Bishops gone wild: special Equality Bill edition PLUS “Why men don’t go to church”

As a toxic neo-atheist fundamentalist neo-rationalist sceptic, it was difficult to know what to hope for in all the kerfuffle about the Equality Bill: is it better that the government narrows the scope for discrimination against homosexuals by religious organisations, or better that the church publicly admits it’s so important for it to discriminate that it’ll use the votes of the bishops in the House of Lords to accomplish it? Which will bring in the Kingdom of Dawkins sooner? It’s so hard to tell.

The only winning move is not to play

The story so far: the Government wanted to specify the scope of the religious exemption from the Bill’s provisions, after the European Commission said the existing exemptions were too broad and might result in legal action from the EU. The Government told the churches that their somewhat cosy position would not change and that the new wording was merely clarifying it, but the churches weren’t taken in: there were petitions organised by charming characters, everyone got terribly excited, and there was an amendment proposed in the House of Lords to strike out the more specific language. As Andrew Brown’s blog posting has it “Eight serving bishops and Lord Carey, the former Archbishop of Canterbury, voted for the decisive amendment which was carried by five votes”. Eight bishops and five votes, you say?

Brown says this may be a pyrrhic victory for the church, as its actions have shown it’s out of touch with Radio 4 listeners and other worthy types. If you were Rowan Williams (you remember, Rowan Williams), you’d probably be wondering how long the forces of antidisestablishmentarianism will be able to hold out against the floccinaucinihilipilification of the Christian heritage of this country.

Decorate the church with swords, or pictures of knights, or flaming torches

It’s not just Radio 4 listeners the church has to worry about. Over at the Times, Ruth Gledhill wonders why men don’t go to church. She quotes from this painfully awful advice from a Christian charity on how to make the church attractive to men: “Men appreciate ‘professionalism’… things done well. For instance, if you use a drama make sure it is good, otherwise men will find it embarrassing” (women are, of course, undiscriminating); “does the church always need to be decorated with flowers? … How would it go down to decorate with swords, or pictures of knights, or flaming torches?” How would it go down, readers?

Gledhill has a serious point, which is that the church is undergoing the evaporative cooling of group beliefs: society is getting more socially liberal, and those left in the church less so, because those who do have liberal beliefs cannot stand to stay in the church. Though Gledhill has some anecdotes about thriving liberal churches, she doesn’t back this up with data.

Luckily, someone else has gathered a whole load of data. According to the Guardian, the 2008 British Social Attitudes survey by the National Centre for Social Research showed that “36% of people thought sexual relations between two adults of the same sex were ‘always or mostly’ wrong, down from 62% in 1983” (detailed numbers are here, if anyone wants to play with them). Gledhill links to the chapter on religion from the survey, which makes interesting reading: between 1983 and 2008, the percentage of the sample describing themselves some sort of Christian fell from 66% to 50%. “No religion” rose from 31% to 43%. The percentage describing themselves as “Church of England” fell from 40% to 23%. In 2008, 62% said they never attended religious services.

We’ll nae be fooled again

As Brown says, there’s a tension between the government’s role in promoting libertarian freedom and promoting social goods. There is an argument for freedom of association, but the question is where to draw the line. My preference would be to allow the exceptions the church wants, on the condition that organisations making use of them will not receive public money or tax exemptions (such as charitable status). The church is dwindling, and out of step with society: the rest of us should not have to pay for it.

Anyone for another petition?

7 thoughts on “Bishops gone wild: special Equality Bill edition PLUS “Why men don’t go to church””

  1. ISTM this is a win on two fronts. It makes the church look like a bunch of nasty bigots, hopefully promoting a nice healthy sceptical attitude towards religion in society, and delays the egregious “equality” bill. With any luck, it’ll now run out of time before the General Election.

    Ta Bishies!

      1. What’s bad about the Bill?

        It rolls back pretty much all the protections in law given to trans people over the last 30 years, and allows anyone with sex-segregated facilities (e.g. a restaurant with toilets) to refuse service/admission to anyone they believe to be trans if they have a good reason (which may include the fear that their other customers will be upset).

        1. Eek. I’m vaguely surprised I haven’t heard about that.

          Do you mean refuse them admission to the restaurant completely, or refuse them admission to that toilet and make them use the other one? (I mean, I can see why both possibilities are bad, but I’m just curious which.)

  2. Subject: Impressed
    There’s a lot of worthy material to comment on (favourably) in this post, but I’m afraid I’m going to have to concentrate on your impressive use of the words antidisestablishmentarianism AND floccinaucinihilipilification (correctly) in the same sentence. Top notch!

    1. Subject: Re: Impressed
      Oh wow, I didn’t see that. Nice 🙂

      It’s only a shame you couldn’t get “antitransubstantiationalist” in there as well, but it would have been a bit of a stretch, even if you just used it to mean “protestant” 🙂

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *