Thinking Anglicans

SORs: forty objectors found

Updated midday
There are in fact 42 signatures, see below

According to Ruth Gledhill in The Times today

Bishops of the Church of England are being urged by their flock to turn out en masse on Wednesday for the Lords debate on equal rights for gay couples wishing to adopt.

In an open letter sent to all the diocesan bishops of the Church, more than one fifth of the lay members of the General Synod urge the 26 bishops in the Lords to help to overturn the Sexual Orientation Regulations at its final vote.

As we discover later on, this means

In their letter, more than 40 members of the General Synod

Read the whole news article at Vote to stop gay-rights law, bishops told.

The earlier article about Lord Carey and his views on House of Lords Reform, mentioned in the newspaper report can be found at Ruth Gledhill’s blog, under ‘Disestablish Church’ says Carey.

Meanwhile, the House of Commons vote on the SORs is listed in today’s order of business as the last item prior to the adjournment debate:

† 10 SEXUAL ORIENTATION DISCRIMINATION [No debate]
Secretary Ruth Kelly
That the draft Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2007, which were laid before this House on 12th March, be approved.
To be decided without debate (Standing Order No. 118(6)).

There is also an earlier motion that Standing Order No. 41A (Deferred divisions) shall not apply to several divisions today, including this one.

Update
Anglican Mainstream has now published a press release from LCF which includes the names of the signatories to this letter:

The letter was signed by the following lay members of General Synod (in alphabetical order): Anthony Archer (St Albans), Edward Armitstead (Bath and Wells), Lorna Ashworth (Chichester), Barry Barnes (Southwark), Anneliese Barrell (Exeter), Tom Benyon (Oxford), David Blackmore (Chester), Paul Boyd-Lee (Salisbury), Peter Bruinvels (Guildford), Michael Burbeck (Salisbury), Gerald Burrows (Blackburn), Graham Campbell (Chester), Jim Cheeseman (Rochester), Nigel Chetwood (Gloucester), Prudence Dailey (Oxford), Ian Dobbie (Rochester), Paul Eddy (Winchester), Sarah Finch (London), Philip Giddings (Oxford), John Hanks (Oxford), Glynn Harrison (Bristol), Mary Judkins (Wakefield), Frank Knaggs (Newcastle), Philip Lovegrove (St Albans), Keith Malcouronne (Guildford), Peter May (Winchester), David Mills (Carlisle), Steve Mitchell (Derby), Joanna Monckton (Lichfield), Gill Morrison (Peterborough), Terry Musson (Truro), Mary Nagel (Chichester), Gerry O’Brien (Rochester), Elizabeth Paver (Sheffield), Alison Ruoff (London), Clive Scowen (London), Ian Smith (York), Penny Stranack (Truro), Michael Streeter (Chichester), Carol Ticehurst (Lincoln), Sister Anne Williams (Durham), Alison Wynne (Blackburn).

Others writing about this are:

Ruth yet again, in SORs back in the news
rhetorically speaking Last throes of bigotry: some minorities are more equal than others.

I am told that what Ruth has posted is the full text of the letter.

6.30 pm update
AM has Commons vote tonight on SORS

60
Leave a Reply

avatar
3000
60 Comment threads
0 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
18 Comment authors
Erika BakerCheryl Cloughdave williamsAlan MarshGöran Koch-Swahne Recent comment authors
  Subscribe  
newest oldest
Notify of
mynsterpreost (=David Rowett)
Guest
mynsterpreost (=David Rowett)

Who gave this lot the right to speak in my name? Or to take on the mantle of The Voice Of The Laity? Of course, any pressure group can pressure away – but it shows how hopelessly amateurish the so-called ‘liberal ascendancy’ is at getting its act together. Where are our full-page adverts in the Daily Mail proclaiming ‘Not In My Name’ when it comes down to this sort of campaign? Answer, we’re all too busy doing apologetics for the rights of the Opposition. Other contributors have spoken of the unreciprocated generosity of the ‘liberal hierarchy’. I wouldn’t call on… Read more »

Mark Berry
Guest

TBH one fifth seems a surprisingly small number! If you were to read “only 20% of Lay Members of General Synod support a call to the Bishops to vote against SORs” it would have a different dynamic don’t you think? Even more so if it read “c80% of Lay Members of General Synod do not support a call for the Bishops to vote against SORs” etc. etc.

Laurence Roberts
Guest
Laurence Roberts

WoW ! Forty objectors ! ……
I am so glad that synodical government is working so effectively for our nation.

