Christians who don't make my skin crawl!

[bluehillside Retd.]

SteveH,

In which British Home Stores trots out his increasingly tiresome "In which..." line again, under the false belief that it's witty.

Did I claim to be witty?

Anyway, I've learned from bitter experience hat there's no point in feeding him because he just lies in response, hence the more oblique reply.

[ippy]

You're unable to differentiate between loss of privilege and persecution Vlad, they actually do differ.

Be as religious as you like but don't expect any privileges purely given to those of us that chose to believe in one or the other of the religions, nor should anyone else be awarded any privileges, in my book that amounts to a level playing field. 

If you wish to add anything else to that such as my dislike of religious belief an loathing of those that teach religion to our very youngest children, feel free to do so but don't forget my personal views on and about religion, bear no relation to my secular views, they are two separate things.

You are entitled to have your religious views just I'm entitled to have mine, secularism puts both kinds of view on an equal footing, I really do think if you're unable to see this, counselling should be your next step, because it's you that have the problem not the rest of the posters that are trying, unsuccessfully, to enlighten you to the mutual benefits of having and living in a secular world.

Regards ippy

 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You're unable to differentiate between loss of privilege and persecution Vlad, they actually do differ.

Be as religious as you like but don't expect any privileges purely given to those of us that chose to believe in one or the other of the religions, nor should anyone else be awarded any privileges, in my book that amounts to a level playing field. 

If you wish to add anything else to that such as my dislike of religious belief an loathing of those that teach religion to our very youngest children, feel free to do so but don't forget my personal views on and about religion, bear no relation to my secular views, they are two separate things.

You are entitled to have your religious views just I'm entitled to have mine, secularism puts both kinds of view on an equal footing, I really do think if you're unable to see this, counselling should be your next step, because it's you that have the problem not the rest of the posters that are trying, unsuccessfully, to enlighten you to the mutual benefits of having and living in a secular world.

Regards ippy

In terms of the HOL it depends on how you are represented. Most people are a bit confused here by electoral representation and the House of Lords.

In other words in the House of Lords other aspects of life are represented. If we have a spiritual side and I THINK WE DO THEN THERE IS NO CASE FOR THAT NOT TO BE REPRESENTED in the House of Lords considering what is represented.
If the spiritual aspect of our culture is not represented than that is de facto an atheist base on which we are governed.

[Nearly Sane]

In terms of the HOL it depends on how you are represented. Most people are a bit confused here by electoral representation and the House of Lords.

In other words in the House of Lords other aspects of life are represented. If we have a spiritual side and I THINK WE DO THEN THERE IS NO CASE FOR THAT NOT TO BE REPRESENTED in the House of Lords considering what is represented.
If the spiritual aspect of our culture is not represented than that is de facto an atheist base on which we are governed.

What you seem to be arguing is the equivalent that all other appointments are open to people of all races,including whites, but you want some set aside especially for white people that no one else can be appointed too because white people are what is representative of 'what it is that makes them fully human'

ETA The last part Is quote from Vlad's post reply756

'The model of governed humanity which is represented in our system is that people have secular or temporal interests that are separate from their spirituality namely what it is that makes them fully human.'

[ProfessorDavey]

If we have a spiritual side and I THINK WE DO ...

That is an assertion rather than a fact.

... THEN THERE IS NO CASE FOR THAT NOT TO BE REPRESENTED in the House of Lords considering what is represented.

And why exactly is that not being represented by the, no doubt, numerous members of the Lords who are religious. There is no evidence , whatsoever, that religious people are under-represented in the Lords. What we are talking about is special automatic places for a the most senior members of just one religion. All sorts of other aspects of life should be represented in the Lords - however none are provided with automatic places.

If you think that need to be represented equates to automatic places, then we need

Automatic guaranteed places for women
Automatic guaranteed places for every racial group
Automatic guaranteed places for LGBT
Automatic guaranteed places for every religion and non religious belief system
Automatic guaranteed places for vegetarians
Automatic guaranteed places for vegans
Automatic guaranteed places for flat-earthers
Automatic guaranteed places for climate change deniers
Automatic guaranteed places for environmentalists
Automatic guaranteed places for trade unions
Automatic guaranteed places for racists
etc, etc, etc

And (in the same manner as the Bishops) those automatic places should simply be allocated to leading members of completely separate organisations on the basis of their position within that organisation.

Problem is that rather than becoming more representative, the Lords would become less representative, as most of us do not feel we are defined by 'memberism' - i.e. the organisations we choose to become members of. And indeed many of the population (maybe most) aren't members of any of these organisations.

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

I haven’t suggested that you have, and it’s not relevant in any case. What I’m saying is that the content of a belief isn’t the issue – rather it’s the privileged status given to suites of religious beliefs in particular (for example the CofE ones) in civil society.

