Religion and Ethics Forum
Religion and Ethics Discussion => Christian Topic => Topic started by: Alan Burns on January 25, 2022, 11:02:56 PM
-
Just wanted to share this quote from Dwight Longenecker - an apt observation on our increasingly secular society:
First we overlook evil. Then we permit evil. Then we legalize evil. Then we promote evil. Then we celebrate evil. Then we persecute those who still call it evil.
-
Just wanted to share this quote from Dwight Longenecker - an apt observation on our increasingly secular society:
First we overlook evil. Then we permit evil. Then we legalize evil. Then we promote evil. Then we celebrate evil. Then we persecute those who still call it evil.
https://thehill.com/policy/international/europe/590544-investigators-say-pope-benedict-knew-about-abused-children-while
-
https://thehill.com/policy/international/europe/590544-investigators-say-pope-benedict-knew-about-abused-children-while
You seem to be proceeding from the assumption that
when he talks about "we" he excludes the pope. Surely we is everyone. Unless you think there are groups who are "evil free".
-
You seem to be proceeding from the assumption that
when he talks about "we" he excludes the pope. Surely we is everyone. Unless you think there are groups who are "evil free".
I'll await Alan to tell me that he thinks Ratzinger is part of what he sees as evil.
-
Just wanted to share this quote from Dwight Longenecker - an apt observation on our increasingly secular society:
First we overlook evil. Then we permit evil. Then we legalize evil. Then we promote evil. Then we celebrate evil. Then we persecute those who still call it evil.
This reads like a deepity to me: aside from the subjective assessment of what constitutes 'evil', and ignoring natural disasters, the term 'we' is ambiguous. The current situation in America where some of 'we' see abortion as 'evil' to the extent that they are trying to use legal means to effectively ban it, whereas others of 'we' see these attempts to effectively ban abortion as being 'evil'.
So it seems to me your quote can have more than one interpretation - which is classic deepity territory.
-
Agree with Gordon on this.
Before I can come to any conclusion on this I'd like to see what Alan thinks is "evil".
I'll then compare it against my idea of evil and see if it fits.
It all sounds like a bit of mewl from somebody who is not allowed to follow their particular form of persecution.
-
Agree with Gordon on this.
Before I can come to any conclusion on this I'd like to see what Alan thinks is "evil".
I'll then compare it against my idea of evil and see if it fits.
It all sounds like a bit of mewl from somebody who is not allowed to follow their particular form of persecution.
Matthew 7:11
-
Matthew 7:11
Thank you for that. Nice to read.
I was asking for what Alan thought was evil. As he was quoting a Catholic priest rather than the Bible I'll wait for his reply.
-
Just wanted to share this quote from Dwight Longenecker - an apt observation on our increasingly secular society:
First we overlook evil. Then we permit evil. Then we legalize evil. Then we promote evil. Then we celebrate evil. Then we persecute those who still call it evil.
As you seem to have linked evil with an "our increasingly secular society" are you trying to say the same thing would not apply to an increasingly religious society, despite all the evidence of evil done in the name of religious practices? When we see religion practised in society I would say the same apt observation applies.
Based on what we have seen throughout history, an apt observation on an increasingly religious society would be:
First we overlook evil. Then we permit evil. Then we legalize evil. Then we promote evil. Then we celebrate evil. Then we persecute those who still call it evil.
-
Just wanted to share this quote from Dwight Longenecker - an apt observation on our increasingly secular society:
Society?
Are you referring to the UK or something else?
-
It all depends on whether you see the world through God's eyes or though the Devil's eyes.
The great deceiver is convincing people that:
Killing babies in their own mother's womb is a matter of choice
It is OK to permanently mutilate a young person in the cause of gender ideology
There is no such thing as evil
Human free will is an illusion
The human soul does not exist
There is no God
There is no heaven
One day the veils of deception will be removed and we will see the truth, but will it be too late?
-
As you seem to have linked evil with an "our increasingly secular society" are you trying to say the same thing would not apply to an increasingly religious society, despite all the evidence of evil done in the name of religious practices? When we see religion practised in society I would say the same apt observation applies.
Based on what we have seen throughout history, an apt observation on an increasingly religious society would be:
First we overlook evil. Then we permit evil. Then we legalize evil. Then we promote evil. Then we celebrate evil. Then we persecute those who still call it evil.
I possibly agree with Alan in the sense that we have cumulatively been led to believe that evil is phased out in an increasingly secular environment as religion is erased and that this secular delusion has been demonstrated by what has transpired.
-
It all depends on whether you see the world through God's eyes or though the Devil's eyes.
The great deceiver is convincing people that:
Killing babies in their own mother's womb is a matter of choice
It is OK to permanently mutilate a young person in the cause of gender ideology
There is no such thing as evil
Human free will is an illusion
The human soul does not exist
There is no God
There is no heaven
One day the veils of deception will be removed and we will see the truth, but will it be too late?
So what about Ratzinger?
-
It all depends on whether you see the world through God's eyes or though the Devil's eyes.
Ok and given, you could be seeing the world through the Devil's eyes but you just don't realise it, it makes sense not to take your interpretation as correct.
The great deceiver is convincing people that:
Killing babies in their own mother's womb is a matter of choice
It is OK to permanently mutilate a young person in the cause of gender ideology
There is no such thing as evil
Human free will is an illusion
The human soul does not exist
There is no God
There is no heaven
Fair enough - you have a personal preference for different values but your values could also be that of the great deceiver (as you put it). I guess we'll never know but it's good to have the discussions. I think it's safer to have diversity of thought so people can act as a check on each other to stop one way of thinking becoming too comfortable or go unchallenged.
One day the veils of deception will be removed and we will see the truth, but will it be too late?
As I said your words could be the words of the great deceiver...
-
The great deceiver is convincing people that:
I don't recall seeing evidence of how exactly he is doing that.
So...how exactly is he doing it?
-
I possibly agree with Alan in the sense that we have cumulatively been led to believe that evil is phased out in an increasingly secular environment as religion is erased and that this secular delusion has been demonstrated by what has transpired.
It doesn't have to be either or. It is possible to see the flaws in both situations. I don't agree with Alan nor do I think that evil is phased out in an increasingly secular society.
I think religion can serve a purpose but has its flaws and as religious influence in society decreases, something else equally flawed takes its place. So I can see why some people have a preference for retaining religion but changing it from within rather than dispensing with it to take on some new flawed concept. Individuals decide the concepts they revere and want to treat as sacred and sometimes these concepts don't involve gods at all.
Some people treat nothing as sacred.
I think it's useful to have people arguing that religion should not be automatically privileged in a society, rather than everyone being cheerleaders for religious privileges.
-
Alan's list is revealing as it just shows his particular hobby horses.
I personally would have liked to have seen the accumulation of wealth (my hobby horse) on that list, although I realise that is problematic for the Catholic Church.
But surely while ever there is vast wealth inequality around the world the door is open for all sorts of terrible things (evil) to be done.
We are a vicious race. Greed and corruption that are so often connected with the accumulation of wealth will inevitably lead to a response that could be considered "evil".
For reference, this graphic is in its truest sense sickening and a display of the "evil" at the heart of humankind.
I don't subscribe to this false dichotomy presented of religion v. secularism. It's us. Poor pathetic, benighted us.
Odd word humankind, we are so very often not human or kind.
-
It doesn't have to be either or. It is possible to see the flaws in both situations. I don't agree with Alan nor do I think that evil is phased out in an increasingly secular society.
I think religion can serve a purpose but has its flaws and as religious influence in society decreases, something else equally flawed takes its place. So I can see why some people have a preference for retaining religion but changing it from within rather than dispensing with it to take on some new flawed concept. Individuals decide the concepts they revere and want to treat as sacred and sometimes these concepts don't involve gods at all.
Some people treat nothing as sacred.
I think it's useful to have people arguing that religion should not be automatically privileged in a society, rather than everyone being cheerleaders for religious privileges.
I think that we have to wait until "The day of Judgment" or the period before depending on your eschatology before humans and societies begin to eradicate evil as a category. Until then we are left with tackling evils in a kind of firefighting way.
We have a record of how true enforced secular societies have done that and how true theocratic have achieved and how combined secular and theocratic societies have performed in that task.
-
I think that we have to wait until "The day of Judgment" or the period before depending on your eschatology before humans and societies begin to eradicate evil as a category. Until then we are left with tackling evils in a kind of firefighting way.
We have a record of how true enforced secular societies have done that and how true theocratic have achieved and how combined secular and theocratic societies have performed in that task.
Clearly there have been lots of flaws in all of the above attempts and approaches, based on the misery caused to people and the planet. Catholics are conflicted amongst themselves about solutions - they have no evidence that believing in gods makes anything better or anyone less arrogant, or self-deceiving, or less abusive. The same for other theists.
Atheists also disagree with each other about whether atheism offers any solutions to the problems people are looking for answers to.
I think it is interesting that Alan was warning about deception. I think it is trying to deceive people if people pretend there is only a sunny upside or an answer to our problems in any one approach. Different people have different preferences and problems and many have no interest in being coerced or deceived into signing up for any particular brand of theism or atheism by people who have yet to make a convincing case that their particular approach works.
-
Clearly there have been lots of flaws in all of the above attempts and approaches, based on the misery caused to people and the planet. Catholics are conflicted amongst themselves about solutions - they have no evidence that believing in gods makes anything better or anyone less arrogant, or self-deceiving, or less abusive. The same for other theists.
Atheists also disagree with each other about whether atheism offers any solutions to the problems people are looking for answers to.
I think it is interesting that Alan was warning about deception. I think it is trying to deceive people if people pretend there is only a sunny upside or an answer to our problems in any one approach. Different people have different preferences and problems and many have no interest in being coerced or deceived into signing up for any particular brand of theism or atheism by people who have yet to make a convincing case that their particular approach works.
I think you have misread what a pessimistic post I put up where I said that all we can content ourselves with is as societies is to firefight sins rather than eliminate the category of sin or evil. I would imagine Alan would broadly agree with that.
The trouble is is people see secularisation as the cure for the category whereas an examination of the nearest true secular societies we have, those who have deleted religious heritage, stand as obvious examples of failure in that respect.
-
The trouble is is people see secularisation as the cure for the category whereas an examination of the nearest true secular societies we have, those who have deleted religious heritage, stand as obvious examples of failure in that respect.
I don't see many of the generally happier Scandinavian nations as having 'deleted' their religious heritage, and they're if not 'true' secular societies then the closest that we've seen - they're certainly not 'failures'.
I presume you're alluding to the likes of communist-era USSR, or cold war China, where religious observance was explicitly prohibited - this is not secularism, as you should well know by now.
O.
-
I don't see many of the generally happier Scandinavian nations as having 'deleted' their religious heritage, and they're if not 'true' secular societies then the closest that we've seen - they're certainly not 'failures'.
I don't think Sweden is comprehensively secular, is it ? Are they happier than, say, a few years ago?
I presume you're alluding to the likes of communist-era USSR, or cold war China, where religious observance was explicitly prohibited - this is not secularism, as you should well know by now.
O.
If it is not secularism, then what is it?........we can't say theocracy so I suppose it has to be an atheocracy.
-
I don't think Sweden is comprehensively secular, is it ?
Pretty much, yeah. About 60% of the population claim to be Lutheran, with a further about 10% following either another Christian doctrine or another religion altogether, whilst at the same time upwards of 60% say that religion isn't important to them, and well over 90% say that religion has no place in the laws of the land. That's pretty solidly secular.
Are they happier than, say, a few years ago?
They've been high in the 'happiness' league tables for a while, and high in the secular tables too.
If it is not secularism, then what is it?........we can't say theocracy so I suppose it has to be an atheocracy.
Not atheocracy, that would just be the absence of a theocracy, this is religious repression, which isn't what secularism is about. Secularism doesn't mean banning religion, it means that religious belief is not a justification for imposing religious tenets on the populace as law, it's not giving religion any sort of special place at the table. That's all. As has been repeatedly explained.
O.
-
It all depends on whether you see the world through God's eyes or though the Devil's eyes.
The great deceiver is convincing people that:
Killing babies in their own mother's womb is a matter of choice
It is OK to permanently mutilate a young person in the cause of gender ideology
There is no such thing as evil
Human free will is an illusion
The human soul does not exist
There is no God
There is no heaven
One day the veils of deception will be removed and we will see the truth, but will it be too late?
That's what you believe of course. No evidence that it is a fact though.
-
Pretty much, yeah. About 60% of the population claim to be Lutheran, with a further about 10% following either another Christian doctrine or another religion altogether, whilst at the same time upwards of 60% say that religion isn't important to them, and well over 90% say that religion has no place in the laws of the land. That's pretty solidly secular.
Given that a crushing, overwhelming victory for secularism is usually about 45% i'm minded to give you that.
They've been high in the 'happiness' league tables for a while, and high in the secular tables too.
Yes, but what about poor souls like yourself. You come across as being angry and dejected.
Not atheocracy, that would just be the absence of a theocracy,
In this case it means government by atheists just as a theocracy is government by theists this is religious repression, which isn't what secularism is about. Secularism doesn't mean banning religion, it means that religious belief is not a justification for imposing religious tenets on the populace as law, it's not giving religion any sort of special place at the table. That's all. As has been repeatedly explained.
O.
Pious shit? Passing of laws against expression of religion?
-
Maybe it's just a matter of individual perception as Outrider does not usually come across to me as angry and dejected.
But many of us - atheists and theists, including you Vlad - probably do come across to others at various times as angry and dejected, even when we don't feel angry and dejected. Not really sure what the significance of that is? If theists come across on here as angry does it reveal something about faith / religious belief?
I agree it is not right that Christians sometimes get told they can't wear crosses as it might be offensive whereas other religions can wear their symbols.
-
Maybe it's just a matter of individual perception as Outrider does not usually come across to me as angry and dejected.
But many of us - atheists and theists, including you Vlad - probably do come across to others at various times as angry and dejected, even when we don't feel angry and dejected. Not really sure what the significance of that is? If theists come across on here as angry does it reveal something about faith / religious belief?
I agree it is not right that Christians sometimes get told they can't wear crosses as it might be offensive whereas other religions can wear their symbols.
I think Outrider and I were discussing Sweden though. Outrider made a point of saying how happy Swedes were and in the context of a post from outrider that suggests that the reason for there happiness was secularism and a rejection of religion. I merely point out that internet atheists and secularists do not present as particularly happy and lets look at the leadership of internet and publicly professed atheists, they are either British or american and sneery rather than genuinely happy in my opinion. I see no swedes pitching in to the secularist international mission.
Are they keeping themselves aluf or aloof?
-
It all depends on whether you see the world through God's eyes or though the Devil's eyes.
The great deceiver is convincing people that:
Killing babies in their own mother's womb is a matter of choice
It is OK to permanently mutilate a young person in the cause of gender ideology
There is no such thing as evil
Human free will is an illusion
The human soul does not exist
There is no God
There is no heaven
One day the veils of deception will be removed and we will see the truth, but will it be too late?
If God doesn't remove these 'veils of deception' then it can only be either because such is not his will, or he is unable too. Either of which position contradicts the other claims for God as being benign and almighty. See why christian theism makes no sense.
-
If God doesn't remove these 'veils of deception' then it can only be either because such is not his will, or he is unable too. Either of which position contradicts the other claims for God as being benign and almighty. See why christian theism makes no sense.
Almightyhood or whatever you call it needs more definition than atheists are prepared to offer IMHO.
AS for Benignity....Where do you want to start.
Matthew 7:11 offers a perspective on where we are in the benignity stakes.
-
Given that a crushing, overwhelming victory for secularism is usually about 45% i'm minded to give you that.
When secularism wins, we all win - no 'victory for secularism' is 'crushing', its a relief.
Yes, but what about poor souls like yourself. You come across as being angry and dejected.
Is that how you read it? I'm relieved to see one or two others comment that they don't see that in what I write (though I've had my moments, every once in a while). Generally I'm of the opinion that if what I'm trying to communicate isn't coming across properly that's on me, not you, but if you're seeing something that I don't think is there, and other people don't think is there, maybe it's something about how you're reading, not how I'm writing.
In this case it means government by atheists just as a theocracy is government by theists Pious shit? Passing of laws against expression of religion?
Whether the individuals within government are theist or atheist is irrelevant to secularism - secularism is about the process, not the people, about the justifications not the motivations.
O.
-
Almightyhood or whatever you call it needs more definition than atheists are prepared to offer IMHO.
AS for Benignity....Where do you want to start.
You're the one that thinks there is a god. You define him/her/it/them.
Matthew 7:11 offers a perspective on where we are in the benignity stakes.
"If you then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give good things to those who ask him!" (NRSV)
How do you know God is less evil than somebody who gives a stone to his child instead of bread?
-
I think Outrider and I were discussing Sweden though. Outrider made a point of saying how happy Swedes were and in the context of a post from outrider that suggests that the reason for there happiness was secularism and a rejection of religion.
Is it rejecting religion if the Swedes choose Secularism - which means religion is a private matter for the individual rather than privileged in public? The Swedes include the church or religion in many of their private rituals - birth, marriage, death.
Prior to the Reformation, the Catholic Church owned 1/5th of the land and was heavily involved in the care of the sick and the poor and in education in Sweden. After the 16th century Reformation led to the formation of the Church of Sweden, dissenting religious views were criminalized and severely punished until about the 18th century, when immigrants were allowed to follow their own beliefs and practices, which opened up the way for diversity of belief and secularism.
As the previous social functions of the Church, such as medical care, education, and social care gradually become the responsibility of the State and other secular bodies and Sweden developed a strong welfare state, the Church started to lose its social authority as it was no longer seen as an integral part of the mechanisms of the State providing welfare and education.
Not particularly surprising is it that the less of a role religion plays in the mechanisms of State related to welfare and education, the more religion becomes a private matter for the individual and the less religion can influence decisions of the State? Religious beliefs are treated the same as non-religious beliefs. Do you think it is a bad thing to treat religious beliefs the same way as non-religious beliefs?
Both religious and non-religious beliefs are often sincerely held and very important to people and guide people's behaviour. Therefore if there is a conflict between religious and non-religious beliefs on a civil issue, presumably it would be settled by society through some democratic process, similar to how they brought in legislation to permit gay civil marriages in the UK. Preferably without all the name-calling which just entrenches people in their opposing views on any issue, because why would anyone want to be railroaded into a belief they don't agree with? In Sweden, the populations' beliefs in secularism and separation of Church and State and freedom of religious belief means they have ensured that currently the State cannot force any religious organisation to go against its beliefs and officiate same sex marriages - the non-religious belief of the State is not privileged over religious belief. It's up to each religious organisation to decide for itself how it conducts religious marriages.
As there is no compulsion in beliefs, presumably we're all agreed we have not yet come up with a better solution to resolve a conflict between religious and non-religious beliefs than society or the State following a democratic process that leads to a majority decision without privileging any particular religious or non-religious beliefs?
I merely point out that internet atheists and secularists do not present as particularly happy and lets look at the leadership of internet and publicly professed atheists, they are either British or american and sneery rather than genuinely happy in my opinion.
I think that's a massive generalisation. I see lots of happy internet atheists and secularists. Or at least if we are doing a comparison internet atheists and secularists seem no more unhappy than internet theists who seem all doom and gloom about what sinners we all are and how society is going to hell in a handbasket because people are becoming less religious etc ;)
I see no swedes pitching in to the secularist international mission. Are they keeping themselves aluf or aloof?
No Swedes on here, true. But if you look on the internet plenty seem to be having discussions about the place religion has in society. After plenty of discussions and debates the Swedes seem to have democratically decided to separate Church from State but allow the Church of Sweden to have a special role in certain cultural-heritage areas as a nod to its role in the history of Sweden. The State (through taxes) financially contributes to the Church of Sweden to help it maintain cultural heritage sites that are under the Church's management.
Additionally, as mass immigration into Sweden has led to religious diversity, religious organisations in Sweden seem to play an important role in management of emergencies as they provide comfort and support to those affected, and they are financially supported in this role by the State using taxpayer money.
-
Ok and given, you could be seeing the world through the Devil's eyes but you just don't realise it, it makes sense not to take your interpretation as correct.
Fair enough - you have a personal preference for different values but your values could also be that of the great deceiver (as you put it). I guess we'll never know but it's good to have the discussions. I think it's safer to have diversity of thought so people can act as a check on each other to stop one way of thinking becoming too comfortable or go unchallenged.
As I said your words could be the words of the great deceiver...
The way to discern deception from truth is prayer.
Through prayer, God's grace will guide you to discern the truth and protect you from the deceptions of the evil one.
Never underestimate the power of prayer.
Today our church celebrates the great 13th century theologian Thomas Aquinas.
Thomas said that he learnt more through prayer than from study.
quote from wiki:
His influence on Western thought is considerable, and much of modern philosophy is derived from his ideas, particularly in the areas of ethics, natural law, metaphysics, and political theory.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Ways_(Aquinas)
-
The way to discern deception from truth is prayer.
Well, it might be worth a try on Boris Johnson as mere facts don't seem to cut it anymore.
-
Is it rejecting religion if the Swedes choose Secularism - which means religion is a private matter for the individual rather than privileged in public? The Swedes include the church or religion in many of their private rituals - birth, marriage, death.
I think Outrider links happiness to the rolling back of religion. Whether that is right is another matter. Secularism = making religion a private matter rather than a PRIVILEGED matter? Do you not mean ''Rather than a public matter''? What an odd thing to say. The exclusion of privilege is not even implicit in secularisation is it. Surely the whole process of secularisation privileges non religion.
Prior to the Reformation, the Catholic Church owned 1/5th of the land and was heavily involved in the care of the sick and the poor and in education in Sweden. After the 16th century Reformation led to the formation of the Church of Sweden, dissenting religious views were criminalized and severely punished until about the 18th century, when immigrants were allowed to follow their own beliefs and practices, which opened up the way for diversity of belief and secularism.
As the previous social functions of the Church, such as medical care, education, and social care gradually become the responsibility of the State and other secular bodies and Sweden developed a strong welfare state, the Church started to lose its social authority as it was no longer seen as an integral part of the mechanisms of the State providing welfare and education.
Not particularly surprising is it that the less of a role religion plays in the mechanisms of State related to welfare and education, the more religion becomes a private matter for the individual and the less religion can influence decisions of the State? Religious beliefs are treated the same as non-religious beliefs. Do you think it is a bad thing to treat religious beliefs the same way as non-religious beliefs?