I especially approve of giving voice to beleagured minorities. I hope their liberties may be upheld, and their lifestyle unhindered.

Merseymike
Guest
Merseymike

Gay couples already have equal rights to adopt. What the legislation does is remove the ability of organisations not to offer this right.

Lapinbizarre
Guest
Lapinbizarre

That only a little over one-fifth of lay membership of General Synod has signed the call to action on the current major issue for many conservative “faith” groups in the UK and the defining issue in the international Anglican community, strongly indicates that when the chips are down, the Church of England is largely in line with the Canadian, Scottish, New Zealand and US churches on this issue. The Lords debate, beyond Winchester and Rochester, will clarify or change this assumption. Gledhill’s Friday blog on archbishop Carey and disestablishment is very interesting. I have already posted the following observation to… Read more »

choirboyfromhell
Guest
choirboyfromhell

Wow, laity in the church working against justice.

Jonathan Edwards and Jonathan Daniels would turn in their graves.

Kurt
Guest
Kurt

I don’t know about Jonathan Daniels, but Jonathan Edwards, the 18th century American Calvinist, is probably applauding their actions from his residence in hell.

Laurence Roberts
Guest
Laurence Roberts

‘Anthony Archer, author of the letter and a member of the Crown Nominations Committee said: “This is a rare opportunity for all Bishops to unite around this subject. It is also an outstanding moment for them to make a clear statement about their role in the House of Lords in the context of the proposals for reform, which looks increasingly likely to lead to a diminishing of their ability to be the conscience of the nation in our democratic process.”’ LCF Letterquoted on ‘Anglican’ ‘Mainstream’ Anthony Archer is clearly an excellent man to have on the Crown Nominations Committee, as… Read more »

Raspberry Rabbit
Guest

I’m still struck by the way a headline which suggests that the bishops are being ‘instructed’ by the resolute laity ends up being softened in the body of the article to their being merely ‘urged’ by ‘the faithful’ and then drizzles out completely when it appears that only a fifth of the laity were of this opinion. Start big, waffle and then fizzle out. I was half expecting to see the final line being “‘For God’s sake do what you’re told’ said Karl the Janitor leaning on his broom at the back of the room”.

Lapinbizarre
Guest
Lapinbizarre

30 of the 42 signatories are “South of the Trent”. Last gasp of the “Conservative Church at Prayer”?

drdanfee
Guest
drdanfee

I continue to find it very odd that the rightwing answer to the gaps between established church life and modern life is for the church to get meaner than not, while it tries to deny to queer folks the rights its own freedom riders of conscience already enjoy. All along, the campaign for realignment seems to have had a sense that only by walking backwards in its slow-mo hermeneutics can it pretend – above all for media moments that are somewhat dim-witted when it comes to specialist theologies – that others who are walking fowards are, in fact, leaving God.… Read more »

Alan Marsh
Guest
Alan Marsh

“That only a little over one-fifth of lay membership of General Synod has signed the call to action on the current major issue…”

It is not a survey, it’s a letter.

The only statistical conclusion that can be drawn, in the absence of evidence that the whole House was asked to sign and 80% refused, is that 42 people who were invited to do so, signed the letter.

Laurence Roberts
Guest
Laurence Roberts

30 of the 42 signatories are “South of the Trent”. Last gasp of the “Conservative Church at Prayer”?

Posted by: Lapinbizarre on Monday, 19 March 2007 at 1:46pm GMT

Well spotted ! How I wish that my geographical acumen was half as good.

Ah TRENT –now there is a name with which to conjor ! …

Alan Marsh
Guest
Alan Marsh

“30 of the 42 signatories are “South of the Trent”.

A similar proportion of the Church of England lies south of the Trent: 30 out of 44 dioceses are in the province of Canterbury.

Laurence Roberts
Guest
Laurence Roberts

Should I ever happen to need to consult a psychiatrist, I certainly should not turn to Glynn Harrison, one of the 42 lay signatories listed above; and whose GS speech is included on the blog of Ruth G. This speech was not called to be given at GS and it is so anti-gay that the homophobic Ruth has not hesitated to include it in her blog, instead. The good doctor’s stated preference is for iron age texts over today’s living tradition of psychiatric and psychotherapeutic writings and practice of working with others. I wonder if the Royal College of Psychiatrists… Read more »

Erika Baker
Guest
Erika Baker

Well, Laurence, is that something that should/could be followed up with the Royal College of Psychiatrists?

Alan Marsh
Guest
Alan Marsh

I just read the same contribution by Professor Glynn Harrison, and I don’t recognise the description of it given by Laurence Roberts above. It outlines a scientific case and argument, and deserves a scientific response: not a peremptory denunciation of this kind, which truly does belong to the iron age. Or the NKVD.

