The Right to Discriminate

In no insdustry in the United Kingdom are you allowed to say, "Find me a boss with a penis, i refuse to be supervised by a woman," except one: the Church of England.

The C of E began ordaining women as priests in 1994. Now the debate is women bishops. If a male priest excels at his job and serves the church well, he is made a bishop. Now that there are women priests, surely there will be women bishops, too. Right? Not so much.

You see, if a woman is a priest, she is only in a position of authority over parishners, and they don't count. But if she is a bishop, she has authority over other clergy. Male clergy. Ooooh, scary.

The church is already operating under an exception to national anti-discrimination laws, otherwise they wouldn't have a choice in the matter of whether to make women bishops or not. This situation brings to light 2 compelling questions on discrimination:

1. Should any organization, even a church, be exempt from national anti-discrimination laws?
2. Should individuals within that organization be allowed to refuse to work for someone on the basis of that person's gender?


Also, the debate on reproduction still rages below. Feel free to continue to comment on older posts.

Children's Squabble

Matters of religious interest are central to the mission of this page, which is to question and evaluate our basic assumptions about life, the universe, and everything. This is a squirmy process, as I have recently been reminded.

I enjoyed this article in the Guardian on a new ITV documentary airing soon about the Muslim beliefs surrounding Christ. I think it's a great idea. Even as children we're taught that there are two sides to every story. We learn this the first time we get into a squabble with a sibling and our parents (if they're at all sensible) ask each child what happend before handing down a ruling.

Some stories seem to be exempt from this treatment. 'There is one side, once correct view, and it is mine,' seems to be the attitude. Shame, really. I think a lot of people would benefit from the discomfort of hearing the other side of their sacred story.


(And Random Thinker, I know exactly what you're going to say here. No, I am not contradicting my earlier statement about truth being objective regardless of perspective. There is a difference between a story and a fact: a story has multiple sides, a fact does not. In the case of the story of Jesus there are multiple sides (even within the Christian New Testament, where the gospels contradict each other all over the place), and then there is the truth of what actually happened, which nobody knows.)

The Broadcaster's Tale

A Christian, a Muslim, and a Jew go on a radio program...

No, it's not the beginning of a joke. It's a broadcast by journalist John Humphrys who, like me, is seeking to understand why people believe things in the hope that he, too, might come to believe them. Unlike me, he is a famous broadcast journalist and as such has access to high-powered, famous religious people and their brains. In this series on BBC Radio 4 John Humphrys interviews a Christian (Archbishop of Canterbury Dr. Rowan Williams), a Muslim (Professor Tariq Ramadan), and a Jew (Chief Rabbi Sir Jonathan Sacks).

Mr. Humphrys is a fellow pilgrim on a journey seeking truth. He approaches each interviewee with the same mindset and question, summarized thus: I used to believe in God. As a child I believed. But then I became disalusioned of the idea upon witnessing a world of suffering in my career as a journalist. I want to believe again; I want to have faith. How can I get it? How can I find God again?

It's worth listening to the extended interviews if you have time. I recommend doing some ironing or other mindless task while you enjoy the broadcast. Cheers!