Can you give an example of any situation where equality of religion with non religion is guaranteed, first question. Second question could you give many examples? To me once you say you can observe your religion in private, that implies you shouldn't observe it in public in exactly the same way you shouldn't take a dump in public or have sex in public. You would however be free to wear a sandwich board with ''Sam Harris latest takedown of religion'' or drive the atheist bus around.
Both religious and non-religious beliefs are often sincerely held and very important to people and guide people's behaviour. Therefore if there is a conflict between religious and non-religious beliefs on a civil issue, presumably it would be settled by society through some democratic process, similar to how they brought in legislation to permit gay civil marriages in the UK. Preferably without all the name-calling which just entrenches people in their opposing views on any issue, because why would anyone want to be railroaded into a belief they don't agree with? In Sweden, the populations' beliefs in secularism and separation of Church and State and freedom of religious belief means they have ensured that currently the State cannot force any religious organisation to go against its beliefs and officiate same sex marriages - the non-religious belief of the State is not privileged over religious belief. It's up to each religious organisation to decide for itself how it conducts religious marriages.
As there is no compulsion in beliefs, presumably we're all agreed we have not yet come up with a better solution to resolve a conflict between religious and non-religious beliefs than society or the State following a democratic process that leads to a majority decision without privileging any particular religious or non-religious beliefs?
I think that's a massive generalisation. I see lots of happy internet atheists and secularists.
where can these be seen? Or at least if we are doing a comparison internet atheists and secularists seem no more unhappy than internet theists who seem all doom and gloom about what sinners we all are and how society is going to hell in a handbasket because people are becoming less religious etc ;)
My approach is I hope you have noticed is slightly different in that secularisation and the rollback of religion is touted as promising us shangri la which ain't happening. I also predate the internet when atheists were less triggered and frankly less sneery IMHO.No Swedes on here, true. But if you look on the internet plenty seem to be having discussions about the place religion has in society. After plenty of discussions and debates the Swedes seem to have democratically decided to separate Church from State but allow the Church of Sweden to have a special role in certain cultural-heritage areas as a nod to its role in the history of Sweden. The State (through taxes) financially contributes to the Church of Sweden to help it maintain cultural heritage sites that are under the Church's management.
The power and roll of the church in the UK has been greatly exaggerated
-
Well, it might be worth a try on Boris Johnson as mere facts don't seem to cut it anymore.
With the individual mentioned I think we come to a stark realisation that all things sanctioned by men and women are inherently corruptable.
We need to refresh our resolve at the fountain of incorruptability...and that is probably the essence of what prayer is.
-
The way to discern deception from truth is prayer.
Through prayer, God's grace will guide you to discern the truth and protect you from the deceptions of the evil one.
Never underestimate the power of prayer.
Today our church celebrates the great 13th century theologian Thomas Aquinas.
Thomas said that he learnt more through prayer than from study.
quote from wiki:
His influence on Western thought is considerable, and much of modern philosophy is derived from his ideas, particularly in the areas of ethics, natural law, metaphysics, and political theory.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Ways_(Aquinas)
As prayer leads to millions discerning the Catholic church or all Christians are deceived, how would you show that prayer helps discern truth from error? Equally prayer leads to millions discerning that Muslims or Hindus or Buddhists are deceived. Do you have another suggestion, as your prayer suggestion hasn't worked, given the diversity of beliefs?
-
I think Outrider links happiness to the rolling back of religion.
The data links happiness to secularism, I just publicise the correlation.
Whether that is right is another matter.
It's right, that's what the data shows. Whether one is causative of the other, or whether they are both the result of something else like financial stability, a robust welfare system, lower levels of inequality or widespread uptake of further education is certainly open to debate though.
Secularism = making religion a private matter rather than a PRIVILEGED matter? Do you not mean ''Rather than a public matter''?
No, you can entertain your beliefs in public, but they do not hold any weight in the law - your right to them might (I'd advocate that) but not the content of them.
What an odd thing to say. The exclusion of privilege is not even implicit in secularisation is it.
Religious privilege, yes, that's basically the entirety of secularism. Privilege more broadly, no.
Surely the whole process of secularisation privileges non religion.
No. If you have another belief, one that's not in any way religious, and it also has no demonstrable basis, that's equally ignored by the law. Baseless claims with a religious basis have been afforded a privilege, historically, that other baseless claims have not - removing that privilege is not giving privilege to someone else, it's levelling the field. You want the law to recognise your wants, give a reason why anyone else should be bound by it.
Can you give an example of any situation where equality of religion with non religion is guaranteed, first question.
In Great Britain, currently, marriage.
To me once you say you can observe your religion in private, that implies you shouldn't observe it in public in exactly the same way you shouldn't take a dump in public or have sex in public.
Well, if your particular religious beliefs are as obnoxious as the other examples you should probably think about that, but the overwhelming majority of the religious are not Christian Voice or the like. You should observe your religion wherever you choose - it's private so far as the law is concerned.
You would however be free to wear a sandwich board with ''Sam Harris latest takedown of religion'' or drive the atheist bus around.
Or Bible quotes. Or sounding out the call to Friday prayers. You couldn't, though, expect the government to prohibit sales of beef because you think cows are holy...
where can these be seen?
Ooh, ooh, sir, ooh, sir, me sir, pick me sir...
My approach is I hope you have noticed is slightly different in that secularisation and the rollback of religion is touted as promising us shangri la which ain't happening.
It's a step in the right direction. It won't take us all the way, there are still any number of social and cultural influences - some explicitly religious in origin, some which have been adopted by religious traditions, some of which happen to coincide with religious traditions - which we could do with eradicating or stifling, and at the same time there are some elements of religious tradition which it would be a shame to lose.
I also predate the internet when atheists were less triggered and frankly less sneery IMHO.
You mean when public information was carefully curated by institutions with a vested interest in placating the authorities, and atheist voices were discounted and not heard at all?
The power and roll of the church in the UK has been greatly exaggerated
Then nothing will be lost by a tendency towards secularism, so what is it that you're so 'triggered and ... sneery' about?
O.
-
The data links happiness to secularism, I just publicise the correlation.
It's right, that's what the data shows. Whether one is causative of the other, or whether they are both the result of something else like financial stability, a robust welfare system, lower levels of inequality or widespread uptake of further education is certainly open to debate though.
No, you can entertain your beliefs in public, but they do not hold any weight in the law - your right to them might (I'd advocate that) but not the content of them.
Religious privilege, yes, that's basically the entirety of secularism. Privilege more broadly, no.
No. If you have another belief, one that's not in any way religious, and it also has no demonstrable basis, that's equally ignored by the law. Baseless claims with a religious basis have been afforded a privilege, historically, that other baseless claims have not - removing that privilege is not giving privilege to someone else, it's levelling the field. You want the law to recognise your wants, give a reason why anyone else should be bound by it.
In Great Britain, currently, marriage.
Well, if your particular religious beliefs are as obnoxious as the other examples you should probably think about that, but the overwhelming majority of the religious are not Christian Voice or the like. You should observe your religion wherever you choose - it's private so far as the law is concerned.
And there you have it another secularist who considers talking positively about religion in public is like taking a dump in public.
What a shower.
-
Walt
That really is not what Outrider said.
Stop misrepresenting him.
-
And there you have it another secularist who considers talking positively about religion in public is like taking a dump in public.
I'm pretty sure I just said that - and I quote - ...and at the same time there are some elements of religious tradition which it would be a shame to lose.
and more specifically Well, if your particular religious beliefs are as obnoxious as the ... [taking a taking a dump in public] ... you should probably think about that, but the overwhelming majority of the religious are not Christian Voice or the like.
Is it the reading for understanding that you struggle with, or is it just some sort of compulsive misrepresentation condition that you suffer from?
O.
-
Walt
That really is not what Outrider said.
Stop misrepresenting him.
No he says ''If you're religious beliefs are obnoxious.'' What religious beliefs does he not find obnoxious?'' Is he not suggesting zero barrier between obnoxious ideas and religious ideas?
-
I think Outrider links happiness to the rolling back of religion. Whether that is right is another matter. Secularism = making religion a private matter rather than a PRIVILEGED matter? Do you not mean ''Rather than a public matter''? What an odd thing to say. The exclusion of privilege is not even implicit in secularisation is it. Surely the whole process of secularisation privileges non religion.
I think religion is still a public matter with secularisation - the places of worship are open to the public, people can preach and talk about their religious beliefs in public. I agree that there seems to be some confusion currently due to some people trying to stifle freedom of expression because they believe they have a right to not be offended. But that applies to all beliefs, not just religious beliefs. For example, expressing gender critical beliefs in public could get you a visit from the police. So it seems to be a problem in the current culture rather than an attempt to specifically silence the religious.
Can you give an example of any situation where equality of religion with non religion is guaranteed, first question.
Do you mean in the UK - yes - theists and atheists are treated equally by the election process for becoming an MP or Local Councillor. Or did you mean something else?
Second question could you give many examples?
Religious people are not forced to go against their beliefs and perform religious marriages and non-religious are not forced to go against their beliefs and refuse to perform gay marriages. Though to be honest I am not sure what you mean - there are so many situations where Equalities Legislation protects people from discrimination for their religious beliefs. Maybe you can give me an example of where you think they are not treated equally so I can understand what you are getting at?
To me once you say you can observe your religion in private, that implies you shouldn't observe it in public in exactly the same way you shouldn't take a dump in public or have sex in public. You would however be free to wear a sandwich board with ''Sam Harris latest takedown of religion'' or drive the atheist bus around.
Religious people wear sandwich boards too proclaiming their religious beliefs - not really seeing the problem with a sandwich board.
No, per my previous post when I say "private" I was referencing the fact that many years ago a religious institution could be seen as the primary public face of things like providing medical care, social care and education to members of society and now these institutions no longer have these public roles as they have been taken over by the State. So religious institutions become less relevant to people on a day to day basis as they are involved in far fewer activities that affect the public. In Sweden, as I said, they provide a lot of comfort and assistance to people in emergencies so all I am saying is their public role is confined to fewer areas because the State is doing a lot of the things that religious institutions used to do.
where can these be seen?
Happy atheists? I see them all over the place. Many of the same places I see happy theists. Most of my friends are atheists. I just had a fantastic conversation with an atheist school friend this morning who phoned me up and asked if she could stay the night next week as she had an early badminton match in the area - she plays for England. I have not seen her in probably about 2 or 3 years as she moved out of London about 6 years ago. Most of my family are theists - they also seem pretty happy.
My approach is I hope you have noticed is slightly different in that secularisation and the rollback of religion is touted as promising us shangri la which ain't happening.
Yes I don't believe it's going to be a shangri la either - it will bring its own, different challenges as some other ideology or dogma replaces religion or people try to replace whatever they got from religion with something else that could bring its own challenges. I also predate the internet when atheists were less triggered and frankly less sneery IMHO.
Everyone seems more outspoken and sneery these days about lots of things, it's not just during discussions about religion - it's a cultural change in communication. Many people sneer about politics, sport, films, books, TV. But there are also many times people don't sneer.
The power and roll of the church in the UK has been greatly exaggerated
Maybe by some. Others just observe some unequal treatment where religion gets special consideration and think that the special consideration should end. It's an opinion that I think they are entitled to express - freedom of expression and all that.
Others are free to express opposing opinions. Makes for a good discussion on a message board.
-
I'm pretty sure I just said that - and I quote - and more specifically
Is it the reading for understanding that you struggle with, or is it just some sort of compulsive misrepresentation condition that you suffer from?
O.
What religion then should be allowed to survive in your secularist cull?
-
No he says ''If you're religious beliefs are obnoxious.'' What religious beliefs does he not find obnoxious?'' Is he not suggesting zero barrier between obnoxious ideas and religious ideas?
He gave an example of Christian Voice. It was clear what he meant.
-
I think religion is still a public matter with secularisation - the places of worship are open to the public, people can preach and talk about their religious beliefs in public. I agree that there seems to be some confusion currently due to some people trying to stifle freedom of expression because they believe they have a right to not be offended. But that applies to all beliefs, not just religious beliefs. For example, expressing gender critical beliefs in public could get you a visit from the police. So it seems to be a problem in the current culture rather than an attempt to specifically silence the religious.
Do you mean in the UK - yes - theists and atheists are treated equally by the election process for becoming an MP or Local Councillor. Or did you mean something else?
No this'll do. How then does recognition of religion figure in this example. How does religion end up being represented equally with non religion?
-
He gave an example of Christian Voice. It was clear what he meant.
Yes what are they saying that is bad that say a right wing extremist but atheist could not be saying?
-
No this'll do. How then does recognition of religion figure in this example. How does religion end up being represented equally with non religion?
Being a theist or atheist is no barrier to standing for election.
Voters who are theists are free to vote for an MP or Councillor who they think will best represent their values and interests.
Voters who are atheist are free to vote for an MP or Councillor who they think will best represent their values and interests.
The person who gets the highest number of votes gets elected. When the next election rolls around voters have another chance to hold their representatives accountable for the way they have represented their voters' interests.
-
Being a theist or atheist is no barrier to standing for election.
Voters who are theists are free to vote for an MP or Councillor who they think will best represent their values and interests.
Voters who are atheist are free to vote for an MP or Councillor who they think will best represent their values and interests.
The person who gets the highest number of votes gets elected. When the next election rolls around voters have another chance to hold their representatives accountable for the way they have represented their voters' interests.
I'm sorry I see no religion or atheism here only non religion.
-
What religion then should be allowed to survive in your secularist cull?
Still can't quite understand... How about I write you a checklist?
Am I about to suggest secularism means banning one or more religions?
Am I about to equate secularism with privileging atheism?
Am I about to go off on one about 'antitheists'?
Am I about to conflate secularism with Soviet-era USSR or Communist China?
If so, I've probably got it wrong and need to try again.
No charge, consider it a public service.
For the last time, secularism doesn't involve banning religions, it doesn't proscribe anyone's individual beliefs, it even lets professional religio-twats like Rees-Smugg put themselves up for election, if they wish. It's merely the principal that there is no justification to a law that's implemented purely on the basis of religious belief.
O.
-
No this'll do. How then does recognition of religion figure in this example. How does religion end up being represented equally with non religion?
Actually, technically, this one doesn't - the upper legislature retains privileged seats for one particular sect of one particular branch of one particular religion... You remember, that institution who's authority and influence is overstated but which is the only organisation of any sort which has a reserved place in the Houses of Parliament...
O.
-
Still can't quite understand... How about I write you a checklist?
Am I about to suggest secularism means banning one or more religions?
Am I about to equate secularism with privileging atheism?
Am I about to go off on one about 'antitheists'?
Am I about to conflate secularism with Soviet-era USSR or Communist China?
If so, I've probably got it wrong and need to try again.
No charge, consider it a public service.
For the last time, secularism doesn't involve banning religions, it doesn't proscribe anyone's individual beliefs, it even lets professional religio-twats like Rees-Smugg put themselves up for election, if they wish. It's merely the principal that there is no justification to a law that's implemented purely on the basis of religious belief.
O.
What of religion characterises Rees Mogg? Not much. What of acquisitive materialism characterises Rees Mogg? A great deal. Rees Mogg is the kind of chap who is highly influenced stylistically by Brideshead Revisited without twigging the deeper meaning. I've outlined what I find objectionable about Mogg. What is it about him you find objectionable.
-
What religion then should be allowed to survive in your secularist cull?
As many or as few as the individuals in that country choose to follow.
All secularism means is that those individuals will be neither privileged nor discriminated against whether or not they choose to be a member of a religion. And religious groups will also be neither privileged nor discriminated against compared to non religious organisations.
Simply as that.
There is nothing incompatible whatsoever with there being 100% adherence to religion by individuals living in a secular country.
-
What of religion characterises Rees Mogg? Not much.
Sounds a bit 'no true scotsman' Vlad.
As far as I'm aware Rees Mogg is a practicing Roman Catholic and staunchly traditional in his religious beliefs. He may not be your kind of christian, but then you are probably not his kind of christian. But you are both actively religious - if you want to argue that he is not, then I suggest you take it up with him at is would be an internal 'you're no christian', 'no, you're no christian' spat that the rest of us can just watch from the outside.
-
I'm sorry I see no religion or atheism here only non religion.
Oh ok - yes instead of atheist, we could say being religious or non-religious is not barrier to standing for election.
Religious voters are free to vote for the candidate that best represents them, their interests and values
Non-religious voters are free to vote for the candidate that best represents them, their interests and values
The candidate with the highest number of votes is elected.
-
Actually, technically, this one doesn't - the upper legislature retains privileged seats
we could stop here and that would be adequate for one particular sect of one particular branch of one particular religion... You remember, that institution who's authority and influence is overstated but which is the only organisation of any sort which has a reserved place in the Houses of Parliament...
O.
The house of Lords is all privilege seats. Some of the complexion of it has changed. Part of what remains is the set up where the matters pertaining to the laws were divided into secular and spiritual since that reflected the operating environment of making rules for people.
What it represents today is that people are just a wee bit spiritual, and that can be served by anybody in a dogcollar.
Now I don't think that is representative at all and the Lords should express the broader spiritual complexion.
You on the other hand think that spirituality is INVALID and should be left out of the government of people.
We know the complexion of the Lords has happened before and will again if enough people of your particular and in my view shallow and narrow view of humanity have the political will and numbers.
-
What of religion characterises Rees Mogg?
Apart from his repeated characterisation of how his faith informs his position on things like gay marriage? Apart from that, you mean? https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/sep/06/jacob-rees-mogg-opposed-to-gay-marriage-and-abortion-even-after (https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/sep/06/jacob-rees-mogg-opposed-to-gay-marriage-and-abortion-even-after)
What of acquisitive materialism characterises Rees Mogg? A great deal.
And you can back this up with something more than inference? I don't disagree that his consistent support for reductions in regulation on industry and - particularly - the financial sector, his championing of academy schools and any number of other traditionally 'right wing' causes gives cause to presume that he has those inclinations, but he's not to my knowledge been so gauche as to actually come straight out and say it.
Rees Mogg is the kind of chap who is highly influenced stylistically by Brideshead Revisited without twigging the deeper meaning. I've outlined what I find objectionable about Mogg. What is it about him you find objectionable.
Most of the same things as you, I suspect - the distasteful impression that other people are a disposable resource to be utilised to further the largely financial interests of him, and perhaps some of his select colleagues.
O.
-
Actually, technically, this one doesn't - the upper legislature retains privileged seats for one particular sect of one particular branch of one particular religion... You remember, that institution who's authority and influence is overstated but which is the only organisation of any sort which has a reserved place in the Houses of Parliament...
O.
In my post I was only referring to elected MPs, as the Commons can override any amendments to Bills passed by the unelected House of Lords if they wish.
-
we could stop here and that would be adequate
No, we couldn't because we're making the point about RELIGIOUS privilege.
The house of Lords is all privilege seats.
No. There remain some privileged seats, but only one institution has reserved seats.
Some of the complexion of it has changed. Part of what remains is the set up where the matters pertaining to the laws were divided into secular and spiritual since that reflected the operating environment of making rules for people. What it represents today is that people are just a wee bit spiritual, and that can be served by anybody in a dogcollar.
People are a 'wee bit' scientific, where are the reserved seats for the Royal Society?
Now I don't think that is representative at all and the Lords should express the broader spiritual complexion.
It does. There are Jews, Muslims, Catholics, Hindus, Buddhists, atheists and who knows what else in there - it's just those people are not there BECAUSE of that, that's incidental, as it should be because religion should be incidental to the establishment of laws.
You on the other hand think that spirituality is INVALID and should be left out of the government of people.
But not out of the people of government.
We know the complexion of the Lords has happened before and will again if enough people of your particular and in my view shallow and narrow view of humanity have the political will and numbers.
I think we'll get PR in the lower house before we get rid of the Lords Spiritual, and I don't imagine that's going to happen in my lifetime.
O.
-
Sounds a bit 'no true scotsman' Vlad.
It isn't, his behaviour definitely directs one to refer to the epistle pf James though.
As far as I'm aware Rees Mogg is a practicing Roman Catholic and staunchly traditional in his religious beliefs
and all his other beliefs and the way he speaks and dresses? He may not be your kind of christian, but then you are probably not his kind of christian. But you are both actively religious - if you want to argue that he is not, then I suggest you take it up with him at is would be an internal 'you're no christian', 'no, you're no christian' spat that the rest of us can just watch from the outside.
Atheist wankfantasy?
[/quote] I have a few beefs with Roman Catholicism but my chief difficulty with the man is that he is the worst sort of Tory.
-
In my post I was only referring to elected MPs, as the Commons can override any amendments to Bills passed by the unelected House of Lords if they wish.
I appreciate that, G, and I apologise for hijacking your train of thought, I was sort of redirecting that back at Vlad.
O.
-
... as the Commons can override any amendments to Bills passed by the unelected House of Lords if they wish.
To pick nits - that isn't strictly true. The commons can override the Lords only under certain circumstances, but not in all cases. The parliament act doesn't apply to all legislation.
-
and all his other beliefs and the way he speaks and dressesAtheist wankfantasy?
I have a few beefs with Roman Catholicism but my chief difficulty with the man is that he is the worst sort of Tory.
So you accept that he is a practicing christian and presumably uses his interpretation of his christian faith to inform his views.
-
So you accept that he is a practicing christian and presumably uses his interpretation of his christian faith to inform his views.
Yes but I don't presume he let's his christianity inform a lot of what he does.
I think you are judging him in your own terms he is likely to be a lukewarm christian more stylistically and culturally influenced by the Brideshead revisited life than spiritually.
You on the other hand are more of a zealot for the secular cause. His commitment is nowhere near yours.
-
No, we couldn't because we're making the point about RELIGIOUS privilege.
No. There remain some privileged seats, but only one institution has reserved seats.
No they are all priviliged. They are all unelected.
-
No they are all priviliged. They are all unelected.
Still desperately trying to sidestep the actual point, I see.
O.
-
No they are all priviliged. They are all unelected.
But only the Bishops are automatically given a place in the HoLs when they are appointed (not elected) to a leadership position in a completely different organisations. All other members of the HoLs have to go through an appointment process specifically for the HoLs. Are you unable (or unwilling to see the difference).
Regardless of how opposed you are to unelected members of the HoLs, the Bishops sit even further detached from a fair and representative appointment process.
-
To pick nits - that isn't strictly true. The commons can override the Lords only under certain circumstances, but not in all cases. The parliament act doesn't apply to all legislation.
