service at a registry office

    Russia?
    Well the Eastern Orthodox Church is basically the Roman Catholic Church just with a Patriarch not Pope and even more ornate ceremony
    Okaaaayyyyyy....

    I clearly missed that time the Catholics allowed lay clergy below the rank of bishop to marry.
    Michael Cerularius would be spinning in his grave at HYUFD's comments.
    I am actually with HYUFD here. The Orthodox and Catholic feud is the narcissism of small differences. They are both the remaining State Church of the Roman Empire. A bit like Italian and Spanish both being legacy vulgar Latin.

    Where I don't agree is the conflating of Pauline marriage and Old Testament marriage. Pauline marriage is the Roman view: the strict lifelong monogamy as demanded by Jesus, but with added homophobia. Old Testament marriage allowed hundreds of wives, plus concubines, plus sex slaves. That's worst than Muslim marriage, which is up to four wives plus sex slaves. Ironically the adaption from polygamy to monogamy between the OT and the NT is exactly the mindset of the religious establishment adapting the views of God to contemporary society that the Anglicans are now doing today.
    Depends which part, the Ten Commandments forbade adultery
    Remember, it's not premarital sex if you never get married.
    In the Bible Corinthians opposes sex outside marriage and immorality as does the Koran at
    24:2 (including lashings for unmarried fornicators)
  • SeaShantyIrish2SeaShantyIrish2 Posts: 11,082
    Nigelb said:

    Kamala Harris has just about the lowest VP profile and level of public esteem that I can personally recall, since the days of Dan Quayle. Whom (I'm guessing) has higher name recognition in HIS day (unfortunately for him) than she does today.

    She's nowhere near that deep hole, of course. But neither has she achieved the respect and recognition as VP of Al Gore, Dick Cheney, Joe Biden or (even) Mike Pence.

    As for Secretary of Transportation Pete Buttigieg, recent snafus, fubars, meltdowns, etc., etc. with US airlines have SERIOUSLY taken the shine of his glow (or visa versa). So far with little to no sign that he's pulling American aviation out of current tailspin.

    Unless "I survived Southwest Airlines" T-shirts and similar, are campaign slogans?

    Opinions vary on that.
    https://www.politico.com/news/2023/01/14/pete-buttigieg-airlines-transportation-00077957
    You mean "Biden’s longtime pollster, John Anzalone, defended Buttigieg as a “fucking hero” to airline passengers in an interview with POLITICO." And similar?

    Not sure that counterbalances the views of MANY frequent & infrequent flyers, over the past month or so, from sea to shining sea.

    Such guff might even make it worse. Defending the indefensible is NOT a good look. Inside the Beltway OR in Westminster Village.
  • Alphabet_SoupAlphabet_Soup Posts: 1,893
    rcs1000 said:

    WillG said:

    Sean_F said:

    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    Cookie said:

    HYUFD said:

    DJ41 said:

    Cookie said:

    HYUFD said:

    Cookie said:

    HYUFD said:

    It should have been Penny.

    Penny Mordaunt has urged Church of England bishops to allow gay marriage ahead of their historic vote, marking the first intervention by a cabinet minister on the issue.

    Ms Mordaunt, Leader of the House of Commons and MP for Portsmouth North, has written to the Bishop of Portsmouth, calling on him to to “recognize the pain and trauma” that failure to recognise same-sex marriage causes to “many LGBT+ people who are left feeling that they are treated as second class citizens within our society”.

    Currently, according to canon law, no Church of England minister can bless or marry gay couples. Ms Mordaunt’s interjection marks the first time that a serving cabinet secretary has called for the issue to be reformed within the Church of England. She also warned that if bishops failed to approve same-sex marriage, the issue would only “fester and detract” from any positive contribution from the institution.

    Her comments also come as next month, bishops will present their long-awaited findings to the General Synod – the Church’s legislative body – on whether the ban on gay marriage could be overturned.


    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/01/16/penny-mordaunt-urges-church-england-allow-gay-marriages/

    Given a 2/3 majority for major change is needed in the House of Bishops, House of Clergy and House of Laity, I doubt there will be drastic change at Synod next month.

    Evangelicals will block full endorsement of homosexual marriage and liberals will block retaining only a biblical Old Testament, Pauline view of marriage as between a man and woman.

    So as with women priests or divorcee marriage I expect a fudge.

    Church of England priests who want to bless same sex couples marriages will be able to, those who don't won't be forced to.

    There may even be more flying Bishops in the Church of England as there are now for Parishes which don't agree with women priests
    The problem, in my view, isn't a fusty church failing to reflect modern values. If Christian values (or values of any other religion) reflect the preferences of aj ineffable God, it seems unlikely to me that that God - who, if we are to believe the church, has been pretty anti-gay for tge last two millenia - has now changed his mind. What seems more likely is that the church doesn't really know, and never knew, what God thinks on any given subject, but knows what society thinks and is desperately trying to reflect that back.
    So the problem isn't that the church is wrong, it's that we listen to the church at all. We shouldn't be telling it what to think or do, we should be gently removing it from the decision-making process.
    Western society you mean. In most of Africa and Asia there is no legal homosexual marriage, same with most of Eastern Europe and Italy and in some parts of North Africa and the Middle East and South Asia homosexuality is still illegal.

    For those who are members of churches the position of that Church is significant. If the Church of England as the established church in England allows its clergy to conduct same sex marriage in England if they wish that will be a significant moment (Jesus for example never said anything against homosexual marriage)
    But the church in those places is imply reflecting those societies' value back at it too.
    The problem is not that the church's - any church's views are 'wrong' - it is that the church doesn't have the insight it claims into what 'right' and 'wrong' are: the fact that its views are so mutable, and always seem to match the views of the society it operates within, suggest very strongly that it doesn't 'know' what God thinks, it is just winging it based on what it thinks society wants to hear. It is therefore adding no value to the decision making process.
    I'm not saying religion should be abolished - I do think it has a value - but that value isn't to the decision making process. Those of us who don't believe should neither tell those who do what they should think, nor pay any mind to what churches think the 'right' course of action is - because they have no more insight than anyone else.
    Disestablish.
    Don't let religious organisations act as state registrars.
    Obviously let people get married in any religious ceremony they want. Just make them go to the registry office afterwards if they want a state-registered marriage.
    Of course churches should be allowed to say what they think is right and wrong. (And perhaps they do sometimes have more insight than those who don't think much about what's right and what's wrong. I'll judge that on each issue.)

    No because if the Church of England allows homosexual marriages by its priests then the moment you disestablish the Roman Catholic Church, which takes a much harder anti gay marriage line, almost certainly becomes the largest Christian church in England within a decade again.

    So you end up with an even harder line national Christian Church than you have now.

    I also as a member of the Church of England would object to being forced to go to a registry office service I don't see as validating my marriage as well as the C of E service I do think validated it
    But the Catholic Church doesn't become the national church, because:
    1) If the CofE is any good, it will retain its numbers. And if it isn't, it doesn't deserve to stay as the 'national church'; but more importantly
    2) in the scenario DJ41 describes, we don't have a national church at all. The secular majority simply stop listening to what the church say. The churches are free to say whatever they want, but the rest of us don't have to pay them any heed.

    Do you object to registering the birth of your child in a registry office? If not, why would you object to registering your marriage? It only needs to be a 5 minute job telling the state about it. You can still celebrate it, properly, in as much depth as you consider appropriate, in a church, in front of your friends, family and God. A quick trip to Epping Registry office with your new wife when you return from honeymoon to fill in a form doesn't strike me as onerous.
    Yes it does. In virtually every other nation where Christians are the majority or plurality religious group, the Roman Catholic Church is the largest religious denomination. The only other exceptions are nations like Denmark where the Lutheran Church of Denmark is the established church or South Africa or Ghana where Pentecostal evangelical churches are the largest Christian group.

    If the Church of England was disestablished most of the Anglo Catholics would become Roman Catholic and most of the evangelicals would become Pentecostal or Baptist as is the case in the USA for example where the Episcopalian Church is a smaller largely liberal church with hardline evangelicals and Catholics pushing against abortion and gay marriage.

    The latter of course means the Christian churches become increasingly pushing a political agenda and free of being established don't give a toss what the secular majority think. Indeed with immigrants tending to be more socially conservative Christians and Muslims too.

    Signing a form to register your child is not the same as having to have a second baptism service at a registry office

    Russia?
    Well the Eastern Orthodox Church is basically the Roman Catholic Church just with a Patriarch not Pope and even more ornate ceremony
    Okaaaayyyyyy....

    I clearly missed that time the Catholics allowed lay clergy below the rank of bishop to marry.
    Michael Cerularius would be spinning in his grave at HYUFD's comments.
    I am actually with HYUFD here. The Orthodox and Catholic feud is the narcissism of small differences. They are both the remaining State Church of the Roman Empire. A bit like Italian and Spanish both being legacy vulgar Latin.

    Where I don't agree is the conflating of Pauline marriage and Old Testament marriage. Pauline marriage is the Roman view: the strict lifelong monogamy as demanded by Jesus, but with added homophobia. Old Testament marriage allowed hundreds of wives, plus concubines, plus sex slaves. That's worst than Muslim marriage, which is up to four wives plus sex slaves. Ironically the adaption from polygamy to monogamy between the OT and the NT is exactly the mindset of the religious establishment adapting the views of God to contemporary society that the Anglicans are now doing today.
    Why would anyone want more than one wife?
    A more varied diet?
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 82,567
    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    WillG said:

    Sean_F said:

    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    Cookie said:

    HYUFD said:

    DJ41 said:

    Cookie said:

    HYUFD said:

    Cookie said:

    HYUFD said:

    It should have been Penny.

    Penny Mordaunt has urged Church of England bishops to allow gay marriage ahead of their historic vote, marking the first intervention by a cabinet minister on the issue.

    Ms Mordaunt, Leader of the House of Commons and MP for Portsmouth North, has written to the Bishop of Portsmouth, calling on him to to “recognize the pain and trauma” that failure to recognise same-sex marriage causes to “many LGBT+ people who are left feeling that they are treated as second class citizens within our society”.

    Currently, according to canon law, no Church of England minister can bless or marry gay couples. Ms Mordaunt’s interjection marks the first time that a serving cabinet secretary has called for the issue to be reformed within the Church of England. She also warned that if bishops failed to approve same-sex marriage, the issue would only “fester and detract” from any positive contribution from the institution.

    Her comments also come as next month, bishops will present their long-awaited findings to the General Synod – the Church’s legislative body – on whether the ban on gay marriage could be overturned.


    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/01/16/penny-mordaunt-urges-church-england-allow-gay-marriages/

    Given a 2/3 majority for major change is needed in the House of Bishops, House of Clergy and House of Laity, I doubt there will be drastic change at Synod next month.

    Evangelicals will block full endorsement of homosexual marriage and liberals will block retaining only a biblical Old Testament, Pauline view of marriage as between a man and woman.

    So as with women priests or divorcee marriage I expect a fudge.

    Church of England priests who want to bless same sex couples marriages will be able to, those who don't won't be forced to.

    There may even be more flying Bishops in the Church of England as there are now for Parishes which don't agree with women priests
    The problem, in my view, isn't a fusty church failing to reflect modern values. If Christian values (or values of any other religion) reflect the preferences of aj ineffable God, it seems unlikely to me that that God - who, if we are to believe the church, has been pretty anti-gay for tge last two millenia - has now changed his mind. What seems more likely is that the church doesn't really know, and never knew, what God thinks on any given subject, but knows what society thinks and is desperately trying to reflect that back.
    So the problem isn't that the church is wrong, it's that we listen to the church at all. We shouldn't be telling it what to think or do, we should be gently removing it from the decision-making process.
    Western society you mean. In most of Africa and Asia there is no legal homosexual marriage, same with most of Eastern Europe and Italy and in some parts of North Africa and the Middle East and South Asia homosexuality is still illegal.

    For those who are members of churches the position of that Church is significant. If the Church of England as the established church in England allows its clergy to conduct same sex marriage in England if they wish that will be a significant moment (Jesus for example never said anything against homosexual marriage)
    But the church in those places is imply reflecting those societies' value back at it too.
    The problem is not that the church's - any church's views are 'wrong' - it is that the church doesn't have the insight it claims into what 'right' and 'wrong' are: the fact that its views are so mutable, and always seem to match the views of the society it operates within, suggest very strongly that it doesn't 'know' what God thinks, it is just winging it based on what it thinks society wants to hear. It is therefore adding no value to the decision making process.
    I'm not saying religion should be abolished - I do think it has a value - but that value isn't to the decision making process. Those of us who don't believe should neither tell those who do what they should think, nor pay any mind to what churches think the 'right' course of action is - because they have no more insight than anyone else.
    Disestablish.
    Don't let religious organisations act as state registrars.
    Obviously let people get married in any religious ceremony they want. Just make them go to the registry office afterwards if they want a state-registered marriage.
    Of course churches should be allowed to say what they think is right and wrong. (And perhaps they do sometimes have more insight than those who don't think much about what's right and what's wrong. I'll judge that on each issue.)

    No because if the Church of England allows homosexual marriages by its priests then the moment you disestablish the Roman Catholic Church, which takes a much harder anti gay marriage line, almost certainly becomes the largest Christian church in England within a decade again.

    So you end up with an even harder line national Christian Church than you have now.

    I also as a member of the Church of England would object to being forced to go to a registry office service I don't see as validating my marriage as well as the C of E service I do think validated it
    But the Catholic Church doesn't become the national church, because:
    1) If the CofE is any good, it will retain its numbers. And if it isn't, it doesn't deserve to stay as the 'national church'; but more importantly
    2) in the scenario DJ41 describes, we don't have a national church at all. The secular majority simply stop listening to what the church say. The churches are free to say whatever they want, but the rest of us don't have to pay them any heed.

    Do you object to registering the birth of your child in a registry office? If not, why would you object to registering your marriage? It only needs to be a 5 minute job telling the state about it. You can still celebrate it, properly, in as much depth as you consider appropriate, in a church, in front of your friends, family and God. A quick trip to Epping Registry office with your new wife when you return from honeymoon to fill in a form doesn't strike me as onerous.
    Yes it does. In virtually every other nation where Christians are the majority or plurality religious group, the Roman Catholic Church is the largest religious denomination. The only other exceptions are nations like Denmark where the Lutheran Church of Denmark is the established church or South Africa or Ghana where Pentecostal evangelical churches are the largest Christian group.

    If the Church of England was disestablished most of the Anglo Catholics would become Roman Catholic and most of the evangelicals would become Pentecostal or Baptist as is the case in the USA for example where the Episcopalian Church is a smaller largely liberal church with hardline evangelicals and Catholics pushing against abortion and gay marriage.

    The latter of course means the Christian churches become increasingly pushing a political agenda and free of being established don't give a toss what the secular majority think. Indeed with immigrants tending to be more socially conservative Christians and Muslims too.

    Signing a form to register your child is not the same as having to have a second baptism service at a registry office

    Russia?
    Well the Eastern Orthodox Church is basically the Roman Catholic Church just with a Patriarch not Pope and even more ornate ceremony
    Okaaaayyyyyy....

    I clearly missed that time the Catholics allowed lay clergy below the rank of bishop to marry.
    Michael Cerularius would be spinning in his grave at HYUFD's comments.
    I am actually with HYUFD here. The Orthodox and Catholic feud is the narcissism of small differences. They are both the remaining State Church of the Roman Empire. A bit like Italian and Spanish both being legacy vulgar Latin.

    Where I don't agree is the conflating of Pauline marriage and Old Testament marriage. Pauline marriage is the Roman view: the strict lifelong monogamy as demanded by Jesus, but with added homophobia. Old Testament marriage allowed hundreds of wives, plus concubines, plus sex slaves. That's worst than Muslim marriage, which is up to four wives plus sex slaves. Ironically the adaption from polygamy to monogamy between the OT and the NT is exactly the mindset of the religious establishment adapting the views of God to contemporary society that the Anglicans are now doing today.
    Depends which part, the Ten Commandments forbade adultery
    Remember, it's not premarital sex if you never get married.
    In the Bible Corinthians opposes sex outside marriage and immorality as does the Koran at 24:2
    Thank goodness there has never been any other immorality committed by the monogamous married to worry about. If a bunch of old men can police what is going on between the sheets for I'm sure entirely non prurient reasons then all other sins just magically fall away, that's just fact.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 107,356
    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    WillG said:

    Sean_F said:

    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    Cookie said:

    HYUFD said:

    DJ41 said:

    Cookie said:

    HYUFD said:

    Cookie said:

    HYUFD said:

    It should have been Penny.

    Penny Mordaunt has urged Church of England bishops to allow gay marriage ahead of their historic vote, marking the first intervention by a cabinet minister on the issue.

    Ms Mordaunt, Leader of the House of Commons and MP for Portsmouth North, has written to the Bishop of Portsmouth, calling on him to to “recognize the pain and trauma” that failure to recognise same-sex marriage causes to “many LGBT+ people who are left feeling that they are treated as second class citizens within our society”.

    Currently, according to canon law, no Church of England minister can bless or marry gay couples. Ms Mordaunt’s interjection marks the first time that a serving cabinet secretary has called for the issue to be reformed within the Church of England. She also warned that if bishops failed to approve same-sex marriage, the issue would only “fester and detract” from any positive contribution from the institution.

    Her comments also come as next month, bishops will present their long-awaited findings to the General Synod – the Church’s legislative body – on whether the ban on gay marriage could be overturned.


    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/01/16/penny-mordaunt-urges-church-england-allow-gay-marriages/

    Given a 2/3 majority for major change is needed in the House of Bishops, House of Clergy and House of Laity, I doubt there will be drastic change at Synod next month.

    Evangelicals will block full endorsement of homosexual marriage and liberals will block retaining only a biblical Old Testament, Pauline view of marriage as between a man and woman.

    So as with women priests or divorcee marriage I expect a fudge.

    Church of England priests who want to bless same sex couples marriages will be able to, those who don't won't be forced to.

    There may even be more flying Bishops in the Church of England as there are now for Parishes which don't agree with women priests
    The problem, in my view, isn't a fusty church failing to reflect modern values. If Christian values (or values of any other religion) reflect the preferences of aj ineffable God, it seems unlikely to me that that God - who, if we are to believe the church, has been pretty anti-gay for tge last two millenia - has now changed his mind. What seems more likely is that the church doesn't really know, and never knew, what God thinks on any given subject, but knows what society thinks and is desperately trying to reflect that back.
    So the problem isn't that the church is wrong, it's that we listen to the church at all. We shouldn't be telling it what to think or do, we should be gently removing it from the decision-making process.
    Western society you mean. In most of Africa and Asia there is no legal homosexual marriage, same with most of Eastern Europe and Italy and in some parts of North Africa and the Middle East and South Asia homosexuality is still illegal.

    For those who are members of churches the position of that Church is significant. If the Church of England as the established church in England allows its clergy to conduct same sex marriage in England if they wish that will be a significant moment (Jesus for example never said anything against homosexual marriage)
    But the church in those places is imply reflecting those societies' value back at it too.
    The problem is not that the church's - any church's views are 'wrong' - it is that the church doesn't have the insight it claims into what 'right' and 'wrong' are: the fact that its views are so mutable, and always seem to match the views of the society it operates within, suggest very strongly that it doesn't 'know' what God thinks, it is just winging it based on what it thinks society wants to hear. It is therefore adding no value to the decision making process.
    I'm not saying religion should be abolished - I do think it has a value - but that value isn't to the decision making process. Those of us who don't believe should neither tell those who do what they should think, nor pay any mind to what churches think the 'right' course of action is - because they have no more insight than anyone else.
    Disestablish.
    Don't let religious organisations act as state registrars.
    Obviously let people get married in any religious ceremony they want. Just make them go to the registry office afterwards if they want a state-registered marriage.
    Of course churches should be allowed to say what they think is right and wrong. (And perhaps they do sometimes have more insight than those who don't think much about what's right and what's wrong. I'll judge that on each issue.)

    No because if the Church of England allows homosexual marriages by its priests then the moment you disestablish the Roman Catholic Church, which takes a much harder anti gay marriage line, almost certainly becomes the largest Christian church in England within a decade again.

    So you end up with an even harder line national Christian Church than you have now.

    I also as a member of the Church of England would object to being forced to go to a registry office service I don't see as validating my marriage as well as the C of E service I do think validated it
    But the Catholic Church doesn't become the national church, because:
    1) If the CofE is any good, it will retain its numbers. And if it isn't, it doesn't deserve to stay as the 'national church'; but more importantly
    2) in the scenario DJ41 describes, we don't have a national church at all. The secular majority simply stop listening to what the church say. The churches are free to say whatever they want, but the rest of us don't have to pay them any heed.

    Do you object to registering the birth of your child in a registry office? If not, why would you object to registering your marriage? It only needs to be a 5 minute job telling the state about it. You can still celebrate it, properly, in as much depth as you consider appropriate, in a church, in front of your friends, family and God. A quick trip to Epping Registry office with your new wife when you return from honeymoon to fill in a form doesn't strike me as onerous.
    Yes it does. In virtually every other nation where Christians are the majority or plurality religious group, the Roman Catholic Church is the largest religious denomination. The only other exceptions are nations like Denmark where the Lutheran Church of Denmark is the established church or South Africa or Ghana where Pentecostal evangelical churches are the largest Christian group.

    If the Church of England was disestablished most of the Anglo Catholics would become Roman Catholic and most of the evangelicals would become Pentecostal or Baptist as is the case in the USA for example where the Episcopalian Church is a smaller largely liberal church with hardline evangelicals and Catholics pushing against abortion and gay marriage.

    The latter of course means the Christian churches become increasingly pushing a political agenda and free of being established don't give a toss what the secular majority think. Indeed with immigrants tending to be more socially conservative Christians and Muslims too.

    Signing a form to register your child is not the same as having to have a second baptism service at a registry office

    Russia?
    Well the Eastern Orthodox Church is basically the Roman Catholic Church just with a Patriarch not Pope and even more ornate ceremony
    Okaaaayyyyyy....

    I clearly missed that time the Catholics allowed lay clergy below the rank of bishop to marry.
    Michael Cerularius would be spinning in his grave at HYUFD's comments.
    I am actually with HYUFD here. The Orthodox and Catholic feud is the narcissism of small differences. They are both the remaining State Church of the Roman Empire. A bit like Italian and Spanish both being legacy vulgar Latin.

    Where I don't agree is the conflating of Pauline marriage and Old Testament marriage. Pauline marriage is the Roman view: the strict lifelong monogamy as demanded by Jesus, but with added homophobia. Old Testament marriage allowed hundreds of wives, plus concubines, plus sex slaves. That's worst than Muslim marriage, which is up to four wives plus sex slaves. Ironically the adaption from polygamy to monogamy between the OT and the NT is exactly the mindset of the religious establishment adapting the views of God to contemporary society that the Anglicans are now doing today.
    Depends which part, the Ten Commandments forbade adultery
    Remember, it's not premarital sex if you never get married.
    In the Bible Corinthians opposes sex outside marriage and immorality as does the Koran at 24:2
    Thank goodness there has never been any other immorality committed by the monogamous married to worry about. If a bunch of old men can police what is going on between the sheets for I'm sure entirely non prurient reasons then all other sins just magically fall away, that's just fact.
    The Old Testament Ten Commandments also forbid murder and stealing of course too
  • rcs1000 said:

    WillG said:

    Sean_F said:

    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    Cookie said:

    HYUFD said:

    DJ41 said:

    Cookie said:

    HYUFD said:

    Cookie said:

    HYUFD said:

    It should have been Penny.

    Penny Mordaunt has urged Church of England bishops to allow gay marriage ahead of their historic vote, marking the first intervention by a cabinet minister on the issue.

    Ms Mordaunt, Leader of the House of Commons and MP for Portsmouth North, has written to the Bishop of Portsmouth, calling on him to to “recognize the pain and trauma” that failure to recognise same-sex marriage causes to “many LGBT+ people who are left feeling that they are treated as second class citizens within our society”.

    Currently, according to canon law, no Church of England minister can bless or marry gay couples. Ms Mordaunt’s interjection marks the first time that a serving cabinet secretary has called for the issue to be reformed within the Church of England. She also warned that if bishops failed to approve same-sex marriage, the issue would only “fester and detract” from any positive contribution from the institution.

    Her comments also come as next month, bishops will present their long-awaited findings to the General Synod – the Church’s legislative body – on whether the ban on gay marriage could be overturned.


    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/01/16/penny-mordaunt-urges-church-england-allow-gay-marriages/

    Given a 2/3 majority for major change is needed in the House of Bishops, House of Clergy and House of Laity, I doubt there will be drastic change at Synod next month.

    Evangelicals will block full endorsement of homosexual marriage and liberals will block retaining only a biblical Old Testament, Pauline view of marriage as between a man and woman.

    So as with women priests or divorcee marriage I expect a fudge.

