Comments: SORs: Commons vote

I think we can safely say,

"The ayes have it. The ayes have it."

Posted by L Roberts at Monday, 19 March 2007 at 10:42pm GMT

Why does the good woman have to say "widespread" when it most obviously isnt?

And it's not than some people haven't been lying their heads off - and seem bent on continuing to do so.

Posted by Göran Koch-Swahne at Monday, 19 March 2007 at 11:50pm GMT

These shocking anti-gay letters in the Times from anglicans show how necessary the new regulations are. Are they writing officially or as individuals?

Is any one countering them ?

WTF is meant by 'marriage and the family' ?
LGBT people don't marry or have families? .... Is that it ? !

Posted by Laurence Roberts at Tuesday, 20 March 2007 at 8:51am GMT

I'm so sick of the Roman rhetoric about closing their adoption agencies. As a teacher of special education (12 yrs) and education as a whole (21 yrs), I've had some wonderful same sex couples who have provided safe, secure, nurturing homes to children, esp. special needs and abused children. On the other hand I've had some absolutely abominable and possibly abusive adoptive and foster parents who were "straight" and Christian. Some people adopt for the check in this country (US), not sure about the UK.

That said, who makes the Catholic Church the experts on who makes the best parents?

Posted by BobinWashPA at Tuesday, 20 March 2007 at 1:27pm GMT

It would be interesting to discover just how many of the NOES were from the newly gay-friendly Conservative Party. Are Mr Cameron's days numbered? Or are those who voted NOE certain that they will not be called upon to serve on the Opposition Front Bench?

Posted by Anglicanus at Tuesday, 20 March 2007 at 2:27pm GMT

Given the backwards religious thinking on display here, claimed as core and essence to doctrine or faith, do we even want the Cardinal to run our soup kitchens, let alone our adoption agencies?

As a religious leader he is, after all, asserting his innate legacy privileges for closing doors and denying services to people whom, above all, he has vigorous legacy privileges to define as bad. Forget the facts of other peoples' daily lives, what about the Cardinal's privileges?

Or is this simply another step in the agonziing, slow, public death of homosexuality as the most reliable contentious wedge issue for drumming up all manner of weird and kinky fears of religious conscience?

What is the deepest fear connected with all this? Really? I suggest: The deepest fear is simply that nothing essentially good or right will really change for the worse if everybody gets treated equally in public goods, services, and accommodations. Gee, imagine that.

Posted by drdanfee at Tuesday, 20 March 2007 at 2:33pm GMT

Here we go again.....

I am starting to find all of this somewhat boring and tiring.

For good or all - and if you disagree then please argue with me - I am finding more evidence in favour of a hypothesis I am developing which I have alluded to before.

It is that (and here I coin what I think is a new term) objectivist approaches to religion inevitably attempt to recreate whatever social prejudices were around when the religion was set up, and the more objectivist the more virulent will be the attacks (Nigeria anyone?).

As one by one the social prejudices weaken the pressure will intensify on LGBT's who will need to rely on all of the protections of a secular state and human rights.

I am pretty convinced that obejectivist forms of religion (other words might be literalist, fundamentalist - I shy away from relaist at this point) will by a law of inevitablitiy end up in the same place.

There will always be a few outliers who, while adhering to an objectivist creed, will underscore the need for human rights and protections from discrimiantion. They are and (I think) will always be a very small and largely unheard minority as the objectivist strand of thenking becomes both hysterical and attached to its new found victim status, which it loves by the way.

Here it is. It can be no other and can be no other way. On occasion objectivists will embarass themselevs (like on Nigeria) and some will pull back, possibly for genuine reasons and possibly for fear of damaging their own cause by their extremes.

Posted by Craig Nelson at Tuesday, 20 March 2007 at 3:02pm GMT

Craig Roberts: Interesting comments.

