Christians who don't make my skin crawl!

[Walt Zingmatilder]

   




They have no mandate in Scotland - the Scottish Episcopal Church...Anglicanisim in Scotland - is not established.
That still doesn't stop them voting on issues affecting Scotland in the HOL, though.

What can I say Anch's?.........Y'all fucked up and trusted Cameron?

[Anchorman]

What the heck does the unlamented Cameron have to do with unelected bishops voting on areas for which they have no pastoral or ecclesiastical oversight?

[Gordon]

As part of a holistic view of representation and the represented I think it is a great model given a few provisos. I think in every generation it has a place and a constituency aside from it being a great notion.
Today I would say that constituency are those who are frightened their view of humanity will be swamped by a reduced view of humanity as a political particle, held by what has been referred to as the tyranny of the majority. Therefore to reduce this minority from 3.3% (Bob Hope) to zero (No hope) seems to be nothing more than a piece of OCD from those who want it so.

The 'model' isn't representative though: if these 'Lords Spiritual' are intended to represent Christianity then one obvious problem is that they are irrelevant to Christianity in Scotland, and as such they can't be seen to represent Christianity in Scotland, and neither do they represent other strands of Christianity or non-Christian theism. Why Christianity in the form of the CofE should be specially represented at all is the underling issue.

The 'Lords Spiritual' are an anachronism too far, but then so is the HoL - bin the lot of them say I.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

What the heck does the unlamented Cameron have to do with unelected bishops voting on areas for which they have no pastoral or ecclesiastical oversight?

You could have done away with all of that had the vote taken full account of what the Conservative party were like.

Anyway, what power can they actually have?

[Anchorman]

You could have done away with all of that had the vote taken full account of what the Conservative party were like.

Anyway, what power can they actually have?

   


Like any other member of the coffin dodgers club, they can propose, amend, scrutinise and debate legislation.
That's four things they have no ecclesiastical or pastoral authority to do in anything other than England only matters.
It doesn't stop thrm, though.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

The 'model' isn't representative though: if these 'Lords Spiritual' are intended to represent Christianity then one obvious problem is that they are irrelevant to Christianity in Scotland, and as such they can't be seen to represent Christianity in Scotland, and neither do they represent other strands of Christianity or non-Christian theism. Why Christianity should be specially represented at all is the underling issue.

The 'Lords Spiritual' are an anachronism too far, but then so is the HoL - bin the lot of them say I.

Why is it only you that can leap over the secularism thing and get to a full throated rejection of privilege? To single out a privilege in the House of privileges seems daft.

However to have a model which includes spirituality is notionally a good thing but as I see it the deal is designed so the spiritual has a voice in parliament but no actual power. Maybe that's how things should be.

[Gordon]

Why is it only you that can leap over the secularism thing and get to a full throated rejection of privilege? To single out a privilege in the House of privileges seems daft.

What bit of my proposal that we bin the House of Privileges Lords are you not getting?

However to have a model which includes spirituality is notionally a good thing but as I see it the deal is designed so the spiritual has a voice in parliament but no actual power. Maybe that's how things should be.

Don't be silly: the 'spiritual' are perfectly free to present themselves for election where in their manifestos they can set out their specifically spiritual political agenda and compete alongside non-spiritual candidates for election: I understand this approach is known as democracy. 

[ippy]

Just a thought, if it's managed to convert this hair brained twerp to realise that secularism is the way to go, who wants him?

ippy

[Maeght]

Can I just ask again Private Fraser why you think you would be excluded from secularism?

[ProfessorDavey]

No you are just putting up a selected list of attributes:

Does the prospective Lord possess a Hector or not?

And where does he put Hector?

And what is his/her skin colour?

What school and university were attended?

It's very er, biological for someone who is going to be a Lord spiritual don't you think?

You were the one who raised the issue of the Lords being representative of society:

'what is optimal is the representation of peoples lives at the highest level.' (your quote)

What I have used are the standard demographic measures, which are routinely used to determine whether one group might be representative of broader society, namely:

Gender (over 90% male)
Race (over 90% white)
Sexuality (100% heterosexual)
Religion (100% CofE)
Measure of elitism/privilege (vast majority private school and/or Oxbridge educated)

I haven't include the other 2 standard ones, namely:

Age (Bishops are a hugely narrow demographic, all are in late 50s/early mid 60s)
Disability (no idea)

The Lords Spiritual do not 'look' like broader society, they do not represent broader society (they don't even represent broader christian society) and broader society doesn't want them there.

