![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
jackSometimes I feel like the Church of England should either disestablish or bite the bullet and actually represent everyone, regardless of religion or lack thereof. I like having a comparatively fluffy national church, but when I saw it did do things I disagreed with, I suddenly felt uncomfortable having it enshrined in the constitutions.
The first is the obvious choice. But the second has some attraction for me. In many ways, couldn't you say that the right to have services and get married in churches, have "moral" representatives in the house of lords, choose the sexual orientation of bishops, etc, etc, are the equal legacy of everyone English, not just the faction which is currently identified as 'chruch of England'? I realise that's likely to be controvertial to both anti-disestablishment and disestablishment opinions :)
The first is the obvious choice. But the second has some attraction for me. In many ways, couldn't you say that the right to have services and get married in churches, have "moral" representatives in the house of lords, choose the sexual orientation of bishops, etc, etc, are the equal legacy of everyone English, not just the faction which is currently identified as 'chruch of England'? I realise that's likely to be controvertial to both anti-disestablishment and disestablishment opinions :)
Re: ObSnark
Date: 2012-05-17 01:56 pm (UTC)It seems bizarre that people should be PREVENTED from having an egalitarian religion. (I can think of some reasons that might matter, such as requiring an impartial regristrar as an observer to ensure there's no coersion, but I'm not sure why that would apply in cases where heterosexual marriages are ok.)
Re: ObSnark
Date: 2012-05-18 07:09 am (UTC)Re: ObSnark
Date: 2012-05-18 12:12 pm (UTC)