9 ms·

This article more or less describes what a police state would look like if the Church of England designed it. A controlled, plasticised, corporate Little Englan

This article more or less describes what a police state would look like if the Church of England designed it. A controlled, plasticised, corporate Little England, where fun is monitored and must be of an approved nature, freedom of expression is allowed as long as you don't express anything disagreeable, and the public have no democratic rights at all. Yet another small, sad indicator that control over the lives of Londoners and the spaces they live in is for sale to anyone with the money to buy it. “A private place operating as a public space” is not what I want to have on London's limited real estate.

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
striking 11y ago
I think soon enough, citizens of England will realize there's a problem. I don't think they can take this concept to its logical conclusion.
Doctor_Fegg 11y ago
I don't get your Church of England reference. I'm a communicant member of a liberal CofE church and these restrictions would be anathema to me and to most of our church's congregation. Indeed, I "play a [rather loud] musical instrument" for the church every week...
- TomGullen 11y ago
  When you say liberal, do you mean liberal but still will not do gay marriages?
  - alexro 11y ago
    It doesn't make sense to call gay partnership a marriage. Marriage is a strictly defined cultural phenomenon meaning a relationship between a man and a woman with the original intention to continue the family by having kids.
    - task_queue 11y ago
      It's a good thing language and society are fluid despite being held back by people who are unchanging in opinion or operate on religious zeal. The function and intention of marriage has changed through time and locality. To pick a singular aspect of a complex social construct and use that to base its purpose and definition on is myopic.
      - alexro 11y ago
        So who is picking up one aspect of the complex relationship here? If I get together with an AI in the future you'll call it marriage too?
        task_queue 11y ago
        > So who is picking up one aspect of the complex relationship here? Who is making it hard to believe you're arguing in good faith here? You've consistently harped on a reductionist definition of marriage in this thread. >If I get together with an AI in the future you'll call it marriage too? Personally, I truly do not care what you call it. If they're able to give consent and you can find a place to have wedding, good for you. If the law wants to respect it, congratulations.
        alexro 11y ago
        That's the problem - your abstraction is leaking, whereas the man/woman/kids abstraction of the marriage is not.
        mrgoldenbrown 11y ago
        Of course the man/woman/kids abstraction leaks - many cultures use marriage to describe the legal union of old people, infertile people, and people who just plain don't want to have kids.
        11y ago
  - Doctor_Fegg 11y ago
    I don't know: I'm not aware we've ever been asked. My guess is that our church would if we were allowed to, but that the diocese and Lambeth Palace would overrule it. I do know that [family member], who is gay and married, has said that she feels welcomed in our church and that she wishes she'd had one like it to support her when she came out.
    - TomGullen 11y ago
      One of my good friends is a CoE Vicar, but I do really struggle with the fact the organisation in some aspects is really backwards. It's one of the only institutions I can think of that seems to be allowed to openly discriminate against homosexuals and until more recently women in some regards as well. I hope you didn't take my comment as me jumping on you, I'm just curious because I don't think I could call any church in the CoE liberal when the leadership are so conservative.