    Church of England priests who want to bless same sex couples marriages will be able to, those who don't won't be forced to.

    There may even be more flying Bishops in the Church of England as there are now for Parishes which don't agree with women priests
    The problem, in my view, isn't a fusty church failing to reflect modern values. If Christian values (or values of any other religion) reflect the preferences of aj ineffable God, it seems unlikely to me that that God - who, if we are to believe the church, has been pretty anti-gay for tge last two millenia - has now changed his mind. What seems more likely is that the church doesn't really know, and never knew, what God thinks on any given subject, but knows what society thinks and is desperately trying to reflect that back.
    So the problem isn't that the church is wrong, it's that we listen to the church at all. We shouldn't be telling it what to think or do, we should be gently removing it from the decision-making process.
    Western society you mean. In most of Africa and Asia there is no legal homosexual marriage, same with most of Eastern Europe and Italy and in some parts of North Africa and the Middle East and South Asia homosexuality is still illegal.

    For those who are members of churches the position of that Church is significant. If the Church of England as the established church in England allows its clergy to conduct same sex marriage in England if they wish that will be a significant moment (Jesus for example never said anything against homosexual marriage)
    But the church in those places is imply reflecting those societies' value back at it too.
    The problem is not that the church's - any church's views are 'wrong' - it is that the church doesn't have the insight it claims into what 'right' and 'wrong' are: the fact that its views are so mutable, and always seem to match the views of the society it operates within, suggest very strongly that it doesn't 'know' what God thinks, it is just winging it based on what it thinks society wants to hear. It is therefore adding no value to the decision making process.
    I'm not saying religion should be abolished - I do think it has a value - but that value isn't to the decision making process. Those of us who don't believe should neither tell those who do what they should think, nor pay any mind to what churches think the 'right' course of action is - because they have no more insight than anyone else.
    Disestablish.
    Don't let religious organisations act as state registrars.
    Obviously let people get married in any religious ceremony they want. Just make them go to the registry office afterwards if they want a state-registered marriage.
    Of course churches should be allowed to say what they think is right and wrong. (And perhaps they do sometimes have more insight than those who don't think much about what's right and what's wrong. I'll judge that on each issue.)

    No because if the Church of England allows homosexual marriages by its priests then the moment you disestablish the Roman Catholic Church, which takes a much harder anti gay marriage line, almost certainly becomes the largest Christian church in England within a decade again.

    So you end up with an even harder line national Christian Church than you have now.

    I also as a member of the Church of England would object to being forced to go to a registry office service I don't see as validating my marriage as well as the C of E service I do think validated it
    But the Catholic Church doesn't become the national church, because:
    1) If the CofE is any good, it will retain its numbers. And if it isn't, it doesn't deserve to stay as the 'national church'; but more importantly
    2) in the scenario DJ41 describes, we don't have a national church at all. The secular majority simply stop listening to what the church say. The churches are free to say whatever they want, but the rest of us don't have to pay them any heed.

    Do you object to registering the birth of your child in a registry office? If not, why would you object to registering your marriage? It only needs to be a 5 minute job telling the state about it. You can still celebrate it, properly, in as much depth as you consider appropriate, in a church, in front of your friends, family and God. A quick trip to Epping Registry office with your new wife when you return from honeymoon to fill in a form doesn't strike me as onerous.
    Yes it does. In virtually every other nation where Christians are the majority or plurality religious group, the Roman Catholic Church is the largest religious denomination. The only other exceptions are nations like Denmark where the Lutheran Church of Denmark is the established church or South Africa or Ghana where Pentecostal evangelical churches are the largest Christian group.

    If the Church of England was disestablished most of the Anglo Catholics would become Roman Catholic and most of the evangelicals would become Pentecostal or Baptist as is the case in the USA for example where the Episcopalian Church is a smaller largely liberal church with hardline evangelicals and Catholics pushing against abortion and gay marriage.

    The latter of course means the Christian churches become increasingly pushing a political agenda and free of being established don't give a toss what the secular majority think. Indeed with immigrants tending to be more socially conservative Christians and Muslims too.

    Signing a form to register your child is not the same as having to have a second baptism service at a registry office

    Russia?
    Well the Eastern Orthodox Church is basically the Roman Catholic Church just with a Patriarch not Pope and even more ornate ceremony
    Okaaaayyyyyy....

    I clearly missed that time the Catholics allowed lay clergy below the rank of bishop to marry.
    Michael Cerularius would be spinning in his grave at HYUFD's comments.
    I am actually with HYUFD here. The Orthodox and Catholic feud is the narcissism of small differences. They are both the remaining State Church of the Roman Empire. A bit like Italian and Spanish both being legacy vulgar Latin.

    Where I don't agree is the conflating of Pauline marriage and Old Testament marriage. Pauline marriage is the Roman view: the strict lifelong monogamy as demanded by Jesus, but with added homophobia. Old Testament marriage allowed hundreds of wives, plus concubines, plus sex slaves. That's worst than Muslim marriage, which is up to four wives plus sex slaves. Ironically the adaption from polygamy to monogamy between the OT and the NT is exactly the mindset of the religious establishment adapting the views of God to contemporary society that the Anglicans are now doing today.
    Why would anyone want more than one wife?
    Osama bin Laden had seven wives and seven mothers-in-law to deal with.

    I’m fairly certain the bullet that killed him was self inflicted.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 82,567

    Sean_F said:

    WillG said:

    Sean_F said:

    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    Cookie said:

    HYUFD said:

    DJ41 said:

    Cookie said:

    HYUFD said:

    Cookie said:

    HYUFD said:

    It should have been Penny.

    Penny Mordaunt has urged Church of England bishops to allow gay marriage ahead of their historic vote, marking the first intervention by a cabinet minister on the issue.

    Ms Mordaunt, Leader of the House of Commons and MP for Portsmouth North, has written to the Bishop of Portsmouth, calling on him to to “recognize the pain and trauma” that failure to recognise same-sex marriage causes to “many LGBT+ people who are left feeling that they are treated as second class citizens within our society”.

    Currently, according to canon law, no Church of England minister can bless or marry gay couples. Ms Mordaunt’s interjection marks the first time that a serving cabinet secretary has called for the issue to be reformed within the Church of England. She also warned that if bishops failed to approve same-sex marriage, the issue would only “fester and detract” from any positive contribution from the institution.

    Her comments also come as next month, bishops will present their long-awaited findings to the General Synod – the Church’s legislative body – on whether the ban on gay marriage could be overturned.


    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/01/16/penny-mordaunt-urges-church-england-allow-gay-marriages/

    Given a 2/3 majority for major change is needed in the House of Bishops, House of Clergy and House of Laity, I doubt there will be drastic change at Synod next month.

    Evangelicals will block full endorsement of homosexual marriage and liberals will block retaining only a biblical Old Testament, Pauline view of marriage as between a man and woman.

    So as with women priests or divorcee marriage I expect a fudge.

    Church of England priests who want to bless same sex couples marriages will be able to, those who don't won't be forced to.

    There may even be more flying Bishops in the Church of England as there are now for Parishes which don't agree with women priests
    The problem, in my view, isn't a fusty church failing to reflect modern values. If Christian values (or values of any other religion) reflect the preferences of aj ineffable God, it seems unlikely to me that that God - who, if we are to believe the church, has been pretty anti-gay for tge last two millenia - has now changed his mind. What seems more likely is that the church doesn't really know, and never knew, what God thinks on any given subject, but knows what society thinks and is desperately trying to reflect that back.
    So the problem isn't that the church is wrong, it's that we listen to the church at all. We shouldn't be telling it what to think or do, we should be gently removing it from the decision-making process.
    Western society you mean. In most of Africa and Asia there is no legal homosexual marriage, same with most of Eastern Europe and Italy and in some parts of North Africa and the Middle East and South Asia homosexuality is still illegal.

    For those who are members of churches the position of that Church is significant. If the Church of England as the established church in England allows its clergy to conduct same sex marriage in England if they wish that will be a significant moment (Jesus for example never said anything against homosexual marriage)
    But the church in those places is imply reflecting those societies' value back at it too.
    The problem is not that the church's - any church's views are 'wrong' - it is that the church doesn't have the insight it claims into what 'right' and 'wrong' are: the fact that its views are so mutable, and always seem to match the views of the society it operates within, suggest very strongly that it doesn't 'know' what God thinks, it is just winging it based on what it thinks society wants to hear. It is therefore adding no value to the decision making process.
    I'm not saying religion should be abolished - I do think it has a value - but that value isn't to the decision making process. Those of us who don't believe should neither tell those who do what they should think, nor pay any mind to what churches think the 'right' course of action is - because they have no more insight than anyone else.
    Disestablish.
    Don't let religious organisations act as state registrars.
    Obviously let people get married in any religious ceremony they want. Just make them go to the registry office afterwards if they want a state-registered marriage.
    Of course churches should be allowed to say what they think is right and wrong. (And perhaps they do sometimes have more insight than those who don't think much about what's right and what's wrong. I'll judge that on each issue.)

    No because if the Church of England allows homosexual marriages by its priests then the moment you disestablish the Roman Catholic Church, which takes a much harder anti gay marriage line, almost certainly becomes the largest Christian church in England within a decade again.

    So you end up with an even harder line national Christian Church than you have now.

    I also as a member of the Church of England would object to being forced to go to a registry office service I don't see as validating my marriage as well as the C of E service I do think validated it
    But the Catholic Church doesn't become the national church, because:
    1) If the CofE is any good, it will retain its numbers. And if it isn't, it doesn't deserve to stay as the 'national church'; but more importantly
    2) in the scenario DJ41 describes, we don't have a national church at all. The secular majority simply stop listening to what the church say. The churches are free to say whatever they want, but the rest of us don't have to pay them any heed.

    Do you object to registering the birth of your child in a registry office? If not, why would you object to registering your marriage? It only needs to be a 5 minute job telling the state about it. You can still celebrate it, properly, in as much depth as you consider appropriate, in a church, in front of your friends, family and God. A quick trip to Epping Registry office with your new wife when you return from honeymoon to fill in a form doesn't strike me as onerous.
    Yes it does. In virtually every other nation where Christians are the majority or plurality religious group, the Roman Catholic Church is the largest religious denomination. The only other exceptions are nations like Denmark where the Lutheran Church of Denmark is the established church or South Africa or Ghana where Pentecostal evangelical churches are the largest Christian group.

    If the Church of England was disestablished most of the Anglo Catholics would become Roman Catholic and most of the evangelicals would become Pentecostal or Baptist as is the case in the USA for example where the Episcopalian Church is a smaller largely liberal church with hardline evangelicals and Catholics pushing against abortion and gay marriage.

    The latter of course means the Christian churches become increasingly pushing a political agenda and free of being established don't give a toss what the secular majority think. Indeed with immigrants tending to be more socially conservative Christians and Muslims too.

    Signing a form to register your child is not the same as having to have a second baptism service at a registry office

    Russia?
    Well the Eastern Orthodox Church is basically the Roman Catholic Church just with a Patriarch not Pope and even more ornate ceremony
    Okaaaayyyyyy....

    I clearly missed that time the Catholics allowed lay clergy below the rank of bishop to marry.
    Michael Cerularius would be spinning in his grave at HYUFD's comments.
    I am actually with HYUFD here. The Orthodox and Catholic feud is the narcissism of small differences. They are both the remaining State Church of the Roman Empire. A bit like Italian and Spanish both being legacy vulgar Latin.

    Where I don't agree is the conflating of Pauline marriage and Old Testament marriage. Pauline marriage is the Roman view: the strict lifelong monogamy as demanded by Jesus, but with added homophobia. Old Testament marriage allowed hundreds of wives, plus concubines, plus sex slaves. That's worst than Muslim marriage, which is up to four wives plus sex slaves. Ironically the adaption from polygamy to monogamy between the OT and the NT is exactly the mindset of the religious establishment adapting the views of God to contemporary society that the Anglicans are now doing today.
    The Jews were strictly monogamous, though, long before the New Testament was written.

    Nero was the first Roman to marry a member of the same sex, poor Sporus, who was castrated for the occasion. His fate was a nightmare. Both Nymphidius Sabinus and Otho kept him as a sex slave, and he committed suicide upon learning that Vitellius planned to have him publicly raped in the arena.
    Blimey, the Romans really were a bunch of bastards weren't they.
    They knew how to build, travel and (by and large) administer. But it's probably fair to say their labelling of others as barbarians was a bit hypocritical.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 82,567
    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    WillG said:

    Sean_F said:

    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    Cookie said:

    HYUFD said:

    DJ41 said:

    Cookie said:

    HYUFD said:

    Cookie said:

    HYUFD said:

    It should have been Penny.

    Penny Mordaunt has urged Church of England bishops to allow gay marriage ahead of their historic vote, marking the first intervention by a cabinet minister on the issue.

    Ms Mordaunt, Leader of the House of Commons and MP for Portsmouth North, has written to the Bishop of Portsmouth, calling on him to to “recognize the pain and trauma” that failure to recognise same-sex marriage causes to “many LGBT+ people who are left feeling that they are treated as second class citizens within our society”.

    Currently, according to canon law, no Church of England minister can bless or marry gay couples. Ms Mordaunt’s interjection marks the first time that a serving cabinet secretary has called for the issue to be reformed within the Church of England. She also warned that if bishops failed to approve same-sex marriage, the issue would only “fester and detract” from any positive contribution from the institution.

    Her comments also come as next month, bishops will present their long-awaited findings to the General Synod – the Church’s legislative body – on whether the ban on gay marriage could be overturned.


    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/01/16/penny-mordaunt-urges-church-england-allow-gay-marriages/

    Given a 2/3 majority for major change is needed in the House of Bishops, House of Clergy and House of Laity, I doubt there will be drastic change at Synod next month.

    Evangelicals will block full endorsement of homosexual marriage and liberals will block retaining only a biblical Old Testament, Pauline view of marriage as between a man and woman.

    So as with women priests or divorcee marriage I expect a fudge.

    Church of England priests who want to bless same sex couples marriages will be able to, those who don't won't be forced to.

    There may even be more flying Bishops in the Church of England as there are now for Parishes which don't agree with women priests
    The problem, in my view, isn't a fusty church failing to reflect modern values. If Christian values (or values of any other religion) reflect the preferences of aj ineffable God, it seems unlikely to me that that God - who, if we are to believe the church, has been pretty anti-gay for tge last two millenia - has now changed his mind. What seems more likely is that the church doesn't really know, and never knew, what God thinks on any given subject, but knows what society thinks and is desperately trying to reflect that back.
    So the problem isn't that the church is wrong, it's that we listen to the church at all. We shouldn't be telling it what to think or do, we should be gently removing it from the decision-making process.
    Western society you mean. In most of Africa and Asia there is no legal homosexual marriage, same with most of Eastern Europe and Italy and in some parts of North Africa and the Middle East and South Asia homosexuality is still illegal.

    For those who are members of churches the position of that Church is significant. If the Church of England as the established church in England allows its clergy to conduct same sex marriage in England if they wish that will be a significant moment (Jesus for example never said anything against homosexual marriage)
    But the church in those places is imply reflecting those societies' value back at it too.
    The problem is not that the church's - any church's views are 'wrong' - it is that the church doesn't have the insight it claims into what 'right' and 'wrong' are: the fact that its views are so mutable, and always seem to match the views of the society it operates within, suggest very strongly that it doesn't 'know' what God thinks, it is just winging it based on what it thinks society wants to hear. It is therefore adding no value to the decision making process.
    I'm not saying religion should be abolished - I do think it has a value - but that value isn't to the decision making process. Those of us who don't believe should neither tell those who do what they should think, nor pay any mind to what churches think the 'right' course of action is - because they have no more insight than anyone else.
    Disestablish.
    Don't let religious organisations act as state registrars.
    Obviously let people get married in any religious ceremony they want. Just make them go to the registry office afterwards if they want a state-registered marriage.
    Of course churches should be allowed to say what they think is right and wrong. (And perhaps they do sometimes have more insight than those who don't think much about what's right and what's wrong. I'll judge that on each issue.)

    No because if the Church of England allows homosexual marriages by its priests then the moment you disestablish the Roman Catholic Church, which takes a much harder anti gay marriage line, almost certainly becomes the largest Christian church in England within a decade again.

    So you end up with an even harder line national Christian Church than you have now.

    I also as a member of the Church of England would object to being forced to go to a registry office service I don't see as validating my marriage as well as the C of E service I do think validated it
    But the Catholic Church doesn't become the national church, because:
    1) If the CofE is any good, it will retain its numbers. And if it isn't, it doesn't deserve to stay as the 'national church'; but more importantly
    2) in the scenario DJ41 describes, we don't have a national church at all. The secular majority simply stop listening to what the church say. The churches are free to say whatever they want, but the rest of us don't have to pay them any heed.

    Do you object to registering the birth of your child in a registry office? If not, why would you object to registering your marriage? It only needs to be a 5 minute job telling the state about it. You can still celebrate it, properly, in as much depth as you consider appropriate, in a church, in front of your friends, family and God. A quick trip to Epping Registry office with your new wife when you return from honeymoon to fill in a form doesn't strike me as onerous.
    Yes it does. In virtually every other nation where Christians are the majority or plurality religious group, the Roman Catholic Church is the largest religious denomination. The only other exceptions are nations like Denmark where the Lutheran Church of Denmark is the established church or South Africa or Ghana where Pentecostal evangelical churches are the largest Christian group.

    If the Church of England was disestablished most of the Anglo Catholics would become Roman Catholic and most of the evangelicals would become Pentecostal or Baptist as is the case in the USA for example where the Episcopalian Church is a smaller largely liberal church with hardline evangelicals and Catholics pushing against abortion and gay marriage.

    The latter of course means the Christian churches become increasingly pushing a political agenda and free of being established don't give a toss what the secular majority think. Indeed with immigrants tending to be more socially conservative Christians and Muslims too.

    Signing a form to register your child is not the same as having to have a second baptism service at a registry office

    Russia?
    Well the Eastern Orthodox Church is basically the Roman Catholic Church just with a Patriarch not Pope and even more ornate ceremony
    Okaaaayyyyyy....

    I clearly missed that time the Catholics allowed lay clergy below the rank of bishop to marry.
    Michael Cerularius would be spinning in his grave at HYUFD's comments.
    I am actually with HYUFD here. The Orthodox and Catholic feud is the narcissism of small differences. They are both the remaining State Church of the Roman Empire. A bit like Italian and Spanish both being legacy vulgar Latin.

    Where I don't agree is the conflating of Pauline marriage and Old Testament marriage. Pauline marriage is the Roman view: the strict lifelong monogamy as demanded by Jesus, but with added homophobia. Old Testament marriage allowed hundreds of wives, plus concubines, plus sex slaves. That's worst than Muslim marriage, which is up to four wives plus sex slaves. Ironically the adaption from polygamy to monogamy between the OT and the NT is exactly the mindset of the religious establishment adapting the views of God to contemporary society that the Anglicans are now doing today.
    Depends which part, the Ten Commandments forbade adultery
    Remember, it's not premarital sex if you never get married.
    In the Bible Corinthians opposes sex outside marriage and immorality as does the Koran at 24:2
    Thank goodness there has never been any other immorality committed by the monogamous married to worry about. If a bunch of old men can police what is going on between the sheets for I'm sure entirely non prurient reasons then all other sins just magically fall away, that's just fact.
    The Old Testament Ten Commandments also forbid murder and stealing of course too
    Classic big state interference with personal liberties.
  • HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    WillG said:

    Sean_F said:

    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    Cookie said:

    HYUFD said:

    DJ41 said:

    Cookie said:

    HYUFD said:

    Cookie said:

    HYUFD said:

    It should have been Penny.

    Penny Mordaunt has urged Church of England bishops to allow gay marriage ahead of their historic vote, marking the first intervention by a cabinet minister on the issue.

    Ms Mordaunt, Leader of the House of Commons and MP for Portsmouth North, has written to the Bishop of Portsmouth, calling on him to to “recognize the pain and trauma” that failure to recognise same-sex marriage causes to “many LGBT+ people who are left feeling that they are treated as second class citizens within our society”.

    Currently, according to canon law, no Church of England minister can bless or marry gay couples. Ms Mordaunt’s interjection marks the first time that a serving cabinet secretary has called for the issue to be reformed within the Church of England. She also warned that if bishops failed to approve same-sex marriage, the issue would only “fester and detract” from any positive contribution from the institution.

    Her comments also come as next month, bishops will present their long-awaited findings to the General Synod – the Church’s legislative body – on whether the ban on gay marriage could be overturned.


    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/01/16/penny-mordaunt-urges-church-england-allow-gay-marriages/

    Given a 2/3 majority for major change is needed in the House of Bishops, House of Clergy and House of Laity, I doubt there will be drastic change at Synod next month.

    Evangelicals will block full endorsement of homosexual marriage and liberals will block retaining only a biblical Old Testament, Pauline view of marriage as between a man and woman.

    So as with women priests or divorcee marriage I expect a fudge.

    Church of England priests who want to bless same sex couples marriages will be able to, those who don't won't be forced to.

    There may even be more flying Bishops in the Church of England as there are now for Parishes which don't agree with women priests
    The problem, in my view, isn't a fusty church failing to reflect modern values. If Christian values (or values of any other religion) reflect the preferences of aj ineffable God, it seems unlikely to me that that God - who, if we are to believe the church, has been pretty anti-gay for tge last two millenia - has now changed his mind. What seems more likely is that the church doesn't really know, and never knew, what God thinks on any given subject, but knows what society thinks and is desperately trying to reflect that back.
    So the problem isn't that the church is wrong, it's that we listen to the church at all. We shouldn't be telling it what to think or do, we should be gently removing it from the decision-making process.
    Western society you mean. In most of Africa and Asia there is no legal homosexual marriage, same with most of Eastern Europe and Italy and in some parts of North Africa and the Middle East and South Asia homosexuality is still illegal.

    For those who are members of churches the position of that Church is significant. If the Church of England as the established church in England allows its clergy to conduct same sex marriage in England if they wish that will be a significant moment (Jesus for example never said anything against homosexual marriage)
    But the church in those places is imply reflecting those societies' value back at it too.
    The problem is not that the church's - any church's views are 'wrong' - it is that the church doesn't have the insight it claims into what 'right' and 'wrong' are: the fact that its views are so mutable, and always seem to match the views of the society it operates within, suggest very strongly that it doesn't 'know' what God thinks, it is just winging it based on what it thinks society wants to hear. It is therefore adding no value to the decision making process.
    I'm not saying religion should be abolished - I do think it has a value - but that value isn't to the decision making process. Those of us who don't believe should neither tell those who do what they should think, nor pay any mind to what churches think the 'right' course of action is - because they have no more insight than anyone else.
    Disestablish.
    Don't let religious organisations act as state registrars.
    Obviously let people get married in any religious ceremony they want. Just make them go to the registry office afterwards if they want a state-registered marriage.
    Of course churches should be allowed to say what they think is right and wrong. (And perhaps they do sometimes have more insight than those who don't think much about what's right and what's wrong. I'll judge that on each issue.)

    No because if the Church of England allows homosexual marriages by its priests then the moment you disestablish the Roman Catholic Church, which takes a much harder anti gay marriage line, almost certainly becomes the largest Christian church in England within a decade again.

    So you end up with an even harder line national Christian Church than you have now.

    I also as a member of the Church of England would object to being forced to go to a registry office service I don't see as validating my marriage as well as the C of E service I do think validated it
    But the Catholic Church doesn't become the national church, because:
    1) If the CofE is any good, it will retain its numbers. And if it isn't, it doesn't deserve to stay as the 'national church'; but more importantly
    2) in the scenario DJ41 describes, we don't have a national church at all. The secular majority simply stop listening to what the church say. The churches are free to say whatever they want, but the rest of us don't have to pay them any heed.

    Do you object to registering the birth of your child in a registry office? If not, why would you object to registering your marriage? It only needs to be a 5 minute job telling the state about it. You can still celebrate it, properly, in as much depth as you consider appropriate, in a church, in front of your friends, family and God. A quick trip to Epping Registry office with your new wife when you return from honeymoon to fill in a form doesn't strike me as onerous.
    Yes it does. In virtually every other nation where Christians are the majority or plurality religious group, the Roman Catholic Church is the largest religious denomination. The only other exceptions are nations like Denmark where the Lutheran Church of Denmark is the established church or South Africa or Ghana where Pentecostal evangelical churches are the largest Christian group.

    If the Church of England was disestablished most of the Anglo Catholics would become Roman Catholic and most of the evangelicals would become Pentecostal or Baptist as is the case in the USA for example where the Episcopalian Church is a smaller largely liberal church with hardline evangelicals and Catholics pushing against abortion and gay marriage.

    The latter of course means the Christian churches become increasingly pushing a political agenda and free of being established don't give a toss what the secular majority think. Indeed with immigrants tending to be more socially conservative Christians and Muslims too.