That’s not it at all. We all “mirror him” to the extent that we all think there are certain beliefs (and behaviours that follow) that we think shouldn’t be permissible. Sometimes those beliefs have no religious connotations (paedophile wanting to be a teacher), sometimes they do (ISIS Mullah wanting to joint the RAF). The point though concerns what happens when a society decides that those with one status (ie, the religious ones) should have special, privileged treatment over the others (ie, the non-religious ones).   

That’s simply not true. What set of beliefs do you think I want to privilege given that every post I’ve made argues for removing them?

Ad in terms of the discussion I am having with you about your position on excluding people with certain religious views from certain offices, the privileging of religious views isn't relevant since we aren't disagreeing on that,

You have missed the point about ;mirroring' here. That you me and Vlad, I presume since he hasn't actually made any statement on it but evaded answering, would agree that believing that having sex with a 6 year old child is something that would preclude you from being a school teacher is not mirroring, It's just agreement.

The mirroring is that you seem to want to treat religious beliefs as some form of separate set which carry with it a stigma as opposed to Vlad's thinking they are about what it is to be fully human, and carrying a bonus

[Walt Zingmatilder]

That is an assertion rather than a fact.
And why exactly is that not being represented by the, no doubt, numerous members of the Lords who are religious. There is no evidence , whatsoever, that religious people are under-represented in the Lords. What we are talking about is special automatic places for a the most senior members of just one religion. All sorts of other aspects of life should be represented in the Lords - however none are provided with automatic places.

If you think that need to be represented equates to automatic places, then we need

Automatic guaranteed places for women
Automatic guaranteed places for every racial group
Automatic guaranteed places for LGBT
Automatic guaranteed places for every religion and non religious belief system
Automatic guaranteed places for vegetarians
Automatic guaranteed places for vegans
Automatic guaranteed places for flat-earthers
Automatic guaranteed places for climate change deniers
Automatic guaranteed places for environmentalists
Automatic guaranteed places for trade unions
Automatic guaranteed places for racists
etc, etc, etc

And (in the same manner as the Bishops) those automatic places should simply be allocated to leading members of completely separate organisations on the basis of their position within that organisation.

Problem is that rather than becoming more representative, the Lords would become less representative, as most of us do not feel we are defined by 'memberism' - i.e. the organisations we choose to become members of. And indeed many of the population (maybe most) aren't members of any of these organisations.

I think you are dressing up an abolish the HOL argument as an antitheist argument which weirdly singles out spirituality.
The hol does not represent you electorally Dave.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

What you seem to be arguing is the equivalent that all other appointments are open to people of all races,including whites, but you want some set aside especially for white people that no one else can be appointed too because white people are what is representative of 'what it is that makes them fully human'

ETA The last part Is quote from Vlad's post reply756

'The model of governed humanity which is represented in our system is that people have secular or temporal interests that are separate from their spirituality namely what it is that makes them fully human.'

Any number of people can be appointed to the House of Lords.

Conceivably they could make everyone who wasn't a theist a Lord.
What privilege did you say you were lacking?

[ProfessorDavey]

I think you are dressing up an abolish the HOL argument as an antitheist argument which weirdly singles out spirituality.
The hol does not represent you electorally Dave.

The Bishops single themselves out as they are the only Lords appointed using a different system and the only ones appointed automatically on the basis of holding a role in a completely different organisation.

I do not think that Bishops should be banned from being members of the Lords - I simply think that they should be appointed using the same rules as everyone else.

[Nearly Sane]

Any number of people can be appointed to the House of Lords.

Conceivably they could make everyone who wasn't a theist a Lord.
What privilege did you say you were lacking?

I see you avoided the point entirely. Just to reiterate this is what you are arguing;

'What you seem to be arguing is the equivalent that all other appointments are open to people of all races, including whites, but you want some set aside especially for white people that no one else can be appointed too because white people are what is representative of 'what it is that makes them fully human'
The last part Is quote from Vlad's post reply756

'The model of governed humanity which is represented in our system is that people have secular or temporal interests that are separate from their spirituality namely what it is that makes them fully human.'

Reread it and try and reply to it rather than avoid it.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

The Bishops single themselves out as they are the only Lords appointed using a different system and the only ones appointed automatically on the basis of holding a role in a completely different organisation.

I do not think that Bishops should be banned from being members of the Lords - I simply think that they should be appointed using the same rules as everyone else.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/aug/27/house-of-lords-10-tips-entry-exclusive-club-honours-list

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I see you avoided the point entirely. Just to reiterate this is what you are arguing;

'What you seem to be arguing is the equivalent that all other appointments are open to people of all races, including whites, but you want some set aside especially for white people that no one else can be appointed too because white people are what is representative of 'what it is that makes them fully human'
The last part Is quote from Vlad's post reply756

'The model of governed humanity which is represented in our system is that people have secular or temporal interests that are separate from their spirituality namely what it is that makes them fully human.'

