Bristol University's Christian Union Bans Women From Teaching At Meetings

Yes they are anti toffee!

They had to vote on whether to allow men and women equal rights. This should be a given. In fact it is upheld in law. But one that doesn't apply to the Anglican church or other religious institutions.

Eh? Stick with the story as it is, forget gender & religion for a moment. Is the factory in the story anti-toffee? If so, in what way, and to what extent?

93% of workers in the hypothetical factory might be sexist. It would still be illegal for the owners to discriminate on the grounds of gender.

These laws apply everywhere but in religious institutions.

But but but....does your thinking always apply?

Take the gender issue and religion out of it for a moment. Imagine a chocolate factory in which all employees are shareholders. They are asked if they want to start producing toffee as well as chocolate. 93% of them do. They have reps from each part of the factory, divided into three main areas. The factory owner decides they need a 67% majority for the vote to be carried, and for toffee production to begin. The reps vote, and in one of the three main areas, only 63% of the reps want the factory to make toffee (maybe they are dyed-in-the-wool chocolate traditionalists). In the other two areas, way over 67% say yes, and averaged across the three areas, the percentage of yes-votes comes to more than 67% easily, but because of the factory owner's clear directive that all three areas must have at least a 67% majority, the vote falls and no toffee is made. Meanwhile, 93% of the shareholder-employees feel very disappointed and slightly disillusioned. Some even think about finding a new job. The factory owner looks at the reps sternly and says 'We've got some explaining to do.'

Is this factory institutionally anti-toffee? Is that a fair assessment of the events as narrated above? Or are there other factors involved? (The more perceptive among you might notice a certain similarity between this hypothetical story and recent events...)

It was the representatives of the laity (the congregations) that voted against. A minority I believe, but not a small enough minority. The Church, as represented by clergy and bishops, were in favour.

But the C of E must be misogynistic if their representatives voted against women bishops... The criticism is of the Church; not of its congregation, necessarily.

Your representatives vote this way, then you (the Church) surely has to expect to be questioned on it.

The facts don't get in the way, they fully support my point. The Anglican church is discriminatory towards women. Whether every Christian in the country wishes it wasn't so is irrelevant.

Well, speaking as an Anglican who has had this conversation ad nauseum this month, 42 out of 44 dioceses wanted women bishops. There was a massive mismatch between what people in the C of E wanted, and how their representatives in Synod voted. Just to say that the C of E is misogynistic is way too simplistic and, largely, simply untrue. But let's not let the facts get in the way of a good prejudice, eh? Especially as we religious people are so irrational, incapable of holding a civilised discussion, and all...

I think it is fundamentally different, because religious organisations enshrine discrimination within their practice and doctrine. They do accept that discrimination is wrong. They are in favour of explicit discrimination.

But the groups you mentioned, those are institutions.

I take your point that most people are aware that discrimination based on gender is wrong (in theory), even if they don't follow that up in practice. But I think it misrepresents the situation to suggest this is so wildly different from some religious institutions, when the reality is that so many people act in a way that's not informed by the theory.

I know that some individual people do combine their religious beliefs with a belief in equality, but the organisations themselves are not willing to do so. It's very difficult to form a rational response to such explicit discrimination. Especially when we all live in a society where we know that most people are aware, at least on a theoretical level, that discrimination on the ground of gender or sexuality is considered wrong.

Yes, but I think it's important to support even 'minor players', because IMO that's how you get things to change.

I think they're important, because they show that some people can and do combine their own religious beliefs with a belief in equality.

Which religious organisations are supporters of equality? The Quakers and Unitarians are doing well in the gay marriage debate. But they are minor players.

I see what you're saying. I don't agree though - there are plenty of places where the law doesn't really uphold women's rights, IMO.

I think you're generalizing pretty unfairly about religious organizations, too.

I think the argument has been won, yes. That doesn't mean that individuals always act in the way that they should. Religious organisations don't even pay lip service to equality. They are actively against it.

Oh, sorry ... I thought when you said the arguments had been won elsewhere, and religious institutions were the last bastions of sexism/homophobia, that was what you meant.

Gender principles of equality aren't widely accepted, sadly. The law hasn't yet managed to do this, as you can see from the way women are politically, economically and socially disadvantaged.

I didn't say that there was no sexism or homophobia except within religion. But the general principles of equality are widely accepted except within religion. I think the law reflects this.

That's only one facet, though.

Women are still not treated as equals, and homophobia isn't restricted to religious organizations.

Discrimination on the grounds of gender or sexuality is prohibited by law. Except religious institutions are allowed to opt out.

'The arguments for equality have been won in society as whole. Religious institutions are the last bastions of organised sexism and homophobia.'

Speaking of irrational statements ... that's one.

It's just not true. You really believe the 'arguments for equality have been won'? Why?

I don't expect much in the way of rationality from religious believers either, sorry. So many religions are anti-woman that I am not surprised by the Bristol Christian Union. I wish all religions could be different, but they aren't, and I don't see it changing any time soon. The arguments for equality have been won in society as whole. Religious institutions are the last bastions of organised sexism and homophobia.

Or, religious people make up words.

I prefer that theory.

Yes, Garcious would be a very good thing to be!

So, as we see on the evidence here adduced, some religious people aren't very good at proof-reading. Another fact! At this rate I'll be kicked out of the fellowship by tea-time!

Yours is funnier, though.

I would like to be garcious.

...whereas non-religious people don't do belief and only do facts? Yeah, right...that's exactly how it works. (Some religious people do do sarcasm. That's a fact, by the way, not a belief.)

LRD - your response is much more garcious than mine!