    Signing a form to register your child is not the same as having to have a second baptism service at a registry office

    Russia?
    Well the Eastern Orthodox Church is basically the Roman Catholic Church just with a Patriarch not Pope and even more ornate ceremony
    Okaaaayyyyyy....

    I clearly missed that time the Catholics allowed lay clergy below the rank of bishop to marry.
    Michael Cerularius would be spinning in his grave at HYUFD's comments.
    I am actually with HYUFD here. The Orthodox and Catholic feud is the narcissism of small differences. They are both the remaining State Church of the Roman Empire. A bit like Italian and Spanish both being legacy vulgar Latin.

    Where I don't agree is the conflating of Pauline marriage and Old Testament marriage. Pauline marriage is the Roman view: the strict lifelong monogamy as demanded by Jesus, but with added homophobia. Old Testament marriage allowed hundreds of wives, plus concubines, plus sex slaves. That's worst than Muslim marriage, which is up to four wives plus sex slaves. Ironically the adaption from polygamy to monogamy between the OT and the NT is exactly the mindset of the religious establishment adapting the views of God to contemporary society that the Anglicans are now doing today.
    Depends which part, the Ten Commandments forbade adultery
    Remember, it's not premarital sex if you never get married.
    In the Bible Corinthians opposes sex outside marriage and immorality as does the Koran at
    24:2 (including lashings for unmarried fornicators)
    Does the wife have to be married to you to have sex with her?

    If she’s married to somebody else and I have sex with her does it make it ok ?
  • HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    WillG said:

    Sean_F said:

    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    Cookie said:

    HYUFD said:

    DJ41 said:

    Cookie said:

    HYUFD said:

    Cookie said:

    HYUFD said:

    It should have been Penny.

    Penny Mordaunt has urged Church of England bishops to allow gay marriage ahead of their historic vote, marking the first intervention by a cabinet minister on the issue.

    Ms Mordaunt, Leader of the House of Commons and MP for Portsmouth North, has written to the Bishop of Portsmouth, calling on him to to “recognize the pain and trauma” that failure to recognise same-sex marriage causes to “many LGBT+ people who are left feeling that they are treated as second class citizens within our society”.

    Currently, according to canon law, no Church of England minister can bless or marry gay couples. Ms Mordaunt’s interjection marks the first time that a serving cabinet secretary has called for the issue to be reformed within the Church of England. She also warned that if bishops failed to approve same-sex marriage, the issue would only “fester and detract” from any positive contribution from the institution.

    Her comments also come as next month, bishops will present their long-awaited findings to the General Synod – the Church’s legislative body – on whether the ban on gay marriage could be overturned.


    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/01/16/penny-mordaunt-urges-church-england-allow-gay-marriages/

    Given a 2/3 majority for major change is needed in the House of Bishops, House of Clergy and House of Laity, I doubt there will be drastic change at Synod next month.

    Evangelicals will block full endorsement of homosexual marriage and liberals will block retaining only a biblical Old Testament, Pauline view of marriage as between a man and woman.

    So as with women priests or divorcee marriage I expect a fudge.

    Church of England priests who want to bless same sex couples marriages will be able to, those who don't won't be forced to.

    There may even be more flying Bishops in the Church of England as there are now for Parishes which don't agree with women priests
    The problem, in my view, isn't a fusty church failing to reflect modern values. If Christian values (or values of any other religion) reflect the preferences of aj ineffable God, it seems unlikely to me that that God - who, if we are to believe the church, has been pretty anti-gay for tge last two millenia - has now changed his mind. What seems more likely is that the church doesn't really know, and never knew, what God thinks on any given subject, but knows what society thinks and is desperately trying to reflect that back.
    So the problem isn't that the church is wrong, it's that we listen to the church at all. We shouldn't be telling it what to think or do, we should be gently removing it from the decision-making process.
    Western society you mean. In most of Africa and Asia there is no legal homosexual marriage, same with most of Eastern Europe and Italy and in some parts of North Africa and the Middle East and South Asia homosexuality is still illegal.

    For those who are members of churches the position of that Church is significant. If the Church of England as the established church in England allows its clergy to conduct same sex marriage in England if they wish that will be a significant moment (Jesus for example never said anything against homosexual marriage)
    But the church in those places is imply reflecting those societies' value back at it too.
    The problem is not that the church's - any church's views are 'wrong' - it is that the church doesn't have the insight it claims into what 'right' and 'wrong' are: the fact that its views are so mutable, and always seem to match the views of the society it operates within, suggest very strongly that it doesn't 'know' what God thinks, it is just winging it based on what it thinks society wants to hear. It is therefore adding no value to the decision making process.
    I'm not saying religion should be abolished - I do think it has a value - but that value isn't to the decision making process. Those of us who don't believe should neither tell those who do what they should think, nor pay any mind to what churches think the 'right' course of action is - because they have no more insight than anyone else.
    Disestablish.
    Don't let religious organisations act as state registrars.
    Obviously let people get married in any religious ceremony they want. Just make them go to the registry office afterwards if they want a state-registered marriage.
    Of course churches should be allowed to say what they think is right and wrong. (And perhaps they do sometimes have more insight than those who don't think much about what's right and what's wrong. I'll judge that on each issue.)

    No because if the Church of England allows homosexual marriages by its priests then the moment you disestablish the Roman Catholic Church, which takes a much harder anti gay marriage line, almost certainly becomes the largest Christian church in England within a decade again.

    So you end up with an even harder line national Christian Church than you have now.

    I also as a member of the Church of England would object to being forced to go to a registry office service I don't see as validating my marriage as well as the C of E service I do think validated it
    But the Catholic Church doesn't become the national church, because:
    1) If the CofE is any good, it will retain its numbers. And if it isn't, it doesn't deserve to stay as the 'national church'; but more importantly
    2) in the scenario DJ41 describes, we don't have a national church at all. The secular majority simply stop listening to what the church say. The churches are free to say whatever they want, but the rest of us don't have to pay them any heed.

    Do you object to registering the birth of your child in a registry office? If not, why would you object to registering your marriage? It only needs to be a 5 minute job telling the state about it. You can still celebrate it, properly, in as much depth as you consider appropriate, in a church, in front of your friends, family and God. A quick trip to Epping Registry office with your new wife when you return from honeymoon to fill in a form doesn't strike me as onerous.
    Yes it does. In virtually every other nation where Christians are the majority or plurality religious group, the Roman Catholic Church is the largest religious denomination. The only other exceptions are nations like Denmark where the Lutheran Church of Denmark is the established church or South Africa or Ghana where Pentecostal evangelical churches are the largest Christian group.

    If the Church of England was disestablished most of the Anglo Catholics would become Roman Catholic and most of the evangelicals would become Pentecostal or Baptist as is the case in the USA for example where the Episcopalian Church is a smaller largely liberal church with hardline evangelicals and Catholics pushing against abortion and gay marriage.

    The latter of course means the Christian churches become increasingly pushing a political agenda and free of being established don't give a toss what the secular majority think. Indeed with immigrants tending to be more socially conservative Christians and Muslims too.

    Signing a form to register your child is not the same as having to have a second baptism service at a registry office

    Russia?
    Well the Eastern Orthodox Church is basically the Roman Catholic Church just with a Patriarch not Pope and even more ornate ceremony
    Okaaaayyyyyy....

    I clearly missed that time the Catholics allowed lay clergy below the rank of bishop to marry.
    Michael Cerularius would be spinning in his grave at HYUFD's comments.
    I am actually with HYUFD here. The Orthodox and Catholic feud is the narcissism of small differences. They are both the remaining State Church of the Roman Empire. A bit like Italian and Spanish both being legacy vulgar Latin.

    Where I don't agree is the conflating of Pauline marriage and Old Testament marriage. Pauline marriage is the Roman view: the strict lifelong monogamy as demanded by Jesus, but with added homophobia. Old Testament marriage allowed hundreds of wives, plus concubines, plus sex slaves. That's worst than Muslim marriage, which is up to four wives plus sex slaves. Ironically the adaption from polygamy to monogamy between the OT and the NT is exactly the mindset of the religious establishment adapting the views of God to contemporary society that the Anglicans are now doing today.
    Depends which part, the Ten Commandments forbade adultery
    Remember, it's not premarital sex if you never get married.
    In the Bible Corinthians opposes sex outside marriage and immorality as does the Koran at
    24:2 (including lashings for unmarried fornicators)
    Are they rules or guidelines? And is there a statute of limitations on them?
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 82,567
    On topic, Biden's had some bad press (which even if in scale does not end the same as Trump's issues, really undermines going after the latter), and the period of 'wow, what a great midterms, some of that is down to Biden' has moved on a bit, slippin gmakes sense.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 82,567

    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    WillG said:

    Sean_F said:

    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    Cookie said:

    HYUFD said:

    DJ41 said:

    Cookie said:

    HYUFD said:

    Cookie said:

    HYUFD said:

    It should have been Penny.

    Penny Mordaunt has urged Church of England bishops to allow gay marriage ahead of their historic vote, marking the first intervention by a cabinet minister on the issue.

    Ms Mordaunt, Leader of the House of Commons and MP for Portsmouth North, has written to the Bishop of Portsmouth, calling on him to to “recognize the pain and trauma” that failure to recognise same-sex marriage causes to “many LGBT+ people who are left feeling that they are treated as second class citizens within our society”.

    Currently, according to canon law, no Church of England minister can bless or marry gay couples. Ms Mordaunt’s interjection marks the first time that a serving cabinet secretary has called for the issue to be reformed within the Church of England. She also warned that if bishops failed to approve same-sex marriage, the issue would only “fester and detract” from any positive contribution from the institution.

    Her comments also come as next month, bishops will present their long-awaited findings to the General Synod – the Church’s legislative body – on whether the ban on gay marriage could be overturned.


    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/01/16/penny-mordaunt-urges-church-england-allow-gay-marriages/

    Given a 2/3 majority for major change is needed in the House of Bishops, House of Clergy and House of Laity, I doubt there will be drastic change at Synod next month.

    Evangelicals will block full endorsement of homosexual marriage and liberals will block retaining only a biblical Old Testament, Pauline view of marriage as between a man and woman.

    So as with women priests or divorcee marriage I expect a fudge.

    Church of England priests who want to bless same sex couples marriages will be able to, those who don't won't be forced to.

    There may even be more flying Bishops in the Church of England as there are now for Parishes which don't agree with women priests
    The problem, in my view, isn't a fusty church failing to reflect modern values. If Christian values (or values of any other religion) reflect the preferences of aj ineffable God, it seems unlikely to me that that God - who, if we are to believe the church, has been pretty anti-gay for tge last two millenia - has now changed his mind. What seems more likely is that the church doesn't really know, and never knew, what God thinks on any given subject, but knows what society thinks and is desperately trying to reflect that back.
    So the problem isn't that the church is wrong, it's that we listen to the church at all. We shouldn't be telling it what to think or do, we should be gently removing it from the decision-making process.
    Western society you mean. In most of Africa and Asia there is no legal homosexual marriage, same with most of Eastern Europe and Italy and in some parts of North Africa and the Middle East and South Asia homosexuality is still illegal.

    For those who are members of churches the position of that Church is significant. If the Church of England as the established church in England allows its clergy to conduct same sex marriage in England if they wish that will be a significant moment (Jesus for example never said anything against homosexual marriage)
    But the church in those places is imply reflecting those societies' value back at it too.
    The problem is not that the church's - any church's views are 'wrong' - it is that the church doesn't have the insight it claims into what 'right' and 'wrong' are: the fact that its views are so mutable, and always seem to match the views of the society it operates within, suggest very strongly that it doesn't 'know' what God thinks, it is just winging it based on what it thinks society wants to hear. It is therefore adding no value to the decision making process.
    I'm not saying religion should be abolished - I do think it has a value - but that value isn't to the decision making process. Those of us who don't believe should neither tell those who do what they should think, nor pay any mind to what churches think the 'right' course of action is - because they have no more insight than anyone else.
    Disestablish.
    Don't let religious organisations act as state registrars.
    Obviously let people get married in any religious ceremony they want. Just make them go to the registry office afterwards if they want a state-registered marriage.
    Of course churches should be allowed to say what they think is right and wrong. (And perhaps they do sometimes have more insight than those who don't think much about what's right and what's wrong. I'll judge that on each issue.)

    No because if the Church of England allows homosexual marriages by its priests then the moment you disestablish the Roman Catholic Church, which takes a much harder anti gay marriage line, almost certainly becomes the largest Christian church in England within a decade again.

    So you end up with an even harder line national Christian Church than you have now.

    I also as a member of the Church of England would object to being forced to go to a registry office service I don't see as validating my marriage as well as the C of E service I do think validated it
    But the Catholic Church doesn't become the national church, because:
    1) If the CofE is any good, it will retain its numbers. And if it isn't, it doesn't deserve to stay as the 'national church'; but more importantly
    2) in the scenario DJ41 describes, we don't have a national church at all. The secular majority simply stop listening to what the church say. The churches are free to say whatever they want, but the rest of us don't have to pay them any heed.

    Do you object to registering the birth of your child in a registry office? If not, why would you object to registering your marriage? It only needs to be a 5 minute job telling the state about it. You can still celebrate it, properly, in as much depth as you consider appropriate, in a church, in front of your friends, family and God. A quick trip to Epping Registry office with your new wife when you return from honeymoon to fill in a form doesn't strike me as onerous.
    Yes it does. In virtually every other nation where Christians are the majority or plurality religious group, the Roman Catholic Church is the largest religious denomination. The only other exceptions are nations like Denmark where the Lutheran Church of Denmark is the established church or South Africa or Ghana where Pentecostal evangelical churches are the largest Christian group.

    If the Church of England was disestablished most of the Anglo Catholics would become Roman Catholic and most of the evangelicals would become Pentecostal or Baptist as is the case in the USA for example where the Episcopalian Church is a smaller largely liberal church with hardline evangelicals and Catholics pushing against abortion and gay marriage.

    The latter of course means the Christian churches become increasingly pushing a political agenda and free of being established don't give a toss what the secular majority think. Indeed with immigrants tending to be more socially conservative Christians and Muslims too.

    Signing a form to register your child is not the same as having to have a second baptism service at a registry office

    Russia?
    Well the Eastern Orthodox Church is basically the Roman Catholic Church just with a Patriarch not Pope and even more ornate ceremony
    Okaaaayyyyyy....

    I clearly missed that time the Catholics allowed lay clergy below the rank of bishop to marry.
    Michael Cerularius would be spinning in his grave at HYUFD's comments.
    I am actually with HYUFD here. The Orthodox and Catholic feud is the narcissism of small differences. They are both the remaining State Church of the Roman Empire. A bit like Italian and Spanish both being legacy vulgar Latin.

    Where I don't agree is the conflating of Pauline marriage and Old Testament marriage. Pauline marriage is the Roman view: the strict lifelong monogamy as demanded by Jesus, but with added homophobia. Old Testament marriage allowed hundreds of wives, plus concubines, plus sex slaves. That's worst than Muslim marriage, which is up to four wives plus sex slaves. Ironically the adaption from polygamy to monogamy between the OT and the NT is exactly the mindset of the religious establishment adapting the views of God to contemporary society that the Anglicans are now doing today.
    Depends which part, the Ten Commandments forbade adultery
    Remember, it's not premarital sex if you never get married.
    In the Bible Corinthians opposes sex outside marriage and immorality as does the Koran at
    24:2 (including lashings for unmarried fornicators)
    Does the wife have to be married to you to have sex with her?

    If she’s married to somebody else and I have sex with her does it make it ok ?
    Consult a priest, or better yet let him watch, and then you will have an answer.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 82,567

    Developers are not sitting on land with planning permission in vast quantities. Getting planning permission is an expensive business (lots of fat fee solicitors) and it generally lapses after 3 years.

    I’ve asked to do a planning law seat, so that should be fun.

    You can see very long delays if permission requires a legal agreement of course, as they can get rather complicated.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 47,316

    Nigelb said:

    Kamala Harris has just about the lowest VP profile and level of public esteem that I can personally recall, since the days of Dan Quayle. Whom (I'm guessing) has higher name recognition in HIS day (unfortunately for him) than she does today.

    She's nowhere near that deep hole, of course. But neither has she achieved the respect and recognition as VP of Al Gore, Dick Cheney, Joe Biden or (even) Mike Pence.

    As for Secretary of Transportation Pete Buttigieg, recent snafus, fubars, meltdowns, etc., etc. with US airlines have SERIOUSLY taken the shine of his glow (or visa versa). So far with little to no sign that he's pulling American aviation out of current tailspin.

    Unless "I survived Southwest Airlines" T-shirts and similar, are campaign slogans?

    Opinions vary on that.
    https://www.politico.com/news/2023/01/14/pete-buttigieg-airlines-transportation-00077957
    You mean "Biden’s longtime pollster, John Anzalone, defended Buttigieg as a “fucking hero” to airline passengers in an interview with POLITICO." And similar?

    Not sure that counterbalances the views of MANY frequent & infrequent flyers, over the past month or so, from sea to shining sea.

    Such guff might even make it worse. Defending the indefensible is NOT a good look. Inside the Beltway OR in Westminster Village.
    There's that, and the rest of the article - and the fact that it's about a year away from any possible nomination battle starting to get serious.

    If his odds go out much beyond the current 20 on Betfair, then possibly worth a small nibble.
  • SeaShantyIrish2SeaShantyIrish2 Posts: 11,082
    Nigelb said:

    BTW, Happy MLK Day!

    FYI, IMHO only matter of time, before Andrew Jackson gets replaced on $20-bill, by Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

    Think George Washington keeps his spot on $1-bill, because, well, he's George Washington.

    As for Alexander Hamilton, he'd likely get cancelled from $10-bill HOWEVER he's saved by "Hamilton" the musical for another century or so.

    The $2-bill with Tom Jefferson so rare that no one cares.

    As for US Grant on $50-bill, his historical reputation is currently on upswing, which should help keep him around.

    The $100-bill aka "c-note" is preserve of Ben Franklin, and reckon always will be, thanks to fact that old Ben's reputation has rarely dimmed from generation to generation in American history and culture.

    And today the $100-bill is perhaps the closest thing the world has to a universal standard of monetary value?

    That's why it's all about the Benjamins. Hamilton is the "$10 Founding Father without a father," rescued from relative obscurity by Lin Manuel Miranda. I note you don't even raise the status of Lincoln on the $5.
    Good catch re: Abe Lincoln. He's got a lock on the Five-spot, for same reason as GW on the $1-bill.

    PLUS less likelihood of getting replaced by a coin, as the value of $1 today is somewhere in neighborhood of a dime when I was a lad!

    As for Alexander Hamilton, think you are wrong re: "relative obscurity" certainly NOT in historiography and controversy, as a conservative icon that even liberals (for example Elizabeth Warren) credit for his "present at the creation" role in American fiscal policy & high finance.

    Another Secretary of Treasury who made (and still makes) the face of a US bank note = Salmon B Chase on the $10,000.

    BTW (and FYI) if any PB has a spare one of THOSE, could you please forward to yours truly, as it would make a dandy addition to by own collection of US currency?
    The Madison, despite a lower face value, is probably worth more than that owing to its rarity.

    I remember it from one of the Chandler novels.
    I have a facsimile of the $5000-bill (about 1/2 size or thereabouts) with portrait of James Madison on front, and engraving of George Washington resigning his commission on back. Series of 1918, signed by then-US Treasury Secretary Carter Glass.
  • Teachers strikes are on:

    BREAKING:
    NEU schools union ballot result - teachers in England 121,253 voted yes - 90.4% FOR STRIKE
    Threshold of 50% legal turnout passed - 53%

    https://twitter.com/paulwaugh/status/1615031726392082446
  • Teachers strikes are on:

    BREAKING:
    NEU schools union ballot result - teachers in England 121,253 voted yes - 90.4% FOR STRIKE
    Threshold of 50% legal turnout passed - 53%

    https://twitter.com/paulwaugh/status/1615031726392082446

    That's a great result. General Strike Now😀
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 82,567

    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    WillG said:

    Sean_F said:

    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    Cookie said:

    HYUFD said:

    DJ41 said:

    Cookie said:

    HYUFD said:

    Cookie said:

    HYUFD said:

    It should have been Penny.

    Penny Mordaunt has urged Church of England bishops to allow gay marriage ahead of their historic vote, marking the first intervention by a cabinet minister on the issue.

    Ms Mordaunt, Leader of the House of Commons and MP for Portsmouth North, has written to the Bishop of Portsmouth, calling on him to to “recognize the pain and trauma” that failure to recognise same-sex marriage causes to “many LGBT+ people who are left feeling that they are treated as second class citizens within our society”.

    Currently, according to canon law, no Church of England minister can bless or marry gay couples. Ms Mordaunt’s interjection marks the first time that a serving cabinet secretary has called for the issue to be reformed within the Church of England. She also warned that if bishops failed to approve same-sex marriage, the issue would only “fester and detract” from any positive contribution from the institution.

    Her comments also come as next month, bishops will present their long-awaited findings to the General Synod – the Church’s legislative body – on whether the ban on gay marriage could be overturned.


    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/01/16/penny-mordaunt-urges-church-england-allow-gay-marriages/

    Given a 2/3 majority for major change is needed in the House of Bishops, House of Clergy and House of Laity, I doubt there will be drastic change at Synod next month.

    Evangelicals will block full endorsement of homosexual marriage and liberals will block retaining only a biblical Old Testament, Pauline view of marriage as between a man and woman.

    So as with women priests or divorcee marriage I expect a fudge.

    Church of England priests who want to bless same sex couples marriages will be able to, those who don't won't be forced to.

    There may even be more flying Bishops in the Church of England as there are now for Parishes which don't agree with women priests
    The problem, in my view, isn't a fusty church failing to reflect modern values. If Christian values (or values of any other religion) reflect the preferences of aj ineffable God, it seems unlikely to me that that God - who, if we are to believe the church, has been pretty anti-gay for tge last two millenia - has now changed his mind. What seems more likely is that the church doesn't really know, and never knew, what God thinks on any given subject, but knows what society thinks and is desperately trying to reflect that back.
    So the problem isn't that the church is wrong, it's that we listen to the church at all. We shouldn't be telling it what to think or do, we should be gently removing it from the decision-making process.
    Western society you mean. In most of Africa and Asia there is no legal homosexual marriage, same with most of Eastern Europe and Italy and in some parts of North Africa and the Middle East and South Asia homosexuality is still illegal.

    For those who are members of churches the position of that Church is significant. If the Church of England as the established church in England allows its clergy to conduct same sex marriage in England if they wish that will be a significant moment (Jesus for example never said anything against homosexual marriage)
    But the church in those places is imply reflecting those societies' value back at it too.
    The problem is not that the church's - any church's views are 'wrong' - it is that the church doesn't have the insight it claims into what 'right' and 'wrong' are: the fact that its views are so mutable, and always seem to match the views of the society it operates within, suggest very strongly that it doesn't 'know' what God thinks, it is just winging it based on what it thinks society wants to hear. It is therefore adding no value to the decision making process.
    I'm not saying religion should be abolished - I do think it has a value - but that value isn't to the decision making process. Those of us who don't believe should neither tell those who do what they should think, nor pay any mind to what churches think the 'right' course of action is - because they have no more insight than anyone else.
    Disestablish.
    Don't let religious organisations act as state registrars.
    Obviously let people get married in any religious ceremony they want. Just make them go to the registry office afterwards if they want a state-registered marriage.
    Of course churches should be allowed to say what they think is right and wrong. (And perhaps they do sometimes have more insight than those who don't think much about what's right and what's wrong. I'll judge that on each issue.)

    No because if the Church of England allows homosexual marriages by its priests then the moment you disestablish the Roman Catholic Church, which takes a much harder anti gay marriage line, almost certainly becomes the largest Christian church in England within a decade again.

    So you end up with an even harder line national Christian Church than you have now.

    I also as a member of the Church of England would object to being forced to go to a registry office service I don't see as validating my marriage as well as the C of E service I do think validated it
    But the Catholic Church doesn't become the national church, because:
    1) If the CofE is any good, it will retain its numbers. And if it isn't, it doesn't deserve to stay as the 'national church'; but more importantly
    2) in the scenario DJ41 describes, we don't have a national church at all. The secular majority simply stop listening to what the church say. The churches are free to say whatever they want, but the rest of us don't have to pay them any heed.

    Do you object to registering the birth of your child in a registry office? If not, why would you object to registering your marriage? It only needs to be a 5 minute job telling the state about it. You can still celebrate it, properly, in as much depth as you consider appropriate, in a church, in front of your friends, family and God. A quick trip to Epping Registry office with your new wife when you return from honeymoon to fill in a form doesn't strike me as onerous.
    Yes it does. In virtually every other nation where Christians are the majority or plurality religious group, the Roman Catholic Church is the largest religious denomination. The only other exceptions are nations like Denmark where the Lutheran Church of Denmark is the established church or South Africa or Ghana where Pentecostal evangelical churches are the largest Christian group.

