Forgive the punnery, but it more or less makes my point for me. I've been taking an interest in the female bishop debate, but it was this quote from a BBC report today that made me realise that the whole vote might be over equality of a very different kind:
Says Reverend Miranda Threlfall-Holmes of Durham:
"It's important for the whole country because bishops sit in the House of Lords, and there's currently a group of people within the legislation of this country which is closed at the minute to women, which is wrong."
Well, yes, it is wrong to close it from women, but wouldn't it be better to close it from bishops?
I write this as a Greek Orthodox Christian: I don't want to be governed by officials from any kind of Christianity. And the reason for that is that neither do I want to be governed by Sikhs, Muslims, Ba'hai, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists or anyone else whose primary role is as a religious representative. By nature and by practise, their first allegiance is not to universal principles of governance but to their faith.
Precisely because I want the freedom to practise my own faith as I wish, I want the legislative powers of this country to be held by people who - while they can privately believe whatever they wish - do not have a full-time role as the respresentative of a religious organisation. Precisely because I want everyone else to have the right to their own faith - or lack of it - I do not think it is right that Church of England bishops, who will naturally have the desire to give the church more political clout, have any sort of legislative influence.
So instead of voting in female bishops in order to have women represented in a legislative sector, why not just remove bishops from that sector in the first place?
Alexandra Roumbas is a writer and editor living in London. She believes that a secular society is the only one in which it is safe to practise any faith.