Have you read Andrew Sullivan's review of Dinesh D'Souza's latest book, "The Enemy Within"? Sullivan makes a clear case for your thesis, the convergence of what you term "objectivist" religions. He finds this convergence witnessed by D'Souza, who praises extreme Islamists, calling for their "Christianist" counterparts to establish authoritarian, theocratic, and explicitly anti-modernist states along lines similar to those that Islamists establish within the ummah. In a sense, D'Souza is taking Jerry Falwell's and Pat Robertson's remarks about 9/11 to their logical conclusion: if the US had it coming, because it had sheltered feminists and homosexuals, the way forward is to construct a state that will explicitly condemn both.

Sullivan sees in the rise of radical "Christianist" ideologies a phenomenon akin to the rise of Fascism in the 1920s, and with as great a potential for harm.

For what it's worth, I agree. Hence my unwillingness to remain part of an Anglican Communion structured along "Christianist" lines, an unwillingness shared by a good many others in the Episcopal Church.

See: http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=20070319&s=sullivan031907&c=1

Posted by Charlotte at Tuesday, 20 March 2007 at 3:48pm GMT

_...obejectivist forms of religion (other words might be literalist, fundamentalist - I shy away from realist at this point) will by a law of inevitablitiy end up in the same place._

Mr Cupitt's point, nearly.

Posted by Pluralist at Tuesday, 20 March 2007 at 4:01pm GMT

By all means, don't shun away from realist/idealist/neo-platonist, manichaean and hierarchic, because this is what these teachings are.

Nothing to do with God or Christ or the Bible - even less the Gospel - but all to do with the Ways of the World.

Posted by Göran Koch-Swahne at Tuesday, 20 March 2007 at 4:11pm GMT

Thanks Craaig this makes much sense. A very helpful way of thinking about this.

I am just reading Daphne Hampson's After Christianity, and the two (yours and hers) go well, to my mind, though different.

I must say that as a theologian she is a breath of fresh air. I would love every one to read,or re-read her book. Few male theologians come any where near to her work, it must be said.

Daphne Hampson's treatment of patriarchy is especially relevant at the moment , vis-a-vis both SORs and the present troubles of the Anglican Communion.

I am under no illusion that many in the C of E will rush out, read her work, and literally repent...... any time soon

Posted by Laurence Roberts at Tuesday, 20 March 2007 at 4:41pm GMT

'It is that (and here I coin what I think is a new term) objectivist approaches to religion inevitably attempt to recreate whatever social prejudices were around when the religion was set up, and the more objectivist the more virulent will be the attacks (Nigeria anyone?).'

I find the above to be the nub of your argument Craig and find it clear and helpful.

However I should like you to elucidate your statement below, if you wouldn't mind. I want to understand the basis for increasing anti-gay prejudice in society. Or have I misunderstood this one ?

'As one by one the social prejudices weaken the pressure will intensify on LGBT's who will need to rely on all of the protections of a secular state and human rights.'

Very helpful thinking.

Posted by Laurence Roberts at Tuesday, 20 March 2007 at 5:18pm GMT

The ayes and noes are listed at the link that Simon has provided. My understanding is that the Conservatives had a free vote. Will double check on that. There are a number of MPs from all parties, Labour, Conservative, Lib Dem who voted against and I think a Plaid Cymru who voted both which is an abstention. The lists make interestin reading -the Conservatives on the list are not all "headbangers" but include a number of moderates/ more socially liberal types including Ken Clarke, Peter Luff and others. The same as you've got people like Peter Kilfoyle on the labour benches.

Why the noes? You'll have to write to your own MP to find out why they voted and/or analyse the debate. No doubt some objected procedurally wanting more debate on the subject. Others wil have perhaps been listening to the concerns of constituents and others again would have just been reluctant to see more regulations added to the statute book in an increasingly bossy state.

