Why is Sandi Toksvig so interested in the C of E?

[Sausagenbacon]

and why does Justin Welby bother with her?

www.theguardian.com/world/2023/jan/26/sandi-toksvig-laments-untenable-church-of-england-stance-on-gay-marriage

She's not a christian, but feels entitled to have a chummy chat with the Archbishop of Canterbury, who is wet enough to indulge her.

I'm not particularly invested in the subject, and I am an Anglican, but I do think there is something frankly, pitiful about it.

I expect an article in next week's Guardian with a sad-faced Sandy talking about how the local Mosque/Synagogue won't marry her and her partner, and how 'unsafe' she now feels. Or not.

Nor would I object to an appropriate investigation being carried out by a qualified individual to see why it hadn't worked. Crucially, though, I would want such an investigation to be carried out by a neutral person with no stake in the matter - ie not just a former patient with no real understanding or expertise in the field beyond their own lived experience, and not the drug company pushing the treatment either, or anyone else with a vested interest in a particular outcome. Such an investigation would clearly be invalid and pointless.

@MrsBennetsPoorNerves, who is neutral here, on this thread? Do we have any truly agnostics here? Rather than atheists or theists...

As someone who has supposedly had cancer, I'm sure that you recognise that the same treatment doesn't work for all cancers, and that some cancers simply cannot be cured. Would you blame an individual with terminal cancer for not having engaged with the treatments properly? Can you see why it might be offensive to some if you suggested that?!

I have had cancer. And reoccurrence. And have not taken all treatments offered. And have had to stand by whilst people very close to me, who I dearly love, die from terminal cancer. I'm the one who is still here.

Can you see why I have, perhaps less trepidation, in exploring these issues? The people who died were very much valued and lead fully meaningful lives. Right up until their ending. I cannot ever view their lives as primarily tragic.

Can you see why I have, perhaps less trepidation, in exploring these issues?

You seem to think that you are more willing - and perhaps more qualified? - to explore these issues than others, because of the experiences that you describe. Respectfully, I would suggest that you have no idea about the life experiences of other posters here, and that it is foolish to make assumptions about this simply because posters may choose not to share their entire life history on the Internet.

You have not actually answered my question, and you have repeatedly missed the point - deliberately, I suspect. I have said it previously and then been sucked in again, but I am not going to respond to any further goading from you on this thread.

If you really want to persuade people of the value of your faith, you would do well to listen more and respect the fact that different people have different life experiences which you may not understand. You would respond with more care when other people tell you that you are being offensive, instead of persisting in saying the same thing over and over again like a broken record. You would actively engage with the questions that people ask you and actually answer them, instead of twisting their words or going off on a tangent to fit your own agenda.

I know some amazing, inspirational Christans who show incredible compassion and respect towards those who are suffering. What impresses me about them most is that they don't descend into meaningless platitudes in conversations like these. They don't try to shift the blame for suffering onto the victims by making it their own fault that they don't have enough faith. They freely admit that their religion doesn't provide any credible explanation or answers for this suffering, that they don't understand it any more than the rest of us. They don't feel the need to pretend that suffering is somehow good and enriching. They are honest, humble, willing to acknowledge what they don't know or understand, but committed to doing their best to help. I have a lot of respect for those people. Sadly, there are far too few of them.

Sadly, there are far too few of them.

@MrsBennetsPoorNerves

I'm not surprised. You have impossibly high standards. I wonder whether those people you talk of have always behaved and always do behave with such impeccable humility, self sacrifice and dignity. Whether they would behave as such posting on a thread on this board?

Of course that standard of behaviour is something I seek to emulate - who wouldn't? But it is a romantic ideal to think we get there immediately without having to work some stuff out. And we can only act with the best of intentions or not act but that carries risk in itself.

Perhaps, those same people you talk about would occasionally come across as I have to you, if the posts directed at them were the same as the ones directed at me.

Everyone is human. No person is qualified.

They freely admit that their religion doesn't provide any credible explanation or answers for this suffering, that they don't understand it any more than the rest of us.

@MrsBennetsPoorNerves, so if people don't want explanations, why do they ask for them?

Plus ideas over what is credible varies hugely.

I'm happy to drawn into the conversation by Sandi who I find to be compassionate, thoughtful and grounded.

She started a petition 5 days ago to remove the automatic privilege that gives 26 CoE bishops to take up seats in the house of lords: it's already will pay 47,000 signatures and will certainly hit the initial target of 50,000.

www.change.org/p/remove-bishops-from-the-house-of-lords

will pay = well past!

Thank you for sharing. I will sign that.

I will also sign it.

@larkstar thank you for sharing

@larkstar thank you for sharing

And the lords in the House of Lords, they should remain?

Has anyone said that?

Nope, personally I'd get rid of them too, but we might need a separate petition for that.

No, we need a fully elected second chamber and Proportional Representation, but that's a separate matter to the fact that C of E Bishops have a power and privilege they should not have.

@AnorLondo, just that one petition could reform the whole lot.

Change rarely happens all in one go.

And right now, there'd be a risk that the CofE privilege in the Lords could carry over into any 'reformed' system as a compromise/fudge.

Get rid of the CofE privilege in the Lords first and the wider risk disappears.

"And right now, there'd be a risk that the CofE privilege in the Lords could carry over into any 'reformed' system as a compromise/fudge."

@JassyRadlett
How? Plus if the Lord's still remain in the House of Lords then inherited privilege still very much remains as a surety rather than just a risk!

Is inherited privilege somehow less worse than religious privilege?

Plus if the Lord have been educated in one of the major public schools (most have) then their education would have had some pretty strong religious content...

Feel free to set one up.

This is on the back of the state Church denying same-sex couples the right to marry in its churches. It makes sense that they would be the focus.

@AnorLondo, I just feel that a petition that speaks out against the privilege of the CofE within the House of Lords is seriously undermined when it completely ignores the inherited privilege of the Lords themselves who are working alongside the CofE in this particular institution.

It's like speaking out against blood sports without any reference to the environmental effects. Thus fox hunting (albeit in disguise) remains legal.

And grouse shooting...

Or speaking out against misogyny without any reference to racism.

Plus whilst the House of Lords exists bishops could just be made Life Peers....

Because in almost any reform in modern politics there are compromises (Brexit being the outlier).

In reforms where there are significant vested interests, in order to get the core reform over the line, compromises are likely to be made to mollify some or all of those vested interests.

So the compromise might be a mostly elected upper house, but with a small number of seats still reserved for the CofE, in order to get their support/get them to keep quiet and make it easier to abolish the rest.

The fewer individual vested interests that remain in the Lords when we finally get to the point of reform, the more chance that the reform will be really meaningful.