Bishops receive death threats

[Walt Zingmatilder]

According to the Guardian Bishops who have expressed concern over comings have received death threats threatening them with death if they do not keep out of politics.

It would be interesting to hear the National Secular society response to this.

[Aruntraveller]

I expect they are as horrified about it as you.

[SusanDoris]

According to the Guardian Bishops who have expressed concern over comings have received death threats threatening them with death if they do not keep out of politics.

It would be interesting to hear the National Secular society response to this.

Since the NSS is a rational, law-abiding organisation, then that behaviour would be condemned. However, the Bishops themselves deserve strong censure for thinking they had any particularly valuable opinion on the matter and even if they had, as ordinary citizens, an opinion to express, they should not have done so under their Bishop title.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Since the NSS is a rational, law-abiding organisation, then that behaviour would be condemned.

Then they need to distance publicly their desire and campaign to see the censorship of Bishops and indeed religious people from politics from this new and sinister expression of the same desire.

However, the Bishops themselves deserve strong censure for thinking they had any particularly valuable opinion on the matter and even if they had, as ordinary citizens, an opinion to express, they should not have done so under their Bishop title.

A) I disagree
B) I'm not sure that equating Bishops expressing views with those issuing Death threats to bishops expressing views helps your cause and demonstrates your rabid antitheism.

[Roses]

I think the Bishops have every right to express their opinion on the subject of Cummings, as do the clergy in general.

[Nearly Sane]

Then they need to distance publicly their desire and campaign to see the censorship of Bishops and indeed religious people from politics from this new and sinister expression of the same desire.

Clear as Cummings

[Nearly Sane]

Since the NSS is a rational, law-abiding organisation, then that behaviour would be condemned. However, the Bishops themselves deserve strong censure for thinking they had any particularly valuable opinion on the matter and even if they had, as ordinary citizens, an opinion to express, they should not have done so under their Bishop title.

Why not?

[Roses]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-tyne-52804464

I hope the person responsible for sending those death threats is found and prosecuted.

[SusanDoris]

I think the Bishops have every right to express their opinion on the subject of Cummings, as do the clergy in general.

Why should their views be given any special status?

[Roses]

Why should their views be given any special status?

Where did I say their views should be given special status? I was saying they should be permitted to express them of the topic of 'Cummings' like anyone else.

[SteveH]

Why should their views be given any special status?

Because they're bishops. Part of their job is to offer ethical advice and leadership.

[SusanDoris]

Where did I say their views should be given special status? I was saying they should be permitted to express them of the topic of 'Cummings' like anyone else.

But they did so under their title of Bishop, thus drawing particular attention to their assumed authority.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

But they did so under their title of Bishop, thus drawing particular attention to their assumed authority.

And when Porteous wood or Terry Sanderson finally get round to publicly denouncing this new militant wing of the "shut religionists out of the public forum" they will introduce themselves as high officers of the National Secular Society as they often do when making a point.

Typical Dorisian hypocrisy, partiality and humbug on your part Susan....in my humble opinion.

[Nearly Sane]

But they did so under their title of Bishop, thus drawing particular attention to their assumed authority.

But they are Bishops speaking as Bishops - so what is the problem?

[Owlswing]

Because they're bishops. Part of their job is to offer ethical advice and leadership.

As they can be counted on to do in the matter of paedophile priests (NOT!)

[BeRational]

But they are Bishops speaking as Bishops - so what is the problem?

I think some people think the word of a bishop carries more weight on these matters than anyone else, which of course they dont.

Why not just speak as a person and not mention his title.

Were his words noticed just because of his title.

[Nearly Sane]

I think some people think the word of a bishop carries more weight on these matters than anyone else, which of course they dont.

Why not just speak as a person and not mention his title.

Were his words noticed just because of his title.

Because they see it as part of the job. Would I expect an MP to just speak as a person? If the President of the UK Humanists spoke on this as the President of the UK Humanists  I wouldn't object. Would you?

[BeRational]

Because they see it as part of the job. Would I expect an MP to just speak as a person? If the President of the UK Humanists spoke on this as the President of the UK Humanists  I wouldn't object. Would you?

No I would not but I would not want his or her title to privilege their comments.

They have no claim to expertise  in these matters, do they should just use their name.
I do not care about who says it, either they make a good point or they don't.

[Nearly Sane]

No I would not but I would not want his or her title to privilege their comments.

They have no claim to expertise  in these matters, do they should just use their name.
I do not care about who says it, either they make a good point or they don't.

So if you wouldn't object to the President of the UK Humanists speaking as that, there is no rational objection to Bishops speaking as Bishops. I agree that titles don't matter though expertise can but that's irrelevant to the question

[BeRational]

So if you wouldn't object to the President of the UK Humanists speaking as that, there is no rational objection to Bishops speaking as Bishops. I agree that titles don't matter though expertise can but that's irrelevant to the question

No I must have not made myself clear,  I Would  object to them having special status.

Titles  on moral matters mean nothing.

Everyone can of course have an opinion,  but whatever title they have does not add any additional weight to what they say

[Nearly Sane]

No I must have not made myself clear,  I Would  object to them having special status.

Titles  on moral matters mean nothing.

Everyone can of course have an opinion,  but whatever title they have does not add any additional weight to what they say

i don't really understand what 'special status' is here. I raised my main question to Susan Doris who was saying they shouldn't speak as Bishops, given it's now clear you don't agree with her, then the question is how do you judge thid idea of 'special status'. Both the President of the UK Humanists and a random Bishop are going to be more likely to be quoted than you or I are.

[BeRational]

i don't really understand what 'special status' is here. I raised my main question to Susan Doris who was saying they shouldn't speak as Bishops, given it's now clear you don't agree with her, then the question is how do you judge thid idea of 'special status'. Both the President of the UK Humanists and a random Bishop are going to be more likely to be quoted than you or I are.

They shouldn't be is my point.

What do they know about morality  that any other person does not.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

They shouldn't be is my point.

What do they know about morality  that any other person does not.

A lot more than a moral irrealist who has nothing in his philosophy for moral arbitration but frequently and publicly makes it anyway and as if it's binding on other people to boot.

[Nearly Sane]

They shouldn't be is my point.

What do they know about morality  that any other person does not.

So no one should quote the President of the UK Humanists?

[Nearly Sane]

A lot more than a moral irrealist who has nothing in his philosophy for moral arbitration but frequently and publicly makes it anyway and as if it's binding on other people to boot.

So by this logic you think a moral realist who thinks gay people should be put to death should be given a lot more attention and credit, than anyone who does not think morals are real.