    If the Church of England was disestablished most of the Anglo Catholics would become Roman Catholic and most of the evangelicals would become Pentecostal or Baptist as is the case in the USA for example where the Episcopalian Church is a smaller largely liberal church with hardline evangelicals and Catholics pushing against abortion and gay marriage.

    The latter of course means the Christian churches become increasingly pushing a political agenda and free of being established don't give a toss what the secular majority think. Indeed with immigrants tending to be more socially conservative Christians and Muslims too.

    Signing a form to register your child is not the same as having to have a second baptism service at a registry office

    Russia?
    Well the Eastern Orthodox Church is basically the Roman Catholic Church just with a Patriarch not Pope and even more ornate ceremony
    Okaaaayyyyyy....

    I clearly missed that time the Catholics allowed lay clergy below the rank of bishop to marry.
    Michael Cerularius would be spinning in his grave at HYUFD's comments.
    I am actually with HYUFD here. The Orthodox and Catholic feud is the narcissism of small differences. They are both the remaining State Church of the Roman Empire. A bit like Italian and Spanish both being legacy vulgar Latin.

    Where I don't agree is the conflating of Pauline marriage and Old Testament marriage. Pauline marriage is the Roman view: the strict lifelong monogamy as demanded by Jesus, but with added homophobia. Old Testament marriage allowed hundreds of wives, plus concubines, plus sex slaves. That's worst than Muslim marriage, which is up to four wives plus sex slaves. Ironically the adaption from polygamy to monogamy between the OT and the NT is exactly the mindset of the religious establishment adapting the views of God to contemporary society that the Anglicans are now doing today.
    Depends which part, the Ten Commandments forbade adultery
    Remember, it's not premarital sex if you never get married.
    In the Bible Corinthians opposes sex outside marriage and immorality as does the Koran at
    24:2 (including lashings for unmarried fornicators)
    Are they rules or guidelines? And is there a statute of limitations on them?
    People for a long time felt the bible was ok with slavery (I don't know what sections) which I bet most don't today, so at the least even the seemingly very direct rules and prohibitions must have caveats on them.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 82,567

    Teachers strikes are on:

    BREAKING:
    NEU schools union ballot result - teachers in England 121,253 voted yes - 90.4% FOR STRIKE
    Threshold of 50% legal turnout passed - 53%

    https://twitter.com/paulwaugh/status/1615031726392082446

    Bit of a nailbiter there. Given the current atmosphere that this is a moment for striking, I do wonder what could push the turnout any higher.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 107,356

    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    WillG said:

    Sean_F said:

    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    Cookie said:

    HYUFD said:

    DJ41 said:

    Cookie said:

    HYUFD said:

    Cookie said:

    HYUFD said:

    It should have been Penny.

    Penny Mordaunt has urged Church of England bishops to allow gay marriage ahead of their historic vote, marking the first intervention by a cabinet minister on the issue.

    Ms Mordaunt, Leader of the House of Commons and MP for Portsmouth North, has written to the Bishop of Portsmouth, calling on him to to “recognize the pain and trauma” that failure to recognise same-sex marriage causes to “many LGBT+ people who are left feeling that they are treated as second class citizens within our society”.

    Currently, according to canon law, no Church of England minister can bless or marry gay couples. Ms Mordaunt’s interjection marks the first time that a serving cabinet secretary has called for the issue to be reformed within the Church of England. She also warned that if bishops failed to approve same-sex marriage, the issue would only “fester and detract” from any positive contribution from the institution.

    Her comments also come as next month, bishops will present their long-awaited findings to the General Synod – the Church’s legislative body – on whether the ban on gay marriage could be overturned.


    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/01/16/penny-mordaunt-urges-church-england-allow-gay-marriages/

    Given a 2/3 majority for major change is needed in the House of Bishops, House of Clergy and House of Laity, I doubt there will be drastic change at Synod next month.

    Evangelicals will block full endorsement of homosexual marriage and liberals will block retaining only a biblical Old Testament, Pauline view of marriage as between a man and woman.

    So as with women priests or divorcee marriage I expect a fudge.

    Church of England priests who want to bless same sex couples marriages will be able to, those who don't won't be forced to.

    There may even be more flying Bishops in the Church of England as there are now for Parishes which don't agree with women priests
    The problem, in my view, isn't a fusty church failing to reflect modern values. If Christian values (or values of any other religion) reflect the preferences of aj ineffable God, it seems unlikely to me that that God - who, if we are to believe the church, has been pretty anti-gay for tge last two millenia - has now changed his mind. What seems more likely is that the church doesn't really know, and never knew, what God thinks on any given subject, but knows what society thinks and is desperately trying to reflect that back.
    So the problem isn't that the church is wrong, it's that we listen to the church at all. We shouldn't be telling it what to think or do, we should be gently removing it from the decision-making process.
    Western society you mean. In most of Africa and Asia there is no legal homosexual marriage, same with most of Eastern Europe and Italy and in some parts of North Africa and the Middle East and South Asia homosexuality is still illegal.

    For those who are members of churches the position of that Church is significant. If the Church of England as the established church in England allows its clergy to conduct same sex marriage in England if they wish that will be a significant moment (Jesus for example never said anything against homosexual marriage)
    But the church in those places is imply reflecting those societies' value back at it too.
    The problem is not that the church's - any church's views are 'wrong' - it is that the church doesn't have the insight it claims into what 'right' and 'wrong' are: the fact that its views are so mutable, and always seem to match the views of the society it operates within, suggest very strongly that it doesn't 'know' what God thinks, it is just winging it based on what it thinks society wants to hear. It is therefore adding no value to the decision making process.
    I'm not saying religion should be abolished - I do think it has a value - but that value isn't to the decision making process. Those of us who don't believe should neither tell those who do what they should think, nor pay any mind to what churches think the 'right' course of action is - because they have no more insight than anyone else.
    Disestablish.
    Don't let religious organisations act as state registrars.
    Obviously let people get married in any religious ceremony they want. Just make them go to the registry office afterwards if they want a state-registered marriage.
    Of course churches should be allowed to say what they think is right and wrong. (And perhaps they do sometimes have more insight than those who don't think much about what's right and what's wrong. I'll judge that on each issue.)

    No because if the Church of England allows homosexual marriages by its priests then the moment you disestablish the Roman Catholic Church, which takes a much harder anti gay marriage line, almost certainly becomes the largest Christian church in England within a decade again.

    So you end up with an even harder line national Christian Church than you have now.

    I also as a member of the Church of England would object to being forced to go to a registry office service I don't see as validating my marriage as well as the C of E service I do think validated it
    But the Catholic Church doesn't become the national church, because:
    1) If the CofE is any good, it will retain its numbers. And if it isn't, it doesn't deserve to stay as the 'national church'; but more importantly
    2) in the scenario DJ41 describes, we don't have a national church at all. The secular majority simply stop listening to what the church say. The churches are free to say whatever they want, but the rest of us don't have to pay them any heed.

    Do you object to registering the birth of your child in a registry office? If not, why would you object to registering your marriage? It only needs to be a 5 minute job telling the state about it. You can still celebrate it, properly, in as much depth as you consider appropriate, in a church, in front of your friends, family and God. A quick trip to Epping Registry office with your new wife when you return from honeymoon to fill in a form doesn't strike me as onerous.
    Yes it does. In virtually every other nation where Christians are the majority or plurality religious group, the Roman Catholic Church is the largest religious denomination. The only other exceptions are nations like Denmark where the Lutheran Church of Denmark is the established church or South Africa or Ghana where Pentecostal evangelical churches are the largest Christian group.

    If the Church of England was disestablished most of the Anglo Catholics would become Roman Catholic and most of the evangelicals would become Pentecostal or Baptist as is the case in the USA for example where the Episcopalian Church is a smaller largely liberal church with hardline evangelicals and Catholics pushing against abortion and gay marriage.

    The latter of course means the Christian churches become increasingly pushing a political agenda and free of being established don't give a toss what the secular majority think. Indeed with immigrants tending to be more socially conservative Christians and Muslims too.

    Signing a form to register your child is not the same as having to have a second baptism service at a registry office

    Russia?
    Well the Eastern Orthodox Church is basically the Roman Catholic Church just with a Patriarch not Pope and even more ornate ceremony
    Okaaaayyyyyy....

    I clearly missed that time the Catholics allowed lay clergy below the rank of bishop to marry.
    Michael Cerularius would be spinning in his grave at HYUFD's comments.
    I am actually with HYUFD here. The Orthodox and Catholic feud is the narcissism of small differences. They are both the remaining State Church of the Roman Empire. A bit like Italian and Spanish both being legacy vulgar Latin.

    Where I don't agree is the conflating of Pauline marriage and Old Testament marriage. Pauline marriage is the Roman view: the strict lifelong monogamy as demanded by Jesus, but with added homophobia. Old Testament marriage allowed hundreds of wives, plus concubines, plus sex slaves. That's worst than Muslim marriage, which is up to four wives plus sex slaves. Ironically the adaption from polygamy to monogamy between the OT and the NT is exactly the mindset of the religious establishment adapting the views of God to contemporary society that the Anglicans are now doing today.
    Depends which part, the Ten Commandments forbade adultery
    Remember, it's not premarital sex if you never get married.
    In the Bible Corinthians opposes sex outside marriage and immorality as does the Koran at
    24:2 (including lashings for unmarried fornicators)
    Are they rules or guidelines? And is there a statute of limitations on them?
    For strict Christians and Muslims they are eternal rules from God
  • Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    Kamala Harris has just about the lowest VP profile and level of public esteem that I can personally recall, since the days of Dan Quayle. Whom (I'm guessing) has higher name recognition in HIS day (unfortunately for him) than she does today.

    She's nowhere near that deep hole, of course. But neither has she achieved the respect and recognition as VP of Al Gore, Dick Cheney, Joe Biden or (even) Mike Pence.

    As for Secretary of Transportation Pete Buttigieg, recent snafus, fubars, meltdowns, etc., etc. with US airlines have SERIOUSLY taken the shine of his glow (or visa versa). So far with little to no sign that he's pulling American aviation out of current tailspin.

    Unless "I survived Southwest Airlines" T-shirts and similar, are campaign slogans?

    Opinions vary on that.
    https://www.politico.com/news/2023/01/14/pete-buttigieg-airlines-transportation-00077957
    You mean "Biden’s longtime pollster, John Anzalone, defended Buttigieg as a “fucking hero” to airline passengers in an interview with POLITICO." And similar?

    Not sure that counterbalances the views of MANY frequent & infrequent flyers, over the past month or so, from sea to shining sea.

    Such guff might even make it worse. Defending the indefensible is NOT a good look. Inside the Beltway OR in Westminster Village.
    There's that, and the rest of the article - and the fact that it's about a year away from any possible nomination battle starting to get serious.

    If his odds go out much beyond the current 20 on Betfair, then possibly worth a small nibble.
    Mayor Pete is a short quite frankly. As mentioned, he has been pretty p1ss poor as Transport Sec. What really is likely to do him in though is the 6 weeks parental leave he took when the logistics / supply chain issue problem was at its worst. Americans can forgive an incompetent but a slacker is worse.

    Plus, he's also the wrong fit for the nomination process - white and male. Yes, he is gay but good luck with the African-American Democratic voting base. There is a reason he tended to do badly in states like South Carolina.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 107,356
    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    WillG said:

    Sean_F said:

    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    Cookie said:

    HYUFD said:

    DJ41 said:

    Cookie said:

    HYUFD said:

    Cookie said:

    HYUFD said:

    It should have been Penny.

    Penny Mordaunt has urged Church of England bishops to allow gay marriage ahead of their historic vote, marking the first intervention by a cabinet minister on the issue.

    Ms Mordaunt, Leader of the House of Commons and MP for Portsmouth North, has written to the Bishop of Portsmouth, calling on him to to “recognize the pain and trauma” that failure to recognise same-sex marriage causes to “many LGBT+ people who are left feeling that they are treated as second class citizens within our society”.

    Currently, according to canon law, no Church of England minister can bless or marry gay couples. Ms Mordaunt’s interjection marks the first time that a serving cabinet secretary has called for the issue to be reformed within the Church of England. She also warned that if bishops failed to approve same-sex marriage, the issue would only “fester and detract” from any positive contribution from the institution.

    Her comments also come as next month, bishops will present their long-awaited findings to the General Synod – the Church’s legislative body – on whether the ban on gay marriage could be overturned.


    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/01/16/penny-mordaunt-urges-church-england-allow-gay-marriages/

    Given a 2/3 majority for major change is needed in the House of Bishops, House of Clergy and House of Laity, I doubt there will be drastic change at Synod next month.

    Evangelicals will block full endorsement of homosexual marriage and liberals will block retaining only a biblical Old Testament, Pauline view of marriage as between a man and woman.

    So as with women priests or divorcee marriage I expect a fudge.

    Church of England priests who want to bless same sex couples marriages will be able to, those who don't won't be forced to.

    There may even be more flying Bishops in the Church of England as there are now for Parishes which don't agree with women priests
    The problem, in my view, isn't a fusty church failing to reflect modern values. If Christian values (or values of any other religion) reflect the preferences of aj ineffable God, it seems unlikely to me that that God - who, if we are to believe the church, has been pretty anti-gay for tge last two millenia - has now changed his mind. What seems more likely is that the church doesn't really know, and never knew, what God thinks on any given subject, but knows what society thinks and is desperately trying to reflect that back.
    So the problem isn't that the church is wrong, it's that we listen to the church at all. We shouldn't be telling it what to think or do, we should be gently removing it from the decision-making process.
    Western society you mean. In most of Africa and Asia there is no legal homosexual marriage, same with most of Eastern Europe and Italy and in some parts of North Africa and the Middle East and South Asia homosexuality is still illegal.

    For those who are members of churches the position of that Church is significant. If the Church of England as the established church in England allows its clergy to conduct same sex marriage in England if they wish that will be a significant moment (Jesus for example never said anything against homosexual marriage)
    But the church in those places is imply reflecting those societies' value back at it too.
    The problem is not that the church's - any church's views are 'wrong' - it is that the church doesn't have the insight it claims into what 'right' and 'wrong' are: the fact that its views are so mutable, and always seem to match the views of the society it operates within, suggest very strongly that it doesn't 'know' what God thinks, it is just winging it based on what it thinks society wants to hear. It is therefore adding no value to the decision making process.
    I'm not saying religion should be abolished - I do think it has a value - but that value isn't to the decision making process. Those of us who don't believe should neither tell those who do what they should think, nor pay any mind to what churches think the 'right' course of action is - because they have no more insight than anyone else.
    Disestablish.
    Don't let religious organisations act as state registrars.
    Obviously let people get married in any religious ceremony they want. Just make them go to the registry office afterwards if they want a state-registered marriage.
    Of course churches should be allowed to say what they think is right and wrong. (And perhaps they do sometimes have more insight than those who don't think much about what's right and what's wrong. I'll judge that on each issue.)

    No because if the Church of England allows homosexual marriages by its priests then the moment you disestablish the Roman Catholic Church, which takes a much harder anti gay marriage line, almost certainly becomes the largest Christian church in England within a decade again.

    So you end up with an even harder line national Christian Church than you have now.

    I also as a member of the Church of England would object to being forced to go to a registry office service I don't see as validating my marriage as well as the C of E service I do think validated it
    But the Catholic Church doesn't become the national church, because:
    1) If the CofE is any good, it will retain its numbers. And if it isn't, it doesn't deserve to stay as the 'national church'; but more importantly
    2) in the scenario DJ41 describes, we don't have a national church at all. The secular majority simply stop listening to what the church say. The churches are free to say whatever they want, but the rest of us don't have to pay them any heed.

    Do you object to registering the birth of your child in a registry office? If not, why would you object to registering your marriage? It only needs to be a 5 minute job telling the state about it. You can still celebrate it, properly, in as much depth as you consider appropriate, in a church, in front of your friends, family and God. A quick trip to Epping Registry office with your new wife when you return from honeymoon to fill in a form doesn't strike me as onerous.
    Yes it does. In virtually every other nation where Christians are the majority or plurality religious group, the Roman Catholic Church is the largest religious denomination. The only other exceptions are nations like Denmark where the Lutheran Church of Denmark is the established church or South Africa or Ghana where Pentecostal evangelical churches are the largest Christian group.

    If the Church of England was disestablished most of the Anglo Catholics would become Roman Catholic and most of the evangelicals would become Pentecostal or Baptist as is the case in the USA for example where the Episcopalian Church is a smaller largely liberal church with hardline evangelicals and Catholics pushing against abortion and gay marriage.

    The latter of course means the Christian churches become increasingly pushing a political agenda and free of being established don't give a toss what the secular majority think. Indeed with immigrants tending to be more socially conservative Christians and Muslims too.

    Signing a form to register your child is not the same as having to have a second baptism service at a registry office

    Russia?
    Well the Eastern Orthodox Church is basically the Roman Catholic Church just with a Patriarch not Pope and even more ornate ceremony
    Okaaaayyyyyy....

    I clearly missed that time the Catholics allowed lay clergy below the rank of bishop to marry.
    Michael Cerularius would be spinning in his grave at HYUFD's comments.
    I am actually with HYUFD here. The Orthodox and Catholic feud is the narcissism of small differences. They are both the remaining State Church of the Roman Empire. A bit like Italian and Spanish both being legacy vulgar Latin.

    Where I don't agree is the conflating of Pauline marriage and Old Testament marriage. Pauline marriage is the Roman view: the strict lifelong monogamy as demanded by Jesus, but with added homophobia. Old Testament marriage allowed hundreds of wives, plus concubines, plus sex slaves. That's worst than Muslim marriage, which is up to four wives plus sex slaves. Ironically the adaption from polygamy to monogamy between the OT and the NT is exactly the mindset of the religious establishment adapting the views of God to contemporary society that the Anglicans are now doing today.
    Depends which part, the Ten Commandments forbade adultery
    Remember, it's not premarital sex if you never get married.
    In the Bible Corinthians opposes sex outside marriage and immorality as does the Koran at 24:2
    Thank goodness there has never been any other immorality committed by the monogamous married to worry about. If a bunch of old men can police what is going on between the sheets for I'm sure entirely non prurient reasons then all other sins just magically fall away, that's just fact.
    The Old Testament Ten Commandments also forbid murder and stealing of course too
    Classic big state interference with personal liberties.
    So legal murder and legal theft on your pure libertarian ideology then?
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 82,567
    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    WillG said:

    Sean_F said:

    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    Cookie said:

    HYUFD said:

    DJ41 said:

    Cookie said:

    HYUFD said:

    Cookie said:

    HYUFD said:

    It should have been Penny.

    Penny Mordaunt has urged Church of England bishops to allow gay marriage ahead of their historic vote, marking the first intervention by a cabinet minister on the issue.

    Ms Mordaunt, Leader of the House of Commons and MP for Portsmouth North, has written to the Bishop of Portsmouth, calling on him to to “recognize the pain and trauma” that failure to recognise same-sex marriage causes to “many LGBT+ people who are left feeling that they are treated as second class citizens within our society”.

    Currently, according to canon law, no Church of England minister can bless or marry gay couples. Ms Mordaunt’s interjection marks the first time that a serving cabinet secretary has called for the issue to be reformed within the Church of England. She also warned that if bishops failed to approve same-sex marriage, the issue would only “fester and detract” from any positive contribution from the institution.

    Her comments also come as next month, bishops will present their long-awaited findings to the General Synod – the Church’s legislative body – on whether the ban on gay marriage could be overturned.


    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/01/16/penny-mordaunt-urges-church-england-allow-gay-marriages/

    Given a 2/3 majority for major change is needed in the House of Bishops, House of Clergy and House of Laity, I doubt there will be drastic change at Synod next month.

    Evangelicals will block full endorsement of homosexual marriage and liberals will block retaining only a biblical Old Testament, Pauline view of marriage as between a man and woman.

    So as with women priests or divorcee marriage I expect a fudge.

    Church of England priests who want to bless same sex couples marriages will be able to, those who don't won't be forced to.

    There may even be more flying Bishops in the Church of England as there are now for Parishes which don't agree with women priests
    The problem, in my view, isn't a fusty church failing to reflect modern values. If Christian values (or values of any other religion) reflect the preferences of aj ineffable God, it seems unlikely to me that that God - who, if we are to believe the church, has been pretty anti-gay for tge last two millenia - has now changed his mind. What seems more likely is that the church doesn't really know, and never knew, what God thinks on any given subject, but knows what society thinks and is desperately trying to reflect that back.
    So the problem isn't that the church is wrong, it's that we listen to the church at all. We shouldn't be telling it what to think or do, we should be gently removing it from the decision-making process.
    Western society you mean. In most of Africa and Asia there is no legal homosexual marriage, same with most of Eastern Europe and Italy and in some parts of North Africa and the Middle East and South Asia homosexuality is still illegal.

    For those who are members of churches the position of that Church is significant. If the Church of England as the established church in England allows its clergy to conduct same sex marriage in England if they wish that will be a significant moment (Jesus for example never said anything against homosexual marriage)
    But the church in those places is imply reflecting those societies' value back at it too.
    The problem is not that the church's - any church's views are 'wrong' - it is that the church doesn't have the insight it claims into what 'right' and 'wrong' are: the fact that its views are so mutable, and always seem to match the views of the society it operates within, suggest very strongly that it doesn't 'know' what God thinks, it is just winging it based on what it thinks society wants to hear. It is therefore adding no value to the decision making process.
    I'm not saying religion should be abolished - I do think it has a value - but that value isn't to the decision making process. Those of us who don't believe should neither tell those who do what they should think, nor pay any mind to what churches think the 'right' course of action is - because they have no more insight than anyone else.
    Disestablish.
    Don't let religious organisations act as state registrars.
    Obviously let people get married in any religious ceremony they want. Just make them go to the registry office afterwards if they want a state-registered marriage.
    Of course churches should be allowed to say what they think is right and wrong. (And perhaps they do sometimes have more insight than those who don't think much about what's right and what's wrong. I'll judge that on each issue.)

    No because if the Church of England allows homosexual marriages by its priests then the moment you disestablish the Roman Catholic Church, which takes a much harder anti gay marriage line, almost certainly becomes the largest Christian church in England within a decade again.

    So you end up with an even harder line national Christian Church than you have now.

    I also as a member of the Church of England would object to being forced to go to a registry office service I don't see as validating my marriage as well as the C of E service I do think validated it
    But the Catholic Church doesn't become the national church, because:
    1) If the CofE is any good, it will retain its numbers. And if it isn't, it doesn't deserve to stay as the 'national church'; but more importantly
    2) in the scenario DJ41 describes, we don't have a national church at all. The secular majority simply stop listening to what the church say. The churches are free to say whatever they want, but the rest of us don't have to pay them any heed.

    Do you object to registering the birth of your child in a registry office? If not, why would you object to registering your marriage? It only needs to be a 5 minute job telling the state about it. You can still celebrate it, properly, in as much depth as you consider appropriate, in a church, in front of your friends, family and God. A quick trip to Epping Registry office with your new wife when you return from honeymoon to fill in a form doesn't strike me as onerous.
    Yes it does. In virtually every other nation where Christians are the majority or plurality religious group, the Roman Catholic Church is the largest religious denomination. The only other exceptions are nations like Denmark where the Lutheran Church of Denmark is the established church or South Africa or Ghana where Pentecostal evangelical churches are the largest Christian group.

    If the Church of England was disestablished most of the Anglo Catholics would become Roman Catholic and most of the evangelicals would become Pentecostal or Baptist as is the case in the USA for example where the Episcopalian Church is a smaller largely liberal church with hardline evangelicals and Catholics pushing against abortion and gay marriage.

    The latter of course means the Christian churches become increasingly pushing a political agenda and free of being established don't give a toss what the secular majority think. Indeed with immigrants tending to be more socially conservative Christians and Muslims too.

    Signing a form to register your child is not the same as having to have a second baptism service at a registry office

    Russia?
    Well the Eastern Orthodox Church is basically the Roman Catholic Church just with a Patriarch not Pope and even more ornate ceremony
    Okaaaayyyyyy....

    I clearly missed that time the Catholics allowed lay clergy below the rank of bishop to marry.
    Michael Cerularius would be spinning in his grave at HYUFD's comments.
    I am actually with HYUFD here. The Orthodox and Catholic feud is the narcissism of small differences. They are both the remaining State Church of the Roman Empire. A bit like Italian and Spanish both being legacy vulgar Latin.