Laurence Roberts
Guest
Laurence Roberts

My previous post should, of course, have read : —

‘I wonder if the Royal College of Psychiatrists realize that Harrison’s understanding and ability, respectfully to work with all patients has been thus compromised ?
A very serious question for all potential patients of the NHS…’

Apologies

Christopher
Guest
Christopher

“It is not a survey, it’s a letter.” For once Alan I agree with you. And Laurence, you are wrong about Ruth being homophobic but right about Glynn Harrison who should be ashamed of himself. Every profession has its embarrassments. When I was an undergraduate at Oxford there was one Seymour Fischer, psychiatrist, convert to catholicism from judaism who ‘treated’ young men with sexual problems. He was famous for his ueber-catholicism and his homophobia but when he went to sleep during a session a friend of mine crept out completely cured of his internalised homophobia, leaving him sleeping after Seymour… Read more »

John
Guest
John

Why would Jonathon Edwards be in hell?

Cheryl Clough
Guest

Actually, I am pleased that they did the protest. I am glad that their society allows them to gather together in prayer and put forward a position that is consistent with their conscience. It would not have been healthy if they had not done this. At least they can tell their god that they did their best, but that they did not have the numbers on the day. I wonder if they are aware of the irony that they are partaking of a liberty that they would deprive GLBTs to have (e.g. in Nigeria)? But perhaps they just don’t get… Read more »

Laurence Roberts
Guest
Laurence Roberts

AnglicanMainstream seems to bring up to the minute news of SORs !
The instructions for vigils semed somehwat hysterical to me—but the sies will not fall in !

I also loved reading of All saints, Algarveon the AM site—- hopefully next week a piece on Council Estate Ministry ! ….. or is only for the upper middle classes ?

Erika Baker
Guest
Erika Baker

Alan, I am not a psychiatrist so I cannot give a scientific response to Prof Harrison’s letter. But as a potential patient (aren’t we all?)I would hope that a psychiatrist treating me did not claim that it was reasonable to stick to strict Christian rules about no sex outside marriage which includes no same sex activity because we don’t allow same sex marriages, therefore gays can never be married, therefore they must be celibate…. It also ingores the emotional realities of our children and widowed/divorced parents. This is one of many Christian views, but is is not an objective view… Read more »

Laurence Roberts
Guest
Laurence Roberts

It was just on the radio 4 news that the Government is seeking an accommodation with the RC denomination and revolting (sic) backbenchers. If the Churches are offered concessions, the public will expect much from them in return.

Bigotry cannot have ‘business as usual’ in the time of the new paradigm.

“The kin-dom of G-d is among us !”

Laurence Roberts
Guest
Laurence Roberts

George Carey Bombshell ********************** I am shocked to see Carey belittle slavery as he does in the Ruth Gledhill Times blog. His suggestion that some slaves,’didn’t have such a bad time of it’ coupled with his insensitive use of slavery as a mere illustration and adjunct to his view on disestablishment, is profoundly disrespectful to all slaves who suffered; and a bitter disappointment even from him :– ‘Set all Free’ is the slogan for the celebration of the abolition of the slave trade in the UK. The Church is backing this without understanding her own enslavement. It is understood that… Read more »

Alan Marsh
Guest
Alan Marsh

Erika, would you refuse to be treated by a Muslim psychiatrist, who may have very strong views about various aspects of a western lifestyle?

Would you refuse to accept the verdict of a judge because she happened to be wearing a hijab?

Or would you only denounce conservative Christians to the relevant professional bodies as being, in your opinion, incapable of acting professionally?

choirboyfromhell
Guest
choirboyfromhell

Kurt & John: I mentioned Jonathan Edwards (of New England, eighteenth century) as a Calvinist who might not have been opposed to proof of scientific methods per his upbringing, despite his tendancy towards dramatic preaching. Perhaps today’s evangelicals could learn something from him (in terms of his respect for science), but reading deeper into his background about chastizing young parishoners for reading “bad” books, I may very well be mistakened about his open-mindedness.