Ok but if the Commons decide the House of Lords are unduly getting in their way they can introduce legislation (another Parliament Act) to strip the HofL's of one or all of their veto powers.
-
Yes but I don't presume he let's his christianity inform a lot of what he does.
Why not - I would have thought that a lot of his views are entirely consistent with his uber-traditionalist christianity. It may be that your view of christianity is different to his and therefore that your faith might lead you to a different political position, but that doesn't mean that he isn't informed by his own christian views. The issue isn't whether your christianity informs your political position and his doesn't - nope, the issue is that his view of christianity differs to yours. But given that neither of you can 'prove' your views to be correct then it is merely one person's opinion against another.
-
Ok but if the Commons decide the House of Lords are unduly getting in their way they can introduce legislation (another Parliament Act) to strip the HofL's of one or all of their veto powers.
Interesting constitutional question - would a new Parliament Act be subject to the Parliament Act?
-
Yes but I don't presume he let's his christianity inform a lot of what he does.
I think you are judging him in your own terms he is likely to be a lukewarm christian more stylistically and culturally influenced by the Brideshead revisited life than spiritually.
You on the other hand are more of a zealot for the secular cause. His commitment is nowhere near yours.
Ok but his inclination to be public about his religion has not prevented him from getting elected as an MP. Surely that's a good thing in terms of equal opportunity? People who subscribe to your flavour of Christianity and values ....and who have the funds and time and ability to campaign, persuade and get elected...are also not barred by their public display of religion from getting elected.
-
Interesting constitutional question - would a new Parliament Act be subject to the Parliament Act?
Well yes it would, but it doesn't matter because, under the Parliament Act, the HoC can force through any legislation it likes. If the Lords rejects a bill twice, the Commons can present it for the Royal Assent anyway.
-
Interesting constitutional question - would a new Parliament Act be subject to the Parliament Act?
The 1949 Parliament Act reformed the 1911 Parliament Act and reduced the powers of the HofL. There was a legal challenge to the 1949 Act where the courts decided that the 1949 Act was valid - ie it was not delegated legislation subject to HofL veto https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliament_Act_1949
-
Ok but his inclination to be public about his religion has not prevented him from getting elected as an MP. Surely that's a good thing in terms of equal opportunity? People who subscribe to your flavour of Christianity and values ....and who have the funds and time and ability to campaign, persuade and get elected...are also not barred by their public display of religion from getting elected.
Absolutely true.
And if they wish (and indeed have) they could set up an overtly Christian party and stand for election on that platform. If enough people voted for them, they'd get elected. And should Richard Dawkins choose to set up an Atheist party, he'd be allowed to do so and stand on that platform. If enough people voted for them, they'd get elected
-
the deceptions of the evil one.
What are they and more intetestingly how exactly does he make them materialise?
-
But only the Bishops are automatically given a place in the HoLs when they are appointed (not elected) to a leadership position in a completely different organisations. All other members of the HoLs have to go through an appointment process specifically for the HoLs. Are you unable (or unwilling to see the difference).
Regardless of how opposed you are to unelected members of the HoLs, the Bishops sit even further detached from a fair and representative appointment process.
No the Bishops sit in an unreformed part of the house of Lords as do the Lords temporal. Now we can reform the House of Lords in a number of ways. You think the aspiritual homonculus of white middle english agnosticism is what must be served by the House of Lords I believe it is the spirituality of real people from a multicultural background.
-
No the Bishops sit in an unreformed part of the house of Lords as do the Lords temporal. Now we can reform the House of Lords in a number of ways. You think the aspiritual homonculus of white middle english agnosticism is what must be served by the House of Lords I believe it is the spirituality of real people from a multicultural background.
No ad hominems to see here, people, move along...
'Spirituality of real people...'? Are people who don't see any validity in the notion of spirituality somehow not real, then?
O.
-
No ad hominems to see here, people, move along...
'Spirituality of real people...'? Are people who don't see any validity in the notion of spirituality somehow not real, then?
O.
No I am on record on this forum as wanting a place in the house of Lords for members of the Humanist societies and Secular societies of equal standing with any anglican Lord by spirituality I mean those Lords who are there representing core views that are not represented by temporal,political and material issues.
-
'Spirituality of real people...'? Are people who don't see any validity in the notion of spirituality somehow not real, then?
O.
Possibly Vlad meant real people as opposed to white, middle english, privileged people in the House of Lords, many of whom get appointed for their services to the PM and his party and could therefore be from a similar background. class and character of people who seek political favour. If I am reading it correctly Vlad feels the current HofL is not representative of real people.
He also seems to think the spirituality of real people (ie those not from the privileged background of may of those in the HofL) is different from the spirituality of those in the HofL.
Also, don't forget, some atheists (e.g Susan Doris) on here argue that you can be spiritual without being religious. So real people are not restricted to theists.
-
Possibly Vlad meant real people as opposed to white, middle english, privileged people in the House of Lords, many of whom get appointed for their services to the PM and his party and could therefore be from a similar background. class and character of people who seek political favour. If I am reading it correctly Vlad feels the current HofL is not representative of real people.
He also seems to think the spirituality of real people (ie those not from the privileged background of may of those in the HofL) is different from the spirituality of those in the HofL.
Also, don't forget, some atheists (e.g Susan Doris) on here argue that you can be spiritual without being religious. So real people are not restricted to theists.
I apologise for my lack of clarity. I am talking about two models of humanity represented by people arguing here. I propose a model based on real 21st century people where spirituality and non spirituality are formally represented.
The other model of humanity is the aspiritual homonculus as held by outrider. Where any representation of spirituality can be disregarded. Here the House of Lords would stand as an institution to remind people that they are what white british middle class athiests conceive them to be. That is itself a belief position and therefore would qualify for a seat.
-
I apologise for my lack of clarity. I am talking about two models of humanity represented by people arguing here. I propose a model based on real 21st century people where spirituality and non spirituality are formally represented.
The other model of humanity is the aspiritual homonculus as held by outrider. Where any representation of spirituality can be disregarded. Here the House of Lords would stand as an institution to remind people that they are what white british middle class athiests conceive them to be. That is itself a belief position and therefore would qualify for a seat.
Outrider might consider himself a non-spiritual person and may or may not wish that those who form our government hold the same non-spiritual outlook. But he appears to be aware that not everyone holds that view and that the best he can hope for is to seek to persuade others to his way of thinking. Seems understandable that people - you or Outrider - want an institution of the State that reflects your respective values.
-
Outrider might consider himself a non-spiritual person and may or may not wish that those who form our government hold the same non-spiritual outlook. But he appears to be aware that not everyone holds that view and that the best he can hope for is to seek to persuade others to his way of thinking. Seems understandable that people - you or Outrider - want an institution of the State that reflects your respective values.
But whereas I want a member to represent his view
He wants to exclude my view to be represented.
He also wants to gaslight me into accepting that somehow I am
Being as fully represented as I can be.
-
But whereas I want a member to represent his view
He wants to exclude my view to be represented.
He also wants to gaslight me into accepting that somehow I am
Being as fully represented as I can be.
My understanding of what Outrider said is not what you have written above.
Just to check - what do you mean when you say you want your view represented? I suggested that a view is represented if someone with a similar view or cultural background or outlook is elected as an MP through the normal democratic process, based on the candidate being persuasive enough to get elected. If your view is shared by an election candidate and they can persuade voters to elect them, your view will presumably be represented? Secularism does not prevent this election.
Per reply #49 from Outrider: "secularism doesn't involve banning religions, it doesn't proscribe anyone's individual beliefs," - so that seems as if he does not want to exclude beliefs or views.
Elections would work for the Commons but The HofL is not an elected body so this would not apply - how do you want to ensure that your view is represented in the HofL? And which of Outrider's posts did you interpret as Outrider saying he wants to prevent your view being represented? Because I am not seeing it.
If you mean his post where he says that currently the Church of England automatically has representation in the HofL, unlike any other religion, is the point that you are making that you don't feel represented by the Archbishops of Canterbury and York, and the Bishops of London, Durham and Winchester etc? Fair enough, but their automatic seats give their belief a privilege that other beliefs (including your belief) do not have. They are there to represent an institution - the Church of England.
If you can persuade the Church to adopt your particular belief or view or outlook then you would feel represented by the Church of England and its Bishops in the HofL. What is your reform plan that will get your views or the views of others as fully represented as they can be?
-
My understanding of what Outrider said is not what you have written above.
It is my understanding that he would like there to be no Lords spiritual in the house of Lords, He states that reality is aspiritual. That is a belief which would be enshrined in a house of Lords in which there would be no Lords spiritual. As an institution it would stand as a constant denial of my beliefs in favour of his.
Just to check - what do you mean when you say you want your view represented?
I want an institution which represents beliefs, I suggested that a view is represented if someone with a similar view or cultural background or outlook is elected as an MP through the normal democratic process, based on the candidate being persuasive enough to get elected.
There are no MP's in the HOL and no one is elected to the house of Lords If your view is shared by an election candidate and they can persuade voters to elect them, your view will presumably be represented? Secularism does not prevent this election.
Again we are talking about the house of Lords.
Per reply #49 from Outrider: "secularism doesn't involve banning religions, it doesn't proscribe anyone's individual beliefs," - so that seems as if he does not want to exclude beliefs or views.
A secularism that wants a believer to keep their faith private and penalises public display is involved in the banning of religion. It also makes the impossible,i.e.''Allowing someones personal, not publicly expressed views, sound like generosity on the part of secularists.
Elections would work for the Commons but The HofL is not an elected body so this would not apply - how do you want to ensure that your view is represented in the HofL?
I have not commented on the house of Commons my view being represented would involve the Lords spiritual being open to more beliefs, religious, humanistic, atheistic and secular dependent on census information perhaps And which of Outrider's posts did you interpret as Outrider saying he wants to prevent your view being represented? Because I am not seeing it.
It is implicit. If I am wrong and he in fact agrees with me that the Lord Temporal/Lord Spiritual nature be preserved then I apologise but he doesn't make that clear at all.
If you mean his post where he says that currently the Church of England automatically has representation in the HofL, unlike any other religion, is the point that you are making that you don't feel represented by the Archbishops of Canterbury and York, and the Bishops of London, Durham and Winchester etc? Fair enough, but their automatic seats give their belief a privilege that other beliefs (including your belief) do not have. They are there to represent an institution - the Church of England.
I find myself very much in line with the former AOC Rowan Williams who I believe like me was one time at relative ease with disestablishment. However in his conversation he became aware of the growing antitheism and antireligion of the new atheist movement and that those of other religions in this country felt threatened and had become to see the Lords spiritual, even in there anglican nature a bulwark against growing antireligion. Given that I believe that beliefs need particularl representation rather than to leave it to haphazard oblique referencing a la the commons.
-
It is my understanding that he would like there to be no Lords spiritual in the house of Lords, He states that reality is aspiritual. That is a belief which would be enshrined in a house of Lords in which there would be no Lords spiritual. As an institution it would stand as a constant denial of my beliefs in favour of his.
That is a load of non-sense. Not having places reserved for the 26 most senior members of the Church of England, under the mis-titled Lords Spiritual (as it implies that spiritual is the sole preserve of the CofE) would in no way whatsoever expunge the recognition of 'spiritual' in the HofL. While there are members of the HoLs who consider themselves to be spiritual and consider that their spiritual nature is important then the HoLs will continue to represent those views. And of course there are many, many Peers who are religious, do consider themselves to be spiritual, consider that to be important who aren't part of the 26 Bishops block (including, let's be clear ex Archbishops of Canterbury).
The notion that a HofL without the automatic places for the 26 Bishops would be aspiritual is as bonkers are implying the following:
1. As there aren't any 'Lords Environmental' (automatic places for members of a single environmental organisation) then the HofL is aenvironmental, anti environmentalist and denying the views of environmentalists.
2. As there aren't any 'Lords Vegetarian' (automatic places for members of a single vegetarian organisation) then the HofL is avegetarian, anti vegetarian and denying the views of vegetarians.
3. As there aren't any 'Lords Sporting' (automatic places for members of a single football club) then the HofL is asporting, anti sport and denying the views of people who consider sport to be important in their lives.
The Bishops represent a special privilege afforded to a single religious organisation, that is not afforded to any other organisation, religious or otherwise. The only justification is an appeal to tradition, but that is one that I reject. If they were removed that appeal to tradition would vanish overnight and would any sensible person suggest their reinstatement.
By the way - I have no issue with CofE Bishops putting themselves forward to be appointed as peers in exactly the same manner as everyone else. Fine by me, what I object to is their automatic appointment due to their role in a completely separate organisation.
-
It is my understanding that he would like there to be no Lords spiritual in the house of Lords, He states that reality is aspiritual. That is a belief which would be enshrined in a house of Lords in which there would be no Lords spiritual. As an institution it would stand as a constant denial of my beliefs in favour of his. I want an institution which represents beliefs.
A secularism that wants a believer to keep their faith private and penalises public display is involved in the banning of religion. It also makes the impossible,i.e. probing someones personal, not publicly expressed view sound like generosity on the part of secularists.
I have not commented on the house of Commons my view being represented would involve the Lords spiritual being open to more beliefs, religious, humanistic, atheistic and secular dependent on census information perhaps It is implicit. If I am wrong and he in fact agrees with me that the Lord Temporal/Lord Spiritual nature be preserved then I apologise but he doesn't make that clear at all. I find myself very much in line with the former AOC Rowan Williams who I believe like me was one time at relative ease with disestablishment. However in his conversation he became aware of the growing antitheism and antireligion of the new atheist movement and that those of other religions in this country felt threatened and had become to see the Lords spiritual, even in there anglican nature a bulwark against growing antireligion. Given that I believe that beliefs need particularl representation rather than to leave it to haphazard oblique referencing a la the commons.
Ah ok so focus on the HofL. I have not seen anyone argue on here for not allowing public displays of religion. I don't think there is a suggestion that people should not talk about their religious beliefs or not wear sandwich boards proclaiming God. Please define what you mean by not allowing public displays of religion.
My understanding was that Outrider did not want the Church of England to automatically have seats, rather than there be no place for spiritual people in the House of Lords. Are you saying there needs to be some people in the House of Lords who are automatically given a seat and who represent one institution that primarily exists to reflect the spiritual, or many different institutions that primarily exist to reflect the spiritual? Should they be an institution that specifically represents an established religion? Or do you mean any new appointments to the HofL should automatically include a certain number of members who are people who believe in the spiritual? Like a quota for religious people? What is your ask?
Regardless of your answer, any reforms to the HofL depends on the House of Commons, which depends on the MPs that voters elect. So ultimately it is up to voters as to how important it is to them to preserve the spiritual / religious aspect of the HofL. What are the views of voters and MPs?
-
Ah ok so focus on the HofL. I have not seen anyone argue on here for not allowing public displays of religion. I don't think there is a suggestion that people should not talk about their religious beliefs or not wear sandwich boards proclaiming God. Please define what you mean by not allowing public displays of religion.
Wearing of religious clothing and symbols, talking in faith terms in public. If you say you would still allow or desire religion to be a private matter, that sentiment is meaningless unless it implies public proscription.
Regardless of your answer, any reforms to the HofL depends on the House of Commons, which depends on the MPs that voters elect. So ultimately it is up to voters as to how important it is to them to preserve the spiritual / religious aspect of the HofL. What are the views of voters and MPs?
Of course.
-
The 1949 Parliament Act reformed the 1911 Parliament Act and reduced the powers of the HofL. There was a legal challenge to the 1949 Act where the courts decided that the 1949 Act was valid - ie it was not delegated legislation subject to HofL veto https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliament_Act_1949
That's interesting - I didn't know that.
Reading the article I think one of the elements in the legal case was that the 1949 'Act' was actually an amendment rather than a new act. Would be interesting to see whether a new act that changes the Lords and is blocked by the Lords would be also covered under the Parliament Act. I imagine we might see another legal challenge. I guess the point might rest on whether the Commons could simply abolish the Lords, i.e. remove any second chamber and do so without approval of that current second chamber.
-
Wearing of religious clothing and symbols, talking in faith terms in public. If you say you would still allow or desire religion to be a private matter, that sentiment is meaningless unless it implies public proscription.
Just non-sense.
There is no prescription on a private individual expressing their religious views in public - for example wearing religious symbols. What you seem to be misunderstanding (perhaps deliberately) is what I can and cannot do as a private individual in my own time (including in public) and what I may be able to do within a work context. We all accept that there are things that we can do in our private lives (including in public) that we cannot do when we are at work. So I might be able to wear an old ripped Iron Maiden t-shirt in the park at the weekend, but if my employer has a smart dress code (quite reasonably as I am representing the company when talking to clients) and therefore I would not be able to wear it in the office. In my private life I can go to the pub and get drunk, but if I turned up blind drunk to work I'd be disciplined.
Same is true for religion - that religious people can express their religion within their private lives (including in public) does not mean that they can always do so within a work context, particularly if doing so means that they aren't doing their job properly (e.g. refusing to serve certain clients/customers) or where dress codes (including driven by health and safety considerations) preclude wearing of certain clothes or jewellery.
But this has nothing to do with some kind of persecution of religious people - the company that does not allow the Iron Maiden t-shirt would also not allow a 'Jesus loves us' t-shirt for exactly the same reasons.
-
Just non-sense.
There is no prescription on a private individual expressing their religious views in public - for example wearing religious symbols.
And thank goodness for that. But what do people desire and if they desire it does what they desire never come to pass? What you seem to be misunderstanding (perhaps deliberately) is what I can and cannot do as a private individual in my own time (including in public) and what I may be able to do within a work context. We all accept that there are things that we can do in our private lives (including in public) that we cannot do when we are at work. So I might be able to wear an old ripped Iron Maiden t-shirt in the park at the weekend, but if my employer has a smart dress code (quite reasonably as I am representing the company when talking to clients) and therefore I would not be able to wear it in the office. In my private life I can go to the pub and get drunk, but if I turned up blind drunk to work I'd be disciplined.
Would you extend that to the proscription of rainbow flag signs or aids awareness or poppies?
Same is true for religion - that religious people can express their religion within their private lives (including in public) does not mean that they can always do so within a work context, particularly if doing so means that they aren't doing their job properly (e.g. refusing to serve certain clients/customers) or where dress codes (including driven by health and safety considerations) preclude wearing of certain clothes or jewellery.
Again would you proscribe similarly against poppies, Prostate cancer badges etc?
Since we have established that the desire to make religion a private affair while allowing it to be public is a bit contradictory......will you be advocating that religion should be a private affair?
-
Wearing of religious clothing and symbols, talking in faith terms in public. If you say you would still allow or desire religion to be a private matter, that sentiment is meaningless unless it implies public proscription.
Of course.
There is a court case happening at the moment I think about a Christian nurse who was allegedly bullied for wearing a Christian cross and asked to remove it on H&S grounds but she alleges that Sikh bracelets and hijabs and symbols of other religions were permitted to be worn. If that is true then that is outrageous.
If it's a discreet display, not seeing the problem and I think any employer or organisation or user of a service who does have a problem with a religious symbol being displayed is attempting to unreasonably limit freedom of expression and should be prevented from doing so. I would vote for an MP who reflected my views in their job, though if they were a liar and a crook I might have to re-think my voting priorities.
-
That's interesting - I didn't know that.
Reading the article I think one of the elements in the legal case was that the 1949 'Act' was actually an amendment rather than a new act. Would be interesting to see whether a new act that changes the Lords and is blocked by the Lords would be also covered under the Parliament Act. I imagine we might see another legal challenge. I guess the point might rest on whether the Commons could simply abolish the Lords, i.e. remove any second chamber and do so without approval of that current second chamber.
The Lords can't permanently block a bill introduced in the Commons. If they vote it down twice, the Commons can push it through without their assent.
-
There is a court case happening at the moment I think about a Christian nurse who was allegedly bullied for wearing a Christian cross and asked to remove it on H&S grounds but she alleges that Sikh bracelets and hijabs and symbols of other religions were permitted to be worn. If that is true then that is outrageous.
If it's a discreet display, not seeing the problem and I think any employer or organisation or user of a service who does have a problem with a religious symbol being displayed is attempting to unreasonably limit freedom of expression and should be prevented from doing so. I would vote for an MP who reflected my views in their job, though if they were a liar and a crook I might have to re-think my voting priorities.
This was the case I was thinking of brought by Mary Onuoha against Croydon Health Services Trust - I did not realise that it had gone to tribunal and been decided. It was found that:
The trust had “directly discriminated against and harassed” Onuoha, and her “dismissal had been both discriminatory and unfair”.
However, the suggestion that the trust had deliberately targeted the cross necklace as a symbol of the Christian faith or that the trust had acted out of “any kind of prejudice towards the Christian faith” was rejected by a majority of the tribunal.
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2022/jan/05/nurse-victimised-for-wearing-cross-at-work-was-unfairly-dismissed-tribunal-rules
-
No I am on record on this forum as wanting a place in the house of Lords for members of the Humanist societies and Secular societies of equal standing with any anglican Lord by spirituality I mean those Lords who are there representing core views that are not represented by temporal,political and material issues.
Why does 'spirituality' require reserved seats in the legislature, as opposed to any other determination or group? Sexuality - reserved seats for the full range of the LGBTQI+ communities? Philosophy? Sport - who can argue that the snowboarders and synchronised swimmers are under-represented?
Spirituality is, at best, just one aspect of human experience - why does it need a special place at the table?
O.
-
I apologise for my lack of clarity. I am talking about two models of humanity represented by people arguing here. I propose a model based on real 21st century people where spirituality and non spirituality are formally represented.
We already have that - we have people with a range of spiritual outlooks in both houses.
The other model of humanity is the aspiritual homonculus as held by outrider. Where any representation of spirituality can be disregarded.
Worzel Gummidge? Dr Johnathan Crane? Jack Pumpkinhead?
Here the House of Lords would stand as an institution to remind people that they are what white british middle class athiests conceive them to be. That is itself a belief position and therefore would qualify for a seat.
Except for the bit where no-one was suggesting that... except for that, you're just plain wrong. Including that, by the time we get here, it has to be close to the point where we have to conclude that you're not misunderstanding, you're just deliberately misrepresenting. Which is sort of a tacit admission that you don't really have an argument against the points that are actually being made, so you're trying to manufacture an argument against a case that isn't being made.
I'm in favour of an elected upper house - at this point in time, at a functional level, that would possible result in MORE people who profess to a spiritual belief than are currently there. The point is, though, that their position would not purely be BECAUSE of their spirituality, but either because spirituality was important to the people they were representing or was irrelevant to the decision entirely.
