What is the problem religionists have with secularism?

[Hope]

I'll be quite happy when the religious are put back into their little boxes where they belong, for starters, after all they are the most widespread offenders when it comes to a privilege here another there, slimy b------s.

I can think of other groups who enjoy far greater privileges than either the Monarchy or the religious.

I can think of six impossible things before breakfast, but how would that change anything?

Don't know - not sure what relevance this comment is to the discussion.

[ProfessorDavey]

I'll be quite happy when the religious are put back into their little boxes where they belong, for starters, after all they are the most widespread offenders when it comes to a privilege here another there, slimy b------s.

I can think of other groups who enjoy far greater privileges than either the Monarchy or the religious.

Such as?

[Harrowby Hall]

The UK has no written Constitution as such.

Not strictly true. The UK does have a written constitution - but it is contained within several documents. It hasn't yet been codified.

(I do note your qualification - as such.)

[Nearly Sane]

I'll be quite happy when the religious are put back into their little boxes where they belong, for starters, after all they are the most widespread offenders when it comes to a privilege here another there, slimy b------s.

I can think of other groups who enjoy far greater privileges than either the Monarchy or the religious.

Such as?

The rich. They get better interest rates and can borrow money for less.

Then there are the benefits of class, being able to get a job as a solicitor because you went to a "good" school.

Whereas kids whose parents don't belong to the right class don't have a hope.

Solicitors in London can be quite snobby, I have been told.

The right connections count for a lot.

and the monarchy don't get that?

[ProfessorDavey]

I'll be quite happy when the religious are put back into their little boxes where they belong, for starters, after all they are the most widespread offenders when it comes to a privilege here another there, slimy b------s.

I can think of other groups who enjoy far greater privileges than either the Monarchy or the religious.

Such as?

In spades and also at our expense.

The rich. They get better interest rates and can borrow money for less.

Then there are the benefits of class, being able to get a job as a solicitor because you went to a "good" school.

Whereas kids whose parents don't belong to the right class don't have a hope.

Solicitors in London can be quite snobby, I have been told.

The right connections count for a lot.

and the monarchy don't get that?

[BeRational]

There are always people in every society that expect to get some sort of privilege, in a communist state you still have some that are rewarded better than others.

It's people I suppose.

I think the idea of the 26 seats in the HofL is that Christian ideas are introduced into our society which was acceptable at one time as this country was considered Christian.

It probably still is to those that are culturally Christian.

I don't have an issue with it.

Would you have no issue if it was proposed to have 26 Jedi Knights in the house?

[BeRational]

There are always people in every society that expect to get some sort of privilege, in a communist state you still have some that are rewarded better than others.

It's people I suppose.

I think the idea of the 26 seats in the HofL is that Christian ideas are introduced into our society which was acceptable at one time as this country was considered Christian.

It probably still is to those that are culturally Christian.

I don't have an issue with it.

Would you have no issue if it was proposed to have 26 Jedi Knights in the house?

Yes! Jedism isn't part of our heritage 😉

When do we ditch parts of our heritage that are no longer useful?

[ippy]

I'll be quite happy when the religious are put back into their little boxes where they belong, for starters, after all they are the most widespread offenders when it comes to a privilege here another there, slimy b------s.

I can think of other groups who enjoy far greater privileges than either the Monarchy or the religious.

Such as?

The rich. They get better interest rates and can borrow money for less.

Then there are the benefits of class, being able to get a job as a solicitor because you went to a "good" school.

Whereas kids whose parents don't belong to the right class don't have a hope.

Solicitors in London can be quite snobby, I have been told.

The right connections count for a lot.

Lots of the privileges afforded to the religious here in the UK are small ones Rose But when you add up the large number of privileges they have, it's no longer a small matter.

ippy

[ippy]

There are always people in every society that expect to get some sort of privilege, in a communist state you still have some that are rewarded better than others.

It's people I suppose.

I think the idea of the 26 seats in the HofL is that Christian ideas are introduced into our society which was acceptable at one time as this country was considered Christian.

It probably still is to those that are culturally Christian.

I don't have an issue with it.

