Parliamentary committee on RE decides not to consider non religious world views.

[Sassy]

I think for as long as there are C of E Bishops sitting in the H o L by default (and I think you said you don't support this) then in UK terms religion and politics aren't mutually exclusive.

Explain please,Gordon.
Give all the evidence in  bullet points in support of your statement,

Thanks

[Gordon]

Explain please,Gordon.
Give all the evidence in  bullet points in support of your statement,

Thanks

Don't need bullet points since this is a simple matter of fact: there are CofE clerics participating in the U.K. political process.

The House of Lords is a part of the UK political governance arrangements and it has seats, by default, reserved for 26 CofE Bishops (often referred to as the 'Lords Spiritual'). Five of these 26 seats are for the current Bishops of Canterbury, York, London, Durham and Winchester while the other 21 go to Bishops on a length of service basis.

This is easily checked.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lords_Spiritual

[Hope]

Explain please,Gordon.
Give all the evidence in  bullet points in support of your statement,

Thanks

Well done, Sass - shot yourself in the foot. 

[Sassy]

Don't need bullet points since this is a simple matter of fact: there are CofE clerics participating in the U.K. political process.

The House of Lords is a part of the UK political governance arrangements and it has seats, by default, reserved for 26 CofE Bishops (often referred to as the 'Lords Spiritual'). Five of these 26 seats are for the current Bishops of Canterbury, York, London, Durham and Winchester while the other 21 go to Bishops on a length of service basis.

This is easily checked.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lords_Spiritual

Aren't most of the members of the House of Lord's there because of their peerage?

I see nothing wrong or mutually exclusive about the House of Lords and who sits in it considering religion and politics.
Most of the house of Lords are people there because of their status in life or their job.

But I do not feel that there is anything hampering by either as all know their place. The Country and the People should be their first priority. I feel the Church have a better grasp on life and the reality of those living in the real world than aristocracy.

[Hope]

Aren't most of the members of the House of Lord's there because of their peerage?

90 hereditary peers, 682 life peers, 26 Lords Spiritual.  In other words, the Bishops don't have that much influence in terms of voting power. 

I believe that the HoL is an important part of our political establishment, but I also agree that the 'Lords Spiritual' needs to be more inclusive of non-Anglican and non-Christian religious leaders.

But I do not feel that there is anything hampering by either as all know their place. The Country and the People should be their first priority. I feel the Church have a better grasp on life and the reality of those living in the real world than aristocracy.

But most of the House aren't 'aristocracy', Sass.  Just because one is a peer doesn't mean that you are of that section of society.

[Gordon]

Aren't most of the members of the House of Lord's there because of their peerage?

Even so, it is a fact that 26 of them are simply because they are CofE Bishops: this is naked special privilege in the public arena. 

I see nothing wrong or mutually exclusive about the House of Lords and who sits in it considering religion and politics.

I see a lot wrong with it in a democracy: it political governance by the unelected.

Most of the house of Lords are people there because of their status in life or their job.

Where none of them are elected.

But I do not feel that there is anything hampering by either as all know their place.

In a democracy any place in political governance by default in ananchronism, as is the sychophancy surrounding the aristocracy/monarchy.

The Country and the People should be their first priority.

Maybe so, but the problem is that they don't need to convince us of this first, and we don't get the chance to either select or reject them.

I feel the Church have a better grasp on life and the reality of those living in the real world than aristocracy.

Hard to see how 26 CofE Bishops are especially qualified to take part in political governance, and nor does it seem to me that their 'grasp on life' is commendable given the history surrounding the specific organisation they represent. Then there is the matter of the general decline of Christianity across U.K. society, and it is even harder to see how 26 CofE Bishops have any relevance to real life here in the West of Scotland.

So, perhaps they'd do better to stand on a CofE manifesto and let their local electorate determine they extent of their participation in political governance. I say bin the HofL and if there is to be a second chamber at all then its membership should be the result of regular elections.