O.
-
The Lords can't permanently block a bill introduced in the Commons. If they vote it down twice, the Commons can push it through without their assent.
True in most, but not all cases.
So the Commons cannot use the Parliament Act to extend its parliamentary term. And I think there was (and still is) legal argument as to whether the commons can use the Parliament Act to extend its own powers. So, for example, were the commons to bring forward an act to abolish the second chamber entirely and bring the current role of the Lords into the commons thereby extending its powers then I'd be confident there would be a legal challenge over whether this could be achieved under the parliament act.
-
Why does 'spirituality' require reserved seats in the legislature, as opposed to any other determination or group? Sexuality - reserved seats for the full range of the LGBTQI+ communities? Philosophy? Sport - who can argue that the snowboarders and synchronised swimmers are under-represented?
Spirituality is, at best, just one aspect of human experience - why does it need a special place at the table?
O.
The model of the split between the temporal and spiritual has survived in my opinion because a check and balance between the short term material expedients and the moral and human integrity as encapsulated in the idea of the spiritual.
Temporal lords who probably shared this view back along welcomed a check on their being absorbed, hijacked even by these short term material expedients.
That is why it needs a special place at the table, so there is a check on the fad, the fashion, taste, flights of self indulgent ego etc, and short termism. Rather like the Roman emperors who had somebody reminding them who they really were.
So given the need for an alternative view, what are the merits of doing away with the checks and balances which you seem to be proposing. To me yours is a view which exists just to promote your aspiritual model of humanity something which has precious little to offer even short term quotidien issues.
-
We already have that - we have people with a range of spiritual outlooks in both houses.
Worzel Gummidge? Dr Johnathan Crane? Jack Pumpkinhead?
Except for the bit where no-one was suggesting that... except for that, you're just plain wrong. Including that, by the time we get here, it has to be close to the point where we have to conclude that you're not misunderstanding, you're just deliberately misrepresenting. Which is sort of a tacit admission that you don't really have an argument against the points that are actually being made, so you're trying to manufacture an argument against a case that isn't being made.
I'm in favour of an elected upper house - at this point in time, at a functional level, that would possible result in MORE people who profess to a spiritual belief than are currently there. The point is, though, that their position would not purely be BECAUSE of their spirituality, but either because spirituality was important to the people they were representing or was irrelevant to the decision entirely.
O.
How do we know we have a range of spiritualites represented?
How do we know these spiritualities are being represented? How do we know that anything other than party politics is being represented?
Wit the Lords spiritual we would know that there would be checks on short term material or political expedients.
-
The model of the split between the temporal and spiritual has survived in my opinion because a check and balance between the short term material expedients and the moral and human integrity as encapsulated in the idea of the spiritual.
Like the way they consistently worked against equality?
That is why it needs a special place at the table, so there is a check on the fad, the fashion, taste, flights of self indulgent ego etc, and short termism.
That's what the whole of the upper house is for.
So given the need for an alternative view, what are the merits of doing away with the checks and balances which you seem to be proposing.
Except that they aren't a proportionate check or balance, they are a reserved place for one particular viewpoint, regardless of its relevance to the nation at large. Even if you were to make the case that their history, or even their current incarnation, is broadly beneficial, it doesn't change the underlying issue that nothing in the existence of the Lords Spiritual makes that a requirement.
To me yours is a view which exists just to promote your aspiritual model of humanity something which has precious little to offer even short term quotidien issues.
Whereas you just seem to want to cling to historic privilege because it suits YOUR worldview, failing to appreciate that it's not just your Parliament, it's everyone's Parliament, and everyone should be represented equally. You know, for the long-term, moral good of all, rather than the short-term, temporal power-grab that keeping the Lords Spiritual represents.
O.
-
Like the way they consistently worked against equality?
I think you have to look at the complete record over several decades. By equality are you talking about economic equality, gender equality, sexual equalty, racial equality or what? Usually your type majors of sexual equality to the exclusion of all other equalities IMHO
Except that they aren't a proportionate check or balance
Any check is better than the zero check you are proposing, they are a reserved place for one particular viewpoint, regardless of its relevance to the nation at large.
Firstly it is a superior model than yours for the reasons I have said. Secondly a house of Lords whose intrinsic use is merely to remind people that according to the current Hegemony i.e. white middle class agnostic secularism, They are just politico economic beings. Even if you were to make the case that their history, or even their current incarnation, is broadly beneficial,
It offers an undiluted view of things from a different perspective but that can be better served by widening it's membership not removing it just for the purposes of reminding the people that they are merely the politico-economic homonculus of Middle class atheism.
Whereas you just seem to want to cling to historic privilege because it suits YOUR worldview,
No, I want it, the Lords spiritual, to contain professional humanists and secularists as well as the religious I want it's membership to contain people with your anthropo-psychological understanding of humanity.
-
True in most, but not all cases.
So the Commons cannot use the Parliament Act to extend its parliamentary term. And I think there was (and still is) legal argument as to whether the commons can use the Parliament Act to extend its own powers. So, for example, were the commons to bring forward an act to abolish the second chamber entirely and bring the current role of the Lords into the commons thereby extending its powers then I'd be confident there would be a legal challenge over whether this could be achieved under the parliament act.
I stand corrected: bills extending the life of parliament are specifically excluded from the provisions of the parliament act. But there aren't any exclusions for any other types of bill (excepting those I've already mentioned). That said, the law is a funny thing, not always subject to common sense and the British constitution may have things to say as well.
Of course, a government seeking to get more powers could just threaten to create enough peers sympathetic to its cause to get the bill through. This is what the Liberal Party threatened to force through the original 1911 Parliament Act.
-
The model of the split between the temporal and spiritual has survived in my opinion because a check and balance between the short term material expedients and the moral and human integrity as encapsulated in the idea of the spiritual.
Temporal lords who probably shared this view back along welcomed a check on their being absorbed, hijacked even by these short term material expedients.
That is why it needs a special place at the table, so there is a check on the fad, the fashion, taste, flights of self indulgent ego etc, and short termism. Rather like the Roman emperors who had somebody reminding them who they really were.
I think that's wishful thinking on your part that spiritual people do not succumb to the fads, fashions, ego and self-interests as most other human beings. Some spiritual people are conservative/ traditionalists and some are liberal / reformists and open to change so there will be a split on issues like for non-spiritual people - e.g. women being ordained as Bishops, gay marriage etc. Some spiritual people care more about retaining personal power to tell other people what to do than they do about being humble and of service to society.
You also get some spiritual people who sexually abuse children because they put their own need for self-gratification above any moral issues of what is in the best interests of their victim or society.
How do you know the Lords spiritual represent yours or anyone else's moral outlook or do they just represent their own moral outlook?
So given the need for an alternative view, what are the merits of doing away with the checks and balances which you seem to be proposing. To me yours is a view which exists just to promote your aspiritual model of humanity something which has precious little to offer even short term quotidien issues.
I would say the merits would be to accurately reflect and be representative of society, as we are a democracy. If the majority of society want Lords Spiritual then we keep them. If they prefer another model or have perhaps become disillusioned with their spiritual representatives, or if voters perceive for example a complacency or laziness of thought in the pronouncements or actions/ inactions of said representatives, that is probably something the various spiritual institutions need to address internally to see what they can do regain public interest / support.
Outrider is one of those who does not perceive benefit from the current model of the Lords Spiritual hence he is arguing for getting rid of automatic appointments of spiritual representatives in favour of having people in HofL who are elected, on the basis they will be held accountable for their actions and more representative of the views of society.
So different forms of spirituality could be represented in an elected HofL provided they have voter/ public support. Outrider's model just means there will be no automatic right to seats without first having earned them through voter support.
What is your idea of how to decide between competing candidates to appoint to the HofL so that the public perceive them to be representative and not out of touch with the people they claim to represent?
-
I think that's wishful thinking on your part that spiritual people do not succumb to the fads, fashions, ego and self-interests as most other human beings. Some spiritual people are conservative/ traditionalists and some are liberal / reformists and open to change so there will be a split on issues like for non-spiritual people - e.g. women being ordained as Bishops, gay marriage etc. Some spiritual people care more about retaining personal power to tell other people what to do than they do about being humble and of service to society.
Are people who not only have a world view but are or have professionally committed to it's promotion, who have studied it and have had a responsibility oriented to that world view COMMUNITY subject to the same motivations as those who are there for party political, temporal, financial reasons? I think not
You also get some spiritual people who sexually abuse children because they put their own need for self-gratification above any moral issues of what is in the best interests of their victim or society.
And they should be removed as should any Lord
How do you know the Lords spiritual represent yours or anyone else's moral outlook or do they just represent their own moral outlook?
If they at least believe in a Lords spiritual as I do, their presence automatically represents human citizens better than their absence.
Outrider is one of those who does not perceive benefit from the current model of the Lords Spiritual hence he is arguing for getting rid of automatic appointments of spiritual representatives in favour of having people in HofL who are elected, on the basis they will be held accountable for their actions and more representative of the views of society.
I would put it differently. Outrider IMV wishes to do away with the Lords spiritual as a way of advancing a view of humanity he would like people to be inveigled into via stealth erosion of religious views. That view could though be accomodated in what I propose. But his view is exclusive of any spiritual view.
So different forms of spirituality could be represented in an elected HofL provided they have voter/ public support. Outrider's model just means there will be no automatic right to seats without first having earned them through voter support.
So he wants an elected House of Lords.
What is your idea of how to decide between competing candidates to appoint to the HofL so that the public perceive them to be representative and not out of touch with the people they claim to represent?
This is a question of categories of Lords. An increase in categories is IMV more representative than having one category. particularly if one type represents the quotidien yet transient politico economic views and one type represents a wide range of world views.
-
I think you have to look at the complete record over several decades.
Arguably you could look a lot longer than that, the Lords Spritual have been fighting against progress for centuries.
By equality are you talking about economic equality, gender equality, sexual equalty, racial equality or what?
All of those. You can make a recent argument that the Lords Spiritual have become vocal about their depiction of economic equality being important - which is a good thing - I'm not aware of their current stance on racial equality but I'd imagine it's relatively progressive, which wasn't always the case. They were vocally opposed to, for instance, universal suffrage when that was being touted in the inter-war years, and the last I heard they remained opposed to gay marriage.
Usually your type majors of sexual equality to the exclusion of all other equalities IMHO
My type? I think you'll find that all the trendy ultra-woke antitheists are all about the gender-identity these days...
Any check is better than the zero check you are proposing
When I proposed entirely abandoning any sort of upper house? Oh, wait, no, no-one did that. No-one is proposing 'zero checks', I'm just suggesting that we shouldn't be skewing the distribution of the background of those checks by giving a reserved extra voice to some religious extremists.
Firstly it is a superior model than yours for the reasons I have said.
Arguably a superior model to the caricature of my model that you've cleaved to for reasons only you may know.
Secondly a house of Lords whose intrinsic use is merely to remind people that according to the current Hegemony i.e. white middle class agnostic secularism, They are just politico economic beings.
So instead we should be reserving seats for white middle-class theists? Way to push the broad view. An elected second house would be able to represent the people in a way that the party affiliated lower house does not - which, implicitly, you understand because you're in favour of the concept with this one special case carved out.
It offers an undiluted view of things from a different perspective but that can be better served by widening it's membership not removing it just for the purposes of reminding the people that they are merely the politico-economic homonculus of Middle class atheism.
Their view can, and almost certainly will be, represented, it just wouldn't be privileged - it wouldn't, for instance, be representative amongst the elected members and then skewed by having this reserved group of special cases on top.
No, I want it, the Lords spiritual, to contain professional humanists and secularists as well as the religious I want it's membership to contain people with your anthropo-psychological understanding of humanity.
So vote for those people. Encourage other people to vote for those people. Don't reserve seats for your interpretation of one (or potentially more) institutions interpretation of those people. Earn your seat, don't get given it because of a historic politico-social architecture deemed it useful in an attempt to deny the reality that the politico-social architecture has moved on.
O.
-
Are people who not only have a world view but are or have professionally committed to it's promotion, who have studied it and have had a responsibility oriented to that world view COMMUNITY subject to the same motivations as those who are there for party political, temporal, financial reasons? I think not
I'm sure, if you asked them, both David Cameron and Tony Blair would tell you that they felt they fit this description. You can do all of those things without being a Bishop. You can do all of those things and be repugnantly socially recidivist.
If they at least believe in a Lords spiritual as I do, their presence automatically represents human citizens better than their absence.
And yet, merely being affiliated with an institution doesn't mean that they would believe as you do - whereas, having to explain what they espouse and believe during an election campaign would give you an idea of whether they believed as you do.
I would put it differently. Outrider IMV wishes to do away with the Lords spiritual as a way of advancing a view of humanity he would like people to be inveigled into via stealth erosion of religious views.
On the contrary, I don't want to erode religious views, I wish to erode religious power.
That view could though be accomodated in what I propose. But his view is exclusive of any spiritual view.
Again, no. Religious people are not banned, they just don't have reserved seats for if they don't get elected.
So he wants an elected House of Lords. This is a question of categories of Lords. An increase in categories is IMV more representative than having one category. particularly if one type represents the quotidien yet transient politico economic views and one type represents a wide range of world views.
So where do the special interests end? Do we have Lords Scientific? Lords Political, Legal, Musical? Does Dance get its own, or is it lumped in with ska under music? Or with sculpture under art? Does medicine qualify separately, or is it part of science? Do we have 'health, and try find Lords who can represent both actual medicine and homeopathy?
O.
-
Are people who not only have a world view but are or have professionally committed to it's promotion, who have studied it and have had a responsibility oriented to that world view COMMUNITY subject to the same motivations as those who are there for party political, temporal, financial reasons? I think not
Are their motivations the same? My experience is that some atheists are altruistic and some theists are altruistic in certain situations and sometimes they both do not have altruistic motives. The evidence suggests both can be selfish, misguided, ignorant, motivated by money, political power etc etc in certain situations. So not seeing any significant difference in the motivation of people seeking political influence by sitting in the HofL regardless of being spiritual or not.
By world view, do you mean the Lords Spiritual share the world view of a hope and belief in a supernatural entity that exercises moral judgement?
Other than that, as with the diversity of thought and interpretation of all people, religious or otherwise, people's concepts of the supernatural entity are different, their concepts of the morality of the supernatural entity are different, how much tolerance they show to other opinions are different, their resultant moral decisions are different, their interpretation of the various religious texts are different.
I don't think that believing in a supernatural entity will lead to morally better or even different decisions from those who are there for party political, temporal, financial reasons. The reason being is that a lot of spiritual people serve their own interests first or put party political, temporal, financial reasons head of spiritual considerations.
The question is whether a belief in a supernatural entity is of sufficient significance in the social sphere to have an automatic seat at the table for a group of people who share that belief. I am not convinced that their belief deserves automatic rights - if their message is beneficial then they should be there because they have sufficient skills to convince the public of why they need a seat at the table. The only other possible argument is if the public view spiritual people as deserving of an automatic seat as a discriminated against minority - like a quota system.
If they at least believe in a Lords spiritual as I do, their presence automatically represents human citizens better than their absence.
Sure - but it might be at the expense of other special interests as there are limited seats. So one way to solve the competing interests is for everyone to stand for election and no one getting an automatic seat.
I would put it differently. Outrider IMV wishes to do away with the Lords spiritual as a way of advancing a view of humanity he would like people to be inveigled into via stealth erosion of religious views. That view could though be accomodated in what I propose. But his view is exclusive of any spiritual view.
An election means no one has control over the outcome - its in the hands of the voters, not in the control of Outrider. That's usually a fair method unless minorities are not being represented. Is that your argument for an automatic seat for Lords Spiritual? So he wants an elected House of Lords This is a question of categories of Lords. An increase in categories is IMV more representative than having one category. particularly if one type represents the quotidien yet transient politico economic views and one type represents a wide range of world views.
What would you suggest is a fair way for Society to pick these categories and decide how many seats are assigned to each category?
-
Are their motivations the same? My experience is that some atheists are altruistic and some theists are altruistic in certain situations and sometimes they both do not have altruistic motives.
I would expect a basic level of altruism from those who are in parliament. However we know that altruism can get lost in parliament where it is important to remind people intellectually, spiritually and historically of it's importance. I could imagine say a Lord Sentamyu a Lord Mirvis, a Lady Khorsandi and a Lord Dawkins enriching such an enterprise. The evidence suggests both can be selfish, misguided, ignorant, motivated by money, political power etc etc in certain situations.
I find myself thinking that this type of naked self interest is less pronounced in some one who has earned high respected in their own world view community and possibly beyond.
By world view, do you mean the Lords Spiritual share the world view of a hope and belief in a supernatural entity that exercises moral judgement?
It should be clear to you by now that my view of the Lords spiritual is not that inclusive and world view beliefs need not involve supernatural entities.
Other than that, as with the diversity of thought and interpretation of all people, religious or otherwise, people's concepts of the supernatural entity are different, their concepts of the morality of the supernatural entity are different, how much tolerance they show to other opinions are different, their resultant moral decisions are different, their interpretation of the various religious texts are different.
And this range should be represented in our national life.
I don't think that believing in a supernatural entity will lead to morally better or even different decisions from those who are there for party political, temporal, financial reasons. The reason being is that a lot of spiritual people serve their own interests first or put party political, temporal, financial reasons head of spiritual considerations.
Such a range of beliefs will be represented and those representing would probably be those highly respected in their respective communities for their wisdom and knowledge.
The question is whether a belief in a supernatural entity is of sufficient significance in the social sphere to have an automatic seat at the table for a group of people who share that belief. I am not convinced that their belief deserves automatic rights - if their message is beneficial then they should be there because they have sufficient skills to convince the public of why they need a seat at the table. The only other possible argument is if the public view spiritual people as deserving of an automatic seat as a discriminated against minority - like a quota system.
Sure - but it might be at the expense of other special interests as there are limited seats. So one way to solve the competing interests is for everyone to stand for election and no one getting an automatic seat. An election means no one has control over the outcome - its in the hands of the voters, not in the control of Outrider. That's usually a fair method unless minorities are not being represented. Is that your argument for an automatic seat for Lords Spiritual? What would you suggest is a fair way for Society to pick these categories and decide how many seats are assigned to each category?
I base my suggestion on representation of the humanity of Britain. The political acceptance of Bodies piled high by the democratically elected leadership shows that the belief aspect of humanity, that which gives humanity dignity is far from represented in our system. IMHO.
There would be no election system identical to that of the house of commons. That, it seems to me, leaves it prey to party politics. It also mocks the notion of a house of expertise or wisdom or life experience.
-
Arguably you could look a lot longer than that, the Lords Spritual have been fighting against progress for centuries.
Do you mean change and progress?
My understanding of progress in your circles is of perpetual change for the better which happens automatically and thus should not be subject to any intellectual or moral challenge.
[/quote]
-
Do you mean change and progress?
I love the way you ask the question like you're going to pay any attention to my answer and not just continue with your caricature of my position... nevertheless, to play the game.
Without change there is no progress. By progress, I refer to what's generally considered to be progressive ideas in sociopolitics - an increase in personal liberty, equality of opportunity and access.
My understanding of progress in your circles is of perpetual change for the better which happens automatically and thus should not be subject to any intellectual or moral challenge.
Maybe that fundamentally flawed understanding is the underlying cause of your failure to realise why maintaining the unwarranted privilege of the Lords Spiritual is a bad thing?
O.
-
I love the way you ask the question like you're going to pay any attention to my answer and not just continue with your caricature of my position... nevertheless, to play the game.
Without change there is no progress.
Or regress.
By progress, I refer to what's generally considered to be progressive ideas in sociopolitics
That's a bit tautological n'est pas - an increase in personal liberty, equality of opportunity and access.
If you hadn't noticed, that is being wound back by politicians.....in this enlightened, increasingly secular nation. Wound back by the boarding school class of politician, journalist, activist and lobbyist.
Maybe that fundamentally flawed understanding is the underlying cause of your failure to realise why maintaining the unwarranted privilege of the Lords Spiritual is a bad thing?
As I said Rowan Williams proposed there were religious minorities who see Lords spiritual as a bulwark against the antireligious undercurrent of the british middle and working classes, even in it's present form which, make no mistake I want changed too but not in your way which shows arseclenching lack of imagination and understanding...in my humble opinion.
-
I would expect a basic level of altruism from those who are in parliament. However we know that altruism can get lost in parliament where it is important to remind people intellectually, spiritually and historically of it's importance. I could imagine say a Lord Sentamyu a Lord Mirvis, a Lady Khorsandi and a Lord Dawkins enriching such an enterprise. I find myself thinking that this type of naked self interest is less pronounced in some one who has earned high respected in their own world view community and possibly beyond.
Given the news stories over the years about people involved in politics, I am really sceptical about anyone who claims they seek these positions because they are driven by altruism. While, as you say, there may be a basic level of altruism in some situations, it has become increasingly clear that Lords, spiritual or otherwise, are susceptible to self-interest, human weakness, fallible motivations, biases, all of which will affect their role in Parliament. Plus it has been claimed that altruism has many benefits for the altruist. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/hide-and-seek/201203/does-true-altruism-exist
It should be clear to you by now that my view of the Lords spiritual is not that inclusive and world view beliefs need not involve supernatural entities.
Ok - so spiritual does not necessarily involve anything supernatural - got it. And you have said you would include atheists / humanists in this category.
And this range should be represented in our national life. Such a range of beliefs will be represented and those representing would probably be those highly respected in their respective communities for their wisdom and knowledge. I base my suggestion on representation of the humanity of Britain. The political acceptance of Bodies piled high by the democratically elected leadership shows that the belief aspect of humanity, that which gives humanity dignity is far from represented in our system. IMHO.
There would be no election system identical to that of the house of commons. That, it seems to me, leaves it prey to party politics. It also mocks the notion of a house of expertise or wisdom or life experience.
Ok so independents who hold beliefs that are not based on political party lines or party loyalty as a check on the legislation passed by the House of Commons - although both spiritual and political beliefs involve being interested in the humanity of society.
But given they are not accountable to the electorate, their spiritual beliefs could involve getting the country further and further into debt by paying for welfare that isn't matched by tax income, but you still think they should be given an automatic seat. It's not difficult to see why people might disagree with your idea though is it? And it would not be because they want religion to disappear from public life.
