Bishops receive death threats

[SusanDoris]

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.

Perhaps it was the fault of the BBC for making what the Bishopssaid an item on the main news bulletin.

[Nearly Sane]

Perhaps it was the fault of the BBC for making what the Bishopssaid an item on the main news bulletin.

again if they quote the President of the Uk Humanists would you make the same objection?

[BeRational]

again if they quote the President of the Uk Humanists would you make the same objection?

Yes if they used the title.

The title carries no weight

[BeRational]

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

If they are making comments about the organisation  they represent then yes, they speak with authority.

They can speak on any subject but unless the subject is relevant to their title, then it has no more value than any other person

[Nearly Sane]

If they are making comments about the organisation  they represent then yes, they speak with authority.

They can speak on any subject but unless the subject is relevant to their title, then it has no more value than any other person

That wasn't the question. News sources quote people with titles including the President of the UK Humanists. I doubt they are being quoted for anything other than the title so are yoy saying they shouldn't be.

[Nearly Sane]

Yes if they used the title.

The title carries no weight

But that's the only reason they are getting quoted. The title is already given the weight. Are you suggesting that a news programme give equal weight to what Spud writes on this nessageboard as to the head of the NSS?

[BeRational]

But that's the only reason they are getting quoted. The title is already given the weight. Are you suggesting that a news programme give equal weight to what Spud writes on this nessageboard as to the head of the NSS?

Yes

[Nearly Sane]

Yes

So the NSS and the UK Humanists should not be sought for any quotes by any news organisation more than they seek out Spud's opinions?

[BeRational]

 :od

So the NSS and the UK Humanists should not be sought for any quotes by any news organisation more than they seek out Spud's opinions?

They can speak with authority about their organisations, but general morality then I don't  care what they think anymore than what Spud thinks.

Do you think they speak with authority about topics other than their organisation

[Nearly Sane]

:od
They can speak with authority about their organisations, but general morality then I don't  care what they think anymore than what Spud thinks.

Do you think they speak with authority about topics other than their organisation

I have not suggested that they do.

[SusanDoris]

I meant to quote NS here.
]
No-one believes that those presidents claim or imply an authority other than human. The title of Bishop could easily be assumed to have an added authority, i.e. of God. There are many who would make that assumption.

[Nearly Sane]

I meant to quote NS here.
]
No-one believes that those presidents claim or imply an authority other than human. The title of Bishop could easily be assumed to have an added authority, i.e. of God. There are many who would make that assumption.

People who are members of the UK Humanists give authority to office holders in the Humanists. It has a clear implication they are being spoken for. That religious people believe in a god doesn't make the statements from bishops more or less valid on that sense. They too are being spoken for.

[BeRational]

People who are members of the UK Humanists give authority to office holders in the Humanists. It has a clear implication they are being spoken for. That religious people believe in a god doesn't make the statements from bishops more or less valid on that sense. They too are being spoken for.

Their voices should not get heard just because they have the title of bishop or any other title.

[Gordon]

Their voices should not get heard just because they have the title of bishop or any other title.

Can't see how that works.

On almost any issue there may be any number of organised interested parties: voluntary organisations, campaigning organisations, political organisations, business associations etc etc - and since these groups are organised they have members and some form of representative structure so, for example, we regularly see the heads of the TUC or CBI are often asked to opine on behalf of the members of their organisations. In principle, I can't see a problem with that.

Whether or not you think certain organisations aren't qualified to comment on a particular issue is another matter, but when it comes to public health or social policy matters (such as the current situation) I can't see why clerics shouldn't be able voice an opinion on behalf of their members just because they are clerics.

If I feel their opinion is of little relevance then I can just ignore them - just are they could ignore me.
     

[Udayana]

Their voices should not get heard just because they have the title of bishop or any other title.

But ... surely they are given those titles to encourage people to listen to them?

[SusanDoris]

Can't see how that works.

On almost any issue there may be any number of organised interested parties: voluntary organisations, campaigning organisations, political organisations, business associations etc etc - and since these groups are organised they have members and some form of representative structure so, for example, we regularly see the heads of the TUC or CBI are often asked to opine on behalf of the members of their organisations. In principle, I can't see a problem with that.

Whether or not you think certain organisations aren't qualified to comment on a particular issue is another matter, but when it comes to public health or social policy matters (such as the current situation) I can't see why clerics shouldn't be able voice an opinion on behalf of their members just because they are clerics.

If I feel their opinion is of little relevance then I can just ignore them - just are they could ignore me.
     

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.

[Nearly Sane]

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.

Which is entirely irrelevant to the point Gordon made.

[Gordon]

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.

Even if they do think they have God behind them why should that in itself prevent them offering an opinion?

Even though they do represent a religious organisation that doesn't mean that their opinion should be dismissed just because they think they have God on their side - that would be an example of the genetic fallacy. Whether their opinion is considered authoritative by society at large, or merits prominent coverage, is another matter: but then that would apply to any organisation or figurehead depending on the issue and context.

[Outrider]

Can't see how that works.

On almost any issue there may be any number of organised interested parties: voluntary organisations, campaigning organisations, political organisations, business associations etc etc - and since these groups are organised they have members and some form of representative structure so, for example, we regularly see the heads of the TUC or CBI are often asked to opine on behalf of the members of their organisations. In principle, I can't see a problem with that.

