It’s always a mystery to my why ANY woman has any interest in Christianity, or any other Abrahamic religion. Okay, not a mystery. Just a situation where consciousness needs to be raised. It was the grandmothers who did the foot binding in China. It’s the grandmothers who do the FGM. Women buy in.
Why are the acting so foolish?
Not allowing women to be the Bish
These old main stream sects
Are obsessed with sexts
Slap their belly’s with a frozen fish.
Writing this before seeing anyone else’s comments, can I just say I’ve been going around smiling all day. Not for the opportunities denied the women of faith who wish to further their God-careers, but the way the Laity say they cannot submit to the authority of a woman. Are none of them married?
It’s hard to avoid a wry grin at the sight of present and future archbishes bemoaning the intransigence of the laity, who had only done what they were supposed to: uncritically swallow the indoctrination, and hang on indefinitely to the arbitrary prejudices of Holy Scripture regardless of social progress. They are being vilified for the doctrinal obedience demanded of them.
Even funnier is the laity’s excuse that allowing women bishops would deepen divisions with the Catholics, as if the Church of England were something other than 500 years of rejection of the Pope, set in stone and statute. If there were any logic to it, that’s where the anti-rebels would leak away, where the chance of even a parish priest, let alone a cardinal, being a woman is nil.
The shambles of the vote just shows how quickly religions can lose their authority when they let hoi polloi into the decision-making process. Religion cannot be democratic; God is the ultimate dictator-for-life.
NBH This is the first time you have actually made me laugh!
I can’t use all the poetry descriptors that others can – but it strikes me that a bit of Edward Lear crept in this time.
Hotrats, are you saying that the idjits reason was that they did not want their Anglican church to move further away from the Roman Catholic variety?
Really?
Which part of the Protestant Reformation did they miss out on?
I can’t help thinking the biggest winners of this fiasco will be the Barmaids of this world. I wonder how many Anglicans now will simply throw up their hands and get off their knees.
A number of posters on CIF mentioned the intrinsic, cognitive dissonance of Williams himself praying for the vote to come down in favour of women priests. I really don’t think he should have said that: it must now seem, to the congregation at large, as if God really is against the idea – not that I actually believe in such an entity. This is apart from the downright weirdness of believing God can influence the outcome of a democratic vote anyway. If that is the case, why bother holding a vote in the first place? I wonder if Author can go back to this issue and try again; there are huge absurdities to be exposed and I don’t think you have quite exploited it’s potential. Sorry, but “Could do better”.
Yes Walter, it’s true – a significant section of the CofE is Anglo-Catholic, the ‘bells and smells’ mob, who hanker after a fantasy super-catholicism that would bring not only the CofE but the Eastern Orthodox churches back together in one big happy family, with the traditional emphasis on revealed truth rather than cultural relevance.
Although they are only thinly represented in the hierarchy, among the laity they are the most organised faction, reaching an accomodation on this issue with the evangelicals, with whom, despite even greater doctrinal differences, they find common reactionary purpose.
“Yet again, another one who claims that the laity are all mysogynist and failing to be all for equality.
Either you agree with inerrancy of scripture or not (its own argument), and that is where most traditionalists are arguing from.”
It doesn’t matter where you get your views from. The Bible is mysogynistic, so if you follow it’s guidance, you to are a mysogynist. It’s disingenuous to say “oh no, I’m all for equality, it’s just that the Bible won’t allow it. I’d like to help you out love, but my hands are tied :(“.
Agreeing with Hotrats- it is ironic though, isn’t it? That they’re being lambasted for sticking true to their religion. It detracts from the real issue (absolute invalidity of the religion from roots up, however ‘progressive’).
On that note, I’m re-posting Swisswatch’s link from the last strip’s comments, in case anyone missed it, which kind of touches on the same thing (I think) but Islam/Taliban: http://hurryupharry.org/2012/10/20/when-even-shooting-14-year-old-girls-in-the-face-attracts-outrage/
@Beggars Belief, I’m not sure if you’re saying people should or shouldn’t be lambasted for sticking to their religion?
For me, if they don’t they’re not showing any commitment, which is a little spineless, but on the other hand if they do they’re showing commitment to an immoral code, which makes them immoral. I think I’ll take spineless if I have to have one or the other please.
We all have (god given, apparently) free will. In the words of my God, the almighty Professor Peart; if you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice.