-
So tell me, Vlad, if the HoL was replaced by a second chamber that was filled on the basis of recurring elections, like the HoC, would you agree with that approach?
I'd have no problem with people standing for election (perhaps using a form of PR) on the stated basis of their religious outlook, and if they had sufficient proportionate votes to get themselves elected then it could be said that this demonstrated that there was indeed public support for an overt religiously-inspired role in political governance arrangements.
Has to be better that special privileges for just on organisation, that according to its name is specific to just one of he four nations of the UK, and cannot be seen to specifically represent anyone other that its members.
-
So tell me, Vlad, if the HoL was replaced by a second chamber that was filled on the basis of recurring elections, like the HoC, would you agree with that approach?
As long as the House was divided into the Lords Temporal and the Lords worldview then I would not be averse to an elective element.
I'd have no problem with people standing for election (perhaps using a form of PR) on the stated basis of their religious outlook, and if they had sufficient proportionate votes to get themselves elected then it could be said that this demonstrated that there was indeed public support for an overt religiously-inspired role in political governance arrangements.
see previous.
Has to be better that special privileges for just on organisation, that according to its name is specific to just one of he four nations of the UK, and cannot be seen to specifically represent anyone other that its members.
I disagree strongly with any reduction and collapse of something like a world view e.g. atheism, Hinduism, secular humanism into the term 'organisation. That is just mealy mouth word misuse. I am not keen on the c of e retaining it's privilege but any reform should be in the direction of widening the membership of the non temporal lords rather than an antireligious promotion disguised as a virtuous move
-
As long as the House was divided into the Lords Temporal and the Lords worldview then I would not be averse to an elective element.
So you want to stack the deck? Why not just let those whose wish to stand on a religious platform do so, and then it becomes a matter for the electorate whether or not they get elected.
I disagree strongly with any reduction and collapse of something like a world view e.g. atheism, Hinduism, secular humanism into the term 'organisation. That is just mealy mouth word misuse.
Not really: it is a clear fact that there are various religious organisations around, with the CofE given its special HoL privileges being the obvious example: and the CofE is an organisation since it has staff, a management structure, career progression and various premises (as do other religious organisations) - and these organisations do get involved in political lobbying.
I am not keen on the c of e retaining it's privilege but any reform should be in the direction of widening the membership of the non temporal lords rather than an antireligious promotion disguised as a virtuous move
How can allowing those with an overt religious agenda to present themselves for election on a platform based on their religious agenda ever be "antireligious"?
-
So you want to stack the deck? Why not just let those whose wish to stand on a religious platform do so, and then it becomes a matter for the electorate whether or not they get elected.
Not really: it is a clear fact that there are various religious organisations around, with the CofE given its special HoL privileges being the obvious example: and the CofE is an organisation since it has staff, a management structure, career progression and various premises (as do other religious organisations) - and these organisations do get involved in political lobbying.
How can allowing those with an overt religious agenda to present themselves for election on a platform based on their religious agenda ever be "antireligious"?
That would not be a situation that would arise in a house where there was a fixed dichotomy of Lords temporal and Lords world view. As I said beyond that dichotomy ''elect away'' to your hearts content.
To have one type of Lord temporal betrays an arseclenchingly uncharitable, narrow and unimaginative view of the citizen and citizenry.
I do not advocate a privilege class of Lords C of E but while it is like that I support their efforts in countering the tyranny of the majority particularly in terms of religious minority.
We already get to elect a house of commons where reality shows us that any twat can get in and get on and that twats clearly have representation.
-
That would not be a situation that would arise in a house where there was a fixed dichotomy of Lords temporal and Lords world view. As I said beyond that dichotomy ''elect away'' to your hearts content.
Why is there are need for two classes of the elected at all? If the electorate has an option of voting for those who indicate they are standing on a religious platform then surely that is sufficient - they will receive electoral support, or they won't, on the same basis as candidates standing on different platforms - I believe this approach is loosely referred to as 'democracy'.
To have one type of Lord temporal betrays an arseclenchingly uncharitable, narrow and unimaginative view of the citizen and citizenry.
Don't be silly - remember the electorate decide who to vote for, and those elected (irrespective of the platform they stood on) are just a temporary set of elected members. Perhaps you are concerned that not enough of the electorate will support those standing on an overt religious agenda but what happens in free and fair elections, as you may have noticed, is that the electorate gets to choose and that some candidates are successful while others are rejected. Sounds to me that you'd prefer not to risk that the electorate gets to choose in case their choice doesn't fit with your preferences.
I do not advocate a privilege class of Lords C of E but while it is like that I support their efforts in countering the tyranny of the majority particularly in terms of religious minority.
So you support that the CofE/religious groups have special privileges to play a part in political governance.
We already get to elect a house of commons where reality shows us that any twat can get in and get on and that twats clearly have representation.
There is a long and honourable history of twats getting themselves elected, as current political events illustrate, but that is a consequence of the electoral system and the processes that get said twats on the ballot-paper: I can't see why even those of a religious persuasion who seek election should be excluded from participating in the electoral twatfest.
After all, as you imply, one can only conclude that a proportion of the electorate must therefore be fellow twats given who and what some of them have voted for in recent years.
-
Why is there are need for two classes of the elected at all?
You seem to be saying the election to the upper house is central. I think we have to start with the purpose of the second house. How could a tory upper house possibly act as a check and balance on a tory commons? Alistair Campbell famously pointed out that the Labour party doesn't do religion. That doesn't reflect or represent the ''doing of'' religion by people in the country. Similarly what people want in a house of commons is someone who is going to represent their socioeconomicpolitical lives which someone focussed on religion cannot deliver. That is why people don't want parties or candidates that just represent one aspect of their lives. Look at the difficulty of the green party in getting people in the commons. If the electorate has an option of voting for those who indicate they are standing on a religious platform then surely that is sufficient
I think we have shown that people standing on any world view ticket, The greens, The natural law party, The Christian party do not get elected or get elected in minute quantities. Give yourself a quick check. If a gay or climate change candidate was standing on those respective tickets would you give up the SNP? I wouldn't elect a christian merely standing on a religious ticket. I would stand then with my world view unrepresented or inadequately represented. That's an important part of me. Now you would be more represented, enjoying as you do my frustration. - they will receive electoral support, or they won't,
They won't on the same basis as candidates standing on different platforms - I believe this approach is loosely referred to as 'democracy'.
No, We know that only parties representing centrally socioeconomicpolitical views get elected.
remember the electorate decide who to vote for,
Yes but election is not central to the purpose of an upper house which I would say is there to act as a check and a balance. Create a second commons and you effectively only have one with no check or balance. The upperhouse looks at things from a different view point. It should have people bringing the relevance of world view and it should have experience and those elected. Now election may be a way of getting people who can do this although a one person on vote universal suffrage system may not be appropriate to achieve this (irrespective of the platform they stood on) are just a temporary set of elected members.
Is that really appropriate for what we want from another house? I thought it was expertise and wisdom and full representation. How is that achieved by here today gone tomorrow party politicians? Perhaps you are concerned that not enough of the electorate will support those standing on an overt religious agenda but what happens in free and fair elections,
I'm for a category of Lords who reflect and represent world views Gordon yours included, as you have failed to notice or more likely failed to act on that knowledge.
-
Or regress.
Potentially, yes.
That's a bit tautological n'est pas
Not at all, it's pointing out that there's a generally accepted core idea, with some debate about the fringes, and that the detail probably isn't that important to this discussion.
If you hadn't noticed, that is being wound back by politicians.....in this enlightened, increasingly secular nation. Wound back by the boarding school class of politician, journalist, activist and lobbyist.
There is - and always has been - agents of the establishment who have sought to maintain a status quo, or to try to pull back a few decades to a perceived 'golden age'. Until very recently, the Church of England was firmly at the heart of that, and elements of the Anglican community still are.
As I said Rowan Williams proposed there were religious minorities who see Lords spiritual as a bulwark against the antireligious undercurrent of the british middle and working classes, even in it's present form which, make no mistake I want changed too but not in your way which shows arse-clenching lack of imagination and understanding...in my humble opinion.
And you could easily make a case for the Philistine tendencies of the working class to favour football over ballet as a reason to reserve seats for the 'fine' arts, or you could make the case for the anti-science populist right wing to necessitate the 'Lords Scientific'... that balance of competing interests and ideas is precisely why we shouldn't have reserved seats on one particular issue. Religion and spirituality is important to you, but there are many of us who couldn't find one shit to give about it, let alone two; the same goes for ballet, and football, and journalism and music and any number of others.
What makes religion different? Why does religion deserve a special place, when actually important relevant things (he said with "arse-clenching lack of imagination and understanding" ::) ) don't?
O?
-
Potentially, yes.
Not at all, it's pointing out that there's a generally accepted core idea, with some debate about the fringes, and that the detail probably isn't that important to this discussion.
There is - and always has been - agents of the establishment who have sought to maintain a status quo, or to try to pull back a few decades to a perceived 'golden age'. Until very recently, the Church of England was firmly at the heart of that, and elements of the Anglican community still are.
And you could easily make a case for the Philistine tendencies of the working class to favour football over ballet as a reason to reserve seats for the 'fine' arts, or you could make the case for the anti-science populist right wing to necessitate the 'Lords Scientific'... that balance of competing interests and ideas is precisely why we shouldn't have reserved seats on one particular issue. Religion and spirituality is important to you, but there are many of us who couldn't find one shit to give about it, let alone two; the same goes for ballet, and football, and journalism and music and any number of others.
What makes religion different? Why does religion deserve a special place, when actually important relevant things (he said with "arse-clenching lack of imagination and understanding" ::) ) don't?
O?
You are just trivialising ''world views'' here. All the types of Lords mentioned here have been and are represented in the Lords temporal.
-
Vlad
You either have free and fair democratic elections or you don't.
Of course the method used is relevant too, where FFP favours the larger parties, but perhaps some for of proportional representation method (such as used in Holyrood, where not all the seats are based on FFP) would give a greater change that smaller parties/interest groups that have a level of support that is notable but not sufficient to win FFP seats outright.
But I don't think you can guarantee representation of any interest group, religious or otherwise, if they don't have at least some electoral support - since if you did that you would be, as I said earlier, artificially stacking the deck and removing the influence of the electorate.
-
Vlad
You either have free and fair democratic election or you don't.
If free and fair democratic elections result in whatever succeeds the house of Lords, which acts as a check on the commons and reflects world views properly then have them....if they do not then don't.
People still get a free and fair election for the commons anyway.
-
If free and fair democratic elections result in whatever succeeds the house of Lords, which acts as a check on the commons and reflects world views properly then have them....if they do not then don't.
People still get a free and fair election for the commons anyway.
How can you 'reflect world views properly' though?
Prospective candidates are free to espouse whatever 'world view' (whatever that means) they subscribe to but it is the electorate that needs to be convinced in sufficient numbers for them to be elected. You seem to favour ensuring that the 'world view' you subscribe to should be represented by dictat without knowing the extent to which you'd have electoral support.
If I had a 'world view' that in any second chamber there should be at least 16 men with beards, like me, would you insist that my 'world view' should be taken seriously and enforced by dictat, or would you trust the electorate to decide if my 'world view' was worthy of their support?
-
You are just trivialising ''world views'' here. All the types of Lords mentioned here have been and are represented in the Lords temporal.
Which completely fails to answer the question of why you don't think the representative spread of religious people amongst the Lords Temporal cannot adequately represent religion and religious views when they apparently can adequately represent, say, medicine or art? What is it that you think makes religion need special help?
O.
-
How can you 'reflect world views properly' though?
Prospective candidates are free to espouse whatever 'world view' (whatever that means) they subscribe to but it is the electorate that needs to be convinced in sufficient numbers for them to be elected. You seem to favour ensuring that the 'world view' you subscribe to should be represented by dictat without knowing the extent to which they have electoral support.
If I had a 'world view' that at in any second chamber there should be at least 16 men with beards, like me, would you insist that my 'world view' should be taken seriously and enforced by dictat, or would you trust the electorate to decide if my 'world view' was worthy of their support?
I think you've had candidates and electorates in mind all along Gordon and I've had categorys of candidates and functions of houses in mind. You are advocating two of the same kinds of houses, otherwise known as one kind of house, or effectively one house. I've talked about One house which satisfies what you want and another house which has Lords temporal and Lords world view which might or might not have elections to it. If there were, a certain number of people would be elected as a world view lord.
So we are talking about two different things. Two conceptions of what needs representing, Two conceptions of checking and balancing. I have established in this thread what I feel needs properly represented and why an elected upper house removes check and balance if those elections are on the same basis as for the house of commons i.e. party political based on unreflected or informed socio economic concerns only
-
Which completely fails to answer the question of why you don't think the representative spread of religious people amongst the Lords Temporal cannot adequately represent religion and religious views when they apparently can adequately represent, say, medicine or art? What is it that you think makes religion need special help?
O.
Because were it to be a carbon copy of the commons the focus would be socio economic and party political.
I do not think in terms of religion needing special help. You might as well ask the question why does socio economic and party political interests need the special help of having a dedicated house. I think world views need the same status as temporal here today gone tomorrow issues.
You keep misrepresenting my position as particularly religious.
On the other hand if you are asking why I support the idea of the current House of Lords as a buffer for religious minorities against overzealous secularists it's because I can empathise with the discomfort they feel from overzealous secularists having experienced them through this forum over a period of years.
-
I think you've had candidates and electorates in mind all along Gordon and I've had categorys of candidates and functions of houses in mind. You are advocating two of the same kinds of houses, otherwise known as one kind of house, or effectively one house. I've talked about One house which satisfies what you want and another house which has Lords temporal and Lords world view which might or might not have elections to it. If there were a certain number of people would be elected as a world view lord.
I'm of the firm view that those charged with political governance should be elected by public vote and subject to reelection at regular intervals. I can't see why that is incompatible with a second revising chamber, and in such a chamber it may be that a different electoral system based on PR might better represent the range of views once detached from the traditional political party/FFP model, albeit the traditional political parties would of course be free to campaign.
So we are talking about two different things. Two conceptions of what needs representing, Two conceptions of checking and balancing. I have established in this thread what I feel needs properly represented and why an elected upper house removes check and balance if those elections are on the same basis as for the house of commons i.e. party political based on unreflected or informed socio economic concerns only
Sounds like you've already decided that the 'word view' you subscribe to must be represented in any second chamber without checking that your preferred 'world view' has sufficient electoral support - that approach seems a tad undemocratic to me.
-
Because were it to be a carbon copy of the commons the focus would be socio economic and party political.
It's the upper house, it's agenda is broadly set by the fact that it's there to moderate the lower house. The make-up would be - presumably - determined by the electorate. Whether it would be carbon copy or not would be determined by how the seats were apportioned.
I do not think in terms of religion needing special help.
You do. You might not phrase it like that, but you are defining an upper house where religion somehow requires reserved seats because it can't compete against other viewpoints and will be drowned out. Either that's what the electorate wants, or religious voices will compete just fine because they'll get elected, but you want to give religion special help by reserving seats for it.
You might as well ask the question why does socio economic and party political interests need the special help of having a dedicated house.
Socio-economic interests don't need a dedicated house, they need a parliament of some sort because that's the business of government.
I think world views need the same status as temporal here today gone tomorrow issues.
Then if they need the same status, why do you advocate reserving special seats for them? Surely they can compete for an electorate's attention on an equal footing with everything else if they need the same status?
You keep misrepresenting my position as particularly religious.
I don't see that I have - whether or not you are individual religious isn't necessarily connected to whether you think religion should have a reserved place in the upper house, although I'd admit it seems to me that anyone advocating that position would be more likely to be religious than not.
On the other hand if you are asking why I support the idea of the current House of Lords as a buffer for religious minorities against overzealous secularists it's because I can empathise with the discomfort they feel from overzealous secularists having experienced them through this forum over a period of years.
How does a secularist get 'overzealous'? Why does anyone need protection against equal representation?
O.
-
I'm of the firm view that those charged with political governance should be elected by public vote and subject to reelection at regular intervals. I can't see why that is incompatible with a second revising chamber, and in such a chamber it may be that a different electoral system based on PR might better represent the range of views once detached from the traditional political party/FFP model, albeit the traditional political parties would of course be free to campaign.
Sounds like you've already decided that the 'word view' you subscribe to must be represented in any second chamber without checking that your preferred 'world view' has sufficient electoral support - that approach seems a tad undemocratic to me.
And I'm of the firm view that there should be two houses which operate as an effective check and balance system and that one of these should be elected on the basis of universal sufferage ie OPOV and that a candidate for this house should be free to stand on whatever platform they wish and that this house is informed by another house of experience and wisdom where world views have an equal status with temporal here today gone tomorrow issues.
At present yes, Christianity would be included in the Lords spiritual as would humanism and secularism and Islam.
It would be possible depending on demographics that Christianity might not warrant the numbers. I believe and would hope that christian viewpoint be bulwarked and buffered against the swivel eyed atheist/secularist/humanist contingent by the institution of the Lord's world view. And of course decent atheists/secularists/humanists.
-
It's the upper house, it's agenda is broadly set by the fact that it's there to moderate the lower house.
On what basis would that moderation even occur? The make-up would be - presumably - determined by the electorate.
Again on what basis. How would the electorate be informed? Would there be a referendum on the structure of the House of Lords for instance? Whether it would be carbon copy or not would be determined by how the seats were apportioned.
How could the seats be apportioned?
You do. You might not phrase it like that, but you are defining an upper house where religion somehow requires reserved seats because it can't compete against other viewpoints and will be drowned out. Either that's what the electorate wants, or religious voices will compete just fine because they'll get elected, but you want to give religion special help by reserving seats for it.
No, I want there to be the Lords world view. Religion has to be represented because people do religion and it is a huge part of there lives as irreligion or antireligion or humanism or secularism is. Look at the time spent on this forum for instance and they would have representation.
You are just reiterating your own wank fantasy if it's just about having C of E lords.
Socio-economic interests don't need a dedicated house, they need a parliament of some sort because that's the business of government.
They don't need a dedicated house...they need a parliament...... do you realise how stupid that sounds? Is socioeconomics the basis of government no....that is why we have a house of Lords with Lords spiritual and Lords who are there for their wisdom and experience in temporal affairs.
Then if they need the same status, why do you advocate reserving special seats for them? You are calling them special seat Surely they can compete for an electorate's attention on an equal footing with everything else if they need the same status?
Not sure I'm sure what you are getting at here. I think what I am saying should be obvious to any fool. Lords world view and Lords temporal make up any house existing as check and balance to a common is natural whereas an identical house to the commons offers no check to party politics.
I don't see that I have - whether or not you are individual religious isn't necessarily connected to whether you think religion should have a reserved place in the upper house, although I'd admit it seems to me that anyone advocating that position would be more likely to be religious than not.
How does a secularist get 'overzealous'? Why does anyone need protection against equal representation?
A secular house represents secular interests but not religious interests. How then is that 'equal representation'? A secular house definitionally starts loaded completely in favour of secular world view... before any election for it takes place. As it stands secular Lords represent 96.6% of representation to 3.4% representation by Lords spiritual.
Your position is therefore the mintiest and stripiest of humbugs.
-
I'm of the firm view that those charged with political governance should be elected by public vote and subject to reelection at regular intervals. I can't see why that is incompatible with a second revising chamber, and in such a chamber it may be that a different electoral system based on PR might better represent the range of views once detached from the traditional political party/FFP model, albeit the traditional political parties would of course be free to campaign.
I think PR probably would make it easier to elect candidates standing on world view tickets too.
-
On what basis would that moderation even occur?
When they collectively vote against a bill that's been sent to them for assent, or vote to make amendments and pass it back - you know, like the upper house does now.
Again on what basis. How would the electorate be informed? Would there be a referendum on the structure of the House of Lords for instance?
How we get there, the precise details of how things are communicated are a different discussion, I think. I could see a referendum on a significant change to the convention, but the last major change to the Lords didn't get one, so who knows.
How could the seats be apportioned?
Proportionately, hopefully. You're in favour of an elected upper house, you suggested, how would you do it?
No, I want there to be the Lords world view. Religion has to be represented because people do religion and it is a huge part of there lives as irreligion or antireligion or humanism or secularism is. Look at the time spent on this forum for instance and they would have representation.
People spend huge amounts of time on science, art, sport, celebrities... they have their own fora, how do you ensure them equal representation if you're only reserving special seats for religion?
You are just reiterating your own wank fantasy if it's just about having C of E lords.
Even if it's a range of sects and cults and traditions. Why does the particular religious stance on anything merit more attention than, say, an Everton fan, or a devotee of Belinda Carlisle, or a geologist?
They don't need a dedicated house...they need a parliament...... do you realise how stupid that sounds?
Well, let's see if everybody else understands it fine. I may have failed to communicate adequately, or it may just be you failing to read past your preconceptions.
Is socioeconomics the basis of government no....that is why we have a house of Lords with Lords spiritual and Lords who are there for their wisdom and experience in temporal affairs.
Socioeconomics isn't the 'basis' of government, it's the purpose of government.
Not sure I'm sure what you are getting at here.
You say that religion needs an equal footing with other concerns, but then you want to reserve special seats for religious members of the upper house, which suggests that you don't actually want an equal footing. Make your mind up.
I think what I am saying should be obvious to any fool.
You'd think that, but you don't appear to have realised that it's nonsense, so apparently not.
Lords world view and Lords temporal make up any house existing as check and balance to a common is natural whereas an identical house to the commons offers no check to party politics.
And you think that 'any fool' should be able to understand that word salad? I suspect what you mean is that if the make-up of the Lords was similar to the make-up of the Commons then how would be it any sort of check or balance - an excellent argument against the current political nomination of Lords, I'd agree. It doesn't for a minute though explain why religion is the one area you think needs special attention in the way it's different - why not reserve places for ex-football managers, as they are a different group from those in the Commons? Why religion?
A secular house represents secular interests but not religious interests.
Secular interests are EVERYONE'S interests. For someone who deplores fools, you can't seem to get your head around that simple concept. Secularism does not equal enforced atheism. Secularism is not antitheism. Secularism is just 'religion isn't special'.
How then is that 'equal representation'? A secular house definitionally starts loaded completely in favour of secular world view... before any election for it takes place.
Yes. Which means neither religion nor atheism is favoured by the structure.
As it stands secular Lords represent 96.6% of representation to 3.4% representation by Lords spiritual.
