Church-backed bid for RBS arm could herald creation of ethical bank

The clear implication here is that anything backed by the CoE must enjoy a boost in ethical credibility. I bank with the Co-operative bank, a bank that has an ethical policy that it maintains by not investing in unethical activities or engaging in unethical practices. It is not considered ethical through association with a 3rd party organisation.

Does anyone think that this is fair, that anything backed by the CoE must automatically be assumed to be more ethical? Has the CoE really earned that and on what grounds can they claim to be an ethical organisation? Are we simply granting a religion the respect that it does not automatically deserve here?

Quoting from the next paragraph:

This doesn't seem like it's just an "automatic assumption" that a CoE banking venture would be ethical, but an observation based on the existence of its 'Ethical Investment Advisory Group'.

From the EIAG website:

There might be an argument that some of it's policies are bad, but you can't maintain the argument that it is only considered ethical because of its religious connection; it is considered ethical for the exact same reason that the Co-op is considered ethical.

Shucks, Google is disqualified.

^well they have arrived in the real world, apparently though. (3% is infinitely more than 0%, ldo)

I wonder how they arrived at that figure.

I see what you're saying but when it's phrased such that decisions made by church commissioners will be made"taking into account the advice of the Church of England's Ethical Investment Advisory Group" rather than, decision being made by the Church of England's Ethical Investment Advisory Group, isn't there an assumption being made that any decision made by the CoE will be ethical, because it's the CoE? Will consumers feel any skepticism and hope that regulators check the CoE as closely as they would any investment company?

When you read about this, were your feelings at all influenced by the fact that it's a CoE venture rather than an investment company that you'd never heard of but that aren't a religious organisation?

Yes, curious isn't it. 4% would be unacceptable then?

I think the intent by the Church is to run it in a way they deem ethical over profitable.

It does amuse me that the implication is that all other banks are unethical.

But if you want an example of a seeming assumption that being of the Church makes you ethical and trustworthy, then you should've gone with Bishops in Lords.

Probably.

I did think about quietly slinking away from this thread and hoping it just died but I'd rather be honest and admit that even I can see how weak ass this is.

</myinvolvementinmythread>

....unless it kickstarts a more general conversation about religion and respect in which case it's unlikely I'll be able to stop myself returning to the scene of the crime.

Let's use this as a segue into why our country deems it fit to have members of a specific religion in its parliament.

The same country that's still officially ruled by hereditary tax-leeches you mean?

Yes, that one.

Fine with me.

I did notice yesterday while completing a form related to our mortgage, and that needed to be witnessed, that the list of acceptable witnesses included a 'Minister of a recognised religion'.

Why? Are they somehow more trustworthy than a member of the public? Is their judgement more sound?

The Vatican Bank seems to have ethical issues.

http://www.euronews.com/2013/06/28/t...-bank-scandal/

I'm not a big fan of the CoE but over the years they have shown themselves infinitely better to the Vatican.

I'm pretty certain that "Minister of a recognised religion" was one of a LONG list of other things. For example, consider this list:

https://www.gov.uk/countersigning-passport-applications

If you would just open your mind a tiny amount, you just might learn something. Maybe.

Photographer (pro) and Travel Agent stand out much more than a church minister. Travel agent at least interacts with the community I suppose (or used to), but ... photographer?!

Make no mistake, qualified travel agent! The unqualified ones - we wouldn't take their word for anything. (But I echo Aarons sentiments - the tunnel vision is pretty tiring at times.)

The nature of the list makes me suspect it was drawn up many years ago and either never revised or only ever added to.

Seems really strange that GP isn't on there considering they were one of only 3 or 4 groups I knew could sign my passport application along with Justice of the Peace magistrate or a minister.

If I knew I could get the pub licensee to sign it.

That *NEVER* happens in government work!

Well the list isn't meant to be exhaustive.

It's just a long list of the type of person respectable enough to counter-sign.

I think I had a vet sign mine.

Proof!

What worries me about Ministers is that in the event that they are wrong about what they believe, then their judgement is far from sound and they're actually quite deluded (in the lay use of the word). Since we can't know whether they're right, I would leave them off the list simply through the use of Pascal's wager logic. Safer to leave them off.

So that's ridiculous.