    Where I don't agree is the conflating of Pauline marriage and Old Testament marriage. Pauline marriage is the Roman view: the strict lifelong monogamy as demanded by Jesus, but with added homophobia. Old Testament marriage allowed hundreds of wives, plus concubines, plus sex slaves. That's worst than Muslim marriage, which is up to four wives plus sex slaves. Ironically the adaption from polygamy to monogamy between the OT and the NT is exactly the mindset of the religious establishment adapting the views of God to contemporary society that the Anglicans are now doing today.
    Depends which part, the Ten Commandments forbade adultery
    Remember, it's not premarital sex if you never get married.
    In the Bible Corinthians opposes sex outside marriage and immorality as does the Koran at 24:2
    Thank goodness there has never been any other immorality committed by the monogamous married to worry about. If a bunch of old men can police what is going on between the sheets for I'm sure entirely non prurient reasons then all other sins just magically fall away, that's just fact.
    The Old Testament Ten Commandments also forbid murder and stealing of course too
    Classic big state interference with personal liberties.
    So legal murder and legal theft on your pure libertarian ideology then?
    Absolutely, I lack any moral grounding and all crimes should be legal.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 107,356

    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    WillG said:

    Sean_F said:

    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    Cookie said:

    HYUFD said:

    DJ41 said:

    Cookie said:

    HYUFD said:

    Cookie said:

    HYUFD said:

    It should have been Penny.

    Penny Mordaunt has urged Church of England bishops to allow gay marriage ahead of their historic vote, marking the first intervention by a cabinet minister on the issue.

    Ms Mordaunt, Leader of the House of Commons and MP for Portsmouth North, has written to the Bishop of Portsmouth, calling on him to to “recognize the pain and trauma” that failure to recognise same-sex marriage causes to “many LGBT+ people who are left feeling that they are treated as second class citizens within our society”.

    Currently, according to canon law, no Church of England minister can bless or marry gay couples. Ms Mordaunt’s interjection marks the first time that a serving cabinet secretary has called for the issue to be reformed within the Church of England. She also warned that if bishops failed to approve same-sex marriage, the issue would only “fester and detract” from any positive contribution from the institution.

    Her comments also come as next month, bishops will present their long-awaited findings to the General Synod – the Church’s legislative body – on whether the ban on gay marriage could be overturned.


    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/01/16/penny-mordaunt-urges-church-england-allow-gay-marriages/

    Given a 2/3 majority for major change is needed in the House of Bishops, House of Clergy and House of Laity, I doubt there will be drastic change at Synod next month.

    Evangelicals will block full endorsement of homosexual marriage and liberals will block retaining only a biblical Old Testament, Pauline view of marriage as between a man and woman.

    So as with women priests or divorcee marriage I expect a fudge.

    Church of England priests who want to bless same sex couples marriages will be able to, those who don't won't be forced to.

    There may even be more flying Bishops in the Church of England as there are now for Parishes which don't agree with women priests
    The problem, in my view, isn't a fusty church failing to reflect modern values. If Christian values (or values of any other religion) reflect the preferences of aj ineffable God, it seems unlikely to me that that God - who, if we are to believe the church, has been pretty anti-gay for tge last two millenia - has now changed his mind. What seems more likely is that the church doesn't really know, and never knew, what God thinks on any given subject, but knows what society thinks and is desperately trying to reflect that back.
    So the problem isn't that the church is wrong, it's that we listen to the church at all. We shouldn't be telling it what to think or do, we should be gently removing it from the decision-making process.
    Western society you mean. In most of Africa and Asia there is no legal homosexual marriage, same with most of Eastern Europe and Italy and in some parts of North Africa and the Middle East and South Asia homosexuality is still illegal.

    For those who are members of churches the position of that Church is significant. If the Church of England as the established church in England allows its clergy to conduct same sex marriage in England if they wish that will be a significant moment (Jesus for example never said anything against homosexual marriage)
    But the church in those places is imply reflecting those societies' value back at it too.
    The problem is not that the church's - any church's views are 'wrong' - it is that the church doesn't have the insight it claims into what 'right' and 'wrong' are: the fact that its views are so mutable, and always seem to match the views of the society it operates within, suggest very strongly that it doesn't 'know' what God thinks, it is just winging it based on what it thinks society wants to hear. It is therefore adding no value to the decision making process.
    I'm not saying religion should be abolished - I do think it has a value - but that value isn't to the decision making process. Those of us who don't believe should neither tell those who do what they should think, nor pay any mind to what churches think the 'right' course of action is - because they have no more insight than anyone else.
    Disestablish.
    Don't let religious organisations act as state registrars.
    Obviously let people get married in any religious ceremony they want. Just make them go to the registry office afterwards if they want a state-registered marriage.
    Of course churches should be allowed to say what they think is right and wrong. (And perhaps they do sometimes have more insight than those who don't think much about what's right and what's wrong. I'll judge that on each issue.)

    No because if the Church of England allows homosexual marriages by its priests then the moment you disestablish the Roman Catholic Church, which takes a much harder anti gay marriage line, almost certainly becomes the largest Christian church in England within a decade again.

    So you end up with an even harder line national Christian Church than you have now.

    I also as a member of the Church of England would object to being forced to go to a registry office service I don't see as validating my marriage as well as the C of E service I do think validated it
    But the Catholic Church doesn't become the national church, because:
    1) If the CofE is any good, it will retain its numbers. And if it isn't, it doesn't deserve to stay as the 'national church'; but more importantly
    2) in the scenario DJ41 describes, we don't have a national church at all. The secular majority simply stop listening to what the church say. The churches are free to say whatever they want, but the rest of us don't have to pay them any heed.

    Do you object to registering the birth of your child in a registry office? If not, why would you object to registering your marriage? It only needs to be a 5 minute job telling the state about it. You can still celebrate it, properly, in as much depth as you consider appropriate, in a church, in front of your friends, family and God. A quick trip to Epping Registry office with your new wife when you return from honeymoon to fill in a form doesn't strike me as onerous.
    Yes it does. In virtually every other nation where Christians are the majority or plurality religious group, the Roman Catholic Church is the largest religious denomination. The only other exceptions are nations like Denmark where the Lutheran Church of Denmark is the established church or South Africa or Ghana where Pentecostal evangelical churches are the largest Christian group.

    If the Church of England was disestablished most of the Anglo Catholics would become Roman Catholic and most of the evangelicals would become Pentecostal or Baptist as is the case in the USA for example where the Episcopalian Church is a smaller largely liberal church with hardline evangelicals and Catholics pushing against abortion and gay marriage.

    The latter of course means the Christian churches become increasingly pushing a political agenda and free of being established don't give a toss what the secular majority think. Indeed with immigrants tending to be more socially conservative Christians and Muslims too.

    Signing a form to register your child is not the same as having to have a second baptism service at a registry office

    Russia?
    Well the Eastern Orthodox Church is basically the Roman Catholic Church just with a Patriarch not Pope and even more ornate ceremony
    Okaaaayyyyyy....

    I clearly missed that time the Catholics allowed lay clergy below the rank of bishop to marry.
    Michael Cerularius would be spinning in his grave at HYUFD's comments.
    I am actually with HYUFD here. The Orthodox and Catholic feud is the narcissism of small differences. They are both the remaining State Church of the Roman Empire. A bit like Italian and Spanish both being legacy vulgar Latin.

    Where I don't agree is the conflating of Pauline marriage and Old Testament marriage. Pauline marriage is the Roman view: the strict lifelong monogamy as demanded by Jesus, but with added homophobia. Old Testament marriage allowed hundreds of wives, plus concubines, plus sex slaves. That's worst than Muslim marriage, which is up to four wives plus sex slaves. Ironically the adaption from polygamy to monogamy between the OT and the NT is exactly the mindset of the religious establishment adapting the views of God to contemporary society that the Anglicans are now doing today.
    Depends which part, the Ten Commandments forbade adultery
    Remember, it's not premarital sex if you never get married.
    In the Bible Corinthians opposes sex outside marriage and immorality as does the Koran at
    24:2 (including lashings for unmarried fornicators)
    Does the wife have to be married to you to have sex with her?

    If she’s married to somebody else and I have sex with her does it make it ok ?
    Yes otherwise it is adultery, certainly on her part and yours too if you are also married
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 47,316
    Britishvolt hopes for last-minute bid to stave off collapse
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-64290594
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 82,567
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    WillG said:

    Sean_F said:

    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    Cookie said:

    HYUFD said:

    DJ41 said:

    Cookie said:

    HYUFD said:

    Cookie said:

    HYUFD said:

    It should have been Penny.

    Penny Mordaunt has urged Church of England bishops to allow gay marriage ahead of their historic vote, marking the first intervention by a cabinet minister on the issue.

    Ms Mordaunt, Leader of the House of Commons and MP for Portsmouth North, has written to the Bishop of Portsmouth, calling on him to to “recognize the pain and trauma” that failure to recognise same-sex marriage causes to “many LGBT+ people who are left feeling that they are treated as second class citizens within our society”.

    Currently, according to canon law, no Church of England minister can bless or marry gay couples. Ms Mordaunt’s interjection marks the first time that a serving cabinet secretary has called for the issue to be reformed within the Church of England. She also warned that if bishops failed to approve same-sex marriage, the issue would only “fester and detract” from any positive contribution from the institution.

    Her comments also come as next month, bishops will present their long-awaited findings to the General Synod – the Church’s legislative body – on whether the ban on gay marriage could be overturned.


    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/01/16/penny-mordaunt-urges-church-england-allow-gay-marriages/

    Given a 2/3 majority for major change is needed in the House of Bishops, House of Clergy and House of Laity, I doubt there will be drastic change at Synod next month.

    Evangelicals will block full endorsement of homosexual marriage and liberals will block retaining only a biblical Old Testament, Pauline view of marriage as between a man and woman.

    So as with women priests or divorcee marriage I expect a fudge.

    Church of England priests who want to bless same sex couples marriages will be able to, those who don't won't be forced to.

    There may even be more flying Bishops in the Church of England as there are now for Parishes which don't agree with women priests
    The problem, in my view, isn't a fusty church failing to reflect modern values. If Christian values (or values of any other religion) reflect the preferences of aj ineffable God, it seems unlikely to me that that God - who, if we are to believe the church, has been pretty anti-gay for tge last two millenia - has now changed his mind. What seems more likely is that the church doesn't really know, and never knew, what God thinks on any given subject, but knows what society thinks and is desperately trying to reflect that back.
    So the problem isn't that the church is wrong, it's that we listen to the church at all. We shouldn't be telling it what to think or do, we should be gently removing it from the decision-making process.
    Western society you mean. In most of Africa and Asia there is no legal homosexual marriage, same with most of Eastern Europe and Italy and in some parts of North Africa and the Middle East and South Asia homosexuality is still illegal.

    For those who are members of churches the position of that Church is significant. If the Church of England as the established church in England allows its clergy to conduct same sex marriage in England if they wish that will be a significant moment (Jesus for example never said anything against homosexual marriage)
    But the church in those places is imply reflecting those societies' value back at it too.
    The problem is not that the church's - any church's views are 'wrong' - it is that the church doesn't have the insight it claims into what 'right' and 'wrong' are: the fact that its views are so mutable, and always seem to match the views of the society it operates within, suggest very strongly that it doesn't 'know' what God thinks, it is just winging it based on what it thinks society wants to hear. It is therefore adding no value to the decision making process.
    I'm not saying religion should be abolished - I do think it has a value - but that value isn't to the decision making process. Those of us who don't believe should neither tell those who do what they should think, nor pay any mind to what churches think the 'right' course of action is - because they have no more insight than anyone else.
    Disestablish.
    Don't let religious organisations act as state registrars.
    Obviously let people get married in any religious ceremony they want. Just make them go to the registry office afterwards if they want a state-registered marriage.
    Of course churches should be allowed to say what they think is right and wrong. (And perhaps they do sometimes have more insight than those who don't think much about what's right and what's wrong. I'll judge that on each issue.)

    No because if the Church of England allows homosexual marriages by its priests then the moment you disestablish the Roman Catholic Church, which takes a much harder anti gay marriage line, almost certainly becomes the largest Christian church in England within a decade again.

    So you end up with an even harder line national Christian Church than you have now.

    I also as a member of the Church of England would object to being forced to go to a registry office service I don't see as validating my marriage as well as the C of E service I do think validated it
    But the Catholic Church doesn't become the national church, because:
    1) If the CofE is any good, it will retain its numbers. And if it isn't, it doesn't deserve to stay as the 'national church'; but more importantly
    2) in the scenario DJ41 describes, we don't have a national church at all. The secular majority simply stop listening to what the church say. The churches are free to say whatever they want, but the rest of us don't have to pay them any heed.

    Do you object to registering the birth of your child in a registry office? If not, why would you object to registering your marriage? It only needs to be a 5 minute job telling the state about it. You can still celebrate it, properly, in as much depth as you consider appropriate, in a church, in front of your friends, family and God. A quick trip to Epping Registry office with your new wife when you return from honeymoon to fill in a form doesn't strike me as onerous.
    Yes it does. In virtually every other nation where Christians are the majority or plurality religious group, the Roman Catholic Church is the largest religious denomination. The only other exceptions are nations like Denmark where the Lutheran Church of Denmark is the established church or South Africa or Ghana where Pentecostal evangelical churches are the largest Christian group.

    If the Church of England was disestablished most of the Anglo Catholics would become Roman Catholic and most of the evangelicals would become Pentecostal or Baptist as is the case in the USA for example where the Episcopalian Church is a smaller largely liberal church with hardline evangelicals and Catholics pushing against abortion and gay marriage.

    The latter of course means the Christian churches become increasingly pushing a political agenda and free of being established don't give a toss what the secular majority think. Indeed with immigrants tending to be more socially conservative Christians and Muslims too.

    Signing a form to register your child is not the same as having to have a second baptism service at a registry office

    Russia?
    Well the Eastern Orthodox Church is basically the Roman Catholic Church just with a Patriarch not Pope and even more ornate ceremony
    Okaaaayyyyyy....

    I clearly missed that time the Catholics allowed lay clergy below the rank of bishop to marry.
    Michael Cerularius would be spinning in his grave at HYUFD's comments.
    I am actually with HYUFD here. The Orthodox and Catholic feud is the narcissism of small differences. They are both the remaining State Church of the Roman Empire. A bit like Italian and Spanish both being legacy vulgar Latin.

    Where I don't agree is the conflating of Pauline marriage and Old Testament marriage. Pauline marriage is the Roman view: the strict lifelong monogamy as demanded by Jesus, but with added homophobia. Old Testament marriage allowed hundreds of wives, plus concubines, plus sex slaves. That's worst than Muslim marriage, which is up to four wives plus sex slaves. Ironically the adaption from polygamy to monogamy between the OT and the NT is exactly the mindset of the religious establishment adapting the views of God to contemporary society that the Anglicans are now doing today.
    Depends which part, the Ten Commandments forbade adultery
    Remember, it's not premarital sex if you never get married.
    In the Bible Corinthians opposes sex outside marriage and immorality as does the Koran at
    24:2 (including lashings for unmarried fornicators)
    Are they rules or guidelines? And is there a statute of limitations on them?
    For strict Christians and Muslims they are eternal rules from God
    Unless they disagree with some of those eternal rules of course. Then they find a reason the rules are more fungible than they appear - see countless examples of people who consider themselves very strict christians, muslims or communists, whatever, who can justify any sin and still think of themselves as strict adherents.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 29,264
    @KevinASchofield: NEW: Hearing Scottish Secretary Alister Jack will inform Nicola Sturgeon TONIGHT that the UK government will block… https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1615033957611081728
  • On topic, it's right that it is is being highlighted that Biden's document issues - so far - are nowhere near DJT's and the chances of a prosecution are almost zero. From a political standpoint, though, I don't know how this could have been handled more badly - clear questions over whether it was hidden until after the midterms, a drip feed of information and, to many voters, a pox on both your houses. Interesting how CBS managed to find this out. I do wonder whether someone was trying to hobble Biden with the possible intention of getting him not to run.

    In any event, it's no surprise Biden - and DeSantis - are down and Trump is up. He has been gifted a "Get out of Jail free" card.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 107,356
    edited January 16

    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    Kamala Harris has just about the lowest VP profile and level of public esteem that I can personally recall, since the days of Dan Quayle. Whom (I'm guessing) has higher name recognition in HIS day (unfortunately for him) than she does today.

    She's nowhere near that deep hole, of course. But neither has she achieved the respect and recognition as VP of Al Gore, Dick Cheney, Joe Biden or (even) Mike Pence.

    As for Secretary of Transportation Pete Buttigieg, recent snafus, fubars, meltdowns, etc., etc. with US airlines have SERIOUSLY taken the shine of his glow (or visa versa). So far with little to no sign that he's pulling American aviation out of current tailspin.

    Unless "I survived Southwest Airlines" T-shirts and similar, are campaign slogans?

    Opinions vary on that.
    https://www.politico.com/news/2023/01/14/pete-buttigieg-airlines-transportation-00077957
    You mean "Biden’s longtime pollster, John Anzalone, defended Buttigieg as a “fucking hero” to airline passengers in an interview with POLITICO." And similar?

    Not sure that counterbalances the views of MANY frequent & infrequent flyers, over the past month or so, from sea to shining sea.

    Such guff might even make it worse. Defending the indefensible is NOT a good look. Inside the Beltway OR in Westminster Village.
    There's that, and the rest of the article - and the fact that it's about a year away from any possible nomination battle starting to get serious.

    If his odds go out much beyond the current 20 on Betfair, then possibly worth a small nibble.
    Mayor Pete is a short quite frankly. As mentioned, he has been pretty p1ss poor as Transport Sec. What really is likely to do him in though is the 6 weeks parental leave he took when the logistics / supply chain issue problem was at its worst. Americans can forgive an incompetent but a slacker is worse.

    Plus, he's also the wrong fit for the nomination process - white and male. Yes, he is gay but good luck with the African-American Democratic voting base. There is a reason he tended to do badly in states like South Carolina.
    If he won Iowa again and New Hampshire and Nevada he likely wouldn't need the Southern States if he won the rest of the NE, Midwest and West
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 36,651
    Nigelb said:

    Britishvolt hopes for last-minute bid to stave off collapse
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-64290594

    I wonder whether JLR will pounce after they enter administration, it's a good match IMO.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 32,148
    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    WillG said:

    Sean_F said:

    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    Cookie said:

    HYUFD said:

    DJ41 said:

    Cookie said:

    HYUFD said:

    Cookie said:

    HYUFD said:

    It should have been Penny.

    Penny Mordaunt has urged Church of England bishops to allow gay marriage ahead of their historic vote, marking the first intervention by a cabinet minister on the issue.

    Ms Mordaunt, Leader of the House of Commons and MP for Portsmouth North, has written to the Bishop of Portsmouth, calling on him to to “recognize the pain and trauma” that failure to recognise same-sex marriage causes to “many LGBT+ people who are left feeling that they are treated as second class citizens within our society”.

    Currently, according to canon law, no Church of England minister can bless or marry gay couples. Ms Mordaunt’s interjection marks the first time that a serving cabinet secretary has called for the issue to be reformed within the Church of England. She also warned that if bishops failed to approve same-sex marriage, the issue would only “fester and detract” from any positive contribution from the institution.

    Her comments also come as next month, bishops will present their long-awaited findings to the General Synod – the Church’s legislative body – on whether the ban on gay marriage could be overturned.


    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/01/16/penny-mordaunt-urges-church-england-allow-gay-marriages/

    Given a 2/3 majority for major change is needed in the House of Bishops, House of Clergy and House of Laity, I doubt there will be drastic change at Synod next month.

    Evangelicals will block full endorsement of homosexual marriage and liberals will block retaining only a biblical Old Testament, Pauline view of marriage as between a man and woman.

    So as with women priests or divorcee marriage I expect a fudge.

    Church of England priests who want to bless same sex couples marriages will be able to, those who don't won't be forced to.

    There may even be more flying Bishops in the Church of England as there are now for Parishes which don't agree with women priests
    The problem, in my view, isn't a fusty church failing to reflect modern values. If Christian values (or values of any other religion) reflect the preferences of aj ineffable God, it seems unlikely to me that that God - who, if we are to believe the church, has been pretty anti-gay for tge last two millenia - has now changed his mind. What seems more likely is that the church doesn't really know, and never knew, what God thinks on any given subject, but knows what society thinks and is desperately trying to reflect that back.
    So the problem isn't that the church is wrong, it's that we listen to the church at all. We shouldn't be telling it what to think or do, we should be gently removing it from the decision-making process.
    Western society you mean. In most of Africa and Asia there is no legal homosexual marriage, same with most of Eastern Europe and Italy and in some parts of North Africa and the Middle East and South Asia homosexuality is still illegal.

    For those who are members of churches the position of that Church is significant. If the Church of England as the established church in England allows its clergy to conduct same sex marriage in England if they wish that will be a significant moment (Jesus for example never said anything against homosexual marriage)
    But the church in those places is imply reflecting those societies' value back at it too.
    The problem is not that the church's - any church's views are 'wrong' - it is that the church doesn't have the insight it claims into what 'right' and 'wrong' are: the fact that its views are so mutable, and always seem to match the views of the society it operates within, suggest very strongly that it doesn't 'know' what God thinks, it is just winging it based on what it thinks society wants to hear. It is therefore adding no value to the decision making process.
    I'm not saying religion should be abolished - I do think it has a value - but that value isn't to the decision making process. Those of us who don't believe should neither tell those who do what they should think, nor pay any mind to what churches think the 'right' course of action is - because they have no more insight than anyone else.
    Disestablish.
    Don't let religious organisations act as state registrars.
    Obviously let people get married in any religious ceremony they want. Just make them go to the registry office afterwards if they want a state-registered marriage.
    Of course churches should be allowed to say what they think is right and wrong. (And perhaps they do sometimes have more insight than those who don't think much about what's right and what's wrong. I'll judge that on each issue.)

    No because if the Church of England allows homosexual marriages by its priests then the moment you disestablish the Roman Catholic Church, which takes a much harder anti gay marriage line, almost certainly becomes the largest Christian church in England within a decade again.

    So you end up with an even harder line national Christian Church than you have now.

    I also as a member of the Church of England would object to being forced to go to a registry office service I don't see as validating my marriage as well as the C of E service I do think validated it
    But the Catholic Church doesn't become the national church, because:
    1) If the CofE is any good, it will retain its numbers. And if it isn't, it doesn't deserve to stay as the 'national church'; but more importantly
    2) in the scenario DJ41 describes, we don't have a national church at all. The secular majority simply stop listening to what the church say. The churches are free to say whatever they want, but the rest of us don't have to pay them any heed.

    Do you object to registering the birth of your child in a registry office? If not, why would you object to registering your marriage? It only needs to be a 5 minute job telling the state about it. You can still celebrate it, properly, in as much depth as you consider appropriate, in a church, in front of your friends, family and God. A quick trip to Epping Registry office with your new wife when you return from honeymoon to fill in a form doesn't strike me as onerous.
    Yes it does. In virtually every other nation where Christians are the majority or plurality religious group, the Roman Catholic Church is the largest religious denomination. The only other exceptions are nations like Denmark where the Lutheran Church of Denmark is the established church or South Africa or Ghana where Pentecostal evangelical churches are the largest Christian group.

    If the Church of England was disestablished most of the Anglo Catholics would become Roman Catholic and most of the evangelicals would become Pentecostal or Baptist as is the case in the USA for example where the Episcopalian Church is a smaller largely liberal church with hardline evangelicals and Catholics pushing against abortion and gay marriage.

    The latter of course means the Christian churches become increasingly pushing a political agenda and free of being established don't give a toss what the secular majority think. Indeed with immigrants tending to be more socially conservative Christians and Muslims too.

    Signing a form to register your child is not the same as having to have a second baptism service at a registry office

    Russia?
    Well the Eastern Orthodox Church is basically the Roman Catholic Church just with a Patriarch not Pope and even more ornate ceremony
    Okaaaayyyyyy....

    I clearly missed that time the Catholics allowed lay clergy below the rank of bishop to marry.
    Michael Cerularius would be spinning in his grave at HYUFD's comments.
    I am actually with HYUFD here. The Orthodox and Catholic feud is the narcissism of small differences. They are both the remaining State Church of the Roman Empire. A bit like Italian and Spanish both being legacy vulgar Latin.

    Where I don't agree is the conflating of Pauline marriage and Old Testament marriage. Pauline marriage is the Roman view: the strict lifelong monogamy as demanded by Jesus, but with added homophobia. Old Testament marriage allowed hundreds of wives, plus concubines, plus sex slaves. That's worst than Muslim marriage, which is up to four wives plus sex slaves. Ironically the adaption from polygamy to monogamy between the OT and the NT is exactly the mindset of the religious establishment adapting the views of God to contemporary society that the Anglicans are now doing today.
    Depends which part, the Ten Commandments forbade adultery
    Remember, it's not premarital sex if you never get married.
    In the Bible Corinthians opposes sex outside marriage and immorality as does the Koran at 24:2
    Thank goodness there has never been any other immorality committed by the monogamous married to worry about. If a bunch of old men can police what is going on between the sheets for I'm sure entirely non prurient reasons then all other sins just magically fall away, that's just fact.
    The Old Testament Ten Commandments also forbid murder and stealing of course too
    Classic big state interference with personal liberties.
    So legal murder and legal theft on your pure libertarian ideology then?
    Absolutely, I lack any moral grounding and all crimes should be legal.
    Shirley you mean there are no crimes?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 107,356

    Teachers strikes are on:

    BREAKING:
    NEU schools union ballot result - teachers in England 121,253 voted yes - 90.4% FOR STRIKE
    Threshold of 50% legal turnout passed - 53%

    https://twitter.com/paulwaugh/status/1615031726392082446

    Teachers have been offered 5% which is not much different to the average 6% national payrise at the moment
  • beinndeargbeinndearg Posts: 676
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    WillG said:

    Sean_F said:

    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    Cookie said:

    HYUFD said:

    DJ41 said:

    Cookie said:

    HYUFD said:

    Cookie said:

    HYUFD said:

    It should have been Penny.