Would you have no issue if it was proposed to have 26 Jedi Knights in the house?

The real ones with the light sabers? Like your post.

ippy

[ProfessorDavey]

There are always people in every society that expect to get some sort of privilege, in a communist state you still have some that are rewarded better than others.

It's people I suppose.

I think the idea of the 26 seats in the HofL is that Christian ideas are introduced into our society which was acceptable at one time as this country was considered Christian.

It probably still is to those that are culturally Christian.

I don't have an issue with it.

Would you have no issue if it was proposed to have 26 Jedi Knights in the house?

Yes! Jedism isn't part of our heritage 😉

When do we ditch parts of our heritage that are no longer useful?

We don't!

They are what makes up our traditions and culture

http://listverse.com/2010/04/02/10-very-strange-british-traditions/


People should leave them alone!

I love our traditions.

Big and little ones

You may love your traditions, but the British public don't when it comes to Bishops in the House of Lords. Polling suggests by an overwhelming over two to one (56% to 26%) the British public don't want Bishops in the HofLs.

[BeRational]

We used to keep slaves, and send children to work.

Are you saying we were wrong to ditch those?

[Hope]

... and the monarchy don't get that?

Well, there are a lot of things that they are not allowed to do, especially the Monarch themselves.

[Hope]

We used to keep slaves, and send children to work.

Are you saying we were wrong to ditch those?

We 'used' to keep slaves?  We still do - trafficked and 'ordinary'. 

[Nearly Sane]

We used to keep slaves, and send children to work.

Are you saying we were wrong to ditch those?

We 'used' to keep slaves?  We still do - trafficked and 'ordinary'.

so previously when you claimed Wiberforce' s work in the abolition of slaves t as a good example of Christianity, you are now of the opinion it was a waste of time

[BashfulAnthony]

We used to keep slaves, and send children to work.

Are you saying we were wrong to ditch those?

We 'used' to keep slaves?  We still do - trafficked and 'ordinary'.

so previously when you claimed Wiberforce' s work in the abolition of slaves t as a good example of Christianity, you are now of the opinion it was a waste of time

Once it was legal; now it isn't.

[Nearly Sane]

We used to keep slaves, and send children to work.

Are you saying we were wrong to ditch those?

We 'used' to keep slaves?  We still do - trafficked and 'ordinary'.

so previously when you claimed Wiberforce' s work in the abolition of slaves t as a good example of Christianity, you are now of the opinion it was a waste of time

Once it was legal; now it isn't.

Yep, I think that was effectively Be Rationals point. I was just pointing out that Hope's point , one that is valid in different circumstances, would make a good discussion and one Hope has flagged before, if taken in direct reply here leads to the conclusion I outlined.

[ProfessorDavey]

There are always people in every society that expect to get some sort of privilege, in a communist state you still have some that are rewarded better than others.

It's people I suppose.

I think the idea of the 26 seats in the HofL is that Christian ideas are introduced into our society which was acceptable at one time as this country was considered Christian.

It probably still is to those that are culturally Christian.

I don't have an issue with it.

Would you have no issue if it was proposed to have 26 Jedi Knights in the house?

Yes! Jedism isn't part of our heritage 😉

When do we ditch parts of our heritage that are no longer useful?

We don't!

They are what makes up our traditions and culture

http://listverse.com/2010/04/02/10-very-strange-british-traditions/


People should leave them alone!

I love our traditions.

Big and little ones

You may love your traditions, but the British public don't when it comes to Bishops in the House of Lords. Polling suggests by an overwhelming over two to one (56% to 26%) the British public don't want Bishops in the HofLs.

 I don't trust polls.

It depends what was asked ie exact wording

And who they asked, whether it was representative of the population as a whole.

This was a bone fide YouGov poll, which is carefully assessed to ensure demographic balance and due to its sample size will have a margin of error of about +/-3%

The overall poll was about HofL reform and this question was worded as follows:

'Currently the House of Lords contains 21 seats for senior Bishops from the Church of England. Do you think a reformed House of Lords should or should not retain seats for the bishops?'