  - mattkevan 11y ago
    Liberal generally means in support of gay marriage. I'm a member of a liberal church and we're very much in support of it. The beautiful thing about the Church of England is that it includes a wide spectrum of opinion and tradition, from high church (smells'n'bells) to scruffy low church, from liberal to conservative, left and right). I don't agree with everything, but it's a great space for people with different backgrounds and opinion to mix and learn from each other. It can be very radical in a quiet, British, socks-and-sandals sort of way. Ha! Didn't think I'd be writing about the CofE on HN!
Wintamute 11y ago
I find your comment somewhat alarmist, and lacking historical context. The City of London (from which the Temple end of the Garden Bridge starts) is many many hundreds of years older than the UK itself, and has always been privately owned and governed by shadowy, corporate and arcane processes. Traditionally even the Queen is not allowed to enter the City of London without the say-so of the Lord Mayor. This "private place operating as a public space" has been operating for centuries and stewarded the emergence of London as a leading global financial centre and until recently capital of the largest Empire the world has ever seen. I admit it's reasonable to debate the pros and cons of private ownership of public spaces in city centres, but my point is that in this case The City of London is both historically unique and important, and by many measures been a huge success for the host nation. Informative/fun video on the subject: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LrObZ_HZZUc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LrObZ_HZZUc
- jarek 11y ago
  The bridge is a particularly contentious subject since it's funded by tens of millions of pounds of public money. If The City wants an independent bridge, surely it shouldn't be a problem to stump 40 million rather than asking TfL as if this was a major transport project. Though yes, all the fuss is slightly ironic in the city where most central greenspaces are property of Royal Parks.
- pjc50 11y ago
  privately owned I think that's also misleading; it's not a 'corporation'=='limited liability company with shares'. It's not a "capitalist" institution, it's a pre-capitalist feudal institution that predates the LLC by centuries. It's an elected local body with an unusual electorate.
  - scholia 11y ago
    The bridge (if built) will be owned by a charitable trust, and government funding covers roughly one third of the projected cost.
- jsingleton 11y ago
arethuza 11y ago
I think you're being a bit harsh about the C of E - as a Scot they seemed to be a rather friendly organisation untroubled with strong beliefs, particularly about the "God" thing. However, the Church of Scotland - at least how I remember it from my youth, now there was an organisation dedicated to the eradication of passion and joy from the world.
- lucozade 11y ago
  I see your Church of Scotland and raise you a Free Church of Scotland. I wasn't a member (my girlfriend was) and I haven't attended a meeting in the last 20 years. But I was still shocked when they (grudgingly) allowed hymn singing in 2010. Having said that, the garden bridge sounds more like a CofE-esque police state that a Free Church police state. I mean, it'll probably allow flowers and papists and all sorts.
  - arethuza 11y ago
    I grew up in a wee Scottish village that had a population of barely a thousand and had (when I was a kid) six heavily attended churches of various denominations of which, I have to admit, the Church of Scotland was the most light hearted in its own miserable and dour way. Edit: I'm pretty sure we had Wee Frees and Wee Wee Frees. Edit2: I'm pretty sure "church" isn't the right word...