Erika Baker
Guest
Erika Baker

Alan, Of course I would be judged by anyone of any faith. Judges have to uphold the law and not their own beliefs. A Muslim psychiatrist? Yes, I would refuse him or her unless his or her membership of a professional body could reassure me that they are capable of treating me according to my best interest and not to their beliefs. That’s why professional membership of royal colleges and likewise institutes is so important. And my daughter’s multi-faith hospital team is the most caring, capable and kind group of professionals you’d ever wish to come into contact with. When… Read more »

Laurence Roberts
Guest
Laurence Roberts

Good point Erika. There is no way this man can offer, and be seen to offer, an unprejudiced service. All the more so, as psychiatry, like all good medecine has to invovle a personal or inter-subjective relationship with patients. Perhaps he is more of simple pill pushing doctor. Even this would call for nuance, and humanity. Having been abused in my teens,by a tirade of anti-gay invective, from a psychiatrist, when I had hoped for help; and working myself in the field of mental health, I have concern about those who (would) abuse their position of power, in relation to… Read more »

mynsterpreost (=David Rowett)
Guest
mynsterpreost (=David Rowett)

There’s at least one non sequitur in Prof. Harrison’s article as he shifts effortlessly from an ‘is’ to ‘ought’. As ConsEvs on this site have argued ceaselesly, there is no necessary connection between state and morality – that something is ‘natural’, we are reminded, is not cause to see it as acceptable. The demonstration that sexuality is only partly genetically determined is a mirror-image, and presumably COnsEvs would in the interests of consistency say that just because something is not entirely given, but partly acquired, is not reason to count it as unacceptable. So we are not really talking science… Read more »

Göran Koch-Swahne
Guest

Alan March wrote: “… would you refuse to be treated by a Muslim psychiatrist, who may have very strong views about various aspects of a western lifestyle?

Would you refuse to accept the verdict of a judge because she happened to be wearing a hijab?”

I must say I take exception to this endless spewing of anti Muslim nonsense at all hours.

Kurt
Guest
Kurt

We American Episcopalians have never been fond of Calvinists here. In fact, our denomination was formed, in large measure, against them. Many of us just assume that hell is where all good Calvinists go when they die. I see no reason to question that assumption.

John
Guest
John

Alan,
Can a doctor treat a patient with professionalism, care, kindness, understanding, etc… irrespective of her (the doctor’s) particular point of veiw or “conscience”? Difficult maybe but surely not implausible. Like this doctor we as christians are called to witness of his love to the world? Difficult maybe but surely not implausible. It’s hard not to over-generalize or over-simplify any of these questions.

Alan Marsh
Guest
Alan Marsh

It’s not an anti-muslim comment, Goran, but a question about attitudes to other people. Do you or Erika seriously claim the right to choose a psychiatrist according to their religious beliefs? Or their political views? “I’m not having that woman treat me, she’s a member of the Conservative Party?” Are you incapable of rationally accepting that people can carry out their profession effectively even if they have opinions, views or beliefs which you do not share? Of course, you are unlikely to know unless the professional concerned is wearing some form of identifying religious apparel. And so I ask again,… Read more »

Göran Koch-Swahne
Guest

May I remind you that this legislation is about bad manners, not about anybody’s party or religion?

I was questioning your attitudes towards other people.

Read what Erika says about professionalism, and especially what she says about her daughter’s hospital team!

I work with such a team.

Erika Baker
Guest
Erika Baker

Alan, would you read my previous answer again, please? John, of course one cannot generalise and many psychiatrists are perfectly capable of treating all patients. When they do, on occasion, come across some they find hard to treat for reasons of conflict of belief or personal experience (a mother I know, for example, finds it hard to treat a paedophile), they would usually hand them over to a colleague. That’s why, as I said before, membership of professional bodies is so important, because their code of conduct guarantees that all members are capable of working for the their patient’s best… Read more »

Laurence Roberts
Guest
Laurence Roberts

My response to interrogation here.

I have to say that I live in the midst of a muslim community. My neighbours are lovely–delightful. The doctors, cabbies, shop keepers, barber, bus drivers and pharmacy are all very professional, helpful and reliable. “Cab on it’s way” actually means ” The taxi is now on its way to your address.”

Pluralist
Guest

In 1984 I had a test from a genetics expert about tuberous sclerosis. I had every confidence in him and his expertise, and then in a wide ranging chat I found him to be an Anglican (as I was then, very early days, pre my Unitarian adventure) and he believed in the virginal conception and I did not. Somewhere he had thrown a switch, and I was completely baffled. So I always think it is possible for experts to compartmentalise their beliefs and beliefs (this is not a mistake) and operate according to which mind-room they are in at the… Read more »