Posted by dave williams at Tuesday, 20 March 2007 at 10:01pm GMT

Daphne Hampson's After Christianity

I've got it too, but I found it a bit laboured and it wants to hang on to theism whilst rejecting Christianity - because it is intrinsically patriarchal. The God you have is somewhat made by the tradition and its contents that describe it - so what's her God? She has it defined by something she calls Western spirituality, but I'm not sure this works. Still is suits her sort of religious theistic humanism, and she has rejected taking up a sort of feminist network-type neo-polytheism. I know also because I once asked her when she presented her theism to a hall of mainly non-realists.

Posted by Pluralist at Wednesday, 21 March 2007 at 12:43am GMT

Thanks too, for this Charlotte.

It all comes together. It all makes sense.

The book sounds interesting.

I am struck by the murderous intent that seems to infuse these fundamentalist postions.

'Kill if you need to.' Is that it ?
We seem to learn nothing from history.

We need Daphne Hampson more than ever.....

Posted by Laurence Roberts at Wednesday, 21 March 2007 at 1:21am GMT

Daphne Hampson's After Christianity

'I've got it too, but I found it a bit laboured and it wants to hang on to theism whilst rejecting Christianity - because it is intrinsically patriarchal. The God you have is somewhat made by the tradition and its contents that describe it - so what's her God? She has it defined by something she calls Western spirituality, but I'm not sure this works. Still is suits her sort of religious theistic humanism, and she has rejected taking up a sort of feminist network-type neo-polytheism. I know also because I once asked her when she presented her theism to a hall of mainly non-realists.'

Posted by: Pluralist on Wednesday, 21 March 2007 at 12:43am GMT

Yes, it was hard finding I'm not a christian after all ! --- it is hard every time ! ;-) Usually comes from a different quarter though !

I find her critique of patriarchy and Christianity devastating, and incontravertable.

Few theologians give a hint that God in any guise has seduced them, and I find those rather dry and (literally) pointless. Hers I find juicy and it would still be worth reading, if I was on my death-bed --the ultimate test of any book, art or conversation / relationship, shurely ?! If I was dying would I bother with this ? (Well i am and I do !).

She felt much more like a Quaker or buddhist writer than an academic anglican one. So when she refereed to having been an Attender at Friends, it made sense to me.

As for your 'laboured' comment. I should ay she is taking one right thru from A to B to Z. She is conscietiousness personified !

She disposed of Robinson, Wiles,Lampe et al rather effortlessly. Also Peacocke --not diffiecult, but satisfying to me, as I find him both unscientific and untheological. Content to trade platitudes here and on sexualities.

Also Pannenburg--yes, some great demolition work it must be said ! And what a large JCB ! Will it fit....

I liked her chapter on spirituality and 'spiritual' practices.

Also her discussions of Kant, Schleirermacher, Plato, Kristeve & the French psychoanalytic feminists, and Julian of Norwich & Iris Murdoch. Very more-ish !

There is a kind of poetic quality to much of her writing.

Yes, it works for her and i feel sure that she enables others to find their own way beyond 'notions' (Geo Fox) or concepts (Buddha) to the truth, light and joy of this present moment.

'Present moment
Wonderful moment'

(Thich Nhat Hanh)

Posted by Laurence Roberts at Wednesday, 21 March 2007 at 9:43am GMT

Procedural objectors should address the Opposition Front Bench and Mr Cameron in particular. It was with the agreement of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition that the matter was dealt with as it was. Mr Cameron was making quite sure that the Conservative 'nasties' did not have the floor of the House and thereby give the lie to the 'New Conservative' position he so wants the Country to believe and vote for.

Posted by Anglicanus at Thursday, 22 March 2007 at 4:38pm GMT

Quite Anglicanus,

and as I said on the thread about the Archbishop's letters; If the fellas had had any r e a l concern for proper proceedings being undermined (as opposed to a feigned one), there would have been lavish opportunity over at least a decade to bring that concern up in both Houses.

But as it is...

Posted by Göran Koch-Swahne at Thursday, 22 March 2007 at 10:29pm GMT
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.