Christians who don't make my skin crawl!

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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?

Because in a secular society religious parties are always going to be minority parties and minority parties in our system have no hope of power. As Alistair Campbell put it mainly concerning the labour party .''We don't do religion''

The NSS is dually working to reinforce this system and excising the last vestige of religion.

[Walter]

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

No, because I'm not privy to all that goes on .

there, I've answered your question . It has no bearing on future proceedings 

[Maeght]

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.

What is your evidence for your last paragraph please?

[Nearly Sane]

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.

So not only in support of religious privilege but closed minded to the effects. ; The vast majority of what people post here is in their opinion so we should on the basis of you position not actually have any discussion

[bluehillside Retd.]

Just checking in again to see whether Vladdo has worked out yet his category error problem of comparing theism (a set of beliefs and practices) with secularism (the separation of those beliefs and practices from access by right to the offices of state).

Because in a secular society religious parties are always going to be minority parties and minority parties in our system have no hope of power. As Alistair Campbell put it mainly concerning the labour party .''We don't do religion''

The NSS is dually working to reinforce this system and excising the last vestige of religion.

Ah, and that’s a “no” then. It’s getting weirder now though – if, say, enough RCs (or leprechaunists for that matter) stood in an election and won the majority of seats there’s nothing about secularism that would stop them from forming the majority party in the House of Commons. And if they stayed there long enough there’s nothing to stop them from eventually nominating so many co-religionists for the HoL that they would form the majority there too.   

The NSS is of course doing no such thing – to the contrary it expressly protects the rights of those with any religion as well as those with none. What the NSS does do though is to campaign against special privileges being given to any of them by right in the offices and instruments of state. 

And who could argue with that?

[ProfessorDavey]

Bishops represent ultimately their parishes.

Bishops do not represent anyone who isn't a member of the CofE. The Bishop in my local area doesn't represent me as I am not a member of his organisation. You cannot unilaterally dictate that you represent someone unless that individual agrees to that representation in some manner.

You could just as easily claim that Keith Porteous Wood represents you Vlad, as he is the President of a National organisation, so therefore must represent everyone in the nation.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

What is your evidence for your last paragraph please?

The language of secularism is atheist, The secularism which is pursued is that of the prominent secularists who are atheist to a man.

Of the two the former is most important since there is an increasing acceptance that an understanding of religious viewpoints should wither. Many prominent secularists actively encourage ignorance of religion.

Atheist secularism, modern secularism talks atheist and seeks to make people think atheist.

The Writings of Baggini in his heathen series and comment on it in The Guardian unfortunately do not provide a secularism which overcomes the neutrality question.

[Nearly Sane]

Because in a secular society religious parties are always going to be minority parties and minority parties in our system have no hope of power. As Alistair Campbell put it mainly concerning the labour party .''We don't do religion''

The NSS is dually working to reinforce this system and excising the last vestige of religion.

Didn't say anything about religious parties. Please reread the question and answer what was asked not some other non existent question.

[ekim]

I genuinely see no real difference between the idea of taking time to pause and reflect and inner stillness when trying to resolve a serious issue. Both descriptions suggest the same thing surely, i.e. that we should try to take an important decision separate from any undue emotional overtones, so that a balanced  decision has the best chance possible of being achieved.

The alternative of praying, as I see it, has the possible unfortunate consequence of relying on whatever you think God is supposed to want. Indeed, the very act of praying may arouse all sorts of emotions, some of which may be helpful, but just as easily may be counterproductive.

As regards your first comment, the descriptions 'pause and reflect' and 'inner stillness with awareness' do suggest the same thing.  The only difference might be the length of the pause and how quickly the awareness gets absorbed in the reflection.  As regards your second comment, yes, it is likely that the motive of prayer is going to be self centred rather than self surrender.  It was something Jesus faced in his depressed state before the final curtain and prayed, which I would paraphrase, this way:O God, if it is possible,  let this impending destiny be averted, but only if it conforms to your will.    If the only way for this fateful event to pass by is for me to experience it then let it be so. 