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

striking 11y ago

I think soon enough, citizens of England will realize there's a problem. I don't think they can take this concept to its logical conclusion.

Doctor_Fegg 11y ago

I don't get your Church of England reference. I'm a communicant member of a liberal CofE church and these restrictions would be anathema to me and to most of our church's congregation. Indeed, I "play a [rather loud] musical instrument" for the church every week...

TomGullen 11y ago
When you say liberal, do you mean liberal but still will not do gay marriages?
- alexro 11y ago
  It doesn't make sense to call gay partnership a marriage. Marriage is a strictly defined cultural phenomenon meaning a relationship between a man and a woman with the original intention to continue the family by having kids.
  - task_queue 11y ago
    It's a good thing language and society are fluid despite being held back by people who are unchanging in opinion or operate on religious zeal. The function and intention of marriage has changed through time and locality. To pick a singular aspect of a complex social construct and use that to base its purpose and definition on is myopic.
    - alexro 11y ago
      So who is picking up one aspect of the complex relationship here? If I get together with an AI in the future you'll call it marriage too?
      - task_queue 11y ago
        > So who is picking up one aspect of the complex relationship here? Who is making it hard to believe you're arguing in good faith here? You've consistently harped on a reductionist definition of marriage in this thread. >If I get together with an AI in the future you'll call it marriage too? Personally, I truly do not care what you call it. If they're able to give consent and you can find a place to have wedding, good for you. If the law wants to respect it, congratulations.
        alexro 11y ago
        That's the problem - your abstraction is leaking, whereas the man/woman/kids abstraction of the marriage is not.
        mrgoldenbrown 11y ago
        Of course the man/woman/kids abstraction leaks - many cultures use marriage to describe the legal union of old people, infertile people, and people who just plain don't want to have kids.
        11y ago
- Doctor_Fegg 11y ago
  I don't know: I'm not aware we've ever been asked. My guess is that our church would if we were allowed to, but that the diocese and Lambeth Palace would overrule it. I do know that [family member], who is gay and married, has said that she feels welcomed in our church and that she wishes she'd had one like it to support her when she came out.
  - TomGullen 11y ago
    One of my good friends is a CoE Vicar, but I do really struggle with the fact the organisation in some aspects is really backwards. It's one of the only institutions I can think of that seems to be allowed to openly discriminate against homosexuals and until more recently women in some regards as well. I hope you didn't take my comment as me jumping on you, I'm just curious because I don't think I could call any church in the CoE liberal when the leadership are so conservative.
- mattkevan 11y ago
  Liberal generally means in support of gay marriage. I'm a member of a liberal church and we're very much in support of it. The beautiful thing about the Church of England is that it includes a wide spectrum of opinion and tradition, from high church (smells'n'bells) to scruffy low church, from liberal to conservative, left and right). I don't agree with everything, but it's a great space for people with different backgrounds and opinion to mix and learn from each other. It can be very radical in a quiet, British, socks-and-sandals sort of way. Ha! Didn't think I'd be writing about the CofE on HN!

Wintamute 11y ago

I find your comment somewhat alarmist, and lacking historical context. The City of London (from which the Temple end of the Garden Bridge starts) is many many hundreds of years older than the UK itself, and has always been privately owned and governed by shadowy, corporate and arcane processes. Traditionally even the Queen is not allowed to enter the City of London without the say-so of the Lord Mayor. This "private place operating as a public space" has been operating for centuries and stewarded the emergence of London as a leading global financial centre and until recently capital of the largest Empire the world has ever seen. I admit it's reasonable to debate the pros and cons of private ownership of public spaces in city centres, but my point is that in this case The City of London is both historically unique and important, and by many measures been a huge success for the host nation. Informative/fun video on the subject: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LrObZ_HZZUc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LrObZ_HZZUc

jarek 11y ago
The bridge is a particularly contentious subject since it's funded by tens of millions of pounds of public money. If The City wants an independent bridge, surely it shouldn't be a problem to stump 40 million rather than asking TfL as if this was a major transport project. Though yes, all the fuss is slightly ironic in the city where most central greenspaces are property of Royal Parks.
pjc50 11y ago
privately owned I think that's also misleading; it's not a 'corporation'=='limited liability company with shares'. It's not a "capitalist" institution, it's a pre-capitalist feudal institution that predates the LLC by centuries. It's an elected local body with an unusual electorate.
- scholia 11y ago
  The bridge (if built) will be owned by a charitable trust, and government funding covers roughly one third of the projected cost.
jsingleton 11y ago

arethuza 11y ago

I think you're being a bit harsh about the C of E - as a Scot they seemed to be a rather friendly organisation untroubled with strong beliefs, particularly about the "God" thing. However, the Church of Scotland - at least how I remember it from my youth, now there was an organisation dedicated to the eradication of passion and joy from the world.

lucozade 11y ago
I see your Church of Scotland and raise you a Free Church of Scotland. I wasn't a member (my girlfriend was) and I haven't attended a meeting in the last 20 years. But I was still shocked when they (grudgingly) allowed hymn singing in 2010. Having said that, the garden bridge sounds more like a CofE-esque police state that a Free Church police state. I mean, it'll probably allow flowers and papists and all sorts.
- arethuza 11y ago
  I grew up in a wee Scottish village that had a population of barely a thousand and had (when I was a kid) six heavily attended churches of various denominations of which, I have to admit, the Church of Scotland was the most light hearted in its own miserable and dour way. Edit: I'm pretty sure we had Wee Frees and Wee Wee Frees. Edit2: I'm pretty sure "church" isn't the right word...