"Po-faced Guardianista who takes offence at anything"

You said it, Owen Jones, not me. I probably don't share your opinion on the Royal Family - I treat them as a given, a bit like death or romantic failure - but this article on Prince Philip's latest attempt to displace Jim Davidson as the King of Comedy is weak sauce.

My relationship with The Guardian is not untroubled. I share some of its political opinions, but find it frequently dogmatic and unreflective. Having a column called First Thoughts makes my point. It's a knee-jerk response, not a considered debate.

So, God damn it, thanks for encouraging me to jump to Prince Philip's defence. Sigh.

A quick summary. Some ladies give Phil's wife a cake. He quips

'who do you sponge off?', they laugh, The Metro article hints that Phil's a man of the people for his wit, Owen Jones weaves an argument for Republicanism out of the punchline. 

As Jones notes, Phil the Greek (do they still call him that? It is a bit racist) has form for saying stupid, racist and sexist things at public events. And despite the outrage, he tends to get away with it. The public sighs, mumbles that, well, he's like that, and gets on with worrying about paying the rent. 

Jones makes a telling contrast. 

If you’re Mr or Mrs Normal Citizen and foul your Twitter feed with racism, you’re pretty much inviting a P45. But if you are one of the symbols of the nation, then apparently you have carte blanche scrawled with “Fill your boots and everyone will just chuckle!” Except that wouldn’t be a carte blanche anymore … but you know what I mean.

As it goes, I think Phil ought to be able to wander about saying stupid shit. I also think Mr or Mrs Normal Citizen ought to be allowed to fill their Twitter feed with racism. I also think Owen Jones needs to be there to criticise both sets of behaviour. But this time, I think Phil was not being offensive.

Well, if a senior politician expressed sentiments that aren’t, let’s just say, very favourable to women as a whole, it would be goodbye career. 

Phil didn't do that, though, did he? Jones is ignoring the context. Phil addressed some specific women, who had just baked a cake.

He didn't say 'all women are spongers.' My God, the joke actually sounds as if Phil was playing with the idea of his reputation, challenging his audience to take offence.

Had he been smarter, he could have done a Jimmy Carr face and asked 'too soon?'

My support for freedom of speech is pretty selfish - I want to be able to say what I want - and I hate having to defend Prince Philip, Jim Davidson or Jimmy Carr. I don't like racism, I don't like sexism, and those topics are complicated enough for a lifetime of discussion. I complain against them, not against people's right to express them. 

That is where I am bit less selfish and more principled. I am committed to dialectic as the process for the evolution of human consciousness. In other words, open conversation allows ideas to develop. The expression of racism is an opportunity to challenge racism.

Jones' article has a swipe at Prince Philip, but doesn't recognise the real naughty boy here: the media. You see, if the media choose to ignore Prince Philip, there would be no fuss, no argument. He'd say something dumb, no-one would no, The Daily Mail couldn't chuckle indulgently - and get annoyed by Jones' disloyalty to the monarchy. And Jones could write about something he is good on, like the demonisation of the working classes, instead of acting like a second rate Court Reporter. 

He wouldn't have exposed a few weaknesses in his thinking process, either.

It’s perfectly right to hesitate before criticising a 94-year-old, out of respect for his age. And I think that’s a good point.

Nope. You did bad things, you get called on them. Age is not the point. 

I appreciate Prince Philip must tire of being constantly photographed, which is why there’s a strong case for rotating the position of head of state so that they and their spouse get some respite.

Not really, Owen. It's unclear whether the weakness of an individual can become an argument against the institution itself. I don't like David Cameron, but I am not sure he's evidence that the position of Prime Minister is a bad idea. 

Jones concludes with a fair point: it is better now that ant-racists and feminists and LGBTQ campaigners have discouraged random abuse being flung about on the streets. And for many of Phil's jokes, he is rightly called out. But for a writer of Jones' calibre, an opinion piece on Royal Gaffes is a waste of time: I'd like to see him grapple more often with heavy topics, which he does boldly.

Actually, I use this to think about how I approach things.

If you are feeling too dizzy to do any proper research into semiotics, there is always a laugh to be had on The Guardian website. Today, I shall pompously lecture everyone on why their article on female bishops is yet another example of how fuzzy the liberal brain is getting. 

I say this with a literal fuzzy liberal brain, because I was late picking up a repeat prescription and am experiencing withdrawal from my meds.

1. The Headline
Why female bishops could be the Church of England's saviour

Never mind the bizarre theological implications (I reckon Jesus is still top o' the saviour charts in any Christian organisation): there is a grandiose tone here that rivals any click-bait headline. There is a certainty that the consecration of a female bishop is going to be important - not that it is a long overdue decision. 

2. Reliance on Authority

I am keen on rational argument, and do respect authorities who demonstrate a long term awareness of a particular issue. It is possible that Professor Linda Woodhead is indeed the leading sociologist of religion - a quick look at her biography does back this up - but the article fails to give enough information to back up her position.

“Women will humanise the Church again,” she says, based on the Danish move to allow women bishops in 1995. “People in Denmark say they made all the difference in the world. The men were interested in their clerical politics but the women went back to basics: caring for people, pastoral stuff, healing, things that matter on an everyday basis. That completely transformed the Church and saved it. People saw it still had a crucial role in society, doing things that were needed.”

Okay. I want evidence. Not 'people saw', not 'people say'. I'd take a quotation from one of these people, but how about some numbers? The statistics of people in Denmark attending church in 1994, and then a year later? That might suggest the relevance of the church. Even a few examples of how the church has done something new in the past decade that reflects the 'back to basics' approach. 

3. The Lack of Dialectic

As the comments beneath the article reveal, there are plenty of people who don't think that women bishops will matter - either it's against God, or a last ditch attempt to drag an institution that is fundamentally wrong into the modern age. Some of them even have the same level of anecdotage that Professor Woodhead displays.

(Footnote: I am not dissing the professor here, just the use of her comments by the journalist. She probably did give proper evidence and balanced her argument. It's the writer who turned it into a soundbite.)

Anyway, instead of presenting an optimistic rhetorical routine, the writer could have considered both sides and drawn a conclusion. Like they get taught in English GCSE, eh?

4. The Lack of Knowledge

My theology is a bit haphazard, but I know that the issue of women bishops isn't one of the fundamentals of Christian faith. In a period in which both rationality and scientific method are dominant, theism is a hard sell. So is the concept of a divine being incarnating as human... arguing about whether women can be bishops is like rearranging the deck-chairs on the Titanic. 

Equally, the church tends not to develop ideas according to social mores - although they are an influence. Women bishops are a theological statement about the role of women in spirituality. This is an argument that has been going for a while.

the church's uniform was controversial

(Footnote: The Bible is full of evidence that a more female sympathetic theology did exist, even in the Torah, but it was challenged by a patriarchal movement of priests: the masculine character of the Abrahamic religions is the result of the latter's victory. Possibly. Can someone check this?)

5. Me

I apologise to The Church of England, Cole Morton and Professor Woodhead. My theory that the audience co-creates meaning ensures that I am more guilty in interpreting the text than they are in building the context for my interpretation. As a fuzzy brained liberal, I want to hear that women bishops are a good thing. 

This little list is really a way for me to consider how I write about stuff. And now I have articulated my weaknesses, I impose them on other people. My mother must be so proud of her mud-slinging, dogmatic son. 

My doctor says I ought to stop letting my tablets run out.