Which is 3.4% reserved specifically for religion, and then a representative group of people who represent a mix of religion and non-religion. Why not just have the mix? Let's say, for the sake of argument, that 50% of the population were religious, and therefore that 50% of the Lords Temporal were also religious - that would leave us with a 51.7% religious upper house, where 3.4% of the house have a particularly religious remit and everyone else's religion or non-religion is incidental to their broader presence. So, again... why is religion special?
Your position is therefore the mintiest and stripiest of humbugs.
Which should make it easier for you to come up with a coherent argument against it, but you keep failing to address the key question being asked. That's never happened before.... ::)
O.
-
Which is 3.4% reserved specifically for religion, and then a representative group of people who represent a mix of religion and non-religion. Why not just have the mix? Let's say, for the sake of argument, that 50% of the population were religious, and therefore that 50% of the Lords Temporal were also religious - that would leave us with a 51.7% religious upper house, where 3.4% of the house have a particularly religious remit and everyone else's religion or non-religion is incidental to their broader presence. So, again... why is religion special?
When you say ''religious'' what bearing would that have on a Government which you say is based on socio economic (and I would add political) factors?
-
When you say ''religious'' what bearing would that have on a Government which you say is based on socio economic (and I would add political) factors?
Because religion is a social consideration - you know, part of the 'socio' bit of 'socio-economic'. Like 'should we charging religious places of worship tax like businesses' or 'are religious organisations automatically charitable'...
Now, sport is equally part of the 'socio', and science and art and music so, again...
Why should religion get reserved seats but not other specific interest areas?
O.
-
Because religion is a social consideration - you know, part of the 'socio' bit of 'socio-economic'. Like 'should we charging religious places of worship tax like businesses' or 'are religious organisations automatically charitable'...
Now, sport is equally part of the 'socio', and science and art and music so, again...
Why should religion get reserved seats but not other specific interest areas?
O.
These temporal things ARE represented by experts in their fields but there is the point. They are not world views, Outrider. The number of people who have become Lords on account of their expertise, professional and pastoral or community leadership experience in a World view context is miniscule. Wikipedia includes Eames, Jacobovits and more recently Sachs as such appointees. Their appointments were made donkey years ago.
Luckily the Lords has a category of Lords non-temporal although it's complexion is not nearly optimal.
That there exists Lords spiritual has nothing to do with how the Lords temporal is composed.
-
These temporal things ARE represented by experts in their fields but there is the point.
So if the system works for representing those ideas, why doesn't it work for religion?
They are not world views, Outrider.
Funny, you seem to opine on a regular basis that 'philosophical naturalism' is exactly that. And the great philosopher, Bill Shankly, reliably informed us all that football isn't a matter of life and death, it's much more important than that. Religion is only a world-view from the inside; from the outside it's not a view of this world, but a pipe-dream about another world.
The number of people who have become Lords on account of their expertise, professional and pastoral or community leadership experience in a World view context is miniscule. Wikipedia includes Eames, Jacobovits and more recently Sachs as such appointees. Their appointments were made donkey years ago.
Perhaps because the Appointments Committee knows that the field is already overrepresented by the Lords Spiritual - do they really need MORE seats dedicated to this increasingly niche interest?
Luckily the Lords has a category of Lords non-temporal although it's complexion is not nearly optimal.
How would you make it 'optimal'? How, given the sectarian nature of religion, would you adequately represent all the various religious viewpoints? What would be the threshold for a particular view to get representation - and how would it account for the less formally institutionalised religious worldviews?
That there exists Lords spiritual has nothing to do with how the Lords temporal is composed.
To the extent that it has to do with how the Lords is composed, it sort of does. That there is a category of 'Lords Temporal' at all is only to contrast with the anachronism that is the Lords Spiritual.
O.
-
So if the system works for representing those ideas, why doesn't it work for religion?
There is a separate system for ''religion''
Funny, you seem to opine on a regular basis that 'philosophical naturalism' is exactly that. And the great philosopher, Bill Shankly, reliably informed us all that football isn't a matter of life and death, it's much more important than that.Religion is only a world-view from the inside; from the outside it's not a view of this world, but a pipe-dream about another world.
I would say that that is an ignoramus's caricature of religion. But again religion is but one world view and in my reforms would not have exclusive access to a Lords worldview.
Perhaps because the Appointments Committee knows that the field is already overrepresented by the Lords Spiritual - do they really need MORE seats dedicated to this increasingly niche interest?
At only 3.4% of the Lords, the notion of spiritual overrepresentation is IMHO an obvious delusion. Again calling world views ''niche interest'' is an ignoramus's caricature of world views
How would you make it 'optimal'? How, given the sectarian nature of religion, would you adequately represent all the various religious viewpoints? What would be the threshold for a particular view to get representation - and how would it account for the less formally institutionalised religious worldviews?
What worldviews are you talking about here? Of course you couldn't represent all world views just the main demographic categories.
To the extent that it has to do with how the Lords is composed, it sort of does. That there is a category of 'Lords Temporal' at all is only to contrast with the anachronism that is the Lords Spiritual.
Yes because there is a contrast. How can there be an anachronism of world view. Secularism and humanism are world views. How are they anachronistic and if not at what point will they be?
-
There is a separate system for ''religion''
We know, that's what the discussion is about. That fails to explain why you think religion would not be adequately represented if it were treated the same as everything else.
I would say that that is an ignoramus's caricature of religion.
Of course you would, because why have to come up with a point when you can throw out an ad hominem instead.
But again religion is but one world view and in my reforms would not have exclusive access to a Lords worldview.
But it's the only worldview you're reserving special seats for... no-one is suggesting exclusive access (nice straw-man).
At only 3.4% of the Lords, the notion of spiritual overrepresentation is IMHO an obvious delusion.
And, again, that's not what's being argued - there is the normal representation amongst the Lords, and then an additional set of reserved seats. Why is the normal representation not sufficient?
Again calling world views ''niche interest'' is an ignoramus's caricature of world views
No, it's a response to the data which shows that religious belief and, particularly, formal religious organisations, are increasingly a marginal concern.
What worldviews are you talking about here?
Let's go with scientism, seeing as how it makes you publicly wet yourself in writing so frequently.
Of course you couldn't represent all world views just the main demographic categories.
Ah, so vested interests within vested interests. How very Tory of you.
Yes because there is a contrast.
There are innumerable contrasts - there are the scientists and the non-scientists, the artists and the philistines, the communists and the libertarians, dare I say it there are the religious and irreligious... they don't get a different status, they (most of them) just do their job as Lords, they don't need special seats to do it.
How can there be an anachronism of world view.
Because it's a relic from a past age that hasn't worked out it's not relevant any more? I don't know really know, you'd have to ask a proponent.
Secularism and humanism are world views.
Humanism yes. Secularism not really, it's a position on one narrow topic - it's a political stance, but it has nothing to say on life in general.
How are they anachronistic and if not at what point will they be?
The Lords Spiritual? Because we are not a society where religion is central to what happens in everyone's day to day lives, we've grown beyond needing sky-daddy's approval and started thinking for ourselves.
O.
-
We know, that's what the discussion is about. That fails to explain why you think religion would not be adequately represented if it were treated the same as everything else.
I've spent several posts explaining why. You don't recognise the difference between the non temporal and the temporal. That is a mental failure on your part as is your delusion of non temporal overrepresentation.
Of course you would, because why have to come up with a point when you can throw out an ad hominem instead.
But it's the only worldview you're reserving special seats for... no-one is suggesting exclusive access (nice straw-man).
Again I want all world views to be represented by demographic popularity
And, again, that's not what's being argued - there is the normal representation amongst the Lords, and then an additional set of reserved seats. Why is the normal representation not sufficient?
As explained earlier Lords temporal are there because of expertise earned in temporal sociological(secular society)economic situations and are required to focus and contribute in that context. Lords non temporal are there for there expertise precisely located outside these secular or here today gone tomorrow temporal contexts.
No, it's a response to the data which shows that religious belief and, particularly, formal religious organisations, are increasingly a marginal concern.
I have said that sufficient reduction of population of a world view would mean a transfer of seats to the more populous world views so what you have said is merely your wankfantasy.
.
There are innumerable contrasts - there are the scientists and the non-scientists, the artists and the philistines, the communists and the libertarians, dare I say it there are the religious and irreligious... they don't get a different status, they (most of them) just do their job as Lords, they don't need special seats to do it.
Because it's a relic from a past age that hasn't worked out it's not relevant any more? I don't know really know, you'd have to ask a proponent.
Humanism yes. Secularism not really, it's a position on one narrow topic - it's a political stance, but it has nothing to say on life in general.
The Lords Spiritual? Because we are not a society where religion is central to what happens in everyone's day to day lives, we've grown beyond needing sky-daddy's approval and started thinking for ourselves.
ignoramus's caricature.
I think you'll find all the categories mentioned by you represented in the house of Lords and some far in excess of any lords world view.
-
Because it's a relic from a past age that hasn't worked out it's not relevant any more?
Fallacy of modernity also not sure about the relic theory if people still practicising spirituality then it's still going. Don't You represent more of a relic as a Privileged empiricist?
-
I've spent several posts explaining why.
No, you've spent several posts actively avoiding dealing with that question. So far the closest we've come is the idea that religion is a world-view (and, implicitly, nothing else is).
You don't recognise the difference between the non temporal and the temporal.
I don't recognise that there is anything 'non-temporal', but for the sake of argument let's assume that there is. Firstly, why is it the business of parliament, and secondly why does it need a special case of recognition.
That is a mental failure on your part as is your delusion of non temporal overrepresentation.
Maths isn't a strong point either, then? Religion, and religious belief, is present in, and represented by, the Lords Temporal already, why do you need special reserved Lords Spiritual to supplement that?
Again I want all world views to be represented by demographic popularity.
Then you don't need to reserve seats for religion, they can be represented amongst the Lords.
As explained earlier Lords temporal are there because of expertise earned in temporal sociological(secular society)economic situations and are required to focus and contribute in that context.
Let's assume that any of us believe that's the case, for the sake of argument here.
Lords non temporal are there for there expertise precisely located outside these secular or here today gone tomorrow temporal contexts.
How can you be an expert in stuff that's not demonstrable? Why does that expertise need special consideration, why can't these demands be pitted equally against the other concerns? And, again, secular concerns are not opposed to religious concerns or intrinsically aligned with 'atheist' concerns. Secular is about what weight the system puts on these.
I have said that sufficient reduction of population of a world view would mean a transfer of seats to the more populous world views so what you have said is merely your wankfantasy.
You're touting for special representation for your sky-daddy fan-clubs to keep us as the only first world nation with a vestige of a theocracy, and you're accusing me of a having 'wank-fantasies'? Do you think by spouting profanity you're appealing to the 'non-temporal' short-sighted reality-dwellers? Is this an attempt to be 'hip' and 'down wit da yoof'? Or are you just bloviating because you've realised you're spouting absolute shite?
ignoramus's caricature.
Show, don't tell. I could just dismiss your overly wordy lack of points with a casual dismissal, but nobody learns where the faults are in your thinking if you don't show your working.
I think you'll find all the categories mentioned by you represented in the house of Lords and some far in excess of any lords world view.
And, as you've noted, religion is represented in the Lords Temporal, so still why do you need special help?
O.
-
Fallacy of modernity,
That's nearly a point. If I said that it was right because it was new, that would have been the right point. I said it no longer had a place, that's not because it's been explicitly replaced with something new, but rather because it's just no longer required.
also not sure about the relic theory if people still practicising spirituality then it's still going.
Shouldn't Christianity have supplanted Judaeism? And Islam Christianity? And Mormonism Islam? And Yoga Islam? (I might have skipped a few steps there, but you get the point).
Don't You represent more of a relic as a Privileged empiricist?
Based on the argument I made, it's possible if you could show that empiricism lacked relevance... good luck with that.
O.
-
No, you've spent several posts actively avoiding dealing with that question. So far the closest we've come is the idea that religion is a world-view (and, implicitly, nothing else is).
That isn't at all the point i'm making. There are more world views than religious ones. I have mentioned humanism, secularism, atheism.
I don't recognise that there is anything 'non-temporal',
I do but for the sake of argument let's assume that there is. Firstly, why is it the business of parliament, and secondly why does it need a special case of recognition.
parliament should represent as near complete humanity as it is possibly able to up to the religion done by people or the humanism done by people, otherwise the citizen is viewed as the narrow, reduced and stunted homonculus beloved of certain atheists like yourself.
Religion, and religious belief, is present in, and represented by, the Lords Temporal already
Only in the sense spleens or ovaries or connective tissue is represented you don't hear much about them. Of course beliefs and specifically world views are an irreducible part of humanity and more complex since they inform temporal decisions and religion and humanism and secularism is what people ''do''.
-
That isn't at all the point i'm making. There are more world views than religious ones. I have mentioned humanism, secularism, atheism.
OK, so we've already established that secularism isn't a world-view, neither when it comes to it is atheism; those are both views on a single idea. Humanism, I'll grant you, could be considered a world-view. I didn't suggest that you'd claimed religion was the only world-view, just that the closest you'd come to establishing a basis for your contention that religion needs special treatment in the Lords was that it was a worldview. I made the point that religion wasn't the only worldview to ask why the others didn't also need special treatment, so we're still waiting for your actual justification.
I do
So why should my parliament's representation be artificially skewed because you don't have a firm grasp of reality?
parliament should represent as near complete humanity as it is possibly able to up to the religion done by people or the humanism done by people, otherwise the citizen is viewed as the narrow, reduced and stunted homonculus beloved of certain atheists like yourself.
How do you pack so much horseshit fallacy into one incomprehensible little bundle of bollocks? Pretty much everyone who has commented, me included, thinks that parliament should be representative - you're the only one that's suggesting reserving special seats for one particular interest group to skew that. If sport and art and music and science can be represented reasonably fairly without reserving seats for those outlooks, why does religion need special consideration? So apart from the straw man, the self-contradiction, and the ad hominem, all that was wrong with that was the punctuation and the sentence structure. Oh, and the fact that you still don't actually have a point.
Only in the sense spleens or ovaries or connective tissue is represented you don't hear much about them.
Maybe religion just isn't very relevant that often? It was heard in the debates about assisted dying, it was heard in the debates about extending marriage to gay people...
Of course beliefs and specifically world views are an irreducible part of humanity and more complex since they inform temporal decisions and religion and humanism and secularism is what people ''do''.
So is sexuality, should we have 'Lords Homosexual'? So is gender, should we have reserved seats for male or female or non-binary Lords? Every element of everyone's background informs their complexity - you've still failed to establish why religion is somehow different to all those other elements.
O.
-
OK, so we've already established that secularism isn't a world-view, neither when it comes to it is atheism; those are both views on a single idea. Humanism, I'll grant you, could be considered a world-view. I didn't suggest that you'd claimed religion was the only world-view, just that the closest you'd come to establishing a basis for your contention that religion needs special treatment in the Lords.
Since the house of Lords is constructed to have two classes of Lords, at other times more, I'm not sure that any of these classes recieving special treatment is an appropriate charge. I need to also remind you that my approach deals with world views not specifically religion.
So why should my parliament's representation be artificially skewed because you don't have a firm grasp of reality?
Again the structure of the Lords is how it is. Any solution to change it is the ''artificial skewing''.
Pretty much everyone who has commented, me included, thinks that parliament should be representative - you're the only one that's suggesting reserving special seats for one particular interest group to skew that.
How even if that is what I was doing would that affect parliament being representative. Your point is non sequitur since their could be instances of what you are alleging which could make parliament more representative.
How then does your point of view reduce representation in parliament? Let us count the ways 1) The model of humanity represented by your proposal. Your model is the reduced narrow aspiritual, socio economic homonculus. This creature in fact is what you are selling. Embed this into government and your world view dominates. How perfect. For you 2) people do world views, all people, everyone has beliefs 3) You have no check or balance. Party politics are the soul order of the day. In the house of Lords that is checked by cross benchers Lords spiritual and by wisdom and experience in the temporal Lords, they in their turn are checked by Lord World view who can check on the pastoral implications and provide a much longer view which is morally oriented rather than politically expedient. If sport and art and music and science can be represented reasonably fairly without reserving seats for those outlooks, why does religion need special consideration?
And yet of course the current system somehow does make sure there are Lords of sport, art and music and science and that way is not one man one vote so why you are specially pleading that somehow religion needs a specially democratic approach.
Also sport, art, music and science are only things certain people do, and have experience living it unlike world views and belief systems which everybody has, does and lives.
Maybe religion just isn't very relevant that often? It was heard in the debates about assisted dying, it was heard in the debates about extending marriage to gay people...
You keep twisting the argument away from worldviews in question. You obviously aren't going to want to talk about my proposals.
You want this to be about me pumping religion, you are stoking a wankfantasy. I on the other hand see you wanting to inflict your narrow minded, reduced, dehumanised socio economic , aspiritual homonculus view of humanity through the organs of government.
So is sexuality, should we have 'Lords Homosexual'? So is gender, should we have reserved seats for male or female or non-binary Lords? Every element of everyone's background informs their complexity - you've still failed to establish why religion is somehow different to all those other elements.
If it's a worldview, if these issues constitute a set of beliefs then their in the Lords worldview. If not then the Lords temporal will have to find away to get them in. Over to you.
One bloke who I think we badly need in the House of Lords is Peter Tatchell. I'd swap Justin Welby out for him any day.
-
Again the structure of the Lords is how it is. Any solution to change it is the ''artificial skewing''.
But the point is that the Lords is currently artificially skewed and therefore removing that artificial skewing increases fairness and representation.
You sound like the kind of person who thinks that the removal of a special privilege amounts to discrimination when it is actually reducing discrimination against those who do not benefit from that special privilege.
-
But the point is that the Lords is currently artificially skewed and therefore removing that artificial skewing increases fairness and representation.
Ha Ha Ha, where do we stop then with the extent the Lords is artificially skewed....and that brings us to your specially pleading religion here. The Lords is a nest of privilege full stop. You sound like the kind of person who thinks that the removal of a special privilege amounts to discrimination when it is actually reducing discrimination against those who do not benefit from that special privilege.
No I want it (Lords spiritual) changed to a ''Lords world view''. Without a lords non temporal the house of Lords just satisfies those who believe in a kind of Aspiritual, non belief, socioeconomic party political homonculus idea of humanity.
-
Without a lords non temporal the house of Lords just satisfies those who believe in a kind of Aspiritual, non belief, socioeconomic party political homonculus idea of humanity.
Sorry, I haven't been following the conversation about this.
You seem to be implying that "spiritual" lords are banned from being lords temporal. I don't think this is the case, and, even if it were, if we abolished the lords spiritual, would could lift any ban on Christian (or other religious) people from being lords temporal.
-
Ha Ha Ha, where do we stop then with the extent the Lords is artificially skewed....and that brings us to your specially pleading religion here.
It is artificially skewed as it provides 26 automatic places for members on the basis of their position within senior roles within a single completely separate organisation. This is a special privilege which is not afforded to any other organisation, who may have their members appointed to the HoLs through the normal process but have no guaranteed automatic positions.
-
You seem to be implying that "spiritual" lords are banned from being lords temporal. I don't think this is the case ...
It most certainly isn't the case, to the extent that all living ex Archbishops of Canterbury and of York are lords temporal.
-
Sorry, I haven't been following the conversation about this.
You seem to be implying that "spiritual" lords are banned from being lords temporal. I don't think this is the case, and, even if it were, if we abolished the lords spiritual, would could lift any ban on Christian (or other religious) people from being lords temporal.
I have neither said ex spiritual Lords have been banned from the HoL, are Banned or will be. Who they appoint and why is up them surely.
As i've made it clear I would not abolish the Lords spiritual, just widen it's remit. Abolishing it would mean that a check and balance would be lost and less representation for what everybody does namely hold a belief system and try to live according to it since a lack of representation here means only one world view is satisfied. It is this point that makes a mockery of claims for fairness, democracy and more representation by those who propose it.
-
Who they appoint and why is up them surely.
But that is, of course, the whole point. For all but 26 of the members of the HoLs the decision as to who to appoint is up to the agreed processes for appointment - it is indeed up to them. But the HoLs has absolutely no say in those other 26 who are automatically given seats on the basis of decisions taken by an entirely different organisation - the CofE.
I have no issue at all with the current (or past) Archbishop of Canterbury being nominated to be a member of the HoLs and being appointed through exactly the same process as applies to everyone else. What I have a problem with is him being automatically given a seat simply because he is the ABofC.
-
Since the house of Lords is constructed to have two classes of Lords, at other times more, I'm not sure that any of these classes recieving special treatment is appropriate
Neither am I, that's my point. I don't see any need for ANY group to get special treatment.
I need also remind you is that my approach deals with world views not specifically religion.
Every Lord will have a world-view, why reserve seats for some officially sanctioned subset?
Again the structure of the Lords is how it is.
And, again, we're talking about what we think it SHOULD be, we all know what it is.
Any solution to change it is the ''artificial skewing''.
Reserving seats for a particular viewpoint or stance, or even for a particular area of discussion, is skewing the balance. Leaving the electorate free to decide is not.
How even if that is what I was doing would that affect parliament being representative.
Because you're advocating reserving seats for a particular group, regardless of whether the electorate at large considers that particular group to be important or relevant.
Your point is non sequitur since their could be instances of what you are alleging which could make parliament more representative.
No, at best it could not affect the overall representation, but at worst it could entrench out-of-touch establishments in the parliament... like it does now.
ow then does your point of view reduce representation in parliament? Let us count the ways 1) The model of humanity represented by your proposal. Your model is the reduced narrow aspiritual, socio economic homonculus.
My view places as much importance on spirituality as the electorate does, the level of spirituality in the house is determined by the electorate at the time, not the structure imposed on the house as your model does. If in 20 years time no-one gives two shits about religion there will likely be little religious representation; on the other hand, if religion has a resurgence we might see the place riddled with funny hats.
This creature in fact is what you are selling. Embed this into government and your world view dominates.
I am one voter, I cannot shape the house individually. If there are tens of millions like me all voting that way, yes that will shape the house, that's what democracy should look like.
2) people do world views, all people, everyone has beliefs
Yes, so everyone elected to the upper house has a world view, how do you plan to reserve some seats for particular world views and justify that as anything other than privileging those particular world views?
You have no check or balance. Party politics are the soul order of the day.
How you plan to keep party politics out of the upper house (which I'd also support) is a separate issue to how you plan to avoid giving other vested interests reserved seats.
