What is the problem religionists have with secularism?

[Nearly Sane]

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.

I would suggest that if you want to discuss the actual detail of this it's worth a thread of its own. I have covered why in other posts

[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.

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.

And getting a seat for such things as contributing to Party funds, or other equally undeserving reasons, is not worthy of argument?

[Hope]

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

And replaced with yet another bunch of short-termist politicians?

[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.

And getting a seat for such things as contributing to Party funds, or other equally undeserving reasons, is not worthy of argument?

It still requires a proper appointment process and isn't automatic.

In the case of the Bishops one might automatically get a seat because some other Bishop retires so you become one of the 21 longest serving Bishops.

[ProfessorDavey]

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

And replaced with yet another bunch of short-termist politicians?

That would depend on the length of appointment/election wouldn't it.

[Hope]

That would depend on the length of appointment/election wouldn't it.

I'd agree; I'd like to see any second chamber member be in post for 10 years, but only eligible for a single term.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

That would depend on the length of appointment/election wouldn't it.

I'd agree; I'd like to see any second chamber member be in post for 10 years, but only eligible for a single term.

I would make it like jury service. With a ''get out of serving'' clause if you have a big company or estate to run

[Harrowby Hall]

That would depend on the length of appointment/election wouldn't it.

I'd agree; I'd like to see any second chamber member be in post for 10 years, but only eligible for a single term.

With half its membership resigning every five years.

[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.

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.

And getting a seat for such things as contributing to Party funds, or other equally undeserving reasons, is not worthy of argument?

It still requires a proper appointment process and isn't automatic.

In the case of the Bishops one might automatically get a seat because some other Bishop retires so you become one of the 21 longest serving Bishops.

The system stinks, is archaic, and needs reform, to bring it into the 21st. century.

[Hope]

That would depend on the length of appointment/election wouldn't it.

I'd agree; I'd like to see any second chamber member be in post for 10 years, but only eligible for a single term.

With half its membership resigning every five years.

Half, or possibly a third.  I suppose it would depend on how big it was, but I'm never too keen on losing 50% of an establishment in one chunk.

[ProfessorDavey]

That would depend on the length of appointment/election wouldn't it.

I'd agree; I'd like to see any second chamber member be in post for 10 years, but only eligible for a single term.

With half its membership resigning every five years.

Half, or possibly a third.  I suppose it would depend on how big it was, but I'm never too keen on losing 50% of an establishment in one chunk.

Elected in thirds every five years with each elected member serving a 15 year term to ensure stability and maintenance of expertise, but also ensuring regular refreshment.

[Hope]

The system stinks, is archaic, and needs reform, to bring it into the 21st. century.

It is not that much more archaic, nor does it stink that much more than some of the more 'modern' systems - systems, for instance, that deliver massively fractured electoral mandates, which can only be satisfied by coalitions of small, hugely disparate and often grudging parties which don't really do anything for months, sometimes even years.

[Harrowby Hall]

That would depend on the length of appointment/election wouldn't it.

I'd agree; I'd like to see any second chamber member be in post for 10 years, but only eligible for a single term.

With half its membership resigning every five years.

Half, or possibly a third.  I suppose it would depend on how big it was, but I'm never too keen on losing 50% of an establishment in one chunk.

Elected in thirds every five years with each elected member serving a 15 year term to ensure stability and maintenance of expertise, but also ensuring regular refreshment.

That's probably about right.

[BashfulAnthony]

The system stinks, is archaic, and needs reform, to bring it into the 21st. century.

It is not that much more archaic, nor does it stink that much more than some of the more 'modern' systems - systems, for instance, that deliver massively fractured electoral mandates, which can only be satisfied by coalitions of small, hugely disparate and often grudging parties which don't really do anything for months, sometimes even years.

Quoting failed or failing systems does not validate ours.

[jeremyp]

The UK has no written Constitution as such.

Yes it does, it's just not collected together in one document. 

[jeremyp]

Yes! Jedism isn't part of our heritage 😉 any more than Islam is.

Neither is Christianity.  It was brought over him from abroad by some foreigners. It's true that it was brought over a lot longer ago than Islam, but it is still a foreign import.

[jeremyp]

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

We don't!

Yes we do.  We've ditched the heritage of slave trading, also, executing Catholics, putting gay people in prison,treating women as chattels, bear baiting, forcibly taking over other parts of the World.  Those of us in the Danelaw stopped raping and pillaging almost as soon as we got here.  The monarch no longer rules by divine right or even at all.

