Religion and Ethics Forum
General Category => Politics & Current Affairs => Topic started by: Walt Zingmatilder on May 26, 2020, 10:37:31 AM
-
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.
-
I expect they are as horrified about it as you.
-
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.
-
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.
-
I think the Bishops have every right to express their opinion on the subject of Cummings, as do the clergy in general.
-
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
-
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?
-
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-tyne-52804464
I hope the person responsible for sending those death threats is found and prosecuted. >:(
-
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?
-
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.
-
Why should their views be given any special status?
Because they're bishops. Part of their job is to offer ethical advice and leadership.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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!)
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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
-
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
-
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.
-
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?
-
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
-
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?
-
: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
-
: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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
...
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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!! :D
-
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!! :D
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.