<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Council of General Synod tries to pull a fast one</title>
	<atom:link href="http://magicstatistics.com/2007/03/13/council-of-general-synod-tries-to-pull-a-fast-one/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://magicstatistics.com/2007/03/13/council-of-general-synod-tries-to-pull-a-fast-one/</link>
	<description>"I accept no responsibility for statistics, which are a form of magic beyond my comprehension." -- Robertson Davies</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 13 Dec 2008 07:05:30 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Magic Statistics - &#8220;I accept no responsibility for statistics, which are a form of magic beyond my comprehension.&#8221; &#8212; Robertson Davies &#187; SSBs consistent with doctrine, but not allowed anyway</title>
		<link>http://magicstatistics.com/2007/03/13/council-of-general-synod-tries-to-pull-a-fast-one/comment-page-1/#comment-17573</link>
		<dc:creator>Magic Statistics - &#8220;I accept no responsibility for statistics, which are a form of magic beyond my comprehension.&#8221; &#8212; Robertson Davies &#187; SSBs consistent with doctrine, but not allowed anyway</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 25 Jun 2007 00:26:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://magicstatistics.com/2007/03/13/council-of-general-synod-tries-to-pull-a-fast-one/#comment-17573</guid>
		<description>[...] As a result of today&#8217;s decisions, I think there will be a serious loss of trust between Canadian Anglicans who oppose SSBs and those who approve them.&#160; Council of General Synod presented the motions along with a concocted 60% majority requirement.&#160; These came to the floor of General Synod as three separate motions, with the artificial majority requirement being voted on first.&#160; Once that was disposed of, the stage was set for approval of SSBs with the bar set at 50% + 1.&#160; The whole scenario smacks of low cunning and dirty tricks. [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] As a result of today&rsquo;s decisions, I think there will be a serious loss of trust between Canadian Anglicans who oppose SSBs and those who approve them.&nbsp; Council of General Synod presented the motions along with a concocted 60% majority requirement.&nbsp; These came to the floor of General Synod as three separate motions, with the artificial majority requirement being voted on first.&nbsp; Once that was disposed of, the stage was set for approval of SSBs with the bar set at 50% + 1.&nbsp; The whole scenario smacks of low cunning and dirty tricks. [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Magic Statistics - &#8220;I accept no responsibility for statistics, which are a form of magic beyond my comprehension.&#8221; &#8212; Robertson Davies &#187; Anglican Church of Canada lowers the bar for same-sex blessings</title>
		<link>http://magicstatistics.com/2007/03/13/council-of-general-synod-tries-to-pull-a-fast-one/comment-page-1/#comment-17551</link>
		<dc:creator>Magic Statistics - &#8220;I accept no responsibility for statistics, which are a form of magic beyond my comprehension.&#8221; &#8212; Robertson Davies &#187; Anglican Church of Canada lowers the bar for same-sex blessings</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 24 Jun 2007 04:12:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://magicstatistics.com/2007/03/13/council-of-general-synod-tries-to-pull-a-fast-one/#comment-17551</guid>
		<description>[...] A185 specifies that the other two motions must be passed by 60% majorities in each of the two orders&#8212;bishops and clergy/laity&#8211;as well as by 60% of the dioceses.&#160; As I blogged in March when CoGS announced the motions, the 60% figure was pulled out of a hat.&#160; It has no logical basis or historical precedent.&#160; The most obvious interpretation of the 60% rule is that it attempts to soften the blow of dispensing with the more usual requirement of 2/3 majorities in two consecutive synods&#8212;in other words, a sop to SSB opponents. [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] A185 specifies that the other two motions must be passed by 60% majorities in each of the two orders&#8212;bishops and clergy/laity&#8211;as well as by 60% of the dioceses.&nbsp; As I blogged in March when CoGS announced the motions, the 60% figure was pulled out of a hat.&nbsp; It has no logical basis or historical precedent.&nbsp; The most obvious interpretation of the 60% rule is that it attempts to soften the blow of dispensing with the more usual requirement of 2/3 majorities in two consecutive synods&#8212;in other words, a sop to SSB opponents. [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Magic Statistics - &#8220;I accept no responsibility for statistics, which are a form of magic beyond my comprehension.&#8221; &#8212; Robertson Davies &#187; General Synod 2007 about to begin</title>
		<link>http://magicstatistics.com/2007/03/13/council-of-general-synod-tries-to-pull-a-fast-one/comment-page-1/#comment-17376</link>
		<dc:creator>Magic Statistics - &#8220;I accept no responsibility for statistics, which are a form of magic beyond my comprehension.&#8221; &#8212; Robertson Davies &#187; General Synod 2007 about to begin</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 18 Jun 2007 01:42:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://magicstatistics.com/2007/03/13/council-of-general-synod-tries-to-pull-a-fast-one/#comment-17376</guid>
		<description>[...] You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.           Leave aReply [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.           Leave aReply [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Magic Statistics - &#8220;I accept no responsibility for statistics, which are a form of magic beyond my comprehension.&#8221; &#8212; Robertson Davies &#187; You profess Chalcedon or you take a beatin&#8217;</title>