[Maeght]

The language of secularism is atheist,

Evidence please.

The secularism which is pursued is that of the prominent secularists who are atheist to a man.

Evidence please.

Of the two the former is most important since there is an increasing acceptance that an understanding of religious viewpoints should wither. Many prominent secularists actively encourage ignorance of religion.

Evidence please.

Atheist secularism, modern secularism talks atheist and seeks to make people think atheist.

Evidence please.

[Nearly Sane]

No, because I'm not privy to all that goes on .

there, I've answered your question . It has no bearing on future proceedings

So you ask if I am worried about some Muslims being elected now, and when I say not really and ask you to provide evidence of what is happening in the H0C to back you up, you have no evidence,

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Bishops do not represent anyone who isn't a member of the CofE. The Bishop in my local area doesn't represent me as I am not a member of his organisation. You cannot unilaterally dictate that you represent someone unless that individual agrees to that representation in some manner.

You could just as easily claim that Keith Porteous Wood represents you Vlad, as he is the President of a National organisation, so therefore must represent everyone in the nation.

The bishops represent the spiritual, the contemplation of what it's all about. I have no objection to ''Lord'' Keith being in that number.

[bluehillside Retd.]

The language of secularism is atheist...

In which Vladdo presumably hopes that telling the same lie often enough will eventually make it true.

Secularism of course is entirely indifferent to the arguments of theism, of atheism or of any other -ism (except perhaps separation-of-church-and-state-ism).

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Evidence lease.

Evidence please.

Evidence please.

Evidence please.

Refer to Julian Baggini's articles on secularism in the Guardian and the commentaries.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Didn't say anything about religious parties. Please reread the question and answer what was asked not some other non existent question.

Parties, individuals it doesn't matter since independent candidates do not fair any better than minority parties.
Any candidate goes in as a spiritual and temporal person. If the language of politics is temporal then what hope does spiritual language have.

The conclusion is the homoncularisation of the electorate which inevitably comes down to hutches and why aren't the masses inside them.

[ProfessorDavey]

The bishops represent the spiritual ...

But a moment ago you claimed that:

'Bishops represent ultimately their parishes'

You do seem terribly confused.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

In which Vladdo presumably hopes that telling the same lie often enough will eventually make it true.

Secularism of course is entirely indifferent to the arguments of theism, of atheism or of any other -ism (except perhaps separation-of-church-and-state-ism).

How can secularism be indifferent to atheism when it speaks in the language of atheism and as you frequently demonstrate antitheism?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

But a moment ago you claimed that:

'Bishops represent ultimately their parishes'

You do seem terribly confused.

Are people not spiritual?

[ippy]

The NSS is dually working to reinforce this system and excising the last vestige of religious privilege.

Regards ippy

[Maeght]

Refer to Julian Baggini's articles on secularism in the Guardian and the commentaries.

Links please.

[bluehillside Retd.]

How can secularism be indifferent to atheism when it speaks in the language of atheism and as you frequently demonstrate antitheism?

In which Vladdo magics plain English into "the language of atheism". Presumably he'll be along soon then with quotes from the NSS website dismantling the claims of theism or something - ie, actual "atheist language"...

...oh hang on though - there isn't any.

Weird stuff indeed.

[Maeght]

How can secularism be indifferent to atheism when it speaks in the language of atheism and as you frequently demonstrate antitheism?

Secularism doesn't speak. Secularists do. They may be atheists or antitheists but that doesn't mean the voice of secularism is atheistic or antitheistic.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Links please.

I believe i've already provide them on this thread.

[Maeght]

I believe i've already provide them on this thread.

Which post?

[Walter]

So you ask if I am worried about some Muslims being elected now, and when I say not really and ask you to provide evidence of what is happening in the H0C to back you up, you have no evidence,

you are deliberately misunderstanding my point for some reason not known to me .
It is very childish and annoying

PS I'm on on iPhone 4 at the moment in a lay-by so can't really engage as I would like