    Penny Mordaunt has urged Church of England bishops to allow gay marriage ahead of their historic vote, marking the first intervention by a cabinet minister on the issue.

    Ms Mordaunt, Leader of the House of Commons and MP for Portsmouth North, has written to the Bishop of Portsmouth, calling on him to to “recognize the pain and trauma” that failure to recognise same-sex marriage causes to “many LGBT+ people who are left feeling that they are treated as second class citizens within our society”.

    Currently, according to canon law, no Church of England minister can bless or marry gay couples. Ms Mordaunt’s interjection marks the first time that a serving cabinet secretary has called for the issue to be reformed within the Church of England. She also warned that if bishops failed to approve same-sex marriage, the issue would only “fester and detract” from any positive contribution from the institution.

    Her comments also come as next month, bishops will present their long-awaited findings to the General Synod – the Church’s legislative body – on whether the ban on gay marriage could be overturned.


    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/01/16/penny-mordaunt-urges-church-england-allow-gay-marriages/

    Given a 2/3 majority for major change is needed in the House of Bishops, House of Clergy and House of Laity, I doubt there will be drastic change at Synod next month.

    Evangelicals will block full endorsement of homosexual marriage and liberals will block retaining only a biblical Old Testament, Pauline view of marriage as between a man and woman.

    So as with women priests or divorcee marriage I expect a fudge.

    Church of England priests who want to bless same sex couples marriages will be able to, those who don't won't be forced to.

    There may even be more flying Bishops in the Church of England as there are now for Parishes which don't agree with women priests
    The problem, in my view, isn't a fusty church failing to reflect modern values. If Christian values (or values of any other religion) reflect the preferences of aj ineffable God, it seems unlikely to me that that God - who, if we are to believe the church, has been pretty anti-gay for tge last two millenia - has now changed his mind. What seems more likely is that the church doesn't really know, and never knew, what God thinks on any given subject, but knows what society thinks and is desperately trying to reflect that back.
    So the problem isn't that the church is wrong, it's that we listen to the church at all. We shouldn't be telling it what to think or do, we should be gently removing it from the decision-making process.
    Western society you mean. In most of Africa and Asia there is no legal homosexual marriage, same with most of Eastern Europe and Italy and in some parts of North Africa and the Middle East and South Asia homosexuality is still illegal.

    For those who are members of churches the position of that Church is significant. If the Church of England as the established church in England allows its clergy to conduct same sex marriage in England if they wish that will be a significant moment (Jesus for example never said anything against homosexual marriage)
    But the church in those places is imply reflecting those societies' value back at it too.
    The problem is not that the church's - any church's views are 'wrong' - it is that the church doesn't have the insight it claims into what 'right' and 'wrong' are: the fact that its views are so mutable, and always seem to match the views of the society it operates within, suggest very strongly that it doesn't 'know' what God thinks, it is just winging it based on what it thinks society wants to hear. It is therefore adding no value to the decision making process.
    I'm not saying religion should be abolished - I do think it has a value - but that value isn't to the decision making process. Those of us who don't believe should neither tell those who do what they should think, nor pay any mind to what churches think the 'right' course of action is - because they have no more insight than anyone else.
    Disestablish.
    Don't let religious organisations act as state registrars.
    Obviously let people get married in any religious ceremony they want. Just make them go to the registry office afterwards if they want a state-registered marriage.
    Of course churches should be allowed to say what they think is right and wrong. (And perhaps they do sometimes have more insight than those who don't think much about what's right and what's wrong. I'll judge that on each issue.)

    No because if the Church of England allows homosexual marriages by its priests then the moment you disestablish the Roman Catholic Church, which takes a much harder anti gay marriage line, almost certainly becomes the largest Christian church in England within a decade again.

    So you end up with an even harder line national Christian Church than you have now.

    I also as a member of the Church of England would object to being forced to go to a registry office service I don't see as validating my marriage as well as the C of E service I do think validated it
    But the Catholic Church doesn't become the national church, because:
    1) If the CofE is any good, it will retain its numbers. And if it isn't, it doesn't deserve to stay as the 'national church'; but more importantly
    2) in the scenario DJ41 describes, we don't have a national church at all. The secular majority simply stop listening to what the church say. The churches are free to say whatever they want, but the rest of us don't have to pay them any heed.

    Do you object to registering the birth of your child in a registry office? If not, why would you object to registering your marriage? It only needs to be a 5 minute job telling the state about it. You can still celebrate it, properly, in as much depth as you consider appropriate, in a church, in front of your friends, family and God. A quick trip to Epping Registry office with your new wife when you return from honeymoon to fill in a form doesn't strike me as onerous.
    Yes it does. In virtually every other nation where Christians are the majority or plurality religious group, the Roman Catholic Church is the largest religious denomination. The only other exceptions are nations like Denmark where the Lutheran Church of Denmark is the established church or South Africa or Ghana where Pentecostal evangelical churches are the largest Christian group.

    If the Church of England was disestablished most of the Anglo Catholics would become Roman Catholic and most of the evangelicals would become Pentecostal or Baptist as is the case in the USA for example where the Episcopalian Church is a smaller largely liberal church with hardline evangelicals and Catholics pushing against abortion and gay marriage.

    The latter of course means the Christian churches become increasingly pushing a political agenda and free of being established don't give a toss what the secular majority think. Indeed with immigrants tending to be more socially conservative Christians and Muslims too.

    Signing a form to register your child is not the same as having to have a second baptism service at a registry office

    Russia?
    Well the Eastern Orthodox Church is basically the Roman Catholic Church just with a Patriarch not Pope and even more ornate ceremony
    Okaaaayyyyyy....

    I clearly missed that time the Catholics allowed lay clergy below the rank of bishop to marry.
    Michael Cerularius would be spinning in his grave at HYUFD's comments.
    I am actually with HYUFD here. The Orthodox and Catholic feud is the narcissism of small differences. They are both the remaining State Church of the Roman Empire. A bit like Italian and Spanish both being legacy vulgar Latin.

    Where I don't agree is the conflating of Pauline marriage and Old Testament marriage. Pauline marriage is the Roman view: the strict lifelong monogamy as demanded by Jesus, but with added homophobia. Old Testament marriage allowed hundreds of wives, plus concubines, plus sex slaves. That's worst than Muslim marriage, which is up to four wives plus sex slaves. Ironically the adaption from polygamy to monogamy between the OT and the NT is exactly the mindset of the religious establishment adapting the views of God to contemporary society that the Anglicans are now doing today.
    Depends which part, the Ten Commandments forbade adultery
    Remember, it's not premarital sex if you never get married.
    In the Bible Corinthians opposes sex outside marriage and immorality as does the Koran at
    24:2 (including lashings for unmarried fornicators)
    Does the wife have to be married to you to have sex with her?

    If she’s married to somebody else and I have sex with her does it make it ok ?
    Yes otherwise it is adultery, certainly on her part and yours too if you are also married
    Wrong, both parties are adulterers even if only one is married.
  • HYUFD said:

    Teachers strikes are on:

    BREAKING:
    NEU schools union ballot result - teachers in England 121,253 voted yes - 90.4% FOR STRIKE
    Threshold of 50% legal turnout passed - 53%

    https://twitter.com/paulwaugh/status/1615031726392082446

    Teachers have been offered 5% which is not much different to the average 6% national payrise at the moment
    Breaking

    NAHT vote does not meet legal requirement
  • solarflaresolarflare Posts: 3,190
    Scott_xP said:

    @KevinASchofield: NEW: Hearing Scottish Secretary Alister Jack will inform Nicola Sturgeon TONIGHT that the UK government will block… https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1615033957611081728

    It seems ironic, as e.g. Scot Goes Pop has suggested, that that might actually be the thing that makes the SNP actually do something about independence, rather than coast along and use it largely as a means of winning elections in a devolved power structure.
  • beinndeargbeinndearg Posts: 676

    rcs1000 said:

    WillG said:

    Sean_F said:

    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    Cookie said:

    HYUFD said:

    DJ41 said:

    Cookie said:

    HYUFD said:

    Cookie said:

    HYUFD said:

    It should have been Penny.

    Penny Mordaunt has urged Church of England bishops to allow gay marriage ahead of their historic vote, marking the first intervention by a cabinet minister on the issue.

    Ms Mordaunt, Leader of the House of Commons and MP for Portsmouth North, has written to the Bishop of Portsmouth, calling on him to to “recognize the pain and trauma” that failure to recognise same-sex marriage causes to “many LGBT+ people who are left feeling that they are treated as second class citizens within our society”.

    Currently, according to canon law, no Church of England minister can bless or marry gay couples. Ms Mordaunt’s interjection marks the first time that a serving cabinet secretary has called for the issue to be reformed within the Church of England. She also warned that if bishops failed to approve same-sex marriage, the issue would only “fester and detract” from any positive contribution from the institution.

    Her comments also come as next month, bishops will present their long-awaited findings to the General Synod – the Church’s legislative body – on whether the ban on gay marriage could be overturned.


    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/01/16/penny-mordaunt-urges-church-england-allow-gay-marriages/

    Given a 2/3 majority for major change is needed in the House of Bishops, House of Clergy and House of Laity, I doubt there will be drastic change at Synod next month.

    Evangelicals will block full endorsement of homosexual marriage and liberals will block retaining only a biblical Old Testament, Pauline view of marriage as between a man and woman.

    So as with women priests or divorcee marriage I expect a fudge.

    Church of England priests who want to bless same sex couples marriages will be able to, those who don't won't be forced to.

    There may even be more flying Bishops in the Church of England as there are now for Parishes which don't agree with women priests
    The problem, in my view, isn't a fusty church failing to reflect modern values. If Christian values (or values of any other religion) reflect the preferences of aj ineffable God, it seems unlikely to me that that God - who, if we are to believe the church, has been pretty anti-gay for tge last two millenia - has now changed his mind. What seems more likely is that the church doesn't really know, and never knew, what God thinks on any given subject, but knows what society thinks and is desperately trying to reflect that back.
    So the problem isn't that the church is wrong, it's that we listen to the church at all. We shouldn't be telling it what to think or do, we should be gently removing it from the decision-making process.
    Western society you mean. In most of Africa and Asia there is no legal homosexual marriage, same with most of Eastern Europe and Italy and in some parts of North Africa and the Middle East and South Asia homosexuality is still illegal.

    For those who are members of churches the position of that Church is significant. If the Church of England as the established church in England allows its clergy to conduct same sex marriage in England if they wish that will be a significant moment (Jesus for example never said anything against homosexual marriage)
    But the church in those places is imply reflecting those societies' value back at it too.
    The problem is not that the church's - any church's views are 'wrong' - it is that the church doesn't have the insight it claims into what 'right' and 'wrong' are: the fact that its views are so mutable, and always seem to match the views of the society it operates within, suggest very strongly that it doesn't 'know' what God thinks, it is just winging it based on what it thinks society wants to hear. It is therefore adding no value to the decision making process.
    I'm not saying religion should be abolished - I do think it has a value - but that value isn't to the decision making process. Those of us who don't believe should neither tell those who do what they should think, nor pay any mind to what churches think the 'right' course of action is - because they have no more insight than anyone else.
    Disestablish.
    Don't let religious organisations act as state registrars.
    Obviously let people get married in any religious ceremony they want. Just make them go to the registry office afterwards if they want a state-registered marriage.
    Of course churches should be allowed to say what they think is right and wrong. (And perhaps they do sometimes have more insight than those who don't think much about what's right and what's wrong. I'll judge that on each issue.)

    No because if the Church of England allows homosexual marriages by its priests then the moment you disestablish the Roman Catholic Church, which takes a much harder anti gay marriage line, almost certainly becomes the largest Christian church in England within a decade again.

    So you end up with an even harder line national Christian Church than you have now.

    I also as a member of the Church of England would object to being forced to go to a registry office service I don't see as validating my marriage as well as the C of E service I do think validated it
    But the Catholic Church doesn't become the national church, because:
    1) If the CofE is any good, it will retain its numbers. And if it isn't, it doesn't deserve to stay as the 'national church'; but more importantly
    2) in the scenario DJ41 describes, we don't have a national church at all. The secular majority simply stop listening to what the church say. The churches are free to say whatever they want, but the rest of us don't have to pay them any heed.

    Do you object to registering the birth of your child in a registry office? If not, why would you object to registering your marriage? It only needs to be a 5 minute job telling the state about it. You can still celebrate it, properly, in as much depth as you consider appropriate, in a church, in front of your friends, family and God. A quick trip to Epping Registry office with your new wife when you return from honeymoon to fill in a form doesn't strike me as onerous.
    Yes it does. In virtually every other nation where Christians are the majority or plurality religious group, the Roman Catholic Church is the largest religious denomination. The only other exceptions are nations like Denmark where the Lutheran Church of Denmark is the established church or South Africa or Ghana where Pentecostal evangelical churches are the largest Christian group.

    If the Church of England was disestablished most of the Anglo Catholics would become Roman Catholic and most of the evangelicals would become Pentecostal or Baptist as is the case in the USA for example where the Episcopalian Church is a smaller largely liberal church with hardline evangelicals and Catholics pushing against abortion and gay marriage.

    The latter of course means the Christian churches become increasingly pushing a political agenda and free of being established don't give a toss what the secular majority think. Indeed with immigrants tending to be more socially conservative Christians and Muslims too.

    Signing a form to register your child is not the same as having to have a second baptism service at a registry office

    Russia?
    Well the Eastern Orthodox Church is basically the Roman Catholic Church just with a Patriarch not Pope and even more ornate ceremony
    Okaaaayyyyyy....

    I clearly missed that time the Catholics allowed lay clergy below the rank of bishop to marry.
    Michael Cerularius would be spinning in his grave at HYUFD's comments.
    I am actually with HYUFD here. The Orthodox and Catholic feud is the narcissism of small differences. They are both the remaining State Church of the Roman Empire. A bit like Italian and Spanish both being legacy vulgar Latin.

    Where I don't agree is the conflating of Pauline marriage and Old Testament marriage. Pauline marriage is the Roman view: the strict lifelong monogamy as demanded by Jesus, but with added homophobia. Old Testament marriage allowed hundreds of wives, plus concubines, plus sex slaves. That's worst than Muslim marriage, which is up to four wives plus sex slaves. Ironically the adaption from polygamy to monogamy between the OT and the NT is exactly the mindset of the religious establishment adapting the views of God to contemporary society that the Anglicans are now doing today.
    Why would anyone want more than one wife?
    A more varied diet?
    I have deleted my response to this on grounds of good taste.
  • kle4 said:

    Teachers strikes are on:

    BREAKING:
    NEU schools union ballot result - teachers in England 121,253 voted yes - 90.4% FOR STRIKE
    Threshold of 50% legal turnout passed - 53%

    https://twitter.com/paulwaugh/status/1615031726392082446

    Bit of a nailbiter there. Given the current atmosphere that this is a moment for striking, I do wonder what could push the turnout any higher.
    Tricky. A lot of teachers only join a union to get access to professional insurance and legal support if their head decides they don't like they way they teach. In a lot of fields, they simply wouldn't be union members.

    (There's also something odd with a set of rules where not voting can be more effective opposition than voting against. Had the 9.6% NEU voters sat on their hands instead, the ballot would have failed to pass the turnout rule.)

    Talking of which:

    Also breaking:
    NAHTnews ballot has not reached turnout threshold

    In England 64% of those who voted supported strikes, while 87% voted in favour of action short of a strike.

    But turnout was 42%, below the 50% requirement


    https://twitter.com/FCDWhittaker/status/1615034167619624960

    That's headteachers. Really not militant people.
  • solarflaresolarflare Posts: 3,190
    Totally separately and I assume someone's already mentioned it in an earlier thread but Dilbert's gone a bit Leon.

    https://dilbert.com/strip/2023-01-16
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 107,356

    kle4 said:

    Teachers strikes are on:

    BREAKING:
    NEU schools union ballot result - teachers in England 121,253 voted yes - 90.4% FOR STRIKE
    Threshold of 50% legal turnout passed - 53%

    https://twitter.com/paulwaugh/status/1615031726392082446

    Bit of a nailbiter there. Given the current atmosphere that this is a moment for striking, I do wonder what could push the turnout any higher.
    Tricky. A lot of teachers only join a union to get access to professional insurance and legal support if their head decides they don't like they way they teach. In a lot of fields, they simply wouldn't be union members.

    (There's also something odd with a set of rules where not voting can be more effective opposition than voting against. Had the 9.6% NEU voters sat on their hands instead, the ballot would have failed to pass the turnout rule.)

    Talking of which:

    Also breaking:
    NAHTnews ballot has not reached turnout threshold

    In England 64% of those who voted supported strikes, while 87% voted in favour of action short of a strike.

    But turnout was 42%, below the 50% requirement


    https://twitter.com/FCDWhittaker/status/1615034167619624960

    That's headteachers. Really not militant people.
    Given the average secondary school headteacher earns £102,000 a year, not surprising

    https://www.theguardian.com/education/2021/mar/20/english-secondary-school-headteachers-among-best-paid-in-the-world
  • SeaShantyIrish2SeaShantyIrish2 Posts: 11,082

    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    Kamala Harris has just about the lowest VP profile and level of public esteem that I can personally recall, since the days of Dan Quayle. Whom (I'm guessing) has higher name recognition in HIS day (unfortunately for him) than she does today.

    She's nowhere near that deep hole, of course. But neither has she achieved the respect and recognition as VP of Al Gore, Dick Cheney, Joe Biden or (even) Mike Pence.

    As for Secretary of Transportation Pete Buttigieg, recent snafus, fubars, meltdowns, etc., etc. with US airlines have SERIOUSLY taken the shine of his glow (or visa versa). So far with little to no sign that he's pulling American aviation out of current tailspin.

    Unless "I survived Southwest Airlines" T-shirts and similar, are campaign slogans?

    Opinions vary on that.
    https://www.politico.com/news/2023/01/14/pete-buttigieg-airlines-transportation-00077957
    You mean "Biden’s longtime pollster, John Anzalone, defended Buttigieg as a “fucking hero” to airline passengers in an interview with POLITICO." And similar?

    Not sure that counterbalances the views of MANY frequent & infrequent flyers, over the past month or so, from sea to shining sea.

    Such guff might even make it worse. Defending the indefensible is NOT a good look. Inside the Beltway OR in Westminster Village.
    There's that, and the rest of the article - and the fact that it's about a year away from any possible nomination battle starting to get serious.

    If his odds go out much beyond the current 20 on Betfair, then possibly worth a small nibble.
    Mayor Pete is a short quite frankly. As mentioned, he has been pretty p1ss poor as Transport Sec. What really is likely to do him in though is the 6 weeks parental leave he took when the logistics / supply chain issue problem was at its worst. Americans can forgive an incompetent but a slacker is worse.

    Plus, he's also the wrong fit for the nomination process - white and male. Yes, he is gay but good luck with the African-American Democratic voting base. There is a reason he tended to do badly in states like South Carolina.
    Yours truly did NOT say that Buttigieg was "pretty piss poor as Transport[ation] Secretary" which would be NOT be the case.

    Seeing as how he was actually doing pretty good job . . . until fairly recently re: airlines.

    And rest of your commentary is also over the top IMHO.

    African American voters did (and do) NOT hate/disdain/dislike Buttigieg. Regardless of all the ink spilled (mainly by his detractors) on subject.

    Rather, in 2020, Black voters (starting with South Carolina) did NOT so much as reject Pete Buttigieg - or Kamala Harris - as they PREFERRED Joe Biden. Big difference.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 56,756
    kle4 said:

    Teachers strikes are on:

    BREAKING:
    NEU schools union ballot result - teachers in England 121,253 voted yes - 90.4% FOR STRIKE
    Threshold of 50% legal turnout passed - 53%

    https://twitter.com/paulwaugh/status/1615031726392082446

    Bit of a nailbiter there. Given the current atmosphere that this is a moment for striking, I do wonder what could push the turnout any higher.
    No postal strikes?
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 28,836
    edited January 16
    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    Teachers strikes are on:

    BREAKING:
    NEU schools union ballot result - teachers in England 121,253 voted yes - 90.4% FOR STRIKE
    Threshold of 50% legal turnout passed - 53%

    https://twitter.com/paulwaugh/status/1615031726392082446

    Bit of a nailbiter there. Given the current atmosphere that this is a moment for striking, I do wonder what could push the turnout any higher.
    Tricky. A lot of teachers only join a union to get access to professional insurance and legal support if their head decides they don't like they way they teach. In a lot of fields, they simply wouldn't be union members.

    (There's also something odd with a set of rules where not voting can be more effective opposition than voting against. Had the 9.6% NEU voters sat on their hands instead, the ballot would have failed to pass the turnout rule.)

    Talking of which:

    Also breaking:
    NAHTnews ballot has not reached turnout threshold

    In England 64% of those who voted supported strikes, while 87% voted in favour of action short of a strike.

    But turnout was 42%, below the 50% requirement


    https://twitter.com/FCDWhittaker/status/1615034167619624960

    That's headteachers. Really not militant people.
    Given the average secondary school headteacher earns £102,000 a year, not surprising

    https://www.theguardian.com/education/2021/mar/20/english-secondary-school-headteachers-among-best-paid-in-the-world
    You: "Given the average secondary school headteacher earns £102,000 a year"

    The source you cite: "top earners in England are paid more than £102,000 a year"

    Ever heard of the difference between mean, mode and median, also?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 56,756
    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    Teachers strikes are on:

    BREAKING:
    NEU schools union ballot result - teachers in England 121,253 voted yes - 90.4% FOR STRIKE
    Threshold of 50% legal turnout passed - 53%

    https://twitter.com/paulwaugh/status/1615031726392082446

    Bit of a nailbiter there. Given the current atmosphere that this is a moment for striking, I do wonder what could push the turnout any higher.
    Tricky. A lot of teachers only join a union to get access to professional insurance and legal support if their head decides they don't like they way they teach. In a lot of fields, they simply wouldn't be union members.

    (There's also something odd with a set of rules where not voting can be more effective opposition than voting against. Had the 9.6% NEU voters sat on their hands instead, the ballot would have failed to pass the turnout rule.)

    Talking of which:

    Also breaking:
    NAHTnews ballot has not reached turnout threshold

    In England 64% of those who voted supported strikes, while 87% voted in favour of action short of a strike.

    But turnout was 42%, below the 50% requirement


    https://twitter.com/FCDWhittaker/status/1615034167619624960

    That's headteachers. Really not militant people.
    Given the average secondary school headteacher earns £102,000 a year, not surprising

    https://www.theguardian.com/education/2021/mar/20/english-secondary-school-headteachers-among-best-paid-in-the-world
    You: "Given the average secondary school headteacher earns £102,000 a year"

    The source you cite: "top earners in England are paid more than £102,000 a year"

    Ever heard of the difference between mean, mode and median?
    Don't be mean if he goes into full Hyufd mode.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 28,836
    ydoethur said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    Teachers strikes are on:

    BREAKING:
    NEU schools union ballot result - teachers in England 121,253 voted yes - 90.4% FOR STRIKE
    Threshold of 50% legal turnout passed - 53%

    https://twitter.com/paulwaugh/status/1615031726392082446

    Bit of a nailbiter there. Given the current atmosphere that this is a moment for striking, I do wonder what could push the turnout any higher.
    Tricky. A lot of teachers only join a union to get access to professional insurance and legal support if their head decides they don't like they way they teach. In a lot of fields, they simply wouldn't be union members.

    (There's also something odd with a set of rules where not voting can be more effective opposition than voting against. Had the 9.6% NEU voters sat on their hands instead, the ballot would have failed to pass the turnout rule.)

    Talking of which:

    Also breaking:
    NAHTnews ballot has not reached turnout threshold

    In England 64% of those who voted supported strikes, while 87% voted in favour of action short of a strike.

