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.

If someone making a legitimate campaign to remove the Bishops from the house of lords unsettles you that says more about you that her.

"If someone making a legitimate campaign to remove the Bishops from the house of lords unsettles you that says more about you that her."

@AnorLondo, that I have sympathy for Welby? Yes, I think he makes a valid point concerning wanting to protect ordinary people in Africa from an increasingly conservative, judgmental church.

That removing the Bishops without tackling the other inequality within the House of Lords sends a message that the church is worse than inherited wealth and status / belonging to a wealthy set of privileged people.

But we've covered all this. And I've clearly stated what it is that unsettles me. And also apologised for holding Sandi to a higher account than I have held the rest of those with privilege. I can see from her perspective that this is a strategic action taken to further her cause in fighting for injustices within this country. But as, I have said time and time again, that strategic element leaves me cold.

Is it just the Toksvig/CofE stuff that you don't like in terms of her using her position to draw attention to an issue, or do you really believe that no one with privilege should challenge anyone else with privilege? I don't see how we'd ever get anything done? I'd have thought we'd encourage privileged people to use their platforms to challenge & change things for the better (according to their own definitions of 'better')?

I'm sorry, I'm not being arsey, promise, I'm tired and I don't get it!

@MeganTheeScallion, neither do I really, I do see your point. This just got to me. I do get frustrated with privilege, generally, from time to time. Sometimes I think we use these threads to work through frustrations that are albeit very genuine but ones that are not easily solved. We have to make peace with that somehow.

Fair enough! 🙂

So Sandy Toksvig using her status as a TV personality to campaign for equal marriage in the CofE and the removal of Bishops in the House of Lords is cold and hypocritical and underhand, but you have nothing but sympathy for poor old Etonian Archbishop Welby wanting to keep his unelected seat in the Lords. You go on about ST having an agenda but I'm wondering what yours is.

@AnorLondo,

"You go on about ST having an agenda but I'm wondering what yours is."

My posts have been written too much 'on the hoof' to have a well thought out agenda. Do you have an agenda?

Nope, just think you are being extremely hypocritical and are determined to discredit this campaign.

"Nope, just think you are being extremely hypocritical and are determined to discredit this campaign."

@AnorLondo and you are determined to defend it? I get it.

But do you have to polarise me in such a way? I've apologised, I've admitted I was hasty so I have addressed the hypocrisy that I forgot in my criticism of the hypocrisy (ironic) present in Sandi's own campaign. It seems it's present in all of us...

I think I've finally figured out why I've been finding some aspects of your argument so dissonant - it's that you're conflating the individual privilege of many (not all) life peers that led them to being made life peers, and the institutional privilege enjoyed by the Church of England in the Lords.

Life peers certainly come from disproportionately privileged backgrounds (57% were privately educated, etc). There is certainly a lack of a transparent and fair selection process to ensure that the Lords reflects the society it serves. I think it's a dreadful institution that should be scrapped.

But for me, claiming that the individual privilege of many/most peers is the same as having institutional privilege for representatives of one certain group is where the no more/less privileged argument falls down, given that privilege seems to be the absolute sticking point for you.

Because unlike the life peers, where depending on your politics, profile and/or achievements people from all backgrounds are technically eligible to be life peers, there are two groups of peers that have institutional privilege rather than individual: the life peers (qualifier: was your dad a lord and all the other kids of lords said you could be one) and the bishops (have you risen up the ranks of the right church, ok you can have a say in our laws.)

The question of institutional versus individual privilege is the question for me here because there's an immediate power imbalance. Sandi Toksvig has a profile that enables her to get attention; she comes from a relatively affluent background. So sure, there's a degree of individual privilege. Regardless of Welby's individual privilege he enjoys a degree of institutional privilege - and therefore power - that Toksvig does not have.

She's not punching down. She's not even one person with privilege and a platform challenging another person with privilege and a platform. She's a person challenging the privilege and platform of an institution that enjoys a degree of privilege in our constitution denied to all other groups except a handful of hereditary peers.

"She's not punching down. She's not even one person with privilege and a platform challenging another person with privilege and a platform. She's a person challenging the privilege and platform of an institution that enjoys a degree of privilege in our constitution denied to all other groups except a handful of hereditary peers."

@JassyRadlett yes, I think you understand the privilege as I understand it. And yes, it's not as clear cut as all that and doesn't compare directly.

However another sticking point for me was Welby's justification. Assuming he was being entirely honest about his motives, I think his concerns are valid. The increasingly conservative and judgemental church in Africa will make life very different for ordinary people especially if there is no form of redress from a perspective they can understand. A schism would effectively cut them off from a more liberal perspective.

So then taking everything into consideration was where I came out with a feeling of unease and it's that which I was working through on this thread.

But no one is without any biases including myself. And at the end of the day we must do what we feel is right from our win perspective. And Sandi has her own perspective and so campaigns for what she views is right. So I can't really knock that without being hypocritical myself.

Difficult for ordinary people not different.

Own perspective!

Looks like the CofE are going to bless same-sex couples. Not sure what the point is but at least it's a baby-step in the right direction.

@ShodanLives well, I see this as the church formally validating a same sex relationship but not yet a same sex marriage. It's quite an evolution considering views in the past (and present amongst the more conservative churches).

Hopefully won't be long before they take that next step.

What do you mean by 'religious'? The Christian religion is as much opposed to evil and is it for good. When you say, 'religious' do you mean easy-going, passive, unperturbed, etc? The 'anything goes' mentality is more aligned with Satanism than Christianity.

