Bishops receive death threats

[Outrider]

And I am quite right to do so. To say that the church has nothing to say about ethical issues is what I would call an extreme axe grinding antitheism.

I said they have nothing relevant to say - they've always got something to say on everything.

What a whopping great polemic you weave.

It's always nice to have an appreciative audience.

I would accept any humanist leading figure so consulted because I am not extreme in my views...

It would depend on what the subject was they were being consulted about.  I don't think there's not a space for representatives of the Church somewhere, but they get dragged in (and, at times, insert themselves) into conversations that aren't in their bailiwick.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I said they have nothing relevant to say - they've always got something to say on everything.

Hyperbole. The bishops haven't as far as I know commented on the production of antimatter.

[Outrider]

Hyperbole.

It's not always hyperbole, but it's often wishy-washy 'spiritual' nonsense.  The Church of England, in my (admittedly limited) experience tends to stay away from the 'fire and brimstone' forthright declarations and go for trite drivel.

O.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

But Bishops are the only ones who presumably think they have God behind them. No-one would think any of the other organisations was speaking in any way for God or with the obvious connection.

As Bishops are spokespeople for an organisation (Church of England) that is part of the State, their remit is talking about ethics and morals with a Christian flavour as the established church for England has a Christian flavour. So their members would expect them to say something - their interpretation - of the ethics and morals displayed by the State from a Christian perspective. If the media are interested in what they are saying to their members - that's the media's choice. Their organisation has a hierarchy so the title gives them the authority to speak on behalf of the organisation.

No one seems to have asked the Muslim organisations' spokespeople for an opinion because they are not part of the State - though they might well be disseminating messages to their members to forward to as many people as possible  e.g. don't go to the mosque, don't meet up socially, be responsible citizens etc. If the media wanted a view on BME people being over-represented in the number of Covid-19 deaths, the media may approach Muslim organisations as many members are BME.

[SusanDoris]

As Bishops are spokespeople for an organisation (Church of England) that is part of the State, their remit is talking about ethics and morals with a Christian flavour as the established church for England has a Christian flavour. So their members would expect them to say something - their interpretation - of the ethics and morals displayed by the State from a Christian perspective. If the media are interested in what they are saying to their members - that's the media's choice. Their organisation has a hierarchy so the title gives them the authority to speak on behalf of the organisation.

No one seems to have asked the Muslim organisations' spokespeople for an opinion because they are not part of the State - though they might well be disseminating messages to their members to forward to as many people as possible  e.g. don't go to the mosque, don't meet up socially, be responsible citizens etc. If the media wanted a view on BME people being over-represented in the number of Covid-19 deaths, the media may approach Muslim organisations as many members are BME.

Yes, I appreciate that point of view, but if Moslem leaders had been asked, they like the Bishops should have spoken without their assumed, I.e. faith belief, religious authority. My opinion however is not consulted by the BBC!!

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Yes, I appreciate that point of view, but if Moslem leaders had been asked, they like the Bishops should have spoken without their assumed, I.e. faith belief, religious authority. My opinion however is not consulted by the BBC!!

They might want your opinion - either as an individual or if you joined an organisation and worked your way up the hierarchy.

Lots of people working together towards goal have more influence than a few people working independently - which is why people band together in social groups, pressure groups, political parties and other organisations. Organisations run more effectively if they develop a hierarchy with roles and responsibilities. And the media want to get the views of organisations that represent many people as well as individual opinions.

[Outrider]

As Bishops are spokespeople for an organisation (Church of England) that is part of the State, their remit is talking about ethics and morals with a Christian flavour as the established church for England has a Christian flavour.

Which brings us back to the question of why we still, in the 21st century, feel that we have to have an established religion given that the world is increasingly moving away from organised superstition.

So their members would expect them to say something - their interpretation - of the ethics and morals displayed by the State from a Christian perspective.

Fine.  That's what they have pulpits for.  That's their medium for talking to their membership.

If the media are interested in what they are saying to their members - that's the media's choice.

Yes - that's why I was blaming the media for still giving the oxygen of apparent relevance way outside of their remit.

No one seems to have asked the Muslim organisations' spokespeople for an opinion because they are not part of the State - though they might well be disseminating messages to their members to forward to as many people as possible  e.g. don't go to the mosque, don't meet up socially, be responsible citizens etc. If the media wanted a view on BME people being over-represented in the number of Covid-19 deaths, the media may approach Muslim organisations as many members are BME.

Which is an aspect of why it's an issue - the repetitive selection of that one religious outlook skews the field, but that's a problem with the specifics of the situation rather than the fact that generally there is a situation at all.

O.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Which brings us back to the question of why we still, in the 21st century, feel that we have to have an established religion given that the world is increasingly moving away from organised superstition.

Fine.  That's what they have pulpits for.  That's their medium for talking to their membership.

Yes - that's why I was blaming the media for still giving the oxygen of apparent relevance way outside of their remit.

Which is an aspect of why it's an issue - the repetitive selection of that one religious outlook skews the field, but that's a problem with the specifics of the situation rather than the fact that generally there is a situation at all.

O.