Not that I care who becomes a bishop; they’re all suffering from a delusion (or lucrative career choice?), anyway, man or woman.
Why is the church immune from equal opportunity employment law though? Don’t answer that; I know the answer.
By the way, I don’t think this issue DOES detract from the invalidity of their religion from the roots up. I am delighted beyond explanation by this decision, because I think it perfectly illustrates that invalidity to people who might otherwise not care one bit. They’ve voluntarily and very publicly surrendered the moral high ground they’ve claimed to hold for far too long.
Hmmm, sorry- am a bit woolly headed today, so am not expecting any poignancy to follow!
I found the linked article really interesting, and I *think* I am saying that criticising someone for implementing their religion to a higher degree than others see fit, to me misses the point. Saying “it’s ridiculous that they haven’t allowed women bishops” is begging the question (? probably incorrect use) as the premise at stake is “their religion is ridiculous (…and incidentally a potential consequence of it could be they choose not to allow women bishops which would by association be ridiculous)”.
Apologies for lack of insighfulness- cup of tea needed I think.
Yeah I get what you’re saying. My first reaction was “so what?”. Who cares how a bunch of delusional people interpret the word of their imaginary friend, and consequently treat each other; that’s not the worst of it.
Then I thought, hell, it DOES matter, because not only do we continue to have the ridiculous situation of having people in the House of Lords just because they’re superstitious, but we’ve just missed the opportunity to at least have their ridiculous views balanced across the sexes.
Then I thought no, actually anything that shows less concerned people than me how out of touch the church is with modern morality can only be a good thing.
SPAMMER spoke of “..the intrinsic, cognitive dissonance of Williams himself praying for the vote to come down in favour of women priests. I really don’t think he should have said that: it must now seem, to the congregation at large, as if God really is against the idea – ”
Maybe that was Rowan’s purpose all along! “I asked God and God said “NO” The boss has spoken, so now let us men get on with running your lives, and you silly women get back to running your kitchens and making the next generation of Bible-bashers”.
@AoS, I hadn’t thought of that, but it’s a good point. Rowan (and presumably lots of others), prayed for the “right” vote, god always answers prayer, the vote came in “no”, no must be right.
There’s no point in voting again, ever. God’s given his answer, and as I understand it never changes his mind, so that’s it then, job done.
@MarkyWarky – I was informed pretty reliably as a kid when praying for, e.g. a new bike, that God has in fact three standard answers: ‘yes’, ‘no’, and ‘not yet’. Presumably that last will be claimed to be the relevant one here.
Interestingly, there was never a sinister-sounding ‘For now…’ as a temporary yes to match the temporary no of ‘not yet’!
Dan, previous to the English Civil War, the Reigning monarch of these sceptred isles could have ordered the Church to ordain women, but the actions of one Mr. Cromwell assured that the monarchy, from Charley II onwards, would be little more than a ‘puppet’ monarchy, pretty much as prone to the whims of the democratic vote as the rest of us. She can no more demand women in the bishopric(k) than she can demand the execution of the supporters of a British Republc, no matter how much she may want to.
The Bish of Gloucester, no less, has said that the vote ‘puzzled our society and brought ridicule on the church. There are questions that now have to be faced. Is the Church’s exemption from equality laws defensible?’ The Church of England has to obey the common law. If Parliament so decides, their exemption from Equal Rights legislation can be terminated, giving any woman refused a bishopric a case to take to an Employment Tribunal.
In other good news, the Crown Prosecution Service has said it will (finally) crack down on girls being taken abroad for genital mutilation, a practice made illegal in 2003. It has been a criminal offence to perform ‘female circumcision’ in the UK since 1985, but there have been no prosecutions on either count to date, perhaps because they involve young girls implicating their parents in a serious crime.
An estimated 24000 British girls undergo FGM every year; that’s one every half an hour. Religious justifications feature high in the list of excuses for this grotesque and sadistic practice.
AoS, I’m not suggesting the head of the church can order the ordination of women.
I just think it’s bizarre that there’s a church that thinks women are fit to be at its top but not the next couple of levels down. It’s weird glass void.
Reading up the organisation:
Women – OK, Women – OK, Women – OK, Women – Not OK, Women -Not OK, Women – OK again.
I’m against all religious privilege and all exemptions from laws imposed on the rest of us are religious privilege. It’s foolish that society allows people to do things it deems wrong because they claim religious belief.