There's masses of heritage and tradition that we have dropped.  Losing a few piddling bishops would hardly be noticeable.

[BashfulAnthony]

The UK has no written Constitution as such.

Yes it does, it's just not collected together in one document.

www.independent.co.uk/.../uk/.../uk-should-consider-a-written-constitution- says-top-judge-lord-neuberger-9792250.html‎

[jeremyp]

We pay people peanuts, even nothing, to do work.  We have people being brought into the country to work for nothing.

Not legally.  The point was that the slave trade used to be a major industry.  Lots of British people got very rich on it. It is a part of our heritage that we have done away with and we are trying to stamp out the criminal activity.

[jeremyp]

The UK has no written Constitution as such.

Yes it does, it's just not collected together in one document.

www.independent.co.uk/.../uk/.../uk-should-consider-a-written-constitution- says-top-judge-lord-neuberger-9792250.html‎

Learn to copy/paste links properly.  You see those two sets of three dots.  They mean you haven't done it right.

[BashfulAnthony]

The UK has no written Constitution as such.

Yes it does, it's just not collected together in one document.

www.independent.co.uk/.../uk/.../uk-should-consider-a-written-constitution- says-top-judge-lord-neuberger-9792250.html‎

Learn to copy/paste links properly.  You see those two sets of three dots.  They mean you haven't done it right.

Don't be such a patronising twerp.  I cut and pasted in the only way you can, stupid!  You might look at the site and see that it is as I originally posted it.



www.independent.co.uk./uk//uk-should-consider-a-written-constitution- says-top-judge-lord-neuberger-9792250.htm

[jeremyp]

Don't be such a patronising twerp.

 I cut and pasted in the only way you can, stupid!  You might look at the site and see that it is as I originally posted it.

Get off your high horse and use your brain for a change.  If you paste the link as you posted it into a browser bar

It. Does. Not.  Work.

This isn't the first time you've done that.  You've copied some shortened version (hence the ellipses) but apparently it is a personal insult to you to point out you made a mistake.

And then like the stupid arsehole that you are, you insult me because you are too moronic to post links properly and your head is too far up your own arse for you to admit you made a simple mistake.

The laws that make up the constitution of the UK are all written down, just not in one place.  We have the Bill of Rights, the Acts of Union, Magna Carta, the 1832 Reform Act, the Human Rights Act and many more. 

[BashfulAnthony]

Don't be such a patronising twerp.

 I cut and pasted in the only way you can, stupid!  You might look at the site and see that it is as I originally posted it.

Get off your high horse and use your brain for a change.  If you paste the link as you posted it into a browser bar

It. Does. Not.  Work.

This isn't the first time you've done that.  You've copied some shortened version (hence the ellipses) but apparently it is a personal insult to you to point out you made a mistake.

And then like the stupid arsehole that you are, you insult me because you are too moronic to post links properly and your head is too far up your own arse for you to admit you made a simple mistake.

The laws that make up the constitution of the UK are all written down, just not in one place.  We have the Bill of Rights, the Acts of Union, Magna Carta, the 1832 Reform Act, the Human Rights Act and many more.

www.independent.co.uk./uk//uk-should-consider-a-written-constitution- says-top-judge-lord-neuberger-9792250.htm


You have to be the far-and-away the mos pretentious know-all on this forum.. Add that to your low-grade language and iignorant misunderstanding of what the Constitution is, and what is left is somebody who, calling an idiot would be an insult to all stupid people.

Look up Judge Neuberger and his views on the need for a written Constitution, and find out how wrong you are.

[Hope]

Neither is Christianity.  It was brought over him from abroad by some foreigners. It's true that it was brought over a lot longer ago than Islam, but it is still a foreign import.

I suppose you could say the same for paganism and most of the other -isms that have existed throughout history.  So, what is your point?  After all, Christianity is the only faith that specifically includes all humanity in its founding principles.

[Rhiannon]

Neither is Christianity.  It was brought over him from abroad by some foreigners. It's true that it was brought over a lot longer ago than Islam, but it is still a foreign import.

I suppose you could say the same for paganism and most of the other -isms that have existed throughout history.  So, what is your point?  After all, Christianity is the only faith that specifically includes all humanity in its founding principles.

How so?

Paganism very often refers to a country's indigenous religion by the way. It's kind of the opposite of imported.