In the house of Lords that is checked by cross benchers Lords spiritual and by wisdom and experience in the temporal Lords, they in their turn are checked by Lord World view who can check on the pastoral implications and provide a much longer view which is morally oriented rather than politically expedient.
Firstly, that 'wisdom and experience' in the Lords doesn't require reserved seats. Second, that 'morally oriented' viewpoint you speak of is just as vested in the other Lords - arguably more so if they have to convince people of the fact in order to get elected rather than politicking their way up through religious organisations who have seats in parliament as an aside to their usual business.
And yet of course the current system somehow does make sure there are Lords of sport, art and music and science and that way is not one man one vote so why you are specially pleading that somehow religion needs a specially democratic approach.
Because that would put it on an even footing with everything else, it wouldn't suggest that religion is some special case that needs to be treated differently, that needs or merits different rules. That the other concerns are adequately represented through the usual process isn't an argument against my point, it is my point: if they all manage to be adequately represented, why do you persist with this idea that religious views need or deserve some sort of leg-up?
Also sport, art, music and science are only things certain people do, and have experience living it unlike world views and belief systems which everybody has, does and lives.
Many, many people probably no more actively think about a 'world view' or a 'belief system' on a regular basis than do others think about sport, or art, or even politics and economics.
You keep twisting the argument away from worldviews in question.
Because it's a useless distinction. Everything is part of a world-view - sport, music, philosophy, cheese, animal welfare, foreign affairs, spirituality. How do you plan to differentiate your spiritually aligned, morally-centred worldview concept from any of the others, and once you done it how do you plan to justify giving it special treatment?
You obviously aren't going to want to talk about my proposals.
Three pages into a thread which has been pretty much dominated by the two of us suggests that I am - certainly I keep asking you about it. Before we get into what you'd set up, though, I think we need to establish of there's a justifiable basis for setting it up that way in the first place, and you keep skipping that step.
You want this to be about me pumping religion, you are stoking a wankfantasy.
Is that your word for the week? Are you being sponsored by someone? You are pumping religion, and trying to masquerade it as some pure worldview that's morally different from any other type of worldview and therefore worthy of distinction.
I on the other hand see you wanting to inflict your narrow minded, reduced, dehumanised socio economic , aspiritual homonculus view of humanity through the organs of government.
Because I disagree with one particular aspect of life getting special treatment in parliament? How is seeking balance 'narrow-minded'? How is putting the nation's interests in the hands of the nations rather than in the structure of the establishment 'inflicting' anything 'through the organs of government'. I'm advocating for a system that's more directly representative of the electorate, more directly influenced by the electorrate, and you want to ring-fence special interests.
If it's a worldview, if these issues constitute a set of beliefs then their in the Lords worldview. If not then the Lords temporal will have to find away to get them in. Over to you.
But what falls outside of the concept of a 'world-view'? Sport? Sport is as important a piece of some people's lives as religion is to others, it's community and social activity and health and support and tribalism and financial investment and all the rest.
O.
-
My view places as much importance on spirituality as the electorate does, the level of spirituality in the house is determined by the electorate at the time, not the structure imposed on the house as your model does. If in 20 years time no-one gives two shits about religion there will likely be little religious representation; on the other hand, if religion has a resurgence we might see the place riddled with funny hats.
Regarding interest in spirituality, that's why I move towards a title ''Lords worldview'' everybody has one. It then casts the fullspot light on what you and your stablemates are after....Your worldview to be the one enshrined in the nature of the house of Lords and in the government of the UK. Do you understand the full nature of that? One view of humanity, one world view specially, implicitly sanctioned and promoted.......... yours.
-
... that's why I move towards a title ''Lords worldview''...
But that is nebulous non-sense. Who wold determine whether someone's opinions did or did not classify as a 'world view'.
... everybody has one.
Well if everyone has one, why on earth would you need a separate category as these 'world views' would simply be reflected in the standard make up of the Lords. Also you are going to need one heck of a large chamber if everyone has a view and everyone's views presumably need to be reflected.
-
But that is nebulous non-sense. Who wold determine whether someone's opinions did or did not classify as a 'world view'.
Well if everyone has one, why on earth would you need a separate category as these 'world views' would simply be reflected in the standard make up of the Lords. Also you are going to need one heck of a large chamber if everyone has a view and everyone's views presumably need to be reflected.
A better name for it could be found i'm sure. The categories could be drawn from census information as of course could the division of seats.
-
Regarding interest in spirituality, that's why I move towards a title ''Lords worldview'' everybody has one. It then casts the fullspot light on what you and your stablemates are after....Your worldview to be the one enshrined in the nature of the house of Lords and in the government of the UK.
How am I enshrining any particular world-view by suggesting the make-up of the house should be entirely based upon the decisions of the electorate? In order to enshrine a particular world-view I'd have to do something undemocratic, like reserve seats for a particular special interest...
Do you understand the full nature of that? One view of humanity, one world view specially, implicitly sanctioned and promoted.......... yours.
I am not the entirety of the electorate, I get one vote, just like anyone else. I am not giving any single idea, notion, topic or area more or less influence than anything else. You, on the other hand, are suggesting exactly that.
O.
-
How am I enshrining any particular world-view by suggesting the make-up of the house should be entirely based upon the decisions of the electorate? In order to enshrine a particular world-view I'd have to do something undemocratic, like reserve seats for a particular special interest...
Having any world view is not a particular special interest For we all have a world view.I am not the entirety of the electorate, I get one vote, just like anyone else. I am not giving any single idea, notion, topic or area more or less influence than anything else. You, on the other hand, are suggesting exactly that.
Yeh, we all do, but it seems you are after another one........presumably to have two people of the same party talking about economic and political policies which you then fall in line with and supply the means to have two etc, etc.
I hate to break it to you but you don't get a vote for the house of Lords, even the temporal bit.
-
I hate to break it to you but you don't get a vote for the house of Lords, even the temporal bit.
True - but that doesn't mean that it's OK for the appointment process for their members to be biased in favour of a particular organisation who are providing with automatic places that doesn't apply to any other organisation.
-
I have neither said ex spiritual Lords have been banned from the HoL, are Banned or will be. Who they appoint and why is up them surely.
As i've made it clear I would not abolish the Lords spiritual, just widen it's remit. Abolishing it would mean that a check and balance would be lost and less representation for what everybody does namely hold a belief system and try to live according to it since a lack of representation here means only one world view is satisfied. It is this point that makes a mockery of claims for fairness, democracy and more representation by those who propose it.
So why do we need separate categories for spirituals and temporals? Just have "lords", some of whom are "spiritual" and some of whom aren't..
-
So why do we need separate categories for spirituals and temporals? Just have "lords", some of whom are "spiritual" and some of whom aren't..
Indeed, and some of whom are vegetarian and some aren't. And some are opera lovers while some aren't. Some are cricket fans and some aren't. Some are committed to environmentalism and some aren't.
We make no argument for Lords Vegetarian, nor Lords Operatic, nor Lords Lords (see what I did there ;) or Lords Environmental. And similarly there is no credible argument for Lords Spiritual, still less for 'Spiritual' effectively to mean the most senior leaders from one denomination of one religion.
-
Just a thought but had the Lords debate hijacked the "Evil" topic for this thread, just a wee bit?
-
So why do we need separate categories for spirituals and temporals? Just have "lords", some of whom are "spiritual" and some of whom aren't..
That we have them and continue to have them is probably something History would inform us of (I can imagine there are atheists having palpitations over that suggestion). Knowledge of what the terms spiritual, Lords and temporal meant originally in the context of government would also help us understand.....( atheists becoming purple with rage and sweating profusely ).
-
Having any world view is not a particular special interest For we all have a world view.
So how does reserving seats for someone with a worldview work, then, if everyone has a world-view? Or are you, really, talking about a particular sub-set of world views in which case you are seeking to reserve seats for one particular group, which would skew the balance.
Yeh, we all do, but it seems you are after another one........
How is leaving the selection open to the populace building in a favourite? How is not reserving seats for any particular viewpoint or interest or background privileging anyone?
presumably to have two people of the same party talking about economic and political policies which you then fall in line with and supply the means to have two etc, etc.
Habla usted Inglés. Nothing in the system I'm recommending restricts anything to one party, or one group. Nothing I've suggested leads to a situation where two people from any particular group are more or less likely than anyone else to find their way into the upper house. Your system, on the other hand, reserves seats for your acceptable 'long-term world views'...
I hate to break it to you but you don't get a vote for the house of Lords, even the temporal bit.
I hate to break it to you, but we've already covered this. We're talking about what we think the upper house should be, not what it is... Come on, that was only earlier today, if you can't remember that far back, go have a lie down and consider if you should be trusted with voting at all, let alone having input on how anyone else should be.
O.
-
So how does reserving seats for someone with a worldview work, then, if everyone has a world-view? Or are you, really, talking about a particular sub-set of world views in which case you are seeking to reserve seats for one particular group, which would skew the balance.
Not all of the Worldviews can be represented but those probably fall into a general category which represents key parts. An obvious allocation of seats would be by drawing on census information.
That would probably pan out as the majority of seats going to Humanist uk.
ConservativeHumanist organisation has identified a group very similar to my proposal and their function within the HoL set up. I think it is a useful reference going on with our discussions.
The House of Commons Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee concluded in 2017 that radical reform is required, beyond the scope of the Lord Speaker’s Committee on the Size of the House. Given the desire to reduce the size of the upper House from over 800 members to around 600, adding further members seems counterproductive. The only practical method for doing this would be to move the bishops to a separate consultative committee, without rights to sit in the House, adding representatives of other religions and worldviews to the same committee.
I don’t know if relegation to committee status is their way of sidelining world views but it does acknowledge that a body representing world views is feasible.
-
The only practical method for doing this would be to move the bishops to a separate consultative committee, without rights to sit in the House, adding representatives of other religions and worldviews to the same committee.
There is a simpler method: just bin the HoL and advance plans for an elected replacement, with credible options being decided on by public vote.
At the same time bin the monarchy and have an elected ceremonial head of state - tbh I'm not convinced that a ceremonial head of state is needed, but perhaps there would be an urgent need for someone to cut ribbons, open new shopping centres and wave when required.
-
There is a simpler method: just bin the HoL and advance plans for an elected replacement, with credible options being decided on by public vote.
At the same time bin the monarchy and have an elected ceremonial head of state - tbh I'm not convinced that a ceremonial head of state is needed, but perhaps there would be an urgent need for someone to cut ribbons, open new shopping centres and wave when required.
Any proposals for a new house should be up in full for public scrutiny including impact statement.
I’m sure your proposal seemingly for a chamber identical to the commons could be more professionally argued.
Vis a vis monarchy....that institution is about to receive a great stress test when her majesty, surely one of our greatest, beloved monarchs passes imho.
Long live the Queen.
-
Any proposals for a new house should be up in full for public scrutiny including impact statement.
Which is more or less what I said.
I’m sure your proposal seemingly for a chamber identical to the commons could be more professionally argued.
Perhaps so - but I didn't say it should be identical of the HoC: as I said yesterday, I think that a form of PR should be considered for any replacement of the HoL (and for the HoC too).
Vis a vis monarchy....that institution is about to receive a great stress test when her majesty, surely one of our greatest, beloved monarchs passes imho.
Long live the Queen.
I wish her no ill will - but I would also wish that the monarchy expires when she does.
-
Perhaps so - but I didn't say it should be identical of the HoC: as I said yesterday, I think that a form of PR should be considered for any replacement of the HoL (and for the HoC too).
Since both would be elected by PR what would differentiate the replacement house and the commons?
-
Since both would be elected by PR what would differentiate the replacement house and the commons?
Presumably the HoL replacement would act as a revising chamber - but it does raise the question of why two chambers are required at all, since one of the current two is unelected. The Scottish Parliament has a single chamber, where 56 of the 129 MSPs are elected using a form of PR.
Perhaps what is needed would be a radical change to a single chamber, to replace both the HoL and HoC, elected using a PR voting system, and with appropriate processes to replace what the HoL and HoC does now - albeit that my hope would be that by the time this (or any other change) happened that it would not involve Scotland.
-
Not all of the Worldviews can be represented but those probably fall into a general category which represents key parts. An obvious allocation of seats would be by drawing on census information.
Which would favour formal, institutional worldviews, the most significant of which are major religious bodies. An obvious allocation of seats would be by allowing the electorate to vote for them.
That would probably pan out as the majority of seats going to Humanist uk.
Depends on who was interpreting the census data, and how they phrased the questions on religiosity... open to manipulation, at the very least.
ConservativeHumanist organisation has identified a group very similar to my proposal and their function within the HoL set up. I think it is a useful reference going on with our discussions.
Does it give a reason for reserving special seats that you could borrow and use to answer the question?
The House of Commons Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee concluded in 2017 that radical reform is required, beyond the scope of the Lord Speaker’s Committee on the Size of the House. Given the desire to reduce the size of the upper House from over 800 members to around 600, adding further members seems counterproductive. The only practical method for doing this would be to move the bishops to a separate consultative committee, without rights to sit in the House, adding representatives of other religions and worldviews to the same committee.
I'm not averse to the idea of various advisory committees, and certainly the idea of a range of religious leaders and scholars sitting on one which is asked to delve into matters of significance to religious outlooks makes perfect sense - I just don't see that they need to be given undue power.
I don’t know if relegation to committee status is their way of sidelining world views but it does acknowledge that a body representing world views is feasible.
It would no more sideline those views than having a scientific advisory committee, and a medical one, and say a professional sports committee... Sidelining would be precluding religion being consulted, which certainly I'm not in favour of, and I suspect very few others here are either.
O.
-
Presumably the HoL replacement would act as a revising chamber - but it does raise the question of why two chambers are required at all, since one of the current two is unelected.
You've rather answered that yourself in your suggestion that the new house would be a revising chamber in otherwords where check and balance would be exercised So where's the check and balance and the treating the citizenry as anything but a mere aspiritual, aworldview ,non artistic, socio, economic unit in a single chamber? The Scottish Parliament has a single chamber, where 56 of the 129 MSPs are elected using a form of PR.
So what, where's the check and balance? e.g. the one party state?
Given the lack of check and balance in your proposal, Is there a secular alternative that keeps the check and balance element? Well, yes each candidate could stand as an independent. Would PR then be needed as we had done away with parties? I'm not sure. Secondly their terms of office could of different duration. Elections need not be all at the same time.
Perhaps what is needed would be a radical change to a single chamber, to replace both the HoL and HoC,
Undesirable, even in secular terms elected using a PR voting system,
Only necessary in a party political context and with appropriate processes to replace what the HoL and HoC does now
Agreed, including the spiritual/world view, institutionally representing the range of world views present rather than just the aspiritual view.
-
Which would favour formal, institutional worldviews,
probably the most significant of which are major religious bodies.[/quote] No if it were by Census information that wouldn't be the case. Not that it's a given assumption any way An obvious allocation of seats would be by allowing the electorate to vote for them.
Possibly, by PR of course.
Depends on who was interpreting the census data, and how they phrased the questions on religiosity... open to manipulation, at the very least.
I don't see that can you explain further, whose your Bogey man here?
I'm not averse to the idea of various advisory committees, and certainly the idea of a range of religious leaders and scholars sitting on one which is asked to delve into matters of significance to religious outlooks makes perfect sense - I just don't see that they need to be given undue power.
That seems like progress to me. The issue for me is the ''called upon'' status which could vary between Never and all the time
It would no more sideline those views than having a scientific advisory committee, and a medical one, and say a professional sports committee... Sidelining would be precluding religion being consulted, which certainly I'm not in favour of, and I suspect very few others here are either.
science and all the other areas are represented in the Lords temporal. That is traditional of those seeing who gets into the lords,
-
No if it were by Census information that wouldn't be the case.
So when a given proportion list themselves as Catholic Christians, the RC church is going to be where people go looking. When people put themselves as 'none', where do their opinions go? What's the atheist organisation that gets representation?
Possibly, by PR of course.
In which case, as said, why do we need to reserve seats for this issue?
I don't see that can you explain further, whose your Bogey man here?
Well, let's say that the government of the day decides they are in favour of organised religion; they set the census questions, and choose all the well-trodden paths that lead to the overreporting of religiosity - suddenly we have over-representation of religion in the upper house again.
That seems like progress to me. The issue for me is the ''called upon'' status which could vary between Never and all the time
It probably would vary, yes, but then I'd contend there are far more instances in the formulation of the laws of the land where input from expert scientists would be useful and relevant that when input from expert theologians or preachers would be.
science and all the other areas are represented in the Lords temporal. That is traditional of those seeing who gets into the lords,
Right. And why do you think religion can't be left to fend for itself against those other competing ideas?
O.
[/quote]
-
So when a given proportion list themselves as Catholic Christians, the RC church is going to be where people go looking. When people put themselves as 'none', where do their opinions go? What's the atheist organisation that gets representation?
I would imagine humanist UK
Well, let's say that the government of the day decides they are in favour of organised religion; they set the census questions, and choose all the well-trodden paths that lead to the overreporting of religiosity - suddenly we have over-representation of religion in the upper house again.
That could go the other way though If the changes are constitutionally institutionalised hijack becomes less effective. Remember we are looking at world views so my way of assembling Lords World view isn't different from how Conservativehumanists would have a special committee
constituted
It probably would vary, yes, but then I'd contend there are far more instances in the formulation of the laws of the land where input from expert scientists would be useful and relevant that when input from expert theologians or preachers would be. .
That assumption I would move is being tested in the science part at least, at this very moment and the extent to which people and population in the UK listen to scientists. Scientists inform on what can or can't be done. Lords world view inform on what should or shouldn't be done.
Right. And why do you think religion can't be left to fend for itself against those other competing ideas?
What are you talking about? Firstly I'm talking about worldviews and beliefs not just religions secondly if it's darwinian struggle of ideas you want, If , Say Christianity is reduced to a weird sect meeting in a front room in Surbiton. It will not be on the selection radar.
-
I would imagine humanist UK
Why would you think that Vlad? Just because someone isn't religious that doesn't mean they are necessarily a humanist, let alone a member of HumanistUK.
The reality is that these organisations can only reasonably claim to represent their members - so HumanistUK represents the members of ... err ... HumanistUK. And likewise the Church of England can only reasonably be said to represent the views of its approx. 1 million CofE members. Anyone can choose to join the CofE or HumanistUK, so how on earth can these organisation be said to represent people who haven't chosen to join them.
In reality many 'membership' organisations, and particularly religions aren't even very good at representing the views of their own members - we see time and time again that the hierarchy (i.e. the kind of people you'd want in your HoLs) have views that don't align with the rank and file membership. So for example if a Catholic Bishop in your reformed Lords opined that contraception is wrong, how on earth can they said to be representing their members when about 90% of UK catholics support the use of contraception.
-
So when a given proportion list themselves as Catholic Christians, the RC church is going to be where people go looking. When people put themselves as 'none', where do their opinions go? What's the atheist organisation that gets representation?
Quite correct - the reality is that most people in the UK choose not to nail their colours to any particular religious (or worldview) organisation, even though they may themselves have a clearly defined set of values.
In Vlad's view everyone has to be 'represented' by a small number of organised groups who they have chosen not to be part of. That is bonkers and deeply unrepresentative.
It also creates a two tier system - one in which if your 'world-view' aligns with an organised religion (or other organised group) then you get represented, but if your values are more personal and you see no organisation that is closely aligned enough for you to join then you have no representation.
We see this already - for example in commemorations, where we end up with a bunch of dignitaries to 'represent the community' - often a bunch of religious leaders from all major organised religions. Yet these people only represent perhaps 10% of the population who are themselves members of those religious organisations. They do not, and cannot, represent the 90% who have chosen not to be part of their organisations. So an attempt to be 'inclusive' and 'diverse' actually ignore the 90% of people who aren't members of organised religions in the UK.
Time and again we see the same failure - a kind of default view that as we become a more pluralistic society that we spread ourselves across a greater number of organised religions. The reality is that as we have become a more pluralistic society fewer and fewer people have engagement with any organised religion so an approach that only recognised the organised religions (or even organised non religious groups such as HumanistUK etc who also have tiny memberships) becomes less, rather than more, representative.
-
I would imagine humanist UK
That's an immense potential range of world-views to be represented by one institution - there will be any number of 'nones' and atheists who aren't even slightly represented by a humanist point of view.
That could go the other way though If the changes are constitutionally institutionalised hijack becomes less effective.
No. You're guaranteeing a skew, which could be manipulated, rather than leaving the whole affair in the hands of the electorate.
Remember we are looking at world views so my way of assembling Lords World view isn't different from how Conservativehumanists would have a special committee
constituted
Sorry, not a clue where that was supposed to be going.
That assumption I would move is being tested in the science part at least, at this very moment and the extent to which people and population in the UK listen to scientists.
That would affect how many scientists were elected to the house, perhaps, but you'd hope that the Upper House, when it got there, would see the value of expertise and call on them appropriately; and in those circumstances I can't see religious leaders being as useful as expert scientists.
Scientists inform on what can or can't be done.
Hard scientists, yes. Social scientists comment on what's happened in similar situations when various things have been tried, or what the factors at play are in certain decisions.
Lords world view inform on what should or shouldn't be done.
And so they'd need to be informed of how those things could or could not be done, and what the knock-on effects would be.
What are you talking about?
Your notion that there's a justification for reserving seats in the upper house for one topic area.
Firstly I'm talking about worldviews and beliefs not just religions
Yeah, and the 'Intelligent Designers' weren't talking about god, except that everyone knew they were. Your coding of 'world view' for religion so that you can fight for that particular minority interest but claim not to be isn't exactly convincing.
secondly if it's darwinian struggle of ideas you want,
The evidence of a decade of Tory misrule suggests that relying on electorate doesn't result in selection based on performance. The presence of Alexander Johnson as Prime Minister suggests that fitness for purpose doesn't figure strongly. I'm not sure you can make a strong case the electing a government body is in any way 'Darwinian'.
If , Say Christianity is reduced to a weird sect meeting in a front room in Surbiton. It will not be on the selection radar.
If?
Exactly, so why reserve seats for it? If religion is reduced to a fringe activity, why reserve seats for it? If science is reduced to a carnival side-show a la Idiocracy, why reserve seats for it?
O.
-
so why reserve seats for it?
For the nth time I am not reserving seats for religion but for world views, beliefs. The only way a world view gets represented is if it is practiced in sufficient numbers. You see there are no seats reserved for anyone in particular. And then there are the seats reserved for the lords temporal who might in the future might include toad genderers, moisture farmers and leapfroggers. Nobody is guaranteed a seat only the area of life they represent.