Reread it and try and reply to it rather than avoid it.

I don't agree with your verdict of equivalence? All people are spiritual and secular therefore if the spiritual is unrepresented in the minute way it is then The HOL loses whatever claim to be representative.
And we all just move closer to becoming a new human species ''Homo elect us''

[Nearly Sane]

I don't agree with your verdict of equivalence? All people are spiritual and secular therefore if the spiritual is unrepresented in the minute way it is then The HOL loses whatever claim to be representative.
And we all just move closer to becoming a new human species ''Homo elect us''

Not only does this again ignore the point but it's gibberish. You haven't addressed the issue just written something that says that all people are spiritual but if the spiritual people aren't represented specifically then they aren't represented - that's logical tripe on top of the avoidance

[ippy]

In terms of the HOL it depends on how you are represented. Most people are a bit confused here by electoral representation and the House of Lords.

In other words in the House of Lords other aspects of life are represented. If we have a spiritual side and I THINK WE DO THEN THERE IS NO CASE FOR THAT NOT TO BE REPRESENTED in the House of Lords considering what is represented.
If the spiritual aspect of our culture is not represented than that is de facto an atheist base on which we are governed.

I see Vlad, you still don't get it; giving seats as of right to any section of the U K community, is a privilege, that's not my opinion it's a plain fact.

Now as for representation, there's no ban on anyone here in the U K having or holding a religious belief, so those either elected or selected to sit in either of our two houses of parliament are not vetted to see if they have a religious belief or not and there has to be a number of religious believers, non-believers and all of the shades in between, that being so there are representatives of the various religions around in both of the houses.

Why any of us here on this forum should need to explain these facts to you I don't know?

There can only be one of two reasons you're not getting it, is because : one you're as thick as two short planks, or, two, you're quite simply, I think, refusing to listen to reason no matter how well the reason is put to you. 

Regards ippy

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

Ad in terms of the discussion I am having with you about your position on excluding people with certain religious views from certain offices, the privileging of religious views isn't relevant since we aren't disagreeing on that,

OK, then we were at cross purposes. My point was about not privileging religious beliefs and practices by right, on which I think we agree. 

Necessarily excluding people from public office because they have religious beliefs is another matter, and not one to which there’s a straightforward answer (in my view). Clearly sometimes those beliefs will be anathema, sometimes they’ll make no difference. How you’d devise a policy to sort one from the other is anyone’s guess – extreme cases are easy, but what if someone in high office thinks he hears Jesus (or Zeus, or any other deity) telling him what to do? Well frankly yes – if I was king for a day I probably would bar them from that office. On the other hand if someone let it be known that he had religious faith but showed no sign of letting it override his evidence-based decision making, or if he couldn't do much harm either way then I’d probably be ok with it.       

You have missed the point about ;mirroring' here. That you me and Vlad, I presume since he hasn't actually made any statement on it but evaded answering, would agree that believing that having sex with a 6 year old child is something that would preclude you from being a school teacher is not mirroring, It's just agreement.

The mirroring is that you seem to want to treat religious beliefs as some form of separate set which carry with it a stigma as opposed to Vlad's thinking they are about what it is to be fully human, and carrying a bonus

Yes I see what you’re saying now. They’re separate discussions though. Should special privileges be given because of religious affiliations? No they shouldn’t in my view, which makes me a secularist (an actual secularist, not Vlad's bogeyman version).

Should religious beliefs bar people from certain positions on the other hand? Not religious beliefs per se no in my view, but I think they sometimes should. When those “sometimes” should apply though is the hard bit – it depends on the harmfulness of the belief and the practical damage acting on it could do.

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

OK, then we were at cross purposes. My point was about not privileging religious beliefs and practices by right, on which I think we agree. 

Necessarily excluding people from public office because they have religious beliefs is another matter, and not one to which there’s a straightforward answer (in my view). Clearly sometimes those beliefs will be anathema, sometimes they’ll make no difference. How you’d devise a policy to sort one from the other is anyone’s guess – extreme cases are easy, but what if someone in high office thinks he hears Jesus (or Zeus, or any other deity) telling him what to do? Well frankly yes – if I was king for a day I probably would bar them from that office. On the other hand if someone let it be known that he had religious faith but showed no sign of letting it override his evidence-based decision making, or if he couldn't do much harm either way then I’d probably be ok with it.       

Yes I see what you’re saying now. They’re separate discussions though. Should special privileges be given because of religious affiliations? No they shouldn’t in my view, which makes me a secularist (an actual secularist, not Vlad's bogeyman version).