    But turnout was 42%, below the 50% requirement


    https://twitter.com/FCDWhittaker/status/1615034167619624960

    That's headteachers. Really not militant people.
    Given the average secondary school headteacher earns £102,000 a year, not surprising

    https://www.theguardian.com/education/2021/mar/20/english-secondary-school-headteachers-among-best-paid-in-the-world
    You: "Given the average secondary school headteacher earns £102,000 a year"

    The source you cite: "top earners in England are paid more than £102,000 a year"

    Ever heard of the difference between mean, mode and median?
    Don't be mean if he goes into full Hyufd mode.
    Aw not fair, what pun can I make of median??
  • SelebianSelebian Posts: 4,941
    ydoethur said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    Teachers strikes are on:

    BREAKING:
    NEU schools union ballot result - teachers in England 121,253 voted yes - 90.4% FOR STRIKE
    Threshold of 50% legal turnout passed - 53%

    https://twitter.com/paulwaugh/status/1615031726392082446

    Bit of a nailbiter there. Given the current atmosphere that this is a moment for striking, I do wonder what could push the turnout any higher.
    Tricky. A lot of teachers only join a union to get access to professional insurance and legal support if their head decides they don't like they way they teach. In a lot of fields, they simply wouldn't be union members.

    (There's also something odd with a set of rules where not voting can be more effective opposition than voting against. Had the 9.6% NEU voters sat on their hands instead, the ballot would have failed to pass the turnout rule.)

    Talking of which:

    Also breaking:
    NAHTnews ballot has not reached turnout threshold

    In England 64% of those who voted supported strikes, while 87% voted in favour of action short of a strike.

    But turnout was 42%, below the 50% requirement


    https://twitter.com/FCDWhittaker/status/1615034167619624960

    That's headteachers. Really not militant people.
    Given the average secondary school headteacher earns £102,000 a year, not surprising

    https://www.theguardian.com/education/2021/mar/20/english-secondary-school-headteachers-among-best-paid-in-the-world
    You: "Given the average secondary school headteacher earns £102,000 a year"

    The source you cite: "top earners in England are paid more than £102,000 a year"

    Ever heard of the difference between mean, mode and median?
    Don't be mean if he goes into full Hyufd mode.
    Yep. Far better to be median.
  • HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    WillG said:

    Sean_F said:

    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    Cookie said:

    HYUFD said:

    DJ41 said:

    Cookie said:

    HYUFD said:

    Cookie said:

    HYUFD said:

    It should have been Penny.

    Penny Mordaunt has urged Church of England bishops to allow gay marriage ahead of their historic vote, marking the first intervention by a cabinet minister on the issue.

    Ms Mordaunt, Leader of the House of Commons and MP for Portsmouth North, has written to the Bishop of Portsmouth, calling on him to to “recognize the pain and trauma” that failure to recognise same-sex marriage causes to “many LGBT+ people who are left feeling that they are treated as second class citizens within our society”.

    Currently, according to canon law, no Church of England minister can bless or marry gay couples. Ms Mordaunt’s interjection marks the first time that a serving cabinet secretary has called for the issue to be reformed within the Church of England. She also warned that if bishops failed to approve same-sex marriage, the issue would only “fester and detract” from any positive contribution from the institution.

    Her comments also come as next month, bishops will present their long-awaited findings to the General Synod – the Church’s legislative body – on whether the ban on gay marriage could be overturned.


    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/01/16/penny-mordaunt-urges-church-england-allow-gay-marriages/

    Given a 2/3 majority for major change is needed in the House of Bishops, House of Clergy and House of Laity, I doubt there will be drastic change at Synod next month.

    Evangelicals will block full endorsement of homosexual marriage and liberals will block retaining only a biblical Old Testament, Pauline view of marriage as between a man and woman.

    So as with women priests or divorcee marriage I expect a fudge.

    Church of England priests who want to bless same sex couples marriages will be able to, those who don't won't be forced to.

    There may even be more flying Bishops in the Church of England as there are now for Parishes which don't agree with women priests
    The problem, in my view, isn't a fusty church failing to reflect modern values. If Christian values (or values of any other religion) reflect the preferences of aj ineffable God, it seems unlikely to me that that God - who, if we are to believe the church, has been pretty anti-gay for tge last two millenia - has now changed his mind. What seems more likely is that the church doesn't really know, and never knew, what God thinks on any given subject, but knows what society thinks and is desperately trying to reflect that back.
    So the problem isn't that the church is wrong, it's that we listen to the church at all. We shouldn't be telling it what to think or do, we should be gently removing it from the decision-making process.
    Western society you mean. In most of Africa and Asia there is no legal homosexual marriage, same with most of Eastern Europe and Italy and in some parts of North Africa and the Middle East and South Asia homosexuality is still illegal.

    For those who are members of churches the position of that Church is significant. If the Church of England as the established church in England allows its clergy to conduct same sex marriage in England if they wish that will be a significant moment (Jesus for example never said anything against homosexual marriage)
    But the church in those places is imply reflecting those societies' value back at it too.
    The problem is not that the church's - any church's views are 'wrong' - it is that the church doesn't have the insight it claims into what 'right' and 'wrong' are: the fact that its views are so mutable, and always seem to match the views of the society it operates within, suggest very strongly that it doesn't 'know' what God thinks, it is just winging it based on what it thinks society wants to hear. It is therefore adding no value to the decision making process.
    I'm not saying religion should be abolished - I do think it has a value - but that value isn't to the decision making process. Those of us who don't believe should neither tell those who do what they should think, nor pay any mind to what churches think the 'right' course of action is - because they have no more insight than anyone else.
    Disestablish.
    Don't let religious organisations act as state registrars.
    Obviously let people get married in any religious ceremony they want. Just make them go to the registry office afterwards if they want a state-registered marriage.
    Of course churches should be allowed to say what they think is right and wrong. (And perhaps they do sometimes have more insight than those who don't think much about what's right and what's wrong. I'll judge that on each issue.)

    No because if the Church of England allows homosexual marriages by its priests then the moment you disestablish the Roman Catholic Church, which takes a much harder anti gay marriage line, almost certainly becomes the largest Christian church in England within a decade again.

    So you end up with an even harder line national Christian Church than you have now.

    I also as a member of the Church of England would object to being forced to go to a registry office service I don't see as validating my marriage as well as the C of E service I do think validated it
    But the Catholic Church doesn't become the national church, because:
    1) If the CofE is any good, it will retain its numbers. And if it isn't, it doesn't deserve to stay as the 'national church'; but more importantly
    2) in the scenario DJ41 describes, we don't have a national church at all. The secular majority simply stop listening to what the church say. The churches are free to say whatever they want, but the rest of us don't have to pay them any heed.

    Do you object to registering the birth of your child in a registry office? If not, why would you object to registering your marriage? It only needs to be a 5 minute job telling the state about it. You can still celebrate it, properly, in as much depth as you consider appropriate, in a church, in front of your friends, family and God. A quick trip to Epping Registry office with your new wife when you return from honeymoon to fill in a form doesn't strike me as onerous.
    Yes it does. In virtually every other nation where Christians are the majority or plurality religious group, the Roman Catholic Church is the largest religious denomination. The only other exceptions are nations like Denmark where the Lutheran Church of Denmark is the established church or South Africa or Ghana where Pentecostal evangelical churches are the largest Christian group.

    If the Church of England was disestablished most of the Anglo Catholics would become Roman Catholic and most of the evangelicals would become Pentecostal or Baptist as is the case in the USA for example where the Episcopalian Church is a smaller largely liberal church with hardline evangelicals and Catholics pushing against abortion and gay marriage.

    The latter of course means the Christian churches become increasingly pushing a political agenda and free of being established don't give a toss what the secular majority think. Indeed with immigrants tending to be more socially conservative Christians and Muslims too.

    Signing a form to register your child is not the same as having to have a second baptism service at a registry office

    Russia?
    Well the Eastern Orthodox Church is basically the Roman Catholic Church just with a Patriarch not Pope and even more ornate ceremony
    Okaaaayyyyyy....

    I clearly missed that time the Catholics allowed lay clergy below the rank of bishop to marry.
    Michael Cerularius would be spinning in his grave at HYUFD's comments.
    I am actually with HYUFD here. The Orthodox and Catholic feud is the narcissism of small differences. They are both the remaining State Church of the Roman Empire. A bit like Italian and Spanish both being legacy vulgar Latin.

    Where I don't agree is the conflating of Pauline marriage and Old Testament marriage. Pauline marriage is the Roman view: the strict lifelong monogamy as demanded by Jesus, but with added homophobia. Old Testament marriage allowed hundreds of wives, plus concubines, plus sex slaves. That's worst than Muslim marriage, which is up to four wives plus sex slaves. Ironically the adaption from polygamy to monogamy between the OT and the NT is exactly the mindset of the religious establishment adapting the views of God to contemporary society that the Anglicans are now doing today.
    Depends which part, the Ten Commandments forbade adultery
    Remember, it's not premarital sex if you never get married.
    In the Bible Corinthians opposes sex outside marriage and immorality as does the Koran at
    24:2 (including lashings for unmarried fornicators)
    Are they rules or guidelines? And is there a statute of limitations on them?
    For strict Christians and Muslims they are eternal rules from God
    Phew! Nowt to do with me then👍
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 28,836

    Totally separately and I assume someone's already mentioned it in an earlier thread but Dilbert's gone a bit Leon.

    https://dilbert.com/strip/2023-01-16

    Talking about that, I wasn't around much of late, so don't know if this was brought up:

    https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2023/jan/14/art-experts-try-to-spot-ai-works-dall-e-stable-diffusion
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 56,756
    Carnyx said:

    ydoethur said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    Teachers strikes are on:

    BREAKING:
    NEU schools union ballot result - teachers in England 121,253 voted yes - 90.4% FOR STRIKE
    Threshold of 50% legal turnout passed - 53%

    https://twitter.com/paulwaugh/status/1615031726392082446

    Bit of a nailbiter there. Given the current atmosphere that this is a moment for striking, I do wonder what could push the turnout any higher.
    Tricky. A lot of teachers only join a union to get access to professional insurance and legal support if their head decides they don't like they way they teach. In a lot of fields, they simply wouldn't be union members.

    (There's also something odd with a set of rules where not voting can be more effective opposition than voting against. Had the 9.6% NEU voters sat on their hands instead, the ballot would have failed to pass the turnout rule.)

    Talking of which:

    Also breaking:
    NAHTnews ballot has not reached turnout threshold

    In England 64% of those who voted supported strikes, while 87% voted in favour of action short of a strike.

    But turnout was 42%, below the 50% requirement


    https://twitter.com/FCDWhittaker/status/1615034167619624960

    That's headteachers. Really not militant people.
    Given the average secondary school headteacher earns £102,000 a year, not surprising

    https://www.theguardian.com/education/2021/mar/20/english-secondary-school-headteachers-among-best-paid-in-the-world
    You: "Given the average secondary school headteacher earns £102,000 a year"

    The source you cite: "top earners in England are paid more than £102,000 a year"

    Ever heard of the difference between mean, mode and median?
    Don't be mean if he goes into full Hyufd mode.
    Aw not fair, what pun can I make of median??
    Strike a happy median!

    Speaking of strikes, here are the details on the NEU:

    https://twitter.com/NEUnion/status/1615036224112033816
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 28,836
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    WillG said:

    Sean_F said:

    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    Cookie said:

    HYUFD said:

    DJ41 said:

    Cookie said:

    HYUFD said:

    Cookie said:

    HYUFD said:

    It should have been Penny.

    Penny Mordaunt has urged Church of England bishops to allow gay marriage ahead of their historic vote, marking the first intervention by a cabinet minister on the issue.

    Ms Mordaunt, Leader of the House of Commons and MP for Portsmouth North, has written to the Bishop of Portsmouth, calling on him to to “recognize the pain and trauma” that failure to recognise same-sex marriage causes to “many LGBT+ people who are left feeling that they are treated as second class citizens within our society”.

    Currently, according to canon law, no Church of England minister can bless or marry gay couples. Ms Mordaunt’s interjection marks the first time that a serving cabinet secretary has called for the issue to be reformed within the Church of England. She also warned that if bishops failed to approve same-sex marriage, the issue would only “fester and detract” from any positive contribution from the institution.

    Her comments also come as next month, bishops will present their long-awaited findings to the General Synod – the Church’s legislative body – on whether the ban on gay marriage could be overturned.


    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/01/16/penny-mordaunt-urges-church-england-allow-gay-marriages/

    Given a 2/3 majority for major change is needed in the House of Bishops, House of Clergy and House of Laity, I doubt there will be drastic change at Synod next month.

    Evangelicals will block full endorsement of homosexual marriage and liberals will block retaining only a biblical Old Testament, Pauline view of marriage as between a man and woman.

    So as with women priests or divorcee marriage I expect a fudge.

    Church of England priests who want to bless same sex couples marriages will be able to, those who don't won't be forced to.

    There may even be more flying Bishops in the Church of England as there are now for Parishes which don't agree with women priests
    The problem, in my view, isn't a fusty church failing to reflect modern values. If Christian values (or values of any other religion) reflect the preferences of aj ineffable God, it seems unlikely to me that that God - who, if we are to believe the church, has been pretty anti-gay for tge last two millenia - has now changed his mind. What seems more likely is that the church doesn't really know, and never knew, what God thinks on any given subject, but knows what society thinks and is desperately trying to reflect that back.
    So the problem isn't that the church is wrong, it's that we listen to the church at all. We shouldn't be telling it what to think or do, we should be gently removing it from the decision-making process.
    Western society you mean. In most of Africa and Asia there is no legal homosexual marriage, same with most of Eastern Europe and Italy and in some parts of North Africa and the Middle East and South Asia homosexuality is still illegal.

    For those who are members of churches the position of that Church is significant. If the Church of England as the established church in England allows its clergy to conduct same sex marriage in England if they wish that will be a significant moment (Jesus for example never said anything against homosexual marriage)
    But the church in those places is imply reflecting those societies' value back at it too.
    The problem is not that the church's - any church's views are 'wrong' - it is that the church doesn't have the insight it claims into what 'right' and 'wrong' are: the fact that its views are so mutable, and always seem to match the views of the society it operates within, suggest very strongly that it doesn't 'know' what God thinks, it is just winging it based on what it thinks society wants to hear. It is therefore adding no value to the decision making process.
    I'm not saying religion should be abolished - I do think it has a value - but that value isn't to the decision making process. Those of us who don't believe should neither tell those who do what they should think, nor pay any mind to what churches think the 'right' course of action is - because they have no more insight than anyone else.
    Disestablish.
    Don't let religious organisations act as state registrars.
    Obviously let people get married in any religious ceremony they want. Just make them go to the registry office afterwards if they want a state-registered marriage.
    Of course churches should be allowed to say what they think is right and wrong. (And perhaps they do sometimes have more insight than those who don't think much about what's right and what's wrong. I'll judge that on each issue.)

    No because if the Church of England allows homosexual marriages by its priests then the moment you disestablish the Roman Catholic Church, which takes a much harder anti gay marriage line, almost certainly becomes the largest Christian church in England within a decade again.

    So you end up with an even harder line national Christian Church than you have now.

    I also as a member of the Church of England would object to being forced to go to a registry office service I don't see as validating my marriage as well as the C of E service I do think validated it
    But the Catholic Church doesn't become the national church, because:
    1) If the CofE is any good, it will retain its numbers. And if it isn't, it doesn't deserve to stay as the 'national church'; but more importantly
    2) in the scenario DJ41 describes, we don't have a national church at all. The secular majority simply stop listening to what the church say. The churches are free to say whatever they want, but the rest of us don't have to pay them any heed.

    Do you object to registering the birth of your child in a registry office? If not, why would you object to registering your marriage? It only needs to be a 5 minute job telling the state about it. You can still celebrate it, properly, in as much depth as you consider appropriate, in a church, in front of your friends, family and God. A quick trip to Epping Registry office with your new wife when you return from honeymoon to fill in a form doesn't strike me as onerous.
    Yes it does. In virtually every other nation where Christians are the majority or plurality religious group, the Roman Catholic Church is the largest religious denomination. The only other exceptions are nations like Denmark where the Lutheran Church of Denmark is the established church or South Africa or Ghana where Pentecostal evangelical churches are the largest Christian group.

    If the Church of England was disestablished most of the Anglo Catholics would become Roman Catholic and most of the evangelicals would become Pentecostal or Baptist as is the case in the USA for example where the Episcopalian Church is a smaller largely liberal church with hardline evangelicals and Catholics pushing against abortion and gay marriage.

    The latter of course means the Christian churches become increasingly pushing a political agenda and free of being established don't give a toss what the secular majority think. Indeed with immigrants tending to be more socially conservative Christians and Muslims too.

    Signing a form to register your child is not the same as having to have a second baptism service at a registry office

    Russia?
    Well the Eastern Orthodox Church is basically the Roman Catholic Church just with a Patriarch not Pope and even more ornate ceremony
    Okaaaayyyyyy....

    I clearly missed that time the Catholics allowed lay clergy below the rank of bishop to marry.
    Michael Cerularius would be spinning in his grave at HYUFD's comments.
    I am actually with HYUFD here. The Orthodox and Catholic feud is the narcissism of small differences. They are both the remaining State Church of the Roman Empire. A bit like Italian and Spanish both being legacy vulgar Latin.

    Where I don't agree is the conflating of Pauline marriage and Old Testament marriage. Pauline marriage is the Roman view: the strict lifelong monogamy as demanded by Jesus, but with added homophobia. Old Testament marriage allowed hundreds of wives, plus concubines, plus sex slaves. That's worst than Muslim marriage, which is up to four wives plus sex slaves. Ironically the adaption from polygamy to monogamy between the OT and the NT is exactly the mindset of the religious establishment adapting the views of God to contemporary society that the Anglicans are now doing today.
    Depends which part, the Ten Commandments forbade adultery
    Remember, it's not premarital sex if you never get married.
    In the Bible Corinthians opposes sex outside marriage and immorality as does the Koran at
    24:2 (including lashings for unmarried fornicators)
    Does the wife have to be married to you to have sex with her?

    If she’s married to somebody else and I have sex with her does it make it ok ?
    Yes otherwise it is adultery, certainly on her part and yours too if you are also married
    Bit shit for you being a Royalist as well.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 57,769
    rcs1000 said:

    WillG said:

    Sean_F said:

    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    Cookie said:

    HYUFD said:

    DJ41 said:

    Cookie said:

    HYUFD said:

    Cookie said:

    HYUFD said:

    It should have been Penny.

    Penny Mordaunt has urged Church of England bishops to allow gay marriage ahead of their historic vote, marking the first intervention by a cabinet minister on the issue.

    Ms Mordaunt, Leader of the House of Commons and MP for Portsmouth North, has written to the Bishop of Portsmouth, calling on him to to “recognize the pain and trauma” that failure to recognise same-sex marriage causes to “many LGBT+ people who are left feeling that they are treated as second class citizens within our society”.

    Currently, according to canon law, no Church of England minister can bless or marry gay couples. Ms Mordaunt’s interjection marks the first time that a serving cabinet secretary has called for the issue to be reformed within the Church of England. She also warned that if bishops failed to approve same-sex marriage, the issue would only “fester and detract” from any positive contribution from the institution.

    Her comments also come as next month, bishops will present their long-awaited findings to the General Synod – the Church’s legislative body – on whether the ban on gay marriage could be overturned.


    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/01/16/penny-mordaunt-urges-church-england-allow-gay-marriages/

    Given a 2/3 majority for major change is needed in the House of Bishops, House of Clergy and House of Laity, I doubt there will be drastic change at Synod next month.

    Evangelicals will block full endorsement of homosexual marriage and liberals will block retaining only a biblical Old Testament, Pauline view of marriage as between a man and woman.

    So as with women priests or divorcee marriage I expect a fudge.

    Church of England priests who want to bless same sex couples marriages will be able to, those who don't won't be forced to.

    There may even be more flying Bishops in the Church of England as there are now for Parishes which don't agree with women priests
    The problem, in my view, isn't a fusty church failing to reflect modern values. If Christian values (or values of any other religion) reflect the preferences of aj ineffable God, it seems unlikely to me that that God - who, if we are to believe the church, has been pretty anti-gay for tge last two millenia - has now changed his mind. What seems more likely is that the church doesn't really know, and never knew, what God thinks on any given subject, but knows what society thinks and is desperately trying to reflect that back.
    So the problem isn't that the church is wrong, it's that we listen to the church at all. We shouldn't be telling it what to think or do, we should be gently removing it from the decision-making process.
    Western society you mean. In most of Africa and Asia there is no legal homosexual marriage, same with most of Eastern Europe and Italy and in some parts of North Africa and the Middle East and South Asia homosexuality is still illegal.

    For those who are members of churches the position of that Church is significant. If the Church of England as the established church in England allows its clergy to conduct same sex marriage in England if they wish that will be a significant moment (Jesus for example never said anything against homosexual marriage)
    But the church in those places is imply reflecting those societies' value back at it too.
    The problem is not that the church's - any church's views are 'wrong' - it is that the church doesn't have the insight it claims into what 'right' and 'wrong' are: the fact that its views are so mutable, and always seem to match the views of the society it operates within, suggest very strongly that it doesn't 'know' what God thinks, it is just winging it based on what it thinks society wants to hear. It is therefore adding no value to the decision making process.
    I'm not saying religion should be abolished - I do think it has a value - but that value isn't to the decision making process. Those of us who don't believe should neither tell those who do what they should think, nor pay any mind to what churches think the 'right' course of action is - because they have no more insight than anyone else.
    Disestablish.
    Don't let religious organisations act as state registrars.
    Obviously let people get married in any religious ceremony they want. Just make them go to the registry office afterwards if they want a state-registered marriage.
    Of course churches should be allowed to say what they think is right and wrong. (And perhaps they do sometimes have more insight than those who don't think much about what's right and what's wrong. I'll judge that on each issue.)

    No because if the Church of England allows homosexual marriages by its priests then the moment you disestablish the Roman Catholic Church, which takes a much harder anti gay marriage line, almost certainly becomes the largest Christian church in England within a decade again.

    So you end up with an even harder line national Christian Church than you have now.

    I also as a member of the Church of England would object to being forced to go to a registry office service I don't see as validating my marriage as well as the C of E service I do think validated it
    But the Catholic Church doesn't become the national church, because:
    1) If the CofE is any good, it will retain its numbers. And if it isn't, it doesn't deserve to stay as the 'national church'; but more importantly
    2) in the scenario DJ41 describes, we don't have a national church at all. The secular majority simply stop listening to what the church say. The churches are free to say whatever they want, but the rest of us don't have to pay them any heed.

    Do you object to registering the birth of your child in a registry office? If not, why would you object to registering your marriage? It only needs to be a 5 minute job telling the state about it. You can still celebrate it, properly, in as much depth as you consider appropriate, in a church, in front of your friends, family and God. A quick trip to Epping Registry office with your new wife when you return from honeymoon to fill in a form doesn't strike me as onerous.
    Yes it does. In virtually every other nation where Christians are the majority or plurality religious group, the Roman Catholic Church is the largest religious denomination. The only other exceptions are nations like Denmark where the Lutheran Church of Denmark is the established church or South Africa or Ghana where Pentecostal evangelical churches are the largest Christian group.

    If the Church of England was disestablished most of the Anglo Catholics would become Roman Catholic and most of the evangelicals would become Pentecostal or Baptist as is the case in the USA for example where the Episcopalian Church is a smaller largely liberal church with hardline evangelicals and Catholics pushing against abortion and gay marriage.

    The latter of course means the Christian churches become increasingly pushing a political agenda and free of being established don't give a toss what the secular majority think. Indeed with immigrants tending to be more socially conservative Christians and Muslims too.

    Signing a form to register your child is not the same as having to have a second baptism service at a registry office

    Russia?
    Well the Eastern Orthodox Church is basically the Roman Catholic Church just with a Patriarch not Pope and even more ornate ceremony
    Okaaaayyyyyy....

    I clearly missed that time the Catholics allowed lay clergy below the rank of bishop to marry.
    Michael Cerularius would be spinning in his grave at HYUFD's comments.
    I am actually with HYUFD here. The Orthodox and Catholic feud is the narcissism of small differences. They are both the remaining State Church of the Roman Empire. A bit like Italian and Spanish both being legacy vulgar Latin.

    Where I don't agree is the conflating of Pauline marriage and Old Testament marriage. Pauline marriage is the Roman view: the strict lifelong monogamy as demanded by Jesus, but with added homophobia. Old Testament marriage allowed hundreds of wives, plus concubines, plus sex slaves. That's worst than Muslim marriage, which is up to four wives plus sex slaves. Ironically the adaption from polygamy to monogamy between the OT and the NT is exactly the mindset of the religious establishment adapting the views of God to contemporary society that the Anglicans are now doing today.
    Why would anyone want more than one wife?
    Or as Zsa Zsa Gabor replied, when asked how many husbands she's had; "Vot do you mean dahlink - my own, or other people's?"
  • SeaShantyIrish2SeaShantyIrish2 Posts: 11,082
    Speaking of Iowa and 2024 US Presidential nomination, perhaps some PBers missed this recent development?