“I’m allowed to break the law because I happen to think what I’m doing is OK” is a basic contradiction to the notion of laws in which people can’t do whatever they like.
Am I the only one who noticed that there isn’t just a fundamental misogyny at the basis of the Abrahamic religions, but also a fundamental misandry? The glorified image of the strong, tough, invulnerable, stoic man who is loved only for his wealth or martial prowess, who requires the adoration of woman and the submission of other men to feel he has earned self-respect is a horrible distortion of true happiness, and leaves those striving for it filled with loathing of themselves, and as scared as hateful of others. By splitting humans into “male” and “female” social roles it makes both halves miserable, hurt, and full of rage, and imbues them with the desire to subjugate and hurt others. Glorification of war and rape, homophobia, child abuse, capitalistic greed, soulless commercialism, and so many other cruelties and indignities all spring from this sick schism.
Freefox. Yes, as I was saying with exasperation again tonight in a conversation about gender neutral language; one does not need to be female to be liberated by feminism. Free and be free. It really is obvious and to argue against such cannot be without an agenda.
Hope that makes sense; I should be asleep.
Martin-z, had the vote have gone the other way, Barmaid would have become Archbish and started dismantling the whole rotten edifice from the inside out.
When the loonies are in the mood for digging, why would you want to stop them from digging some graves?
Let them appear as irrelevant to today’s society as they really are.
Going back to the whole “Archbishop praying from the right vote” bit, I have to point out that the vote overall WAS in favour of women bishops.
The votes were 44 for and three against with two abstentions in the House of Bishops, 148 for and 45 against in the House of Clergy, and 132 for and 74 against in the House of Laity.
So the Archbishop prays for the right vote, there is an overwhelming YES across all three houses, but I guess this time they decided they could trump “God” with a bit of self-serving electoral mathematics. Or perhaps they just decided their God wasn’t feeling terribly well that day…
I’m glad the church is maintaining their archaic discriminatory doctrine. While they stand still and society moves forward the differences become more obvious thereby reducing the numbers of adherents as people leave in disgust.
Jesus & Mo (the characters) are absurd, blinkered, and oddly very sweet. J&M (the cartoon) is brilliant: sharp, delicious, irresistible. Salman Rushdie
Jesus and Mo cartoons are wonderfully funny and true. Richard Dawkins
Jesus and Mo make the world a better place, bless their little hearts. Ophelia Benson
In a world defined by outrage and offence and liberal spinelessness, Jesus and Mo is a treasure, whose value we should never fail to recognize. Read them. Laugh. And think. Kenan Malik
The brilliant, celebrated, freaking hilarious atheist comic strip ... Greta Christina
...rays of sanity in a befuddled world. Keri Hulme
The liveliest depictions of Muhammad currently available... Malise Ruthven
J & Mo is the funniest and most consistently thought-provoking cartoon strip on the Net. In a saner world, it would run in a major newspaper. Nelson Jones, Heresy Corner
Consistently amusing, frequently thought-provoking and often heart-warming. New Humanist
Jesus & Mo is one of the most wonderful things on the internet.. JT Eberhard
Wittily captures much of the absurdity of religious apologetics. Mano Singham
I love jesusandmo.net cartoons - witty and sharp! Katha Pollitt
Often hilarious, frequently wry, these cartoons do what all the best cartoons do: they tell the truth through humour. Terry Sanderson, NSS President
...a wonderfully acid British cartoonist... Nick Cohen
I love the scrappy mockery of Jesus and Mo. Freedom of speech
includes the freedom to mock any person, any thing, any activity, and
any belief -- and J&M stands up for this unflinchingly Richard Stallman
...empowering, important and deeply progressive, not to mention hilarious... Council of Ex-Muslims
July 21, 2009
Astounding decision. By people who claim to have acted for the good of the church!
Great response, Author
Please, let no one suggest bashing the bishop in this thread.
They were at least on the side of progress.
It’s always a mystery to my why ANY woman has any interest in Christianity, or any other Abrahamic religion. Okay, not a mystery. Just a situation where consciousness needs to be raised. It was the grandmothers who did the foot binding in China. It’s the grandmothers who do the FGM. Women buy in.
Hey, author: it’s kinda like shooting fish in a barrel sometimes, isn’t it? I mean, they do make it easy for you! 🙂
I enjoyed that! Thank you
Anyway, God bless the queen.
