Christians who don't make my skin crawl!

[Maeght]

Would they though who really represents the poor or the estates for instance.

Yes.

You seem to be side stepping any criticism of modern secularism namely it's basic assumptions.

I'm not side stepping it, but have been discussing other issues. You're not trying to deflect away from that are you?

1. That the model citizen is atheist
2. That everybody must meet on an atheists understanding
3. That it is ok to focus on removing religious privileges
4. That religion is uniquely or especially oppressive or dangerous.
Look at the list of prominent secularists in Wikipedia. All atheists to a man. That's because they have hijacked the term.

You need to show these points are correct for me to address them. I couldn't find a list of secularists on Wikipedia, can you give a.link please.

[Maeght]

Since the church is established they were in high management in public and charitable service and presumably that's why they are there.

Point missed!

[Anchorman]

If the only reason the 'lords spiritual' are there is because of the anachronistic absurdity of the Englich established Church, why don't they take a vowe to vote only on issues connected with tthe legal establishment of their denomination, and keep their noses out of things which are beyond their sphere? Several voiced opposition to the Scotland Act 1999. Why, Vlad? What did that have to do with them, their denomination or their parliament? Even their co-religionists in the Scottish Episcopal Church (Anglicans) told them to shut up and mind their own business!

[Maeght]

If the only reason the 'lords spiritual' are there is because of the anachronistic absurdity of the Englich established Church, why don't they take a vowe to vote only on issues connected with tthe legal establishment of their denomination, and keep their noses out of things which are beyond their sphere? Several voiced opposition to the Scotland Act 1999. Why, Vlad? What did that have to do with them, their denomination or their parliament? Even their co-religionists in the Scottish Episcopal Church (Anglicans) told them to shut up and mind their own business!

Agreed

[ProfessorDavey]

If the only reason the 'lords spiritual' are there is because of the anachronistic absurdity of the Englich established Church, why don't they take a vowe to vote only on issues connected with tthe legal establishment of their denomination, and keep their noses out of things which are beyond their sphere? Several voiced opposition to the Scotland Act 1999. Why, Vlad? What did that have to do with them, their denomination or their parliament? Even their co-religionists in the Scottish Episcopal Church (Anglicans) told them to shut up and mind their own business!

You see Vlad it isn't just your bogeyman 'atheist secularists' who object to automatic places for CofE bishops - opposition also comes from plenty of religious sources too who recognise the unfairness of the whole approach.

Scrap the automatic places for CofE bishops and allow religious leaders to be considered along with everyone else for membership on a level playing field.

[Maeght]

Have seen the list of British secularists now. Nearly 60 names. No idea if all atheists or not. Even if they are, its not really a surprise is it?

[Maeght]

It is important that it is clear secularism is not the same as atheism nor is it antitheism. Any attempts to equate them should be challenged.

[ippy]

There was no adding on of the lords spiritual. They were part and parcel of the constitution of the House of Lords which reflects a view that life comprises of the day to day, and the material aspects and the spiritual which in past times has been the preserve of the church and that that view applies to all.

Now that is a model which has survived and one that is not intrinsically wrong. So I disagree with you there.
Secondly given that the HOL is a house of privilage, who else is represented? Well Land, Money, civil and public service as well as the spiritual. To single out one group as having special privilege is nonsense on stilts, in fact there is a case that spiritual lords are the only lords who can represent some peoples interests.

Finally you are trying to introduce a definition of secular that is quite modern atheist and having been redefined by atheism.
In the new definition. The atheist represents the ideal citizen therefore,as Baggini points out, the religious have to talk like atheists in order to have a voice because as Baggini says the atheist does not understand religion or religious ways of putting things. This is why talk of level playing fields is mischievious playing the victim nonsense from people who are,in fact, more than adequately represented everywhere.

Yes there could be an overhaul of the Lords spiritual but to remove them just leaves Land, Money, civil and public service covered. How represented would we be then?

You need to stop digging Vlad, and while you're about it, stop trying to sound dim as though you haven't got the point yet.

Regards ippy

[ippy]

You see Vlad it isn't just your bogeyman 'atheist secularists' who object to automatic places for CofE bishops - opposition also comes from plenty of religious sources too who recognise the unfairness of the whole approach.

Scrap the automatic places for CofE bishops and allow religious leaders to be considered along with everyone else for membership on a level playing field.

Nothing wrong with what you're saying Proff D, I can't see how anyone fair minded could disagree with that.

Regards ippy

[bluehillside Retd.]

Just checking in to see whether Vladdo is still ploughing on with the same category error he was corrected on all those posts ago...

Would they though who really represents the poor or the estates for instance.
You seem to be side stepping any criticism of modern secularism namely it's basic assumptions.
1. That the model citizen is atheist
2. That everybody must meet on an atheists understanding
3. That it is ok to focus on removing religious privileges
4. That religion is uniquely or especially oppressive or dangerous.
Look at the list of prominent secularists in Wikipedia. All atheists to a man. That's because they have hijacked the term.

...yup, he sure is. In the unlikely event he ever gets around to addressing his mistake (conflating treatment of content with the content itself) would someone let me know please?

Ta.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

If the only reason the 'lords spiritual' are there is because of the anachronistic absurdity of the Englich established Church, why don't they take a vowe to vote only on issues connected with tthe legal establishment of their denomination, and keep their noses out of things which are beyond their sphere? Several voiced opposition to the Scotland Act 1999. Why, Vlad? What did that have to do with them, their denomination or their parliament? Even their co-religionists in the Scottish Episcopal Church (Anglicans) told them to shut up and mind their own business!

https://www.parliament.uk/business/lords/lords-history/history-of-the-lords/

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You see Vlad it isn't just your bogeyman 'atheist secularists' who object to automatic places for CofE bishops - opposition also comes from plenty of religious sources too who recognise the unfairness of the whole approach.