When the issue is volunteering and charity then having the representatives of voluntary or campaigning organisations on is RELEVANT.  When the issue is a political take, then having the representatives of political organisations on is RELEVANT.  When the issue is workplace conditions or pay, or the like, having a representative of a labour union or a business association is RELEVANT.  When the issue isn't The Church or religions doctrine, what's the relevance of a Bishop?

That's not to say that it justifies death threats, obviously, but time and again they get dragged into the equation when it's long past time when they had any relevance to everyday matters.

Whether or not you think certain organisations aren't qualified to comment on a particular issue is another matter, but when it comes to public health or social policy matters (such as the current situation) I can't see why clerics shouldn't be able voice an opinion on behalf of their members just because they are clerics.

They have as much right as, say, my grocer.  The issue isn't that they have an opinion, it's that media outlets keep going back to them when the topic is outside of their expertise.

If I feel their opinion is of little relevance then I can just ignore them - just are they could ignore me.

The problem isn't that we can't ignore them, it's that they're taking up valuable air-time that could be put to use interviewing someone whose opinion matters in this debate.

It's not the fault of the Bishops, they are taking any opportunity to get themselves into relevance, just as anyone with a public-facing role for an organisation would.  The fault is with the media outlets who keep giving them the oxygen of seeming relevance.

O.

[Udayana]

...
It's not the fault of the Bishops, they are taking any opportunity to get themselves into relevance, just as anyone with a public-facing role for an organisation would.  The fault is with the media outlets who keep giving them the oxygen of seeming relevance.

O.

Er... yes. But why do they do that, do you think?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

When the issue is volunteering and charity then having the representatives of voluntary or campaigning organisations on is RELEVANT.  When the issue is a political take, then having the representatives of political organisations on is RELEVANT.  When the issue is workplace conditions or pay, or the like, having a representative of a labour union or a business association is RELEVANT.  When the issue isn't The Church or religions doctrine, what's the relevance of a Bishop?

That's not to say that it justifies death threats, obviously, but time and again they get dragged into the equation when it's long past time when they had any relevance to everyday matters.

They have as much right as, say, my grocer.  The issue isn't that they have an opinion, it's that media outlets keep going back to them when the topic is outside of their expertise.

The problem isn't that we can't ignore them, it's that they're taking up valuable air-time that could be put to use interviewing someone whose opinion matters in this debate.

It's not the fault of the Bishops, they are taking any opportunity to get themselves into relevance, just as anyone with a public-facing role for an organisation would.  The fault is with the media outlets who keep giving them the oxygen of seeming relevance.

O.

Of course there point is relevant. These are pastoral workers just like heads of social work departments, charities, they consider ethical issues both practically and reflectively.

They are involved in ethical considerations just as much as say, Peter Tatchell, a man whose expertise and reflection is usually well worth listening too.

It worries me that so many are finding ethical consideration, passe.

I'm not aware of what Messr's Copson and Sanderson have to say about this issue. On a previous controversy concerning someone who held their views the seemed very hush hush.

[Outrider]

Er... yes. But why do they do that, do you think?

Because, as a society, we're still trying to let go of some of the older ideas that we no longer need.

O.

[Outrider]

Of course there point is relevant. These are pastoral workers just like heads of social work departments, charities, they consider ethical issues both practically and reflectively.

Except that social workers are trained and qualified in their field - which is relevant - whereas Bishops are trained in another field which isn't.

They are involved in ethical considerations just as much as say, Peter Tatchell, a man whose expertise and reflection is usually well worth listening too.

We're all 'involved in ethical considerations'; Peter Tatchell is an individual who is consulted because he has established his expertise individually by his past history.  Rent-a-bishop is being consulted because he's been overly involved in his magical story for long enough to consider it a career.

It worries me that so many are finding ethical consideration, passe.

It's not that I find ethicial consideration passe, it's that you consider the Church of England to - by default - have anything particularly insightful to say about ethical considerations.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Except that social workers are trained and qualified in their field - which is relevant - whereas Bishops are trained in another field which isn't.

We're all 'involved in ethical considerations'; Peter Tatchell is an individual who is consulted because he has established his expertise individually by his past history.  Rent-a-bishop is being consulted because he's been overly involved in his magical story for long enough to consider it a career.

It's not that I find ethicial consideration passe, it's that you consider the Church of England to - by default - have anything particularly insightful to say about ethical considerations.

O.

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.

What a whopping great polemic you weave.

I would accept any humanist leading figure so consulted because I am not extreme in my views....In fact many secularists should be more prominent than they are considering Death threats against Bishops is likely to drag the movement to eliminate religious views from the public forum into disrepute.

[SusanDoris]

Except that social workers are trained and qualified in their field - which is relevant - whereas Bishops are trained in another field which isn't.

We're all 'involved in ethical considerations'; Peter Tatchell is an individual who is consulted because he has established his expertise individually by his past history.  Rent-a-bishop is being consulted because he's been overly involved in his magical story for long enough to consider it a career.

It's not that I find ethicial consideration passe, it's that you consider the Church of England to - by default - have anything particularly insightful to say about ethical considerations.

O.

Well said indeed.