You realise this means there won’t be women bishops sitting in the House of Lords!
Bit weak actually, IMO.
yes, indeed thank god for that. this was exactly the perspective that i needed today. thanks for the comic relief. from an anglican woman priest
Why are the acting so foolish?
Not allowing women to be the Bish
These old main stream sects
Are obsessed with sexts
Slap their belly’s with a frozen fish.
“revealing itself to be…” yeah, right, ‘cuz nobody woulda suspected… 😀
Yet again, another one who claims that the laity are all mysogynist and failing to be all for equality.
Either you agree with inerrancy of scripture or not (its own argument), and that is where most traditionalists are arguing from.
Something the MSM are also failing to mention.
So you’re saying god hates women.
snerk!
@Ophelia… Love your book!
At least it makes the case for disestablishment. And no, that doesn’t make it ok.
It’s great to see the whole country realising the (so called) moral compass is stuck!
F**k the church and the horse it rode in on.
Writing this before seeing anyone else’s comments, can I just say I’ve been going around smiling all day. Not for the opportunities denied the women of faith who wish to further their God-careers, but the way the Laity say they cannot submit to the authority of a woman. Are none of them married?
An old line about the church decisions on birth control:
If you don’t play the game, you can’t make the rules.
I wonder what Barmaid thinks about all this…
Are you sure, Author, that you’re not in collusion somehow with the decision-making arm of the CoE?
Or maybe the church is trolling itself?
It just seems too easy.
Fair enough … now on to the next motion: those in favour of trans male bishops?
It’s hard to avoid a wry grin at the sight of present and future archbishes bemoaning the intransigence of the laity, who had only done what they were supposed to: uncritically swallow the indoctrination, and hang on indefinitely to the arbitrary prejudices of Holy Scripture regardless of social progress. They are being vilified for the doctrinal obedience demanded of them.
Even funnier is the laity’s excuse that allowing women bishops would deepen divisions with the Catholics, as if the Church of England were something other than 500 years of rejection of the Pope, set in stone and statute. If there were any logic to it, that’s where the anti-rebels would leak away, where the chance of even a parish priest, let alone a cardinal, being a woman is nil.
The shambles of the vote just shows how quickly religions can lose their authority when they let hoi polloi into the decision-making process. Religion cannot be democratic; God is the ultimate dictator-for-life.
aargh!!
NBH This is the first time you have actually made me laugh!
I can’t use all the poetry descriptors that others can – but it strikes me that a bit of Edward Lear crept in this time.
Hotrats, are you saying that the idjits reason was that they did not want their Anglican church to move further away from the Roman Catholic variety?
Really?
Which part of the Protestant Reformation did they miss out on?
I can’t help thinking the biggest winners of this fiasco will be the Barmaids of this world. I wonder how many Anglicans now will simply throw up their hands and get off their knees.
A number of posters on CIF mentioned the intrinsic, cognitive dissonance of Williams himself praying for the vote to come down in favour of women priests. I really don’t think he should have said that: it must now seem, to the congregation at large, as if God really is against the idea – not that I actually believe in such an entity. This is apart from the downright weirdness of believing God can influence the outcome of a democratic vote anyway. If that is the case, why bother holding a vote in the first place? I wonder if Author can go back to this issue and try again; there are huge absurdities to be exposed and I don’t think you have quite exploited it’s potential. Sorry, but “Could do better”.
Nice comment, hotrats. There are so many ironies here it’s hard to know where to start. I imagine Author could get another book out of this.
It’s a good job the C of E has a Supreme Governor to make sure the women know their place. Oh, wait…
For some odd reason Wikipedia does not recognise its own link, but just follow the trail.
Yes Walter, it’s true – a significant section of the CofE is Anglo-Catholic, the ‘bells and smells’ mob, who hanker after a fantasy super-catholicism that would bring not only the CofE but the Eastern Orthodox churches back together in one big happy family, with the traditional emphasis on revealed truth rather than cultural relevance.
Although they are only thinly represented in the hierarchy, among the laity they are the most organised faction, reaching an accomodation on this issue with the evangelicals, with whom, despite even greater doctrinal differences, they find common reactionary purpose.
Hotrats,
Or as I summarise it:
Reactionary arseholes unsurprisingly vote to continue policy of reactionary arseholery.
“Yet again, another one who claims that the laity are all mysogynist and failing to be all for equality.