		<link>http://magicstatistics.com/2007/03/13/council-of-general-synod-tries-to-pull-a-fast-one/comment-page-1/#comment-16209</link>
		<dc:creator>Magic Statistics - &#8220;I accept no responsibility for statistics, which are a form of magic beyond my comprehension.&#8221; &#8212; Robertson Davies &#187; You profess Chalcedon or you take a beatin&#8217;</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 13 May 2007 04:14:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://magicstatistics.com/2007/03/13/council-of-general-synod-tries-to-pull-a-fast-one/#comment-16209</guid>
		<description>[...] Think we can hire Deacon Payne to work the upcoming General Synod of the Anglican Church of Canada? [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Think we can hire Deacon Payne to work the upcoming General Synod of the Anglican Church of Canada? [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Magic Statistics - &#8220;I accept no responsibility for statistics, which are a form of magic beyond my comprehension.&#8221; &#8212; Robertson Davies &#187; Yukon Diocesan Synod passes resolution on same-sex blessings</title>
		<link>http://magicstatistics.com/2007/03/13/council-of-general-synod-tries-to-pull-a-fast-one/comment-page-1/#comment-16135</link>
		<dc:creator>Magic Statistics - &#8220;I accept no responsibility for statistics, which are a form of magic beyond my comprehension.&#8221; &#8212; Robertson Davies &#187; Yukon Diocesan Synod passes resolution on same-sex blessings</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 11 May 2007 04:40:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://magicstatistics.com/2007/03/13/council-of-general-synod-tries-to-pull-a-fast-one/#comment-16135</guid>
		<description>[...] You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.           Leave aReply [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.           Leave aReply [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Magic Statistics - &#8220;I accept no responsibility for statistics, which are a form of magic beyond my comprehension.&#8221; &#8212; Robertson Davies &#187; Canadian Anglican leaders urge caution on motions to accept same-sex blessings</title>
		<link>http://magicstatistics.com/2007/03/13/council-of-general-synod-tries-to-pull-a-fast-one/comment-page-1/#comment-15408</link>
		<dc:creator>Magic Statistics - &#8220;I accept no responsibility for statistics, which are a form of magic beyond my comprehension.&#8221; &#8212; Robertson Davies &#187; Canadian Anglican leaders urge caution on motions to accept same-sex blessings</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 15 Apr 2007 04:32:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://magicstatistics.com/2007/03/13/council-of-general-synod-tries-to-pull-a-fast-one/#comment-15408</guid>
		<description>[...] You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.           Leave aReply [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.           Leave aReply [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Magic Statistics - &#8220;I accept no responsibility for statistics, which are a form of magic beyond my comprehension.&#8221; &#8212; Robertson Davies &#187; Globe and Mail catches up with Archbishop Andrew</title>
		<link>http://magicstatistics.com/2007/03/13/council-of-general-synod-tries-to-pull-a-fast-one/comment-page-1/#comment-15352</link>
		<dc:creator>Magic Statistics - &#8220;I accept no responsibility for statistics, which are a form of magic beyond my comprehension.&#8221; &#8212; Robertson Davies &#187; Globe and Mail catches up with Archbishop Andrew</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 13 Apr 2007 03:14:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://magicstatistics.com/2007/03/13/council-of-general-synod-tries-to-pull-a-fast-one/#comment-15352</guid>
		<description>[...] Actions by the Diocese of New Westminster have played a leading role in bringing the Communion to the point of schism; and, if the Anglican Church of Canada passes the motions recommended by Council of General Synod, it could well get the bum&#8217;s rush be shown the door at the next primates&#8217; meeting. [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Actions by the Diocese of New Westminster have played a leading role in bringing the Communion to the point of schism; and, if the Anglican Church of Canada passes the motions recommended by Council of General Synod, it could well get the bum&rsquo;s rush be shown the door at the next primates&rsquo; meeting. [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Magic Statistics - &#8220;I accept no responsibility for statistics, which are a form of magic beyond my comprehension.&#8221; &#8212; Robertson Davies &#187; In the Anglican Church of Canada, other means orthodox</title>
		<link>http://magicstatistics.com/2007/03/13/council-of-general-synod-tries-to-pull-a-fast-one/comment-page-1/#comment-14736</link>
		<dc:creator>Magic Statistics - &#8220;I accept no responsibility for statistics, which are a form of magic beyond my comprehension.&#8221; &#8212; Robertson Davies &#187; In the Anglican Church of Canada, other means orthodox</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 21 Mar 2007 04:30:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://magicstatistics.com/2007/03/13/council-of-general-synod-tries-to-pull-a-fast-one/#comment-14736</guid>
		<description>[...] Council of General Synod tries to pull a fast one [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Council of General Synod tries to pull a fast one [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: StatGuy</title>
		<link>http://magicstatistics.com/2007/03/13/council-of-general-synod-tries-to-pull-a-fast-one/comment-page-1/#comment-14701</link>
		<dc:creator>StatGuy</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 20 Mar 2007 00:26:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://magicstatistics.com/2007/03/13/council-of-general-synod-tries-to-pull-a-fast-one/#comment-14701</guid>
		<description>Jim,

