Archbishop of Canterbury - cut University funding if trans people insulted

[redfacebigdisgrace]

Wow. Equating it with anti semitism. Loved the thoughtful “whatever”. There says the privileged man.

Archbishop of Canterbury: Cut university funding if students insulted

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/ff59e248-1c6a-11ee-8198-bf96b6365670?shareToken=8c12ffb262fd2ec2ecb0e23f02b1f7b5

You mean the C of E? Yes, pretty much marginalised and ignored I’d agree. Deservedly so.

Much of what is done by organised religions in general and the CofE in particular is insulting and deeply offensive to large sections of the population. (Welby is complicit in covering up abuse, for starters).
Cut their massive tax benefits.

Wokebe has been busy over illegal immigration and Ruanda too. I reckon he should go consecrate some port and wafers and keep his nose out of politics.

Agreed.

Wokebe has been busy over illegal immigration and Ruanda too. I reckon he should go consecrate some port and wafers and keep his nose out of politics.

Some of us think this is a legitimate violation of human rights of course. I put myself in this camp - very firmly.

The Church Of England? A defunct organisation who think they have any relevance in the 21st century.

Ultimate irony? He's appealing to atheists in high society and young people who would rather be dead than attend church.

Maybe this is the ultimate expression of charity, disgracing and demeaning yourself to curry favour with your natural enemies and opponents.

I'm also thinking that the Archbish fancies himself something rotten, as a SJW, the natural opposition to the amoral and rotten Tories, and the waveringly unprincipled Labour govt in waiting.

I can see him as a Special Adviser to Starmer post 2024.

As the saying goes, "Jesus!"

And worn under the robe ?

If you actually read the article you'll find it more nuanced than the reactions on this thread suggest.

The context is that his words were said at event organised by a Jewish organisation, in a synagogue, in response to a question about dealing with antisemitic abuse in universities. Yes, he included trans people as an example of a minority group, but they weren't the main or sole focus of his answer.

He also said

"universities had to be a place where “no one is entitled not to be offended”, but that “they have every right not to be abused, insulted and excluded”"

I think we'd agree with that?

But what does ‘insulted’ mean?

Considering misgendering is domestic abuse or a hate crime…

So the people who have the right not to be excluded... Does that include gender critical people? And women who don't want to share hitherto single sex spaces with male bodied individuals?

On another note, isn't it time the Anglican church was disestablished in England?

I think it's that they have already embraced the idea that maleness and femaleness are simply are simply aesthetic values with nothing more significant attached to them. Not real categories.

The idea of a male priesthood, at least in Christianity, is very attached to embodiment. It's why it tends to be found in sacramental churches - the kind of discussion you get about women in the ministry is around very different issues. Depending on whether you are talking about the western or eastern sacramental tradition, it's usually described in terms Christ, or the idea of fatherhood, both of which are understood as being about embodiment in real and substantial categories, which are fundamental to what it is to be human, and which are in themselves good. There is not some abstract sexless person that is more ideally human than actual sexed people.

The argument for an all male priesthood isn't like, women can't be good leaders etc. It's more analogous to, men can't be mothers. People like Welby don't accept, and generally in my experience don't even understand, that kind of argument. There are a surprising number of Anglican vicars who quite like the idea that Christ had a sexless body, despite it being a pretty ancient heresy.

This is also true!
It was a College for most of my growing up time in Canterbury so I will always think of it as C'church Coll even though tecnically yes now it's a UNI.
(in fact I have rellies who work there still call it that outwith work too!)

Just so everyone understands the state of play for Wellby he has been defrocked

he is no longer the first among equals aka the head of the Anglican Communion

he has been kicked out because of his wokeness and labelled as an apostate 🤷🏿‍♂️

group of Anglican leaders from around the world have rejected the Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby, as their leader after the Church of England backed prayers of blessing for same-sex couples.
Archbishops representing 10 of the 42 provinces in the Anglican Communion have signed a statement saying they no longer consider Mr Welby "leader of the global communion".
They added the Church of England was "disqualified" as their historic "Mother Church".
It is the first time that the Archbishop of Canterbury's leadership has been rejected by such a large group of churches.

Organised religion is no friend of women.

80% of the Anglican Communion no longer consider Wellby the first amoung equals and have now joined gafcon

Man who believes in a sky fairy also believes men can be women. Quelle surprise.

The Archbishop of Cunterbury?

What a twat!

It’s actually a massive surprise majority of Christians do not believe this wellby is viewed as an apostate and clearly has not kept up with his bible study

But these churches rejecting him are also preaching pretty awful stuff themselves. Hunting through the OT and ignoring Christ's teaching in the NT. Which the creed itself ignores for a mishmash of Hellenistic ideas derived from reborn "gods". Worshippers of Mithras or Adonis would quite understand.

Some of us think this is a legitimate violation of human rights of course. I put myself in this camp - very firmly

I mean a legitimate protest against a violation of human rights.

This.

The church could have a role in standing up to the genderborg. Indeed the flourishing evangelical churches do.

His job is to protect and defend religions. His own and other religions to maintain the social status and power religions have in our social reality, from threats like science (ref Gallieo etc) and law.

GI is very obviously more aligned to religion than science and law, he’s saying the quiet part out loud.

As for the genocide statements, GI recognises an individual reality as having hierarchical status over any single, social reality - whether defined by social laws or a religion, or another individual over time. Objecting to an individual’s reality and not affirming it by changing the language and social systems to unconditionally fit that is where the word genocide has a religious grade form of logic.

Just hope he can manage the inevitable conflict heading his way between individual reality that is the core of GI vs reality defined by the CoE….

'You don't need the brains of an Archbishop to' isn't the high bar that it used to be.

Insulted by what?

Other people mentioning that they exist and have rights and needs and freedoms too?

Which they do, despite an increasingly desperate bunch of muppets trying to convince everyone that its SO MEAN and NICE people don't want rights, equity, access, that kind of stuff, or mention reality. They accept their role in life as NPCs in the never ending drama of the TQ+ political agenda.

Which as in the case of this speaker, is busily meeting the needs of someone neither T nor Q, and I'm increasingly wondering about these non TQ+ people who find this such a very useful vehicle for themselves to righteously trample the rights of others.