Either you agree with inerrancy of scripture or not (its own argument), and that is where most traditionalists are arguing from.”
It doesn’t matter where you get your views from. The Bible is mysogynistic, so if you follow it’s guidance, you to are a mysogynist. It’s disingenuous to say “oh no, I’m all for equality, it’s just that the Bible won’t allow it. I’d like to help you out love, but my hands are tied :(“.
Agreeing with Hotrats- it is ironic though, isn’t it? That they’re being lambasted for sticking true to their religion. It detracts from the real issue (absolute invalidity of the religion from roots up, however ‘progressive’).
On that note, I’m re-posting Swisswatch’s link from the last strip’s comments, in case anyone missed it, which kind of touches on the same thing (I think) but Islam/Taliban:
http://hurryupharry.org/2012/10/20/when-even-shooting-14-year-old-girls-in-the-face-attracts-outrage/
@Beggars Belief, I’m not sure if you’re saying people should or shouldn’t be lambasted for sticking to their religion?
For me, if they don’t they’re not showing any commitment, which is a little spineless, but on the other hand if they do they’re showing commitment to an immoral code, which makes them immoral. I think I’ll take spineless if I have to have one or the other please.
We all have (god given, apparently) free will. In the words of my God, the almighty Professor Peart; if you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice.
Not that I care who becomes a bishop; they’re all suffering from a delusion (or lucrative career choice?), anyway, man or woman.
Why is the church immune from equal opportunity employment law though? Don’t answer that; I know the answer.
By the way, I don’t think this issue DOES detract from the invalidity of their religion from the roots up. I am delighted beyond explanation by this decision, because I think it perfectly illustrates that invalidity to people who might otherwise not care one bit. They’ve voluntarily and very publicly surrendered the moral high ground they’ve claimed to hold for far too long.
Hmmm, sorry- am a bit woolly headed today, so am not expecting any poignancy to follow!
I found the linked article really interesting, and I *think* I am saying that criticising someone for implementing their religion to a higher degree than others see fit, to me misses the point. Saying “it’s ridiculous that they haven’t allowed women bishops” is begging the question (? probably incorrect use) as the premise at stake is “their religion is ridiculous (…and incidentally a potential consequence of it could be they choose not to allow women bishops which would by association be ridiculous)”.
Apologies for lack of insighfulness- cup of tea needed I think.
Yeah I get what you’re saying. My first reaction was “so what?”. Who cares how a bunch of delusional people interpret the word of their imaginary friend, and consequently treat each other; that’s not the worst of it.
Then I thought, hell, it DOES matter, because not only do we continue to have the ridiculous situation of having people in the House of Lords just because they’re superstitious, but we’ve just missed the opportunity to at least have their ridiculous views balanced across the sexes.
Then I thought no, actually anything that shows less concerned people than me how out of touch the church is with modern morality can only be a good thing.
SPAMMER spoke of “..the intrinsic, cognitive dissonance of Williams himself praying for the vote to come down in favour of women priests. I really don’t think he should have said that: it must now seem, to the congregation at large, as if God really is against the idea – ”
Maybe that was Rowan’s purpose all along! “I asked God and God said “NO” The boss has spoken, so now let us men get on with running your lives, and you silly women get back to running your kitchens and making the next generation of Bible-bashers”.
@AoS, I hadn’t thought of that, but it’s a good point. Rowan (and presumably lots of others), prayed for the “right” vote, god always answers prayer, the vote came in “no”, no must be right.
There’s no point in voting again, ever. God’s given his answer, and as I understand it never changes his mind, so that’s it then, job done.
Elizabeth Windsor (The so called Queen) is the head of The Church of England so why can’t they have women bishops, or archbishops for that matter?
I realising I’m asking for religion to have some logical consistency and that’s silly. But I wondered what rationalisation people come up with.
@MarkyWarky – I was informed pretty reliably as a kid when praying for, e.g. a new bike, that God has in fact three standard answers: ‘yes’, ‘no’, and ‘not yet’. Presumably that last will be claimed to be the relevant one here.
Interestingly, there was never a sinister-sounding ‘For now…’ as a temporary yes to match the temporary no of ‘not yet’!
Dan, previous to the English Civil War, the Reigning monarch of these sceptred isles could have ordered the Church to ordain women, but the actions of one Mr. Cromwell assured that the monarchy, from Charley II onwards, would be little more than a ‘puppet’ monarchy, pretty much as prone to the whims of the democratic vote as the rest of us. She can no more demand women in the bishopric(k) than she can demand the execution of the supporters of a British Republc, no matter how much she may want to.