What do you mean by 'religious'? The Christian religion is as much opposed to evil and is it for good. When you say, 'religious' do you mean easy-going, passive, unperturbed, etc? The 'anything goes' mentality is more aligned with Satanism than Christianity.

1. There are many denominations of Christianity. Some have embraced marriage equality. Would you class that as 'good' or not?
2. There's no such thing as an 'anything goes' mentality - there are broad moral principles that people of all faiths and none have in common. You don't need to be religious to have good morals.
3. Define 'Satanism'. I'm all for The Satanic Temple, for example - they're a shining beacon of what secular human decency can achieve.

1. There are some denominations of Christianity that ignore the Bible. 'Marriage equality'? Did you mean 'same sex marriage'? I would class that as a sin because the Bible is very clear that marriage is between a man and a woman.
2. The mantra of Satanism is 'Do what thou wilt' and that is, according to Alistair Crowley, 'the whole of the law'. That is an anything goes kind of mentality.
3. The definition of 'decency' is 'behaviour that conforms to accepted standards of morality or respectability.' Satanism and decency are two things that would never been equated in good times. But we are living in an increasing dark world where good is called bad and bad is called good.

1. Well, you would class that as a sin. Other denominations would not. Nobody can prove who's right because the Bible is a much translated document, redacted and edited by humans, for the purposes of human manipulation of political power. You may say it is the word of a deity, but I have yet to see satisfactory proof that any deity exists. There are many like me, and therefore the Bible must not be used to impose its morality on those who do not accept its validity. From a personal POV anyone wanting to deny a gay person the same right to marriage and a family life that straight people have is immoral and inhumane.
2. Satanism, like Christianity, has many denominations. Some I could happily do without, mostly because thei are theistic. The Satanic Temple is not a theist but a secular organisation. Their moral stance is very much not 'anything goes', as you would know if you were not too fearful to look at the link. They are about caring for the disadvantaged, promoting the equality of women and the LGBT community, providing universal healthcare and promoting education for all.
3. Standards accepted by whom? There are some things that are common to all faiths and none: prohibitions against murder, rape, theft, violence, incest, dishonesty and the like. Not a lot to argue against with those ones. Then there are the ones that belong to religious groups who are obsessed with what consenting adults do in bed, and they are mostly about controlling and oppressing women and demonising people who are gay so that the flock will happily breed more of the faithful. Those 'standards' are about the control of things which objectively do not cause harm. This is why laws need to have a firm secular foundation. You may think you live in a dark world because people don't follow the tenets of your version of your faith. I and many others are relieved that so many people now know better.

I know a few Satanists and they are nicer and more moral people than you seem to be.

1. God classes it as a sin. If you have a problem with the Bible and Christianity being against gay marriage then you are up against God. The Bible id, in fact, very accurate and has not changed since it was written. There are different translations but the meaning remains the same in most. Any translations that are not true to the original are classed as blasphemous. The Bible was certainly not written by humans for the purposes of human manipulation and power. In fact, there are many Biblical stories of evil men who manipulated their subjugated populations and wielded immense power over people. They all suffered, lost their power, etc, thanks to God. Read the story about the Tower of Babel. The Bible is there for anyone who wants it. No-one is forcing anyone to read it. What is being imposed is the marriage of gay people in churches. That is something being imposed on the church, against the wishes of Christians. Why can't they get married in Satanic temples, at wiccan ceremonies or via another religion that doesn't dissuade against gay marriage? If gay people want to form a union and set up a family, that is their free will, but forcing the Christian church to perform the ceremony is not fair because it isn't inkeeping with the Christian faith. Why can you not respect that?
2. So you like anyone so long as they don't believe in God or a god? Why do people who believe in God upset you so much? The Satanic Temple has (officially and openly) started to perform ritual abortions. That's akin to ritual child sacrifice. Are you ok with that?
3. There is nothing new under the sun and dark times like these have come and gone before. You may think you are revolutionary and forward-thinking but this recent nosedive into an increasingly carnal world is inevitable because people love the dark and this world is controlled by the devil.

I would be interested to know what your thoughts are on gay people getting married in mosques. What are your thoughts on Islam, the Koran, Mohammad, etc? If I found some threads on Islam here, would I see comments made by you denouncing the religion? If not, why not? Why are you only hateful and disrespectful towards Christianity?

1. You are clearly a Biblical literalist, but I can't respect you because you do not acknowledge the status of the Bible. You do not accept that there are many different translations and interpretations, and that many parts of the source material have been deliberately left out. There are many areas of contention among both Biblical scholars and classicists relating to translation and the meaning of the source material; your inability to accept this means you are not credible.
2. The 'ritual abortions' you are talking about are in fact all about activism in states which have put draconian abortion bans. No actual 'ritual abortions' are performed; there is merely a statement of two existing tenets which are used to 'exempt' women wanting an abortion from the immoral abortion bans being enacted all over the US. Now you are clearly going to be a forced birther because of your beliefs, but you must not claim that there is some sort of abortion ritual actually happening because that would be a lie.
3. Your third point is just religious gibberish.

I want all religions to accept marriage equality and get the fuck over their issues with the LGBT community. Every. Single. One. So yes, that includes Islam. Clear enough for you? I have zero respect for anyone who thinks LGBT people should not be allowed to live the same family lives the rest of us are granted by default. This is why we need to move to a system where the only form of legal marriage is a civil marriage, like in the Netherlands where you are not considered married at all if you have not had a registry office wedding. All religious marriages are window dressing, and that is as it should be.

Organised religion, no matter what denomination, is always about oppression and subjugation of someone - women, children, homosexuals, people who believe differently.

The Bible id, in fact, very accurate and has not changed since it was written

Which version?