Friday, 28 September 2007

Discrimination: a lost opportunity

Last week’s Church Times contained a comment article written by me and titled Discrimination: a lost opportunity.

For previous Church Times coverage of the Archbishops’ Council response, see here. For the original response to the Discrimination Law Review, go here.

Posted by Simon Sarmiento on Friday, 28 September 2007 at 8:40am BST | TrackBack
You can make a Permalink to this if you like
Categorised as: equality legislation
Comments

I saw the following post at Stand Firm and I thought that "thinking anglicans" might like to vote too
"The (UK) Church Times has as its question of the week—Has the US House of Bishops responded adequately to the Primates’ demands? At the moment only 28 people have voted and it is split 50/50. People might like to go there and vote: http://www.churchtimes.co.uk/question.asp?id=45141"

Posted by: EPfizH on Friday, 28 September 2007 at 12:47pm BST

Just remember, that 'no' could mean - from ++Akinola - 'no,they haven't groveled enough' - and could also mean - from me - 'no, they did too much appeasing of bullies with no intention of compromise.'

So I won't bother.

Posted by: Cynthia Gilliatt on Friday, 28 September 2007 at 8:48pm BST

EPfizH

The question is vexatious.

Have they capitulate enough to meet the demands? - yes.

Have they responded adequately? - no

They have lost trust with some souls.

Just as the feminine who rejoiced in Jesus' birth and ressurection feels betrayed about how women have been more abused and less respected in patriarchial Christianity for the last 2000 years. At least in Judaism, women were respected for upkeeping the home culture and practices to enable all family members to remain in constant communion with God, and thus remain holy people even in the midst of the nations.

Posted by: Cheryl Va. Clough on Friday, 28 September 2007 at 10:50pm BST

Church Times' question is double: "No" could mean both

I think they should have "submitted", and

I think they should have said We don't want to take part in charades.

So; worthless.

Posted by: Göran Koch-Swahne on Saturday, 29 September 2007 at 8:13am BST
Post a comment









Remember personal info?

Please note that comments are limited to 400 words. Comments that are longer than 400 words will not be approved.

Cookies are used to remember your personal information between visits to the site. This information is stored on your computer and used to refill the text boxes on your next visit. Any cookie is deleted if you select 'No'. By ticking 'Yes' you agree to this use of a cookie by this site. No third-party cookies are used, and cookies are not used for analytical, advertising, or other purposes.