I'm struggling to see how the wording of the question, nor how the poll was conducted would be biased. And even if they were out by the furthest extremes of their margin of error the results would be 53% to 29% against retaining Bishops. Of course it is just as likely to be out in the other direction, i.e. 59% to 23% in favour of abolition.

[Nearly Sane]

We used to keep slaves, and send children to work.

Are you saying we were wrong to ditch those?

We 'used' to keep slaves?  We still do - trafficked and 'ordinary'.

so previously when you claimed Wiberforce' s work in the abolition of slaves t as a good example of Christianity, you are now of the opinion it was a waste of time

 It was never a waste of time, but obviously still needs some more work.

Ugly things still resurface in the human race, obviously.

Yes, I was just pointing out that unless you do the reductio as I did, it does not affect Be R' s point

[BashfulAnthony]

I'm really not that bothered by 26 seats for bishops out of 786.

http://www.parliament.uk/mps-lords-and-offices/lords/composition-of-the-lords/

Rose, I've pointed out that salient fact several times, but religionists always ignore it because it suits them to.. It also seems quite likely that the Bishops make a positive contribution to the House, and thai's certainly not so of many others there, who are also unelected:  but that also seems not to bother the detractors.

[ProfessorDavey]

I'm really not that bothered by 26 seats for bishops out of 786.

http://www.parliament.uk/mps-lords-and-offices/lords/composition-of-the-lords/

Then presumably you wouldn't be particularly bothered if they weren't there.

[Nearly Sane]

I'm really not that bothered by 26 seats for bishops out of 786.

http://www.parliament.uk/mps-lords-and-offices/lords/composition-of-the-lords/

Rose, I've pointed out that salient fact several times, but religionists always ignore it because it suits them to.. It also seems quite likely that the Bishops make a positive contribution to the House, and thai's certainly not so of many others there, who are also unelected:  but that also seems not to bother the detractors.

If the point is the principle then that isn't a salient point. After all would it make any difference to the OT God if instead of being down for killing many hundreds of thousands of kids and getting soldiers to massacies them in his name.
,  it only killed one and only had one girl raped?

As to other members of the Lords people might object to, that is both irrelevant and incidences to the case. Irrelevant in the first as it's a use of the tu quoque fallacy. Incidences because one can object to plenty of members of the House of Lords and not have to write it down continually so you have no evidence of others opinions on these irrelevant lords.

[BashfulAnthony]

I'm really not that bothered by 26 seats for bishops out of 786.

http://www.parliament.uk/mps-lords-and-offices/lords/composition-of-the-lords/

Then presumably you wouldn't be particularly bothered if they weren't there.

It would be a huge step forward if the entire Lords were abolished.

[Hope]

so previously when you claimed Wiberforce' s work in the abolition of slaves t as a good example of Christianity, you are now of the opinion it was a waste of time

No, society has allowed it to be reintroduced.  We pay people peanuts, even nothing, to do work.  We have people being brought into the country to work for nothing. 

[ProfessorDavey]

I'm really not that bothered by 26 seats for bishops out of 786.

http://www.parliament.uk/mps-lords-and-offices/lords/composition-of-the-lords/

Rose, I've pointed out that salient fact several times, but religionists always ignore it because it suits them to.. It also seems quite likely that the Bishops make a positive contribution to the House, and thai's certainly not so of many others there, who are also unelected:  but that also seems not to bother the detractors.

All sorts of people might make a positive contribution to the house, but in most cases they haven't got a cat in hell's chance of ever being appointed to the HofLs. The Bishops (uniquely) automatically get a seat by default of being appointed to an entirely separate position within an entirely separate organisational. And in some cases get a seat simply for time serving in another role, as 21 out of the 26 get their seat simply by being one of the 21 longest serving Bishops.

[ProfessorDavey]

I'm really not that bothered by 26 seats for bishops out of 786.

http://www.parliament.uk/mps-lords-and-offices/lords/composition-of-the-lords/

Then presumably you wouldn't be particularly bothered if they weren't there.

It would be a huge step forward if the entire Lords were abolished.

I agree, although I would still want a second chamber with complementary powers to the House of Commons. I think it wouldn't be good to simply have the commons without the checks and balances that a second chamber creates.