Moderator: quoting fixed.
-
For the nth time I am not reserving seats for religion but for world views, beliefs. The only way a world view gets represented is if it is practiced in sufficient numbers.
Let's look beyond the point that you have completely failed to justify why it is necessary to have this complicated allocation of seats by 'world-view' (whatever that means, rather than simply recognise that if the Lords is sufficiently representative of the general population then it will involve people with all these 'world-views' anyhow.
So let's for a moment humour you in your notion. Firstly why it is somehow important that people practice their world-view - sounds suspiciously like an appeal straight back to organised religion. And moreover, how on earth are you going to identify how many people actually practice their world-view. Imagine my values (i.e. world-view) involve me thinking it is important to consider others ahead of myself and I don't align it with any organisation (probably many, many people in the UK). If I do my best to 'practice' this in my day to day life, how on earth are you going to measure this Vlad. I just get on and do it, I don't join an organisation, I don't take part in communal organised 'consider others before myself' activities, I just do it myself. How will you know how many people are doing this, and even if you did how would you identify a suitable HoLs representative for that, almost certainly very common, world-view.
-
For the nth time I am not reserving seats for religion but for world views, beliefs.
Even if we take that at face value, and even if we were to ignore the obvious reality that organised religions have an historic claim to representing a comprehensive world-view that pretty much no other tradition does... even if we accept that. Still why reserve a special place for 'world-views'? Even if we accept that 'world view' is not just religion masquerading as something more secular, why do 'world views' need to have seats reserved for them? Why can't they compete against all the other concerns to see if anyone gives enough of a shit about them to elect someone who espouses them?
The only way a world view gets represented is if it is practiced in sufficient numbers.
A particular world-view, perhaps. But let's say that your a member of the most popular organisation that represents a coherent 'world-view' - say, the Anglican church - but that you only actually represent two or three percent of the electorate. You'd have a seat reserved for that (and, presumably, the next half-dozen least unpopular religions 'world-views', even though virtually no-one gives a crap. Or even if half the electorate are members, but wouldn't vote for them in a parliament because that world-view outlook doesn't equip anyone to make informed decisions about the real world.
You see there are no seats reserved for anyone in particular.
You haven't explained why any seats need to be reserved at all, you've just tried to come up with wording that gives you plausible deniability that you're talking about religion.
And then there are the seats reserved for the lords temporal who might in the future might include toad genderers, moisture farmers and leapfroggers.
No seats are 'reserved' for the Lords Temporal, those are the seats that are open to any nomination (including the Church of England), not specifically reserved for the Bishops. The equivalent, in our hypothetical house, is all those elected seats that anyone can stand for.
Nobody is guaranteed a seat only the area of life they represent.
But some seats are reserved for representatives of 'world views', but not for representatives of science or medicine or finance or art or literature or fishing or toad-gendering (is like bird-sexing?)...
Still no justification for it. An unsubstantiated assertion that having a religion world-view encourages a longer-term assessment than any other group. Even if that were the case, you'd have to justify that a) that long-term view was the best policy and b) the long-termism arising from an ideological world-view was in the best interests of everyone and not just those of that world-view. There are so many ways for this to go wrongly, even if you could justify the concept in the first place, which you haven't.
O.
-
Let's look beyond the point that you have completely failed to justify why it is necessary to have this complicated allocation of seats by 'world-view' (whatever that means, rather than simply recognise that if the Lords is sufficiently representative of the general population then it will involve people with all these 'world-views' anyhow.
If there are no lords spiritual then one world view becomes the official world view enshrined in the house of Lords. Since you want me to state what that is it is a hard epistemic aspiritual secular humanism. That is unacceptable. So that takes it's place as one of many world views vouchsafed in the constitution of the house of Lords.
So let's for a moment humour you in your notion. Firstly why it is somehow important that people practice their world-view - sounds suspiciously like an appeal straight back to organised religion. And moreover, how on earth are you going to identify how many people actually practice their world-view. Imagine my values (i.e. world-view) involve me thinking it is important to consider others ahead of myself and I don't align it with any organisation (probably many, many people in the UK). If I do my best to 'practice' this in my day to day life, how on earth are you going to measure this Vlad. I just get on and do it, I don't join an organisation, I don't take part in communal organised 'consider others before myself' activities, I just do it myself. How will you know how many people are doing this, and even if you did how would you identify a suitable HoLs representative for that, almost certainly very common, world-view.
How does a humanist practice their beliefs? By the Campaign, running or taking part in the drive which is I suppose the equivalent of mission. Also I would imagine. Living a life that shows one doesn't need religion to make one a good person.
You, as you say do it......But it is not the layman in your world view or mine that should be in the house of Lords, It is the people that do their best at running the campaigns, who are experienced at maintaining and supporting your community and defending it and it's distinctiveness at the highest levels namely Government. In other words a scholar and professional in the sphere of humanism. That is the person who should be in the House of Lords because the House of Lords is a house of expertise.
In fact, there might even be a case for the vouchsafing of a Lords place for Humanism permanently.
-
Vlad
Once you've stopped thrashing around, the issue that you need to address is this: would enough of the electorate be minded to vote for candidates who make it clear that their role in political governance would be enacted according to their religious or 'world-view' inclinations. My guess is that they won't, but that can only be tested if elections are free, fair and don't involve any ring-fencing or special privileges for 'those and such as those'.
Leave it to the electorate to decide: if enough of them want to be represented by, say, the overtly religious (which is what I suspect you really mean by 'world view', and for your tastes preferably of the Christian variety) then they will vote for them - or they won't, in which case it would be reasonable to conclude that the electorate don't see that religion/'world view' is of great import when it comes to political governance.
-
Vlad
Once you've stopped thrashing around the issue that you need to address is this: would enough of the electorate be minded to vote for candidates who make it clear that their role in political governance would be enacted according to their religious or 'world-view' inclinations.
Not for a commons and not in a party system probably, That's why green party candidates don't get in and if extinction rebellion stood, they wouldn't get in either didn't get in. If a gay candidate presented themselves to you, you wouldn't probably vote for them. It's a question of focus and whether theirs is apt for the function of the particular house. You were telt how unsatisfactory a carbon copy of the commons, a second commons would be even in a secular context. My guess is that they won't, but that can only be tested if elections are free, fair and don't involve any ring-fencing or special privileges for 'those and such as those'.
A second house of commons that wasn't your awful rerun of the first could proceed with the requisite that each member stands as an independent and here yes that might give scope for the focussed world view candidate and that explains why you probably wouldn't want it. Please inform me if I am wrong about that.
How would people feel about an overt humanist ?
-
If there are no lords spiritual then one world view becomes the official world view enshrined in the house of Lords.
How? Which 'world-view' is disproportionately represented, given that reserving no seats enforces exactly no representation for any view? How does not giving anything a free pass enshrine any particular view?
Since you want me to state what that is it is a hard epistemic aspiritual secular humanism. That is unacceptable.
Let's assume that's a world-view. Let's also presume that Anglicanism is another. How does not reserving seats for anyone guarantee that no Anglican can sit in the house and only 'hardcore anti-theists' are allowed?
So that takes it's place as one of many world views vouchsafed in the constitution of the house of Lords.
You are vesting importance in 'world view'. What if very few people give a crap? What if that's a poor basis to choose people to sit in the upper house? Why is world view worthy of reserved seating?
That is the person who should be in the House of Lords because the House of Lords is a house of expertise.
And if they can convince the electorate of their expertise, and that their expertise is relevant, they get in: why do they need to have a second chance to compete for special seats when virtuoso flautists don't?
In fact, there might even be a case for the vouchsafing of a Lords place for Humanism permanently.
Or, conversely, for not granting anyone influence in perpetuity, but rather leaving it up to the electorate of the day to select by whom they wish to be governed. You know, like in a democracy...
O.
-
Not for a commons and not in a party system probably, That's why green party candidates don't get in and if extinction rebellion stood, they wouldn't get in either didn't get in.
Then revise the electoral system away from FPP - doesn't guarantee election but it would ensure that where there was enough general support it would potentially result in election - again it's up to the electorate.
If a gay candidate presented themselves to you, you wouldn't probably vote for them.
What an unpleasant homophobic comment: you should be ashamed of yourself. For your information, a previous MP for my constituency was gay - and I voted for him.
It's a question of focus and whether there's is apt for the function of the house. You were telt how unsatisfactory a carbon copy of the commons, a second commons would be even in a secular context. A second house of commons that wasn't your awful rerun of the first could proceed with the requisite that each member stands as an independent and here yes that might give scope for the focussed world view candidate and that explains why you probably wouldn't want it. Please inform me if I am wrong about that.
How would people feel about an overt humanist ?
Don't be silly - it's about the electorate and who presents themselves as a candidate, and on what basis they set out aims and priorities.
-
For your information, a previous MP for my constituency was gay - and I voted for him.
Was he standing on a focussed LGBT ticket? Did you vote for him because of his party?
If you would have voted for him whether he was gay or not then he has no place in what we are talking about.
-
Was he standing on a focussed LGBT ticket? Did you vote for him because of his party?
If you would have voted for him whether he was gay or not then he has no place in what we are talking about.
Don't be silly - first, you need to look again at how you expressed yourself, and recognise that you need to take more care with the way you use words.
Secondly, you're indulging in simplistic thinking again if you've concluded that electoral candidates stand on the basis of a 'focussed ticket'. I'd imagine that for a candidate to be elected, that the electorate, or most of them, would tend to look beyond a single characteristic or inclination of said candidate: the policies they advocate, their political history and their personal reputation might be factors, don't you think?
I've yet to come across a candidate whose campaign consists solely of 'vote for me because I'm 'x' and/or because I believe in 'y' - and if I ever did I'd be wary that they were just a one trick pony, and as such best avoided.
-
Don't be silly - first, you need to look again at how your expressed yourself, and recognise that you need to take more care with the way you use words.
Of course. It was not meant to be homophobic, nor suggesting that you would not vote for a gay person. We were of course talking about the tickets people stand on and my point is that single issue politicians rarely get elected.
.
-
Of course. It was not meant to be homophobic, nor suggesting that you would not vote for a gay person. We were of course talking about the tickets people stand on and my point is that single issue politicians rarely get elected.
It maybe wasn't intended to be homophobic - but it read that way.
I'd agree that single issue politicians are less likely to get elected, which is why I'm puzzled that you keep banging on about 'world view' since, in my experience, politicians tend to explain their agenda primarily in political terms and not in religious, philosophical or 'world view' terms. I've seen the odd candidate stand on a overtly religious platform but then they tend to lose their deposits.
-
I'd agree that single issue politicians are less likely to get elected, which is why I'm puzzled that you keep banging on about 'world view' since, in my experience, politicians tend to explain their agenda primarily in political terms
Yes, commons politicians do because that is the focus of the house of commons. But that is not been the only focus of the Lords. As it stands religion has been part of the agenda in the Lords and to this date the Lords it has stood as the repository of and defender of reflection on the government of the country no matter how imperfectly.
It has been where, however weakly, religion, philosophy and world view has impinged on governmental decision
That heritage needs to be strengthened and broadened and that is not diametrically opposed to the idea of elections. and not in religious, philosophical or 'world view' terms.
Fine for the commons but a malcontents demolition of the idea of representing world view or philosophy itself constitutes a philosophy which is part of a world view. That world view would therefore be the only world view institutionalised in the house, exactly what you wanted, supposedly, to avoid I've seen the odd candidate stand on a overtly religious platform but then they tend to lose their deposits.
again, lost his deposit for the commons but religion has it's place in the Lords without having to have it's deposit.
-
That world view would therefore be the only world view institutionalised in the house, exactly what you wanted, supposedly, to avoid again, lost his deposit for the commons but religion has it's place in the Lords without having to have it's deposit.
Religion, in the form of the CofE chaps (and they are all chaps) in the HofL is due solely to special privileges awarded to the CofE: but whether religion, in the form of the CofE, actually deserves this place is another matter. In my view any overt religious representation in political governance arrangements should be the consequence of electoral support - and nothing else.
-
Religion, in the form of the CofE chaps
At present they are the only group representing a world view from what I understand and this I think is from Rowan Williams was that some in some religious communities are grateful even for that since it acts as some kind of bulwark against a malevolent secularising antireligion. (and they are all chaps)
Blimey, that must have come as a shock to the five women bishops in the HoL.
Again you cannot avoid an institutionalised worldview in government. At present it favours mine and frustrates yours.
-
Blimey, that must have come as a shock to the five women bishops in the HoL.
My mistake then - I'm clearly not up to speed with what the CofE set-up is, being neither a theist, English or a resident of England.
Again you cannot avoid an institutionalised worldview in government. At present it favours mine and frustrates yours.
Which bit of my view that 'world view' is meaningless as regards politics, since you could apply the term to pretty much any outlook that any one has, are you struggling to understand?
-
My mistake then
Not just a mistake but grevious and gross turpitude IMO - I'm clearly not up to speed with what the CofE set-up is, being neither a theist, English or a resident of England.
Interestingly enough I've met a couple of moderators of the Church of Scotland and a couple of Scottish moderators of the religious ethics forum via the internet
Which bit of my view that 'world view' is meaningless as regards politics, since you could apply the term to pretty much any outlook that any one has, are you struggling to understand?
You can politicise anything Gordon, In fact that's why you need a repository of expertise on everything within your houses of government....what's your point?
-
You can politicise anything Gordon, In fact that's why you need a repository of expertise on everything within your houses of government....what's your point?
My point is simply that the special privilege that allows the CofE to sit in the HofL is anachronistic and anti-democratic, as is the HofL itself.
-
How does a humanist practice their beliefs?
By living their life according to humanist principles - I'd have thought that would be obvious.
By the Campaign, running or taking part in the drive which is I suppose the equivalent of mission.
You seem obsessed with organisation, campaigning, mission etc - most people in the UK aren't interested in that, hence they aren't active participants in any organised religion, nor secularly philosophical organisations - e.g. HumanistsUK. Why is their 'world-view' less important than one aligned with an organised and campaigning structure. Answer - it isn't. But in your view the one trumps the other, and given that it is largely religions than rely on and expect organised structure, mission etc you view is simply one that privileges religion albeit couched in disingenuous terms to imply it is somehow neutral in the religion vs non-religion axis.
-
By living their life according to humanist principles - I'd have thought that would be obvious.
You seem obsessed with organisation, campaigning, mission etc - most people in the UK aren't interested in that, hence they aren't active participants in any organised religion, nor secularly philosophical organisations - e.g. HumanistsUK. Why is their 'world-view' less important than one aligned with an organised and campaigning structure. Answer - it isn't. But in your view the one trumps the other, and given that it is largely religions than rely on and expect organised structure, mission etc you view is simply one that privileges religion albeit couched in disingenuous terms to imply it is somehow neutral in the religion vs non-religion axis.
This is the house of Lords we are talking about. None of 'em are elected.All are privileged.
I'm against religion privileged over other world views anyway so I'm left wondering who this invisible pro status quo fantasy figure you are arguing with is.
-
.But it is not the layman in your world view or mine that should be in the house of Lords, It is the people that do their best at running the campaigns, who are experienced at maintaining and supporting your community and defending it and it's distinctiveness at the highest levels namely Government.
Nice aregument for a HoLs full of extremists.
An example - presumably you accept that vegetarianism and veganism are 'world-views'. Most vegetarians and vegans simply don't eat meat/use animal-based products. They don't go around hectoring others, campaigning etc. But those people aren't worthy to represent vegetarians and vegans (despite being like most vegetarians and vegans). Nope in your world they'd have to be represented by the most extreme campaigning vegetarians and vegans - the ones actively disrupting farms, the farming industry. The people who are in your face 'evangelicals'. Those people aren't representative of vegetarians and vegans - yet those are the active 'campaigners'.
Same with environmentalists - your argument would have extinction rebellion extremists representing environmentalists, rather than rank and file people who are concerned about the environment or even David Attenborough or academics who study environmentalism, as they are as active as 'campaigners' as people who glue themselves to roads.
-
Nice aregument for a HoLs full of extremists.
even I wouldn't describe C of E bishops as extremist and the present AofC might be described an extreme chocolate teapot. But I suppose such is the mind set of public atheism.]
An example - presumably you accept that vegetarianism and veganism are 'world-views'.
Here's the thing. I'm thinking of a very successful youtuber and broadcaster who is a public and campaigning atheist who has started also to campaign for veganism I understand at a most philosophical level. Is his world view now veganism since he hasn't abandon any of his skepticism or philosophical stance or does veganism just describe his dietary habits and new respect for animals? I plump for his public and campaigning atheism and skepticism being his world view Most vegetarians and vegans simply don't eat meat/use animal-based products. They don't go around hectoring others, campaigning etc. But those people aren't worthy to represent vegetarians and vegans (despite being like most vegetarians and vegans). Nope in your world they'd have to be represented by the most extreme campaigning vegetarians and vegans - the ones actively disrupting farms, the farming industry. The people who are in your face 'evangelicals'. Those people aren't representative of vegetarians and vegans - yet those are the active 'campaigners'.
Let me stop you there....I don't see veganism as a world view. So the question doesn't arise.
Same with environmentalists - your argument would have extinction rebellion extremists representing environmentalists, rather than rank and file people who are concerned about the environment or even David Attenborough or academics who study environmentalism, as they are as active as 'campaigners' as people who glue themselves to roads.
Now this is more interesting...... does environmentalism necessitate extreme action?.....Is one's attitude to the environment a world view? For example Can you be a secular humanist environmentalist or a Buddhist environmentalist? If the answer is yes, then I'm not sure environmentalism is a world view I see no issue though with appointing environmentalists or vegans to the Lords Temporal.
-
then I'm not sure environmentalism is a world view I see no issue though with appointing environmentalists or vegans to the Lords Temporal.
So you need to define what you mean by 'world-view' then don't you Vlad, seeing as you see all sorts of things that represent an important philosophical position for some people, that they alter their lives to practice and yet somehow it isn't a world view.
Somehow the obvious conclusion is that by 'world-view' you really mean 'religion' with perhaps a little tokenism on the side for humanism (which of course may well be aligned with a religion anyhow). So let's be honest here Vlad, all you want to do is reserve automatic places for more religions - which of course would exacerbate the unfairness, not resolve it.
-
So you need to define what you mean by 'world-view' then don't you Vlad, seeing as you see all sorts of things that represent an important philosophical position for some people, that they alter their lives to practice and yet somehow it isn't a world view.
Somehow the obvious conclusion is that by 'world-view' you really mean 'religion' with perhaps a little tokenism on the side for humanism (which of course may well be aligned with a religion anyhow). So let's be honest here Vlad, all you want to do is reserve automatic places for more religions - which of course would exacerbate the unfairness, not resolve it.
Let's put this post into context. I have discussed two examples from you, Veganism and environmentalism and have shown you why these cannot be be a worldview, I have also said that secular humanism is a world view and that it would probably have the largest number of seats in a Lords world view so your conclusion that by world I mean religion is either based on a wank fantasy or by you having a certain lack of intellectual grasp or by you deliberately misrepresenting.
-
Let's put this post into context. I have discussed two examples from you, Veganism and environmentalism and have shown you why these cannot be be a worldview, I have also said that secular humanism is a world view and that it would probably have the largest number of seats in a Lords world view so your conclusion that by world I mean religion is either based on a wank fantasy or by you having a certain lack of intellectual grasp or by you deliberately misrepresenting.
Drivel
-
Drivel
LOL.
-
Let's put this post into context. I have discussed two examples from you, Veganism and environmentalism and have shown you why these cannot be be a worldview, I have also said that secular humanism is a world view and that it would probably have the largest number of seats in a Lords world view so your conclusion that by world I mean religion is either based on a wank fantasy or by you having a certain lack of intellectual grasp or by you deliberately misrepresenting.
I seen 'wankfantasy' has stretched beyond another weekend, so not just 'word of the week', then.
You've still not explained why you think the upper house should be perpetually constrained to reserve seats for people who try to fit things into some sort of ideological 'world-view' - regardless of who gets to determine what's a world-view and what isn't. Why isn't the house purely left to the interpretations of those who can convince the electorate they broadly represent their world-view on the issues of the day? Why do you have seats reserved for people who have signed up, in advance, to a proscriptive point of view? I want flexibility from the upper house, I want an upper house the views the issues of the day in the context of the day - you still need to justify why you're reserving some seats at all, before you get to the point where you're failing to adequately justify how you're going to fill them.
O.
-
I seen 'wankfantasy' has stretched beyond another weekend, so not just 'word of the week', then.
Since the behaviour it describes originates from ''you guys'', the duration of the term rather depends on ''you guys''
You've still not explained why you think the upper house should be perpetually constrained to reserve seats for people who try to fit things into some sort of ideological 'world-view' - regardless of who gets to determine what's a world-view and what isn't. Why isn't the house purely left to the interpretations of those who can convince the electorate they broadly represent their world-view on the issues of the day? Why do you have seats reserved for people who have signed up, in advance, to a proscriptive point of view? I want flexibility from the upper house, I want an upper house the views the issues of the day in the context of the day - you still need to justify why you're reserving some seats at all, before you get to the point where you're failing to adequately justify how you're going to fill them.
O.
[/quote] Having a lords world view expands the gamut of what it is of humanity that is represented in government rather than the narrow conception of humanity embodied in your aspiritual homonculus.
I've said it many times.
-
I have discussed two examples from you, Veganism and environmentalism and have shown you why these cannot be be a worldview, ...
No you haven't - you have merely opined that they aren't a 'world-view'.
You need to define 'world-view' and only then can we objectively assess whether something does, or does not meet those criteria.
So come on then Vlad - lets have your specific criteria for a 'world-view' for the purposes of your reform proposals for the HoLs please.
-
Having a lords world view expands the gamut of what it is of humanity that is represented in government rather than the narrow conception of humanity embodied in your aspiritual homonculus.
Again, I'm not defining who sits in the house, I'm not reserving seats for anyone - you're doing that, you're trying to entrench positions for religions, knowing that they're declining out of relevance, and trying to pretend that it's not about that by pitching 'world views'
I've said it many times.
You keep saying what you'd do, you keep saying who it would affect, but you've failed to justify why. You want 'world views' in the Lords - you've failed to explain why they wouldn't be there without reserved seats, and you've failed to explain why 'world views' are somehow of a benefit to the upper house.
O.
-
wait a cotton picking minute. Shouldn't you guys be working?