Scrap the automatic places for CofE bishops and allow religious leaders to be considered along with everyone else for membership on a level playing field.

Even I'm against it just being C of E bishops as I have already said, I'm just against making everyone a Lord Temporal since it panders more to a materialist atheist secularism.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Come off it. The "lords spiritual" is guff, plain and simple. Dress it up in high tones if you like, but all it is is a ridiculous hangover from tghe English parliament and Henry VIII's desire to get his leg over with Ann Boleyn. It has no place whatsoever in a so-called 'UK' parliament; there is no 'UK' established church, nor should there be. The only Kirm minister still active in ministrey when given the dubious insult of the peerage was George McLeod - founder of the Iona Community - and he only accepted the peerage after he had confirmed to presbytery that he was now ruling himself out as a candidate for parish ministry. Other denominations and religions get on quite well without becoming vermin in ermine; isn't it about time the CofE joined them?

I don't think it's anything to do with Henry the Eighth.

[Walter]

Even I'm against it just being C of E bishops as I have already said, I'm just against making everyone a Lord Temporal since it panders more to a materialist atheist secularism.

and what's wrong with that ? seems reasonable to me .

[ProfessorDavey]

https://www.parliament.uk/business/lords/lords-history/history-of-the-lords/

How very interesting, and how completely irrelevant.

You will note that in the past 60 years we have:
Created the notion of life peers
Removed hereditary peers from the Lords
Removed the law Lords

So we can readily remove the Bishops. That they have been around since the 14thC is irrelevant - so had the hereditories.

[ProfessorDavey]

Even I'm against it just being C of E bishops as I have already said, I'm just against making everyone a Lord Temporal since it panders more to a materialist atheist secularism.

No it doesn't - it creates a level playing field.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

and what's wrong with that ? seems reasonable to me .

Well it's like this if i'm not allowed to be a secularist then you've blown your argument about fair play, privilege and level playing fields which I think you probably did when saying that the religious should have no public office.

You'll have to ask your fellow secularists who are trying to persuade people like me that modern secularism isn't just a front for the swivel eyed non believer who can moan about special privilege and suggest the complete exclusion of the religious.

[Gordon]

Even I'm against it just being C of E bishops as I have already said, I'm just against making everyone a Lord Temporal since it panders more to a materialist atheist secularism.

Why not just bin the HoL and be done with it: all of it.

[Anchorman]

https://www.parliament.uk/business/lords/lords-history/history-of-the-lords/

   



Oh, look; a link.
Come on, Vlad; you should see the absurdity of one denomination of one r4eligion having automatic rights to plant their bums in the coffin dodgers waiting room and vote on stuff which simply does not affect them or their parishoners.
The absurd anachronism of a part of this so-called UK' having an established chuch and the rest of us having to accept their right to vote on our future because a royal idiot wanted his leg over in England years ago should offend anyone with a sense of democracy.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No it doesn't - it creates a level playing field.

Of course it does since it's model of the governed human being is materialistic and totally described in terms of money, celebrity and law in other words your type of secularism homoncularises people. I think you'll find the whole of your exercise is to make everybody over in the humanist UK mold. Fuck them I say.

Any secularism that excludes the likes of me is not worthy of the title.

[Anchorman]

How very interesting, and how completely irrelevant.

You will note that in the past 60 years we have:
Created the notion of life peers
Removed hereditary peers from the Lords
Removed the law Lords   

So we can readily remove the Bishops. That they have been around since the 14thC is irrelevant - so had the hereditories.

   



Dare I say that the ermine coffin dodgers club is another hangover of the English parliamentary system and simply nothing whatsoever to do with the 'UK'?

[Maeght]

Well it's like this if i'm not allowed to be a secularist then you've blown your argument about fair play, privilege and level playing fields which I think you probably did when saying that the religious should have no public office.

You'll have to ask your fellow secularists who are trying to persuade people like me that modern secularism isn't just a front for the swivel eyed non believer who can moan about special privilege and suggest the complete exclusion of the religious.

Who said you can't be a secularist?

[Maeght]

Of course it does since it's model of the governed human being is materialistic and totally described in terms of money, celebrity and law in other words your type of secularism homoncularises people. I think you'll find the whole of your exercise is to make everybody over in the humanist UK mold. Fuck them I say.

Any secularism that excludes the likes of me is not worthy of the title.

Secularism doesn't exclude you!

[Walt Zingmatilder]

   



Oh, look; a link.
Come on, Vlad; you should see the absurdity of one denomination of one r4eligion having automatic rights to plant their bums in the coffin dodgers waiting room and vote on stuff which simply does not affect them or their parishoners.
The absurd anachronism of a part of this so-called UK' having an established chuch and the rest of us having to accept their right to vote on our future because a royal idiot wanted his leg over in England years ago should offend anyone with a sense of democracy.

The HOL needs overhaul yes. What is needed, what is optimal is the representation of peoples lives at the highest level. And not a constitutional procrustean view of the human inevitably designed to make people conform.

[Maeght]

Even I'm against it just being C of E bishops as I have already said, I'm just against making everyone a Lord Temporal since it panders more to a materialist atheist secularism.

It really doesn't, apart from in your paranoid imagination. Secularism isn't atheism!