    Des Moines Register - Iowa no longer first; Democrats reorder the presidential primary calendar for 2024

    https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/politics/2022/12/02/dnc-democrats-primary-calendar-south-carolina-first-over-iowa-caucus/69695090007/

    SSI - My own guess is that, for Democratic presidential hopefuls, traditional extending camping out across the length and breath of the great Hawkeye State of Iowa, will NOT be a feature of their campaign schedules for 2023 OR 2024.

    Situation re: New Hampshire is more iffy, but potential that IF the great Granite State refuses to yield it's "first in the nation" primary (enshrined in state law) then NH could (emphasis on conditional) be stripped of it's DNC delegates.

    Anyway, could make actual campaigning for Democrats as problematic in NH as in IA.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 56,756

    HYUFD said:

    Teachers strikes are on:

    BREAKING:
    NEU schools union ballot result - teachers in England 121,253 voted yes - 90.4% FOR STRIKE
    Threshold of 50% legal turnout passed - 53%

    https://twitter.com/paulwaugh/status/1615031726392082446

    Teachers have been offered 5% which is not much different to the average 6% national payrise at the moment
    Breaking

    NAHT vote does not meet legal requirement
    It's about the same turnout as NASUWT's. Although the NASUWT result was like the NEU 9-1 to strike.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 43,012
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    WillG said:

    Sean_F said:

    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    Cookie said:

    HYUFD said:

    DJ41 said:

    Cookie said:

    HYUFD said:

    Cookie said:

    HYUFD said:

    It should have been Penny.

    Penny Mordaunt has urged Church of England bishops to allow gay marriage ahead of their historic vote, marking the first intervention by a cabinet minister on the issue.

    Ms Mordaunt, Leader of the House of Commons and MP for Portsmouth North, has written to the Bishop of Portsmouth, calling on him to to “recognize the pain and trauma” that failure to recognise same-sex marriage causes to “many LGBT+ people who are left feeling that they are treated as second class citizens within our society”.

    Currently, according to canon law, no Church of England minister can bless or marry gay couples. Ms Mordaunt’s interjection marks the first time that a serving cabinet secretary has called for the issue to be reformed within the Church of England. She also warned that if bishops failed to approve same-sex marriage, the issue would only “fester and detract” from any positive contribution from the institution.

    Her comments also come as next month, bishops will present their long-awaited findings to the General Synod – the Church’s legislative body – on whether the ban on gay marriage could be overturned.


    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/01/16/penny-mordaunt-urges-church-england-allow-gay-marriages/

    Given a 2/3 majority for major change is needed in the House of Bishops, House of Clergy and House of Laity, I doubt there will be drastic change at Synod next month.

    Evangelicals will block full endorsement of homosexual marriage and liberals will block retaining only a biblical Old Testament, Pauline view of marriage as between a man and woman.

    So as with women priests or divorcee marriage I expect a fudge.

    Church of England priests who want to bless same sex couples marriages will be able to, those who don't won't be forced to.

    There may even be more flying Bishops in the Church of England as there are now for Parishes which don't agree with women priests
    The problem, in my view, isn't a fusty church failing to reflect modern values. If Christian values (or values of any other religion) reflect the preferences of aj ineffable God, it seems unlikely to me that that God - who, if we are to believe the church, has been pretty anti-gay for tge last two millenia - has now changed his mind. What seems more likely is that the church doesn't really know, and never knew, what God thinks on any given subject, but knows what society thinks and is desperately trying to reflect that back.
    So the problem isn't that the church is wrong, it's that we listen to the church at all. We shouldn't be telling it what to think or do, we should be gently removing it from the decision-making process.
    Western society you mean. In most of Africa and Asia there is no legal homosexual marriage, same with most of Eastern Europe and Italy and in some parts of North Africa and the Middle East and South Asia homosexuality is still illegal.

    For those who are members of churches the position of that Church is significant. If the Church of England as the established church in England allows its clergy to conduct same sex marriage in England if they wish that will be a significant moment (Jesus for example never said anything against homosexual marriage)
    But the church in those places is imply reflecting those societies' value back at it too.
    The problem is not that the church's - any church's views are 'wrong' - it is that the church doesn't have the insight it claims into what 'right' and 'wrong' are: the fact that its views are so mutable, and always seem to match the views of the society it operates within, suggest very strongly that it doesn't 'know' what God thinks, it is just winging it based on what it thinks society wants to hear. It is therefore adding no value to the decision making process.
    I'm not saying religion should be abolished - I do think it has a value - but that value isn't to the decision making process. Those of us who don't believe should neither tell those who do what they should think, nor pay any mind to what churches think the 'right' course of action is - because they have no more insight than anyone else.
    Disestablish.
    Don't let religious organisations act as state registrars.
    Obviously let people get married in any religious ceremony they want. Just make them go to the registry office afterwards if they want a state-registered marriage.
    Of course churches should be allowed to say what they think is right and wrong. (And perhaps they do sometimes have more insight than those who don't think much about what's right and what's wrong. I'll judge that on each issue.)

    No because if the Church of England allows homosexual marriages by its priests then the moment you disestablish the Roman Catholic Church, which takes a much harder anti gay marriage line, almost certainly becomes the largest Christian church in England within a decade again.

    So you end up with an even harder line national Christian Church than you have now.

    I also as a member of the Church of England would object to being forced to go to a registry office service I don't see as validating my marriage as well as the C of E service I do think validated it
    But the Catholic Church doesn't become the national church, because:
    1) If the CofE is any good, it will retain its numbers. And if it isn't, it doesn't deserve to stay as the 'national church'; but more importantly
    2) in the scenario DJ41 describes, we don't have a national church at all. The secular majority simply stop listening to what the church say. The churches are free to say whatever they want, but the rest of us don't have to pay them any heed.

    Do you object to registering the birth of your child in a registry office? If not, why would you object to registering your marriage? It only needs to be a 5 minute job telling the state about it. You can still celebrate it, properly, in as much depth as you consider appropriate, in a church, in front of your friends, family and God. A quick trip to Epping Registry office with your new wife when you return from honeymoon to fill in a form doesn't strike me as onerous.
    Yes it does. In virtually every other nation where Christians are the majority or plurality religious group, the Roman Catholic Church is the largest religious denomination. The only other exceptions are nations like Denmark where the Lutheran Church of Denmark is the established church or South Africa or Ghana where Pentecostal evangelical churches are the largest Christian group.

    If the Church of England was disestablished most of the Anglo Catholics would become Roman Catholic and most of the evangelicals would become Pentecostal or Baptist as is the case in the USA for example where the Episcopalian Church is a smaller largely liberal church with hardline evangelicals and Catholics pushing against abortion and gay marriage.

    The latter of course means the Christian churches become increasingly pushing a political agenda and free of being established don't give a toss what the secular majority think. Indeed with immigrants tending to be more socially conservative Christians and Muslims too.

    Signing a form to register your child is not the same as having to have a second baptism service at a registry office

    Russia?
    Well the Eastern Orthodox Church is basically the Roman Catholic Church just with a Patriarch not Pope and even more ornate ceremony
    Okaaaayyyyyy....

    I clearly missed that time the Catholics allowed lay clergy below the rank of bishop to marry.
    Michael Cerularius would be spinning in his grave at HYUFD's comments.
    I am actually with HYUFD here. The Orthodox and Catholic feud is the narcissism of small differences. They are both the remaining State Church of the Roman Empire. A bit like Italian and Spanish both being legacy vulgar Latin.

    Where I don't agree is the conflating of Pauline marriage and Old Testament marriage. Pauline marriage is the Roman view: the strict lifelong monogamy as demanded by Jesus, but with added homophobia. Old Testament marriage allowed hundreds of wives, plus concubines, plus sex slaves. That's worst than Muslim marriage, which is up to four wives plus sex slaves. Ironically the adaption from polygamy to monogamy between the OT and the NT is exactly the mindset of the religious establishment adapting the views of God to contemporary society that the Anglicans are now doing today.
    Depends which part, the Ten Commandments forbade adultery
    Remember, it's not premarital sex if you never get married.
    In the Bible Corinthians opposes sex outside marriage and immorality as does the Koran at
    24:2 (including lashings for unmarried fornicators)
    Are they rules or guidelines? And is there a statute of limitations on them?
    For strict Christians and Muslims they are eternal rules from God
    But God did NOT marry the mother of His only begotten son!
  • TazTaz Posts: 6,594
    Scott_xP said:

    @KevinASchofield: NEW: Hearing Scottish Secretary Alister Jack will inform Nicola Sturgeon TONIGHT that the UK government will block… https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1615033957611081728

    Hmmm, this won’t end well.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 43,012
    Carnyx said:

    ydoethur said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    Teachers strikes are on:

    BREAKING:
    NEU schools union ballot result - teachers in England 121,253 voted yes - 90.4% FOR STRIKE
    Threshold of 50% legal turnout passed - 53%

    https://twitter.com/paulwaugh/status/1615031726392082446

    Bit of a nailbiter there. Given the current atmosphere that this is a moment for striking, I do wonder what could push the turnout any higher.
    Tricky. A lot of teachers only join a union to get access to professional insurance and legal support if their head decides they don't like they way they teach. In a lot of fields, they simply wouldn't be union members.

    (There's also something odd with a set of rules where not voting can be more effective opposition than voting against. Had the 9.6% NEU voters sat on their hands instead, the ballot would have failed to pass the turnout rule.)

    Talking of which:

    Also breaking:
    NAHTnews ballot has not reached turnout threshold

    In England 64% of those who voted supported strikes, while 87% voted in favour of action short of a strike.

    But turnout was 42%, below the 50% requirement


    https://twitter.com/FCDWhittaker/status/1615034167619624960

    That's headteachers. Really not militant people.
    Given the average secondary school headteacher earns £102,000 a year, not surprising

    https://www.theguardian.com/education/2021/mar/20/english-secondary-school-headteachers-among-best-paid-in-the-world
    You: "Given the average secondary school headteacher earns £102,000 a year"

    The source you cite: "top earners in England are paid more than £102,000 a year"

    Ever heard of the difference between mean, mode and median?
    Don't be mean if he goes into full Hyufd mode.
    Aw not fair, what pun can I make of median??
    Dual Marriageways have a median!
  • ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    Teachers strikes are on:

    BREAKING:
    NEU schools union ballot result - teachers in England 121,253 voted yes - 90.4% FOR STRIKE
    Threshold of 50% legal turnout passed - 53%

    https://twitter.com/paulwaugh/status/1615031726392082446

    Teachers have been offered 5% which is not much different to the average 6% national payrise at the moment
    Breaking

    NAHT vote does not meet legal requirement
    It's about the same turnout as NASUWT's. Although the NASUWT result was like the NEU 9-1 to strike.
    And somewhat moot anyway. I can't imagine many schools being able to operate safely without NEU staff, or there being much goodwill to make the effort to try.
  • solarflaresolarflare Posts: 3,190
    Carnyx said:

    Totally separately and I assume someone's already mentioned it in an earlier thread but Dilbert's gone a bit Leon.

    https://dilbert.com/strip/2023-01-16

    Talking about that, I wasn't around much of late, so don't know if this was brought up:

    https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2023/jan/14/art-experts-try-to-spot-ai-works-dall-e-stable-diffusion
    Yebbut wait until Guardian articles written by AIs are asking the question of whether AI art critics can tell the difference between real art and AI-generated art.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 107,356
    edited January 16
    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    Teachers strikes are on:

    BREAKING:
    NEU schools union ballot result - teachers in England 121,253 voted yes - 90.4% FOR STRIKE
    Threshold of 50% legal turnout passed - 53%

    https://twitter.com/paulwaugh/status/1615031726392082446

    Bit of a nailbiter there. Given the current atmosphere that this is a moment for striking, I do wonder what could push the turnout any higher.
    Tricky. A lot of teachers only join a union to get access to professional insurance and legal support if their head decides they don't like they way they teach. In a lot of fields, they simply wouldn't be union members.

    (There's also something odd with a set of rules where not voting can be more effective opposition than voting against. Had the 9.6% NEU voters sat on their hands instead, the ballot would have failed to pass the turnout rule.)

    Talking of which:

    Also breaking:
    NAHTnews ballot has not reached turnout threshold

    In England 64% of those who voted supported strikes, while 87% voted in favour of action short of a strike.

    But turnout was 42%, below the 50% requirement


    https://twitter.com/FCDWhittaker/status/1615034167619624960

    That's headteachers. Really not militant people.
    Given the average secondary school headteacher earns £102,000 a year, not surprising

    https://www.theguardian.com/education/2021/mar/20/english-secondary-school-headteachers-among-best-paid-in-the-world
    You: "Given the average secondary school headteacher earns £102,000 a year"

    The source you cite: "top earners in England are paid more than £102,000 a year"

    Ever heard of the difference between mean, mode and median, also?
    Makes little difference in this case given the top payscale for secondary headteachers in England outside London is £82k to £117k.

    Academy headteachers can earn £200k to £400k

    https://www.theguardian.com/education/2021/mar/20/english-secondary-school-headteachers-among-best-paid-in-the-world
  • beinndeargbeinndearg Posts: 676

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    WillG said:

    Sean_F said:

    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    Cookie said:

    HYUFD said:

    DJ41 said:

    Cookie said:

    HYUFD said:

    Cookie said:

    HYUFD said:

    It should have been Penny.

    Penny Mordaunt has urged Church of England bishops to allow gay marriage ahead of their historic vote, marking the first intervention by a cabinet minister on the issue.

    Ms Mordaunt, Leader of the House of Commons and MP for Portsmouth North, has written to the Bishop of Portsmouth, calling on him to to “recognize the pain and trauma” that failure to recognise same-sex marriage causes to “many LGBT+ people who are left feeling that they are treated as second class citizens within our society”.

    Currently, according to canon law, no Church of England minister can bless or marry gay couples. Ms Mordaunt’s interjection marks the first time that a serving cabinet secretary has called for the issue to be reformed within the Church of England. She also warned that if bishops failed to approve same-sex marriage, the issue would only “fester and detract” from any positive contribution from the institution.

    Her comments also come as next month, bishops will present their long-awaited findings to the General Synod – the Church’s legislative body – on whether the ban on gay marriage could be overturned.


    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/01/16/penny-mordaunt-urges-church-england-allow-gay-marriages/

    Given a 2/3 majority for major change is needed in the House of Bishops, House of Clergy and House of Laity, I doubt there will be drastic change at Synod next month.

    Evangelicals will block full endorsement of homosexual marriage and liberals will block retaining only a biblical Old Testament, Pauline view of marriage as between a man and woman.

    So as with women priests or divorcee marriage I expect a fudge.

    Church of England priests who want to bless same sex couples marriages will be able to, those who don't won't be forced to.

    There may even be more flying Bishops in the Church of England as there are now for Parishes which don't agree with women priests
    The problem, in my view, isn't a fusty church failing to reflect modern values. If Christian values (or values of any other religion) reflect the preferences of aj ineffable God, it seems unlikely to me that that God - who, if we are to believe the church, has been pretty anti-gay for tge last two millenia - has now changed his mind. What seems more likely is that the church doesn't really know, and never knew, what God thinks on any given subject, but knows what society thinks and is desperately trying to reflect that back.
    So the problem isn't that the church is wrong, it's that we listen to the church at all. We shouldn't be telling it what to think or do, we should be gently removing it from the decision-making process.
    Western society you mean. In most of Africa and Asia there is no legal homosexual marriage, same with most of Eastern Europe and Italy and in some parts of North Africa and the Middle East and South Asia homosexuality is still illegal.

    For those who are members of churches the position of that Church is significant. If the Church of England as the established church in England allows its clergy to conduct same sex marriage in England if they wish that will be a significant moment (Jesus for example never said anything against homosexual marriage)
    But the church in those places is imply reflecting those societies' value back at it too.
    The problem is not that the church's - any church's views are 'wrong' - it is that the church doesn't have the insight it claims into what 'right' and 'wrong' are: the fact that its views are so mutable, and always seem to match the views of the society it operates within, suggest very strongly that it doesn't 'know' what God thinks, it is just winging it based on what it thinks society wants to hear. It is therefore adding no value to the decision making process.
    I'm not saying religion should be abolished - I do think it has a value - but that value isn't to the decision making process. Those of us who don't believe should neither tell those who do what they should think, nor pay any mind to what churches think the 'right' course of action is - because they have no more insight than anyone else.
    Disestablish.
    Don't let religious organisations act as state registrars.
    Obviously let people get married in any religious ceremony they want. Just make them go to the registry office afterwards if they want a state-registered marriage.
    Of course churches should be allowed to say what they think is right and wrong. (And perhaps they do sometimes have more insight than those who don't think much about what's right and what's wrong. I'll judge that on each issue.)

    No because if the Church of England allows homosexual marriages by its priests then the moment you disestablish the Roman Catholic Church, which takes a much harder anti gay marriage line, almost certainly becomes the largest Christian church in England within a decade again.

    So you end up with an even harder line national Christian Church than you have now.

    I also as a member of the Church of England would object to being forced to go to a registry office service I don't see as validating my marriage as well as the C of E service I do think validated it
    But the Catholic Church doesn't become the national church, because:
    1) If the CofE is any good, it will retain its numbers. And if it isn't, it doesn't deserve to stay as the 'national church'; but more importantly
    2) in the scenario DJ41 describes, we don't have a national church at all. The secular majority simply stop listening to what the church say. The churches are free to say whatever they want, but the rest of us don't have to pay them any heed.

    Do you object to registering the birth of your child in a registry office? If not, why would you object to registering your marriage? It only needs to be a 5 minute job telling the state about it. You can still celebrate it, properly, in as much depth as you consider appropriate, in a church, in front of your friends, family and God. A quick trip to Epping Registry office with your new wife when you return from honeymoon to fill in a form doesn't strike me as onerous.
    Yes it does. In virtually every other nation where Christians are the majority or plurality religious group, the Roman Catholic Church is the largest religious denomination. The only other exceptions are nations like Denmark where the Lutheran Church of Denmark is the established church or South Africa or Ghana where Pentecostal evangelical churches are the largest Christian group.

    If the Church of England was disestablished most of the Anglo Catholics would become Roman Catholic and most of the evangelicals would become Pentecostal or Baptist as is the case in the USA for example where the Episcopalian Church is a smaller largely liberal church with hardline evangelicals and Catholics pushing against abortion and gay marriage.

    The latter of course means the Christian churches become increasingly pushing a political agenda and free of being established don't give a toss what the secular majority think. Indeed with immigrants tending to be more socially conservative Christians and Muslims too.

    Signing a form to register your child is not the same as having to have a second baptism service at a registry office

    Russia?
    Well the Eastern Orthodox Church is basically the Roman Catholic Church just with a Patriarch not Pope and even more ornate ceremony
    Okaaaayyyyyy....

    I clearly missed that time the Catholics allowed lay clergy below the rank of bishop to marry.
    Michael Cerularius would be spinning in his grave at HYUFD's comments.
    I am actually with HYUFD here. The Orthodox and Catholic feud is the narcissism of small differences. They are both the remaining State Church of the Roman Empire. A bit like Italian and Spanish both being legacy vulgar Latin.

    Where I don't agree is the conflating of Pauline marriage and Old Testament marriage. Pauline marriage is the Roman view: the strict lifelong monogamy as demanded by Jesus, but with added homophobia. Old Testament marriage allowed hundreds of wives, plus concubines, plus sex slaves. That's worst than Muslim marriage, which is up to four wives plus sex slaves. Ironically the adaption from polygamy to monogamy between the OT and the NT is exactly the mindset of the religious establishment adapting the views of God to contemporary society that the Anglicans are now doing today.
    Depends which part, the Ten Commandments forbade adultery
    Remember, it's not premarital sex if you never get married.
    In the Bible Corinthians opposes sex outside marriage and immorality as does the Koran at
    24:2 (including lashings for unmarried fornicators)
    Are they rules or guidelines? And is there a statute of limitations on them?
    For strict Christians and Muslims they are eternal rules from God
    But God did NOT marry the mother of His only begotten son!
    I think he probably mentally did, same as Donald declassified those documents.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 57,769
    Scott_xP said:

    @KevinASchofield: NEW: Hearing Scottish Secretary Alister Jack will inform Nicola Sturgeon TONIGHT that the UK government will block… https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1615033957611081728

    I would tell Sturgeon 5 minutes before the HoC Statement, given the way she treated confidential COVID briefings. She's thrown away the courtesy of advance notice.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 82,567
    Speaking of picking fights which will probably only help those being fought

    The UK government has decided to block Holyrood’s gender recognition reform bill

    The Scottish secretary, Alister Jack is expected to lay a section 35 order at Westminster tomorrow to prevent the legislation being sent to the King for Royal assent


    https://twitter.com/GlennBBC/status/1615040061111664652?cxt=HHwWmICwyZ6Y4-ksAAAA
  • TazTaz Posts: 6,594
    MaxPB said:

    Nigelb said:

    Britishvolt hopes for last-minute bid to stave off collapse
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-64290594

    I wonder whether JLR will pounce after they enter administration, it's a good match IMO.
    Yes, it probably is. Although they would probably not need Blyth, just Coventry and Hams Hall.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 82,567
    Taz said:

    Scott_xP said:

    @KevinASchofield: NEW: Hearing Scottish Secretary Alister Jack will inform Nicola Sturgeon TONIGHT that the UK government will block… https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1615033957611081728

    Hmmm, this won’t end well.
    It didn't start well either, so there's consistency at least.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 29,264
    ...
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 29,264
    @NatashaC: Alister Jack confirms he has made an order under section 35 o the Scotland act to prevent the Scottish parliament's… https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1615041818885767168
  • solarflaresolarflare Posts: 3,190
    kle4 said:

    Speaking of picking fights which will probably only help those being fought

    The UK government has decided to block Holyrood’s gender recognition reform bill

    The Scottish secretary, Alister Jack is expected to lay a section 35 order at Westminster tomorrow to prevent the legislation being sent to the King for Royal assent


    https://twitter.com/GlennBBC/status/1615040061111664652?cxt=HHwWmICwyZ6Y4-ksAAAA

    I wonder if they used that as an attempt to troll.

    "Hi Nicola, we know you requested a Section Thirty order a while back. Good news! We're going to give you a Section Thirty order. Oops, my bad. I meant, a Section Thirty-Five order. Soz."
  • geoffwgeoffw Posts: 6,911
    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    Teachers strikes are on:

    BREAKING:
    NEU schools union ballot result - teachers in England 121,253 voted yes - 90.4% FOR STRIKE
    Threshold of 50% legal turnout passed - 53%

    https://twitter.com/paulwaugh/status/1615031726392082446

    Bit of a nailbiter there. Given the current atmosphere that this is a moment for striking, I do wonder what could push the turnout any higher.
    Tricky. A lot of teachers only join a union to get access to professional insurance and legal support if their head decides they don't like they way they teach. In a lot of fields, they simply wouldn't be union members.

    (There's also something odd with a set of rules where not voting can be more effective opposition than voting against. Had the 9.6% NEU voters sat on their hands instead, the ballot would have failed to pass the turnout rule.)

    Talking of which:

    Also breaking:
    NAHTnews ballot has not reached turnout threshold

    In England 64% of those who voted supported strikes, while 87% voted in favour of action short of a strike.

    But turnout was 42%, below the 50% requirement


    https://twitter.com/FCDWhittaker/status/1615034167619624960

    That's headteachers. Really not militant people.
    Given the average secondary school headteacher earns £102,000 a year, not surprising

    https://www.theguardian.com/education/2021/mar/20/english-secondary-school-headteachers-among-best-paid-in-the-world
    You: "Given the average secondary school headteacher earns £102,000 a year"

    The source you cite: "top earners in England are paid more than £102,000 a year"

    Ever heard of the difference between mean, mode and median, also?
    Makes little difference in this case given the payscale for headteachers in England outside London is £82k to £117k

    https://www.theguardian.com/education/2021/mar/20/english-secondary-school-headteachers-among-best-paid-in-the-world
    From that I make the midrange to be £99,500. No-one can say what the mean, median or mode is with this information.

  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 56,756
    edited January 16

    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    Teachers strikes are on:

    BREAKING:
    NEU schools union ballot result - teachers in England 121,253 voted yes - 90.4% FOR STRIKE
    Threshold of 50% legal turnout passed - 53%

    https://twitter.com/paulwaugh/status/1615031726392082446

    Teachers have been offered 5% which is not much different to the average 6% national payrise at the moment
    Breaking

    NAHT vote does not meet legal requirement
    It's about the same turnout as NASUWT's. Although the NASUWT result was like the NEU 9-1 to strike.
    And somewhat moot anyway. I can't imagine many schools being able to operate safely without NEU staff, or there being much goodwill to make the effort to try.
    I think the only question (at secondary level anyway) will be do they try to keep Year 10 in as well as Year 11? And my guess is, probably not. Particularly given that level of fed-upness among heads. For them to vote two-to-one to strike is extraordinary.
This discussion has been closed.