[Walter]

What bit of my proposal that we bin the House of Privileges Lords are you not getting?

Don't be silly: the 'spiritual' are perfectly free to present themselves for election where in their manifestos they can set out their specifically spiritual political agenda and compete alongside non-spiritual candidates for election: I understand this approach is known as democracy.

and when that democratic system allows more and more Muslim candidates to be elected  into parliament does not the influence of the 'spiritual' become increasingly more significant in ways 'we' are not used to ?

[Nearly Sane]

and when that democratic system allows more and more Muslim candidates to be elected  into parliament does not the influence of the 'spiritual' become increasingly more significant in ways 'we' are not used to ?

  Not really. Could you point to any decision in the House of Commons where 'you' see this?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

What bit of my proposal that we bin the House of Privileges Lords are you not getting?

Don't be silly: the 'spiritual' are perfectly free to present themselves for election where in their manifestos they can set out their specifically spiritual political agenda and compete alongside non-spiritual candidates for election: I understand this approach is known as democracy.

First paragraph. I'm actually paying you a complement. The only reasonable attack on privilege is an attack on all privilege in an organisation. That is the NSS dilemma.

Of course the religious who wish to enter the commons have to stand for election and would have at most the same chance as any independent or minor party in our system.

They cannot enter the House of Lords on a spiritual ticket because there are only 26 and therefore can only get in on a secular ticket. I think we can already see that the current system looks set up to restrict the role of religion in parliament.

The House of Lords at present is set up to preserve what they call ''independence of thought'' from party politics and the Bishops provide part of that. As a check on government excess that is a good thing. Under your totally elected parliament ''independence of thought'' would be subsumed under FPTP and the party system. Independent groups and individuals of sufficient power and influence to fend off party political influence help to maintain ''independence of thought''.

Finally a full secularism these days means atheist paradigm secularism. This is how organisations like NSS have to work by trying to lobby wider secular society in order to reinforce atheist secularism.

 

[Walter]

  Not really. Could you point to any decision in the House of Commons where 'you' see this?

what do you mean 'not really' ?   what about in 10  , 15   ,20 years time when the Muslim population in Britain has significantly expanded and topics like sharia law is voted on in parliament , for instance . And Muslim schools become the norm.
The teaching of evolution becomes a debate, and so on ...    That's what I see .

Tell me I'm wrong .... PLEASE 

[SusanDoris]

Regardless of anything else, I for one would be extremely worried if I thought that the Islamic faith was to gain too much influence in this country. That is one of the reasons I'd support the maintenance of the CofE on the basis of if it ain't broke, don't fix it. The move should be away from all religious faiths, not a greater influence of one which would take us back into far greater restrictions on human rights, civil liberties, etc; that is in my, strongly held, opinion.

I shal not be alive to see such an event, but I hope my granddaughters and their future families will not have to see such a step back.

ETA Posted before reading Walter's post above.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You were the one who raised the issue of the Lords being representative of society:

'what is optimal is the representation of peoples lives at the highest level.' (your quote)

What I have used are the standard demographic measures, which are routinely used to determine whether one group might be representative of broader society, namely:

Gender (over 90% male)
Race (over 90% white)
Sexuality (100% heterosexual)
Religion (100% CofE)
Measure of elitism/privilege (vast majority private school and/or Oxbridge educated)

I haven't include the other 2 standard ones, namely:

Age (Bishops are a hugely narrow demographic, all are in late 50s/early mid 60s)
Disability (no idea)

The Lords Spiritual do not 'look' like broader society, they do not represent broader society (they don't even represent broader christian society) and broader society doesn't want them there.

Bishops represent ultimately their parishes.
How reflective of society can a group of 26 people be?
How representative are the Luvvy lords? or the civil service lords? or the female lords.

The present practical system limits direct religious influence to 26 seats in parliament out of 1400
Job well done as far as I can see.

