You are correct. Some church law is made into the law of the land. Beats the hell out of me what makes for a Measure, which is CoE law that is made into the law of the land by the Crown/Queen (unless Parliament vetos it), verses what makes for Cannon Law, which is CoE law that is not made into the law of the land (although even cannons require Royal assent and licence, albeit without any involvement by Parliament – just the Queen on her own a head of the CoE). Here’s a list of Measuresthat are presently the law of the land. http://www.churchofengland.org/about-us/structure/churchlawlegis/legislation/measures/list.aspx
Thanks, thought you really didn’t need to expend so much energy on the explanation. 
But I’m unclear on the distinction between Cannon Law and Measures. Are Measures everything that is not Canon Law? Are they some type of legislation that involves both the church and secular society? Or what?
Oh damn, I posted this before your last post showed up. So you answered it with one of my favorite answers – “Ugh, I dunno.”
I used to refer to myself sometimes as a foolish cluck.
But often it would come out, er, wrong, and I would be super embarrassed. :eek:
So I stopped using that phrase.
And it looks from your list as if Measures are related to government expenditures on behalf of the church.
Okay, I can buy that.
I’m talking about government, not capital-g Government. An arm of the state works too.
One of the features of Western democracies is an independent judiciary; the fact that the government can’t tell judges what to do doesn’t mean the judiciary isn’t part of the government.
Well, we need not worry about you getting any dumber, since you’re obviously scraping the bottom of the barrel already. I was born and lived in the UK for 15 years, and went to C of E schools for all of that time.
Historically, the C of E has been shaped to keep religion not so much in the hands of the government, but safely out of the hands of the priests. One hundred and fifty years of religious wars leaves you a little gunshy.
That’s not really fair. Lots of them are not child buggerers. They just protected the child buggerers.
If these people want to lecture us on morals, they can bring God and/or Jesus down here as evidence, or produce a list of do nots on a slice of toast or something. Otherwise they should STFU.
You can hand wave and shift goal posts all you like. Your opinions are still idiotic. Even more so if you are English.
And no - independent judiciaries are not in any meaninful sense, part of the government either. Arms of the state, to accept your rapidly shifted goalposts, by definition do the bidding of, are under the control of.
There is not any meaningful way you can say the C of E is an arm of the state. Show me how the C of E is regularly used as a tool of the state to enforce its will? Show me the government of the day whipping the votes of bishops in the Lords.
Then demonstrate how your examples somehow overwhelm the countless times the bishops in the lords oppose the government, the endless criticism over decades by the church over government economic and social policy.
Arm of the state means it is an agent of the state - a tool. Unless you’re now going to redefine ‘arm’ to mean ‘has some loose ceremonial connection with’.
And I’ll match you C oE education and raise you a few decades.
Adult decades living in the country.
From tagos’s link:
Because God knows they do enjoy an attractive child…
You are aware that link is satire, right?
According to my politics A level, government is comprised of the judiciary, the executive and the legislature (so an independent judiciary is still a branch of government). Senior Church of England members sit in the House of Lords and are thus part of government in that sense. Until recently the law lords sat in the House of Lords too, but Labour instituted a Supreme Court for them.
The Queen is also the head of state, head of the army and head of the Church, but those are largely perfunctory roles. I think a much more interesting method for filling seats in a second chamber would be either random sampling similar to jury duty with short terms (and access to the same aides that current Lords get) or perhaps stratified sampling based on profession or demographics. That said, I’m insane enough to believe in democracy.
As for OP: the RCC should stick to natural law arguments. Pretty much every any other strategy is amenable to disproof and usually wrong as its uttered. Just look at Laura Ingraham for example - should she send her children back since she’s depriving them of a father?
Are you familiar with the common phrase in the US – “the three branches of government”. Respectively – the executive branch, the legislative branch, and the judiciary branch.
Of course the judiciary is an arm of government. To claim it’s not is idiotic. And it IS under the control of government – it is under control of the judiciary branch of government. Judges are government employees. Federal judges are appointed, state and local judges may be elected and appointed – in the very same elections where every other elected official is chosen.
I’m not “shifting the goal posts”. I said government to begin with; I am clarifying because you and others read it as Government. If you don’t think the judiciary is part of the government, then… well, you’re wrong. Sorry.
Is that all you think a government does? “Enforce its will”?
Every now and then someone posts something so far off the wall that there’s no point in arguing it.
Oh, my goodness, how vigorously I disagree! 
No you don’t.
I see that the head of the P&P League (Pedophile and Pederast League) has come out against the move toward same sex marriage in US states. Why does this not suprise me?
Well, of course. Large numbers of gay marriages might eventually result in fewer children for priests to abuse.
I’m baffled by something in the middle of that article. In it, Timothy Cardinal Dolan is said to have sent a letter to Obama saying that “this policy” could precipitate a massive battle between church and state, but the “policy” mentioned is not supporting a same-sex marriage ban.
Which we don’t have. So how can this policy drive any such battle?