Erika Baker
Guest
Erika Baker

Alan, Back to your last post: Do I claim the right to choose a psychiatrist according to their religious or political belief: Never according to their political belief. According to their religious belief, yes, if I know that it will potentially harm my patient-doctor relationship with them. I don’t care whether they believe literally in the virgin birth or not, but I do care whether they think that homosexuality is an abomination, because it directly impinges on their relationship with me. Unless I know their belief will not stop them from treating me according to my best interest. Am I… Read more »

Ruth Gledhill
Guest

Thank you Christopher for your defence of me and thank you everyone who has taken the time to read my blogs/stories on this issue. I do hope I am not homophobic but this is always a difficult issue to write about, especially on a weblog, where fact and opinion can seem to merge, without seeming to take one side or the other. I’ve had an email correspondence this week from someone the ‘other side’ suggesting I am the opposite of homophobic because of that same blog posting. I am always grateful for criticism – goodness knows I’ve had enough of… Read more »

choirboyfromhell
Guest
choirboyfromhell

Kurt: You obviously haven’t attended an Episcopal church here in Ohio. It was years before somebody told me that we were ‘catholic’. I was shocked. Hell is a mindset, I suspect that that could be fitting for the Presbyterian side of my family. If they’re going to hell, they at least know they’re going there and can’t help it. But this is getting off of the subject. While we here in the USA and EC worry about an ++AB somewhere else not inviting us to the table, or another showing Christian charity by not going to the table with us,… Read more »

Alan Marsh
Guest
Alan Marsh

Erika, I have read and re-read your posts, and you still don’t answer the objection that a senior Professor of Psychiatry is entitled to express a professional and scientifically based view, in a public forum, without being questioned about his professional ethics, simply because you disagree profoundly with him – although you say you are not qualified to respond to the work to which he makes reference. There are many people working in the health service who have personal and religious views which they hold strongly, some of them far more judgemental than any conservative Christian might appear. Neither you… Read more »

Pluralist
Guest

Ruth, I think you love cookery. I think you have a big spoon and put both of your hands on its handle when it is in the mixture.

Laurence Roberts
Guest
Laurence Roberts

Ruth as far as I can see you support Carey, the RC denomination and the anti-lgbt forces in the AC and in Uk society consistently. You certainly haven’t been trying to support lgbt people , have you ? If you think that this not the case I am flabbergasted! It is never too late to change direction –we’d all love you for it ! (the beleagured lgbt minority and our families and friends). And the only reward would be treasure of the heavenly variety. And the properity’s blessing ! So here’s to the future of your blog ! (You mustn’t… Read more »

Göran Koch-Swahne
Guest

“There are many people working in the health service who have personal and religious views which they hold strongly, some of them far more judgemental than any conservative Christian might appear. “

Oops, Here we go again!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Göran Koch-Swahne
Guest

“… a senior Professor of Psychiatry is entitled to express a professional and scientifically based view, in a public forum, without being questioned about his professional ethics…”

I am sorry, but this was neither professional nor scientifically based.

The more you go on about it, the more I begin to think that the various liberal professions ;=) need to begin to screen their members.

AND DONT GIVE ME THAT ANTI-MUSLIM CRAP AGAIN!

Erika Baker
Guest
Erika Baker

Alan, I’m not sure what you’re saying – we don’t seem to disagree at all. ” Neither you nor I have any right to demand that we are not treated by someone committed to such views by the religion they practise, unless they cross the boundary set by the scrupulous professional ethics expected of them, and modify in some unacceptable way the treatment which they provide for patients. That is the point at which the relevant medical college needs to receive a complaint.” That’s exactly what I’ve been saying. Only, as this particular man has loudly lobbied and voted against… Read more »

Göran Koch-Swahne
Guest

In a comment higher up in the thread Alan Marsh writes: “Do you or Erika seriously claim the right to choose a psychiatrist according to their religious beliefs? Or their political views? “I’m not having that woman treat me, she’s a member of the Conservative Party?”” I haven’t been in the position to “chose” a psychiatrist, but I think that when “chosen”, this “choice” is one of recommendation from acquaintances, former patients &c. Psychiatrists are not on NHS here, so the “choice” is of some personal interest not only with regard to the help expected. A prospective patient does not… Read more »

Göran Koch-Swahne
Guest

Laurence Roberts wrote: “”Cab on it’s way” actually means ” The taxi is now on its way to your address.””

WOW!

(and when the door bell tolls, it’s the milkman ;=)

Who would have thunk!

Göran Koch-Swahne
Guest

Ruth Gledhill wrote: “… but this is always a difficult issue to write about, especially on a weblog, where fact and opinion can seem to merge, without seeming to take one side or the other.”

Facts and opinion only merge for the fanatic Ruthie dear, not for people who are rational.