The archbishop of Canterbury has told homosexuals that they need to turn hetero or skip the party, according to an interview conducted last week. Are you still reading? Good, because I would’ve fallen asleep immediately after “archbishop of Canterbury.” I can’t believe that’s even a real person — until now, I was vaguely sure that it was a made up literary device. Someone you invite over for tea and biscuits, only to get an unexpected visit from your deadbeat brother-in-law who has just hilariously started a sheep shearing business in your sitting room and who refuses to leave until he’s dressed all the sheared sheep in tiny sweaters so they don’t get cold and oh my, is that the doorbell?
Anyway, it turns out the archibishop of Canterbury IS a real person and he’s a bigot. Ho hum.
“Ethics is not a matter of a set of abstract rules, it is a matter of living the mind of Christ. That applies to sexual ethics.”
I’m sorry, but did the archbishop just refer to something called “sexual ethics?” What on earth is a sexual ethic, and how does it differ from your average every-day ethic other than the fact that a penis may or may not be involved? If I had to define my own set of “sexual ethics” it would include the following:
1.) If he dumped my best friend, there is a mandatory 15-day waiting period.
2.) Don’t punch lovers in the face unless specifically asked.
3.) “Ow” means “stop.”
4.) No matter how much it looks like they may be enjoying it, kittens are unable to give consent.
There may be a few more, but I’m pretty sure this one isn’t on there:
53.) Don’t sleep with other chicks.
Because that makes no sense.
Says an opposing Labour MP:
“People will feel this is a huge betrayal. Rowan has refashioned the Church of England into a narrow-minded, conservative sect.”
Right. Because this is a new concept.
In other news, the SMART grants I blogged about last week have been revised to include evolutionary biology as an acceptable major. Glad we got that little misunderstanding cleared up, and I’m sure that from now on science is perfectly safe from ignorant politicians.
HA HA HA HA!
The trouble with living in Ireland is that the concept of the Priest coming round for tea is just not as funny as a Vicar visiting. Maybe I'll just not have any more tea parties.
"…has refashioned the Church of England into a narrow-minded, conservative sect.â€ NO! A religious wackie has turned something conservative? I never thought I'd see the day/
Apart from the sexual puriency of the Anglicans another worrying item yesterday was this story in The Guardian about possible changes in the Catholic hierarchy's position on "Intelligent Design" (ghastly term). Just what we need to provide moral support to all all the antiscientific brigade out there:
Pope prepares to embrace theory of intelligent design
â€œEthics is not a matter of a set of abstract rules…"
Am I the only one who broke out into hysterical laughter after hearing this from the guy trying to add a ridiculously abstract ethical rule?
"2.) Donâ€™t punch lovers in the face unless specifically asked."
I was going to make a comment on legal fees and sex ed classes based on this comment, but then I realised that guys who joke about punching their partners are not perceived as "offbeat and wacky" so much as "scary and abusive".
Anyway, on topic, our pal with the funny hat is clearly confusing morality with ethics. Ethics isn't really interested in silly "X is wrong always and forever!" kinds of judgements. At least not in my perception. I've always seen the study of ethics as living in the grey area where things are sometimes right or sometimes wrong and a judgement has to be made based on circumstances. When you say that homosexuality is wrong, that's a moral statement and not an ethical one.
"Ow means stop" is a fine *general* rule, sure. But maybe a different word may have been pre-agreed, in which case, maybe it doesn't ;)
I never thought of using "Ow" as a "safe" word
You must log in to post a comment.