Should religious beliefs bar people from certain positions on the other hand? Not religious beliefs per se no in my view, but I think they sometimes should. When those “sometimes” should apply though is the hard bit – it depends on the harmfulness of the belief and the practical damage acting on it could do.

I think it's a lot easier when one drops the 'religious' bit. If we go back to the person that believes they should be able to sleep with 5 year old children, it seems to me relatively easy to say, you aren't getting to be a primary school teacher - and then it doesn't matter if that belief is religious or not.

That's where I see a problem with specifying 'religious; views because then it's about a classification that isn't as you note in itself important but in doing so it looks as if you are saying there is something significant about them being religious views.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I see Vlad, you still don't get it; giving seats as of right to any section of the U K community, is a privilege, that's not my opinion it's a plain fact.

Now as for representation, there's no ban on anyone here in the U K having or holding a religious belief, so those either elected or selected to sit in either of our two houses of parliament are vetted to see if they have a religious belief or not and there has to be a number of religious believers, non-believers and all of the shades in between, that being so there are representatives of the various religions around in both of the houses.

Why any of us here on this forum should need to explain these facts to you I don't know?

There can only be one of two reasons you're not getting it, is because : one you're as thick as two short planks, or, two, you're quite simply, I think, refusing to listen to reason no matter how well the reason is put to you. 

Regards ippy

All seats in the House of Lords are given Ippy. They are given to Lords temporal (as many as the PTB like) and lords spiritual (26). Therefore where is the privilege?

[Stranger]

All seats in the House of Lords are given Ippy. They are given to Lords temporal (as many as the PTB like) and lords spiritual (26). Therefore where is the privilege?

Are you actually serious?

That's an indeterminate amount of seats given without any bias as far as religion goes and 26 that are given exclusively to one denomination of one religion - and you're asking where the privilege is?

Watch

[ippy]

All seats in the House of Lords are given Ippy. They are given to Lords temporal (as many as the PTB like) and lords spiritual (26). Therefore where is the privilege?

Why is it you can't see the privilege in connection with the reserved seats for bishops in the house is a privilege? It's a rather simple fact that it's a privilege, nothing to do with my opinion or the opinion of anyone else.

Like I said in my previous post to you.

Regards ippy

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

I think it's a lot easier when one drops the 'religious' bit. If we go back to the person that believes they should be able to sleep with 5 year old children, it seems to me relatively easy to say, you aren't getting to be a primary school teacher - and then it doesn't matter if that belief is religious or not.

That's where I see a problem with specifying 'religious; views because then it's about a classification that isn't as you note in itself important but in doing so it looks as if you are saying there is something significant about them being religious views.

But isn’t the point that sometimes the person concerned will justify his belief and practice with, “because that’s my faith” as if that in some way validates it or makes it unarguable? As you know I’m all for a “so fucking what?” response to that, but there is I think a qualitative difference between someone who has an opinion on something and someone who believes it as an article of faith.

Treating them equally regardless of whether the people concerned attach the label “religious” to their beliefs is all too fine by me, but sometimes “I belong to X faith” is a short cut to knowing what their beliefs are – I’m not sure I’d want a JW in charge of the organ transplant or the blood donation service for example unless I knew for sure that he’d leave his religious beliefs at the door.

[Maeght]

I think you are dressing up an abolish the HOL argument as an antitheist argument which weirdly singles out spirituality.
The hol does not represent you electorally Dave.

Secularism isn't antitheism. This is a secular argument not an antitheiost argument!

[Nearly Sane]

All seats in the House of Lords are given Ippy. They are given to Lords temporal (as many as the PTB like) and lords spiritual (26). Therefore where is the privilege?

Because white people can sit in all of them but not all non whites can in the equivalence you want to avoid in your support for apartheid.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Are you actually serious?

That's an indeterminate amount of seats given without any bias as far as religion goes and 26 that are given exclusively to one denomination of one religion - and you're asking where the privilege is?

Watch

yes, If the lords represent the temporal and spiritual then that is complete representation is it not. Take the spiritual away and you homoncularise society.
You can argue the composition of the Lords spiritual but that is historical and at one time would have not been an issue. The composition does look as though it needs reform I grant you.

To argue for removal of Lords spiritual is another matter entirely and comes from an atheist materialistic paradigm.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Secularism isn't antitheism. This is a secular argument not an antitheiost argument!

Here's another one

725 secular Lords against 26 spiritual ones.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Because white people can sit in all of them but not all non whites can in the equivalence you want to avoid in your support for apartheid.

Nope all people are spiritual and deserve to be represented from a spiritual angle by people who are on a full time spiritual gig and have no interest other than spirituality. I think people recognise this. Why can't the National secularists?