The established religion part is determined by Parliament - if sufficient numbers of people exist who no longer want an established religion, what is stopping them from forming a pressure group to persuade sufficient number of MPs to vote to disestablish the Church of England? Change happens through political and legal processes.

I can't see how messages will be confined to the pulpits. The members are part of society and are impacted by society's laws and policies and rules. So they would want a voice to try to shape those laws and policies and rules. And like I said they band together because there is strength in numbers, and they form some rules and a hierarchy for their group, and have a spokesperson to put the membership's views across. Although some/ many members may disagree with some of the things their organisation says while agreeing with other parts - the members may decide that the 'strength in numbers' argument is sufficiently compelling to remain a member even if they disagree with some things.

[Outrider]

The established religion part is determined by Parliament - if sufficient numbers of people exist who no longer want an established religion, what is stopping them from forming a pressure group to persuade sufficient number of MPs to vote to disestablish the Church of England? Change happens through political and legal processes.

Yes.  And discussions like this are part of the way that the population disseminate ideas that, eventually, will find there way into the manifestos of political parties so that they can become reality.

I can't see how messages will be confined to the pulpits. The members are part of society and are impacted by society's laws and policies and rules. So they would want a voice to try to shape those laws and policies and rules.

You suggested that, as there were religious people in the population, it was appropriate for religious viewpoints to be included in media discussions - I was pointing out that the place for religious leaders to communicate their ideas to religious people was in their houses of worship.  They can have their say in shaping the laws and policies of the land, just like everyone else, but if the subject isn't something overtly religious in nature we shouldn't be going out of our way to seek an opinion from someone who doesn't have any expertise just because they wear a funny hat/collar/necklace...

And like I said they band together because there is strength in numbers, and they form some rules and a hierarchy for their group, and have a spokesperson to put the membership's views across.

And I'm not suggesting anyone try to shut the churches and stop them doing that.

Although some/ many members may disagree with some of the things their organisation says while agreeing with other parts - the members may decide that the 'strength in numbers' argument is sufficiently compelling to remain a member even if they disagree with some things.

Which is absolutely fine.  Why is it happening on the pages of national newspapers and in the news broadcasts of the national television services when it's irrelevant to the bulk of the populace?

O.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Yes.  And discussions like this are part of the way that the population disseminate ideas that, eventually, will find there way into the manifestos of political parties so that they can become reality.

You suggested that, as there were religious people in the population, it was appropriate for religious viewpoints to be included in media discussions - I was pointing out that the place for religious leaders to communicate their ideas to religious people was in their houses of worship.  They can have their say in shaping the laws and policies of the land, just like everyone else, but if the subject isn't something overtly religious in nature we shouldn't be going out of our way to seek an opinion from someone who doesn't have any expertise just because they wear a funny hat/collar/necklace...

And I'm not suggesting anyone try to shut the churches and stop them doing that.

Which is absolutely fine.  Why is it happening on the pages of national newspapers and in the news broadcasts of the national television services when it's irrelevant to the bulk of the populace?

O.

I think the media is also a proper place for religious spokespeople to communicate with their membership, and not just the pulpit. Social media is a very useful tool for gaining support for an idea, or for people to simply give their views on current affairs or topical issues. People go to the media all the time to get their messages to a wider audience. So the spokespeople would also be speaking to non-members, who may decide after listening to them that they are receptive to their ideas and will support them.

The Church of England is interested in shaping moral/ ethical issues so it's not surprising that they spoke about the actions of the government and specifically the Dominic Cummings issue. Apparently some members of the CofE  Tweeted about it and then received death threats.

[Gordon]

Of course, as a side issue, given that the established church in the UK is the C of E, those of us who aren't 'E', and some of us aren't even 'C' either, see even less relevance when the MD of the C of E is given the opportunity to offer his opinion on the UK-wide 6-o-clock news.

He's entitled to his opinion of course, but I fail so see how his views are relevant beyond his membership since I'd imagine that even south of the border quite a few people who are 'E' aren't 'C' or 'C of E'.  Perhaps some elements of the UK media are unduly deferential towards the C of E and operate under the delusion that C of E opinions are authoritative.

[Outrider]

I think the media is also a proper place for religious spokespeople to communicate with their membership, and not just the pulpit. Social media is a very useful tool for gaining support for an idea, or for people to simply give their views on current affairs or topical issues.

Social media, in this context, is not the media I was referring to - social media is (at least in theory) an egalitarian platform where anyone is free to disseminate any idea they choose. 

People go to the media all the time to get their messages to a wider audience. So the spokespeople would also be speaking to non-members, who may decide after listening to them that they are receptive to their ideas and will support them.

The point of the media, though, is to curate those opinions in the public interest and select those that are pertinent and relevant - which, again, is why I'm putting this at the foot of the media outlets and not the church.

The Church of England is interested in shaping moral/ ethical issues so it's not surprising that they spoke about the actions of the government and specifically the Dominic Cummings issue.

Any number of organisations are 'interested in shaping moral/ethical issues' that doesn't mean that their opinion automatically has any significance on a given topic.

Apparently some members of the CofE  Tweeted about it and then received death threats.

And, again, I'd not condone anyone being threatened; if you don't like what someone's saying on Twitter either counter it with an argument or just stop reading their tweets.

O.