Better Bend Than Break?

"Over 500 clergy have left the Church of England since the 1990s, when Synod agreed to allow women into the priesthood, receiving payouts totalling £27.4m. Some of them later returned to the fold."

Now, they only want to be bloody escalated to bishop status don't they? I mean really. Who's going to wash, iron and ensure their minor offspring keep quiet about the choir time touching then?

After reading this article, numerous times over (seriously, at least 4 times, I'm not too up on the church so this involved slight disection in a mere bid to understand), I started to pick it apart. Not the language as such, as I'm 100% (if I were the type of cunt who said '110%' I would here, as it goes, I'm not) that that particular element varies from The Guardian, to The Daily Mail, to The Diana Express, to web page to youtube video to retweet.

Apologies, the digression begins.

Anyway, I've pulled it apart and noted that the word compromise is mentioned four times. Might not seem much but it's four times too many in my book. Since when has treating one half of the population as second class citizens been a fair compromise? In the only way possible in contemporary society - in the eyes of the church. This particular argument, admittedly, is between forward thinking religious types (oxymoron if I've EVER heard one) and those cheeky little traditionalists. Those scoundrels! Condemning homosexuality? Contraception? Independent thought, dare I say? It's all horse play to them! All in a days work. What, you're gay? No. You most definitely cannot share my rubbish wafers or red wine. Oh no, wait, save a drop for the little ones.

Women? BISHOPS? Ha ha ha! Oh.

Since reading around this, it's become apparent that to be involved in the church at bishop level does take a certain amount of intelligence, no matter how misguided and limited. So, you do have to wonder where these women that actually want to flex their brainpower, on some false pedestal, being taken seriously by less than half of their peers... are. Surely they're missing the point, somewhat?

The fact is, even if legislation started now, to ordain women, they would not be able to practice priesthood until at least 2014. That's a lot of faffing. In this context, it goes to show that where there's progression, there's compromise. Where there's compromise, there's regression. It is only the ability TO compromise that shows skill and ability. The nature of a compromise in many situations such as these, stands as weak and impenetrable, in a bad way.

(I'm going to take a breather here)


If your argument gains sufficient votes and support, surely you shouldn't have to compromise? In the case of the church, women shouldn't compromise. True to the nature of democracy in the Western world, a fetish for compromise seems to have occured. Compromise in the US government is as convoluted and obscure as any and, the less said about compromise in the UK government, the better. We seem to be embarking on a world where compromise is a pre-requisite to any decision - it's debatable on so many levels whether this is a positive or negative but when it comes to general ethics and equality, should the mere idea of compromise even be entertained by a progressive society?

In summary. Government, church, all leading superpowers - you don't have to pretend to compromise. It's so transparent. Ladies, if you want to be priests, good luck but don't say you weren't warned.

The end.

xxxx