So, General Synod can do whatever the heck it wants.  Why bother having a Handbook?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Jim,</p>
<p>So, General Synod can do whatever the heck it wants.  Why bother having a Handbook?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jim</title>
		<link>http://magicstatistics.com/2007/03/13/council-of-general-synod-tries-to-pull-a-fast-one/comment-page-1/#comment-14691</link>
		<dc:creator>Jim</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 19 Mar 2007 14:00:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://magicstatistics.com/2007/03/13/council-of-general-synod-tries-to-pull-a-fast-one/#comment-14691</guid>
		<description>It&#039;s far from a fast one.

Synod already has on the table the deferred resolution from 2004 (#4 from the CoGS report).  The Primate&#039;s Theological Commission has reported that the issue is a matter of doctrine, but adiaphora.  A lot of people ASSUMED, when the St. Michael Report came out, that its conclusion required an amendment to Canon XXI or creation of a new canon on SSBs.  But nowhere does the report say this.  Indeed, a lot of other doctrinal issues (such as holy orders) are not covered in the canons.  A canonical amendment would only be required to allow the marriage of same-sex couples (the process which would be set in motion by #5).

The 60% standard is totally made-up.  But, I suspect the justification is, as Bishop Ingram imposed in New Westminster, that such a change should be supported by a substantial majority rather than just bare majority.  That standard will come before Synod as a motion to suspend the rules of Synod, for the purposes of these resolutions, to require 60% rather than 50%+1 for passage.  As I read the rule of procedure, that motion (not subject to debate) would require a 2/3rds vote.  If it fails, the SSB questions would then require only 50%+1 to pass.