[Nearly Sane]

what do you mean 'not really' ?   what about in 10  , 15   ,20 years time when the Muslim population in Britain has significantly expanded and topics like sharia law is voted on in parliament , for instance . And Muslim schools become the norm.
The teaching of evolution becomes a debate, and so on ...    That's what I see .

Tell me I'm wrong .... PLEASE

So to protect democracy you want to destroy it - I note that you didn't answer the question but indulged in a little swivel eyed paranoia.

[Nearly Sane]

Regardless of anything else, I for one would be extremely worried if I thought that the Islamic faith was to gain too much influence in this country. That is one of the reasons I'd support the maintenance of the CofE on the basis of if it ain't broke, don't fix it. The move should be away from all religious faiths, not a greater influence of one which would take us back into far greater restrictions on human rights, civil liberties, etc; that is in my, strongly held, opinion.

I shal not be alive to see such an event, but I hope my granddaughters and their future families will not have to see such a step back.

ETA Posted before reading Walter's post above.

So you support religious privilege  to prevent democracy.

[Nearly Sane]

Regardless of anything else, I for one would be extremely worried if I thought that the Islamic faith was to gain too much influence in this country. That is one of the reasons I'd support the maintenance of the CofE on the basis of if it ain't broke, don't fix it. The move should be away from all religious faiths, not a greater influence of one which would take us back into far greater restrictions on human rights, civil liberties, etc; that is in my, strongly held, opinion.

I shal not be alive to see such an event, but I hope my granddaughters and their future families will not have to see such a step back.

ETA Posted before reading Walter's post above.

Just to note the sort of thing you support by your position

https://www.churchtimes.co.uk/articles/2013/7-june/news/uk/bishops-gather-in-lords-to-vote-against-gay-marriage-bill

[Nearly Sane]

First paragraph. I'm actually paying you a complement. The only reasonable attack on privilege is an attack on all privilege in an organisation. That is the NSS dilemma.

Of course the religious who wish to enter the commons have to stand for election and would have at most the same chance as any independent or minor party in our system.

They cannot enter the House of Lords on a spiritual ticket because there are only 26 and therefore can only get in on a secular ticket. I think we can already see that the current system looks set up to restrict the role of religion in parliament.

The House of Lords at present is set up to preserve what they call ''independence of thought'' from party politics and the Bishops provide part of that. As a check on government excess that is a good thing. Under your totally elected parliament ''independence of thought'' would be subsumed under FPTP and the party system. Independent groups and individuals of sufficient power and influence to fend off party political influence help to maintain ''independence of thought''.

Finally a full secularism these days means atheist paradigm secularism. This is how organisations like NSS have to work by trying to lobby wider secular society in order to reinforce atheist secularism.

How does it restrict the role of religion in parliament when those who can participate in all positions are religious and some positions cannot be for the non religious?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

https://www.churchtimes.co.uk/articles/2013/7-june/news/uk/bishops-gather-in-lords-to-vote-against-gay-marriage-bill

Oh yes, they really wielded their total theocratic power there didn't they!

[Walter]

So to protect democracy you want to destroy it - I note that you didn't answer the question but indulged in a little swivel eyed paranoia.

I think you'll find , even though my eyes may swivel, as you call it , at least they are open . Why do 'you' not see what I see ? perhaps your eyes are blinded by 'snowflakes'  .
Perhaps in a hundred years time the historians (the ones who are free to write the truth) will be writing about how our own democracy was complicit in it's own downfall

please explain why I'm wrong ,I really hope I am 

[Nearly Sane]

Oh yes, they really wielded their total theocratic power there didn't they!

  Who has said it's a theocracy - oh that's right no one. Stop lying

[Nearly Sane]

I think you'll find , even though my eyes may swivel, as you call it , at least they are open . Why do 'you' not see what I see ? perhaps your eyes are blinded by 'snowflakes'  .
Perhaps in a hundred years time the historians (the ones who are free to write the truth) will be writing about how our own democracy was complicit in it's own downfall

please explain why I'm wrong ,I really hope I am

More ranting and avoiding the question. This is the same stuff that was used about RCs and atheists.

[SusanDoris]

NS

I added the 'in my opinion' because I knew you would respond as you did.
I am neither going to follow the link nor respond.