The Bish of Gloucester, no less, has said that the vote ‘puzzled our society and brought ridicule on the church. There are questions that now have to be faced. Is the Church’s exemption from equality laws defensible?’ The Church of England has to obey the common law. If Parliament so decides, their exemption from Equal Rights legislation can be terminated, giving any woman refused a bishopric a case to take to an Employment Tribunal.
In other good news, the Crown Prosecution Service has said it will (finally) crack down on girls being taken abroad for genital mutilation, a practice made illegal in 2003. It has been a criminal offence to perform ‘female circumcision’ in the UK since 1985, but there have been no prosecutions on either count to date, perhaps because they involve young girls implicating their parents in a serious crime.
An estimated 24000 British girls undergo FGM every year; that’s one every half an hour. Religious justifications feature high in the list of excuses for this grotesque and sadistic practice.
AoS, I’m not suggesting the head of the church can order the ordination of women.
I just think it’s bizarre that there’s a church that thinks women are fit to be at its top but not the next couple of levels down. It’s weird glass void.
Reading up the organisation:
Women – OK, Women – OK, Women – OK, Women – Not OK, Women -Not OK, Women – OK again.
I’m against all religious privilege and all exemptions from laws imposed on the rest of us are religious privilege. It’s foolish that society allows people to do things it deems wrong because they claim religious belief.
“I’m allowed to break the law because I happen to think what I’m doing is OK” is a basic contradiction to the notion of laws in which people can’t do whatever they like.
Am I the only one who noticed that there isn’t just a fundamental misogyny at the basis of the Abrahamic religions, but also a fundamental misandry? The glorified image of the strong, tough, invulnerable, stoic man who is loved only for his wealth or martial prowess, who requires the adoration of woman and the submission of other men to feel he has earned self-respect is a horrible distortion of true happiness, and leaves those striving for it filled with loathing of themselves, and as scared as hateful of others. By splitting humans into “male” and “female” social roles it makes both halves miserable, hurt, and full of rage, and imbues them with the desire to subjugate and hurt others. Glorification of war and rape, homophobia, child abuse, capitalistic greed, soulless commercialism, and so many other cruelties and indignities all spring from this sick schism.
Freefox. Yes, as I was saying with exasperation again tonight in a conversation about gender neutral language; one does not need to be female to be liberated by feminism. Free and be free. It really is obvious and to argue against such cannot be without an agenda.
Hope that makes sense; I should be asleep.
I actually came on to post this. I had thought Author might enjoy some fertiliser. But it is indeed a sequiter…
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2012/11/24/the-worst-atheist-straw-man-youve-ever-seen/?utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=twitterfeed
Good one this week – I like it.
Question to the author – did you have an idea in mind for a cartoon if the vote had gone the other way?
@martin_z No, I didn’t.
Martin-z, had the vote have gone the other way, Barmaid would have become Archbish and started dismantling the whole rotten edifice from the inside out.
Or was that just a dream I had? Hmmm….
Well, there’s timing for you!
But you would have thought of one. Probably. 🙂
The real reason that they voted it down, is they didn’t want smutty jokes about a woman and her bishopric.
…..as the actress said to the Bishop.
This thread needs one more cat.
Cats forsooth… 9_9
When the loonies are in the mood for digging, why would you want to stop them from digging some graves?
Let them appear as irrelevant to today’s society as they really are.
Mention a cat and the vulpine appears. Hungry, FreeFox? 😉
Going back to the whole “Archbishop praying from the right vote” bit, I have to point out that the vote overall WAS in favour of women bishops.
The votes were 44 for and three against with two abstentions in the House of Bishops, 148 for and 45 against in the House of Clergy, and 132 for and 74 against in the House of Laity.
So the Archbishop prays for the right vote, there is an overwhelming YES across all three houses, but I guess this time they decided they could trump “God” with a bit of self-serving electoral mathematics. Or perhaps they just decided their God wasn’t feeling terribly well that day…
I’m glad the church is maintaining their archaic discriminatory doctrine. While they stand still and society moves forward the differences become more obvious thereby reducing the numbers of adherents as people leave in disgust.
“Why would you want to be a bishop anyway?”
Beats working for a living?
I look forward to the new cartoon.