Based on voting and sentiment at GS2004 (assuming no major changes in the composition of delegations), at 50% the resolution will pass.  At 60%, it could go either way, especially among the Bishops.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It&#8217;s far from a fast one.</p>
<p>Synod already has on the table the deferred resolution from 2004 (#4 from the CoGS report).  The Primate&#8217;s Theological Commission has reported that the issue is a matter of doctrine, but adiaphora.  A lot of people ASSUMED, when the St. Michael Report came out, that its conclusion required an amendment to Canon XXI or creation of a new canon on SSBs.  But nowhere does the report say this.  Indeed, a lot of other doctrinal issues (such as holy orders) are not covered in the canons.  A canonical amendment would only be required to allow the marriage of same-sex couples (the process which would be set in motion by #5).</p>
<p>The 60% standard is totally made-up.  But, I suspect the justification is, as Bishop Ingram imposed in New Westminster, that such a change should be supported by a substantial majority rather than just bare majority.  That standard will come before Synod as a motion to suspend the rules of Synod, for the purposes of these resolutions, to require 60% rather than 50%+1 for passage.  As I read the rule of procedure, that motion (not subject to debate) would require a 2/3rds vote.  If it fails, the SSB questions would then require only 50%+1 to pass.</p>
<p>Based on voting and sentiment at GS2004 (assuming no major changes in the composition of delegations), at 50% the resolution will pass.  At 60%, it could go either way, especially among the Bishops.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: MattO</title>
		<link>http://magicstatistics.com/2007/03/13/council-of-general-synod-tries-to-pull-a-fast-one/comment-page-1/#comment-14538</link>
		<dc:creator>MattO</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 16 Mar 2007 15:56:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://magicstatistics.com/2007/03/13/council-of-general-synod-tries-to-pull-a-fast-one/#comment-14538</guid>
		<description>...and that is exactly what they&#039;ve done.  Check out the complete list of resolutions and find out where the missing resolution 4 fits in: http://www.anglican.ca/news/news.php?newsItem=2007-03-16_cogs.news</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8230;and that is exactly what they&#8217;ve done.  Check out the complete list of resolutions and find out where the missing resolution 4 fits in: <a href="http://www.anglican.ca/news/news.php?newsItem=2007-03-16_cogs.news" rel="nofollow">http://www.anglican.ca/news/news.php?newsItem=2007-03-16_cogs.news</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: MattO</title>
		<link>http://magicstatistics.com/2007/03/13/council-of-general-synod-tries-to-pull-a-fast-one/comment-page-1/#comment-14525</link>
		<dc:creator>MattO</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 16 Mar 2007 03:33:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://magicstatistics.com/2007/03/13/council-of-general-synod-tries-to-pull-a-fast-one/#comment-14525</guid>
		<description>I think they would tell you that &#039;no canons will be harmed in the passing of these resolutions&#039;.  What COGS is proposing is a sneaky end run around the intent of the canons.

The whole thing is a sham.  However, these resolutions were introduced by a lawyer who drafted them to be &#039;legal&#039;.  There is enough interpretation room in our canons that all those motions could be passed, and would be binding.

Note there is no overt motion to change canons, only to pass a simple (nonsense) statement about consistency with core doctrine.  Setting the 60% limit is within their authority (Synod can establish a higher bar through a vote, just not a lower bar).  A legislative body receiving a report is under no obligation to adopt any of the conclusions of that report (stupid, but permitted).

The real mission out of COGS is to set Synod up to pass the local option resolution (deferred from 2004).</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I think they would tell you that &#8216;no canons will be harmed in the passing of these resolutions&#8217;.  What COGS is proposing is a sneaky end run around the intent of the canons.</p>
<p>The whole thing is a sham.  However, these resolutions were introduced by a lawyer who drafted them to be &#8216;legal&#8217;.  There is enough interpretation room in our canons that all those motions could be passed, and would be binding.</p>
<p>Note there is no overt motion to change canons, only to pass a simple (nonsense) statement about consistency with core doctrine.  Setting the 60% limit is within their authority (Synod can establish a higher bar through a vote, just not a lower bar).  A legislative body receiving a report is under no obligation to adopt any of the conclusions of that report (stupid, but permitted).</p>
<p>The real mission out of COGS is to set Synod up to pass the local option resolution (deferred from 2004).</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
