Interesting Links for 21-01-2023

[andrewducker]

1. How is life in the UK? (Top 1% have grabbed nearly ⅔ of all growth in the last 2 years)

(tags:UK Doom OhForFucksSake economy )

2. AI is being used by students to produce essays and projects - how should the education system respond?

(tags:education ai )

3. Total whiteout on Ben Macdui - what it's like climbing Scotland's second-highest mountain in snowy weather

(tags:snow winter mountains Scotland video )

4. Church of England refuses to back marriage equality, declares that marriage is between "one man and one woman for life" (despite their Supreme Governor being divorced)

(tags:marriage religion ChurchOfEngland LGBT OhForFucksSake uk )

5. How ironic are Ricky Gervais' views on transgender people?

(tags:comedy RickyGervais transgender bigotry LGBT )

6. Driverless bus takes passengers across Forth Road Bridge in UK first

(tags:Edinburgh automation driving buses transport Scotland )

7. The pianist with the bionic hands

(tags:cyborg piano music history )

8. Could Ultrasound Replace the Stethoscope?

(tags:ultrasound healthcare technology )

Comments

[cmcmck]

So if folk want to get married somewhere where equality really has a meaning, they can always pop along to my lot- the Quakers.

Since when did the C of E go back to the 'marriage is for life' nonsense?

[andrewducker]

According to this fascinating article, forever. It took an act of parliament before 1857 to get a divorce.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/how-the-church-of-england-has-evolved-on-divorce-from-henry-viii-to-meghan-markle/2018/05/15/85ca3388-4d6c-11e8-85c1-9326c4511033_story.html

[mountainkiss]

Well, forever unless you count its actual founder.

[andrewducker]

We don't talk about Henry. Apparently.

[mountainkiss]

Apparently we do, as recently as this week.

[andrewducker]

Ooh, interesting!

[wildeabandon]

Whilst I understand that Quaker marriages are of great value to those who are of that tradition, if one holds to a sacramental theology, they're no more able to fulfil that sacramental vocation than a civil marriage.

The Church has always held to the doctrine that marriage is for life. The willingness to marry divorcees with living former spouses is based on an acknowledgement that we are imperfect rather than a denial of that doctrine.

[calimac]

If you carve giant holes in your doctrine like that, it isn't really much of a doctrine, is it? More of an aspiration.

[dewline]

I can accept that it's an aspiration rather than a doctrine, and that it's one that matters to many.

[calimac]

But they're not setting it as an aspiration. They're setting it as a doctrine. If they'd said "We prefer this, but we accept on an equal basis those who are not," they'd come across as a prejudiced institution that was willing to set aside its prejudice. Instead, they're willing to set aside their doctrine for some people but not other people. That's what's offensive.

[dewline]

Already noticed the dissonance on this, thank you.

[calimac]

Good, but your comments emphatically did not give the impression that you had.

[wildeabandon]

To be honest I can't disagree, and I don't understand why we are willing to remarry divorcees, but unlike same sex marriage it's not something I feel strongly enough about to have made the effort to understand the reasoning.