Christians who don't make my skin crawl!

[Stranger]

Here's another one

725 secular Lords against 26 spiritual ones.

751 seats available to members of the CofE, 725 available to everybody else.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Here's another one

725 secular Lords against 26 spiritual ones.

And still Vladdo can't grasp that there being no bar on people who call themselves "spiritual" (whatever that's supposed to mean) means they're already "represented" without needing to carve out specially reserved seats for them. There are countless other constituences, so what makes the "spiritual" one so special that it needs privileged rights the others don't have?

About that face palm emoji...

[Walt Zingmatilder]

751 seats available to members of the CofE, 725 available to everybody else.

26 seats to those appointed to reflect spirituality 725 appointed not to reflect spirituality.

[bluehillside Retd.]

26 seats to those appointed to reflect spirituality 725 appointed not to reflect spirituality.

751 seats to those appointed not to reflect leprechaunology, 0 seats to those appointed to reflect leprechaunology.

Something should be done!

Will someone let me know please if ever it sinks in that they actually "represent" people, not special interest groups. Ta.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

And still Vladdo can't grasp that there being no bar on people who call themselves "spiritual" (whatever that's supposed to mean) means they're already "represented" without needing to carve out specially reserved seats for them. There are countless other constituences, so what makes the "spiritual" one so special that it needs privileged rights the others don't have?

About that face palm emoji...

Its not that they have religion or not Hillside. Its whether they are there as full time spiritual people representing spirituality. They provide what the house itself calls independence of thought against the Lords temporal who in turn represent secular interest and independent thought against the lords spiritual.

This year and maybe a few years hence they will be C of E, then they will be census Anglicans, then they will be apatheists running on the atheist paradigm and then presumably that will be it for the Lords spiritual and only atheistic ,materialistic, interests will be served.

[Nearly Sane]

NS,
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.

I think treating the belief as if it is different plays into that idea that it is something different. In the case of the person wanting to have sex with 5 year olds applying for the job, I don't care what the reason is and they aren't getting hired.

I agree that if a JW applied for head of blood transfusion I would ask questions but just because it's obvious it doesn't mean that it should be treated any differently.

ANd I may be wrong but I get the impression that what you might see as obvious or at least an alert isn't the same as me. I don't have any issue with someone saying they pray for guidance

[Stranger]

26 seats to those appointed to reflect spirituality 725 appointed not to reflect spirituality.

Nobody is appointed "not to reflect spirituality".

If you can't see the simple, simple, plain, obvious fact that reserving a number of seats for just one special interest group (in this case the CofE) represents a privilege for that group, I really don't see how to make it more plain.

What would you be saying if 26 seats were reserved for antitheists and none for any other view of religion?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

751 seats to those appointed not to reflect leprechaunology, 0 seats to those appointed to reflect leprechaunology.

Something should be done!

Will someone let me know please if ever it sinks in that they actually "represent" people, not special interest groups. Ta.

Are you talking about the Irish parliament?
I think you are both ill informed and naive about the House of Lords.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Nobody is appointed "not to reflect spirituality".

Alright........ not appointed to reflect spirituality.

[Nearly Sane]

26 seats to those appointed to reflect spirituality 725 appointed not to reflect spirituality.

No, all the seats can represent the 'spirituall' whatever that may be but 256 are specifically for the spiritual/white people who represent what it is to be fully human in your apartheid

[Nearly Sane]

Alright........ not appointed to reflect spirituality.

Which means that those appointed to reflect what it is to be