[Gordon]

I believe that the HoL is an important part of our political establishment, but I also agree that the 'Lords Spiritual' needs to be more inclusive of non-Anglican and non-Christian religious leaders.

On what basis should political governance arrangements include by default unelected religious representatives? 

[SteveH]

Aren't most of the members of the House of Lord's there because of their peerage?

I see nothing wrong or mutually exclusive about the House of Lords and who sits in it considering religion and politics.
Most of the house of Lords are people there because of their status in life or their job.

But I do not feel that there is anything hampering by either as all know their place. The Country and the People should be their first priority. I feel the Church have a better grasp on life and the reality of those living in the real world than aristocracy.

Could someone please translate this into intelligible English? 

[Hope]

On what basis should political governance arrangements include by default unelected religious representatives?

On the same basis as other non-elected representatives are involved in the arrangements, Gordon.  After all, even the law-makers of the HoC are 'assisted' and even, in many cases, 'led' by unelected, appointed people - eg: senior civil servants, or members of the public voicing their opinion, Trades Unions members voting with their own benefits in mind, judges who interpret the law, etc.  The latter groups often have a greater grasp of the reality of legislative outcomes than those making the law, because they deal on a day to day basis with the grassroots folk of this country.  Religious leaders are no different in this respect.  Furthermore, such religious leaders have often come to their religious posts via other speciality roles - eg, Archbishop Welby worked in industry before becoming a clergyman.

[Gordon]

On the same basis as other non-elected representatives are involved in the arrangements, Gordon.  After all, even the law-makers of the HoC are 'assisted' and even, in many cases, 'led' by unelected, appointed people - eg: senior civil servants, or members of the public voicing their opinion, Trades Unions members voting with their own benefits in mind, judges who interpret the law, etc.  The latter groups often have a greater grasp of the reality of legislative outcomes than those making the law, because they deal on a day to day basis with the grassroots folk of this country.  Religious leaders are no different in this respect.  Furthermore, such religious leaders have often come to their religious posts via other speciality roles - eg, Archbishop Welby worked in industry before becoming a clergyman.

You are missing the key point, which is that those who are responsible for political decisions and who are accountable for the background and consequences (good or bad) of these decisions are in our democratic arrangements elected: their mandate is via the ballot box, and that mandate can be withdrawn via the ballot box.

That there may be support staff, such as civil servants, that there are organisations and interest groups lobbying for their cause or that elected politicians need to take on board relevant information when coming to making policy and related decisions does not change the location of the political responsibility and accountability in our political arrangements - except, of course, when it comes to the HofL.

No matter how much of an apologist you are for organised Christianity, and no matter how experienced or competent Welby is, the simple fact is that he and his 25 CofE Bishop colleagues are unelected and yet they have an active role in political governance: that they do (along with all the other inhabitants of the HofL) is an affront to democracy,

[ippy]

Even so, it is a fact that 26 of them are simply because they are CofE Bishops: this is naked special privilege in the public arena. 

I see a lot wrong with it in a democracy: it political governance by the unelected.

Where none of them are elected.

In a democracy any place in political governance by default in ananchronism, as is the sychophancy surrounding the aristocracy/monarchy.

Maybe so, but the problem is that they don't need to convince us of this first, and we don't get the chance to either select or reject them.

Hard to see how 26 CofE Bishops are especially qualified to take part in political governance, and nor does it seem to me that their 'grasp on life' is commendable given the history surrounding the specific organisation they represent. Then there is the matter of the general decline of Christianity across U.K. society, and it is even harder to see how 26 CofE Bishops have any relevance to real life here in the West of Scotland.

So, perhaps they'd do better to stand on a CofE manifesto and let their local electorate determine they extent of their participation in political governance. I say bin the HofL and if there is to be a second chamber at all then its membership should be the result of regular elections.

Don't forget, most bishops are awarded a title on retirement, so where do they end up?

ippy

[Gordon]

Don't forget, most bishops are awarded a title on retirement, so where do they end up?

ippy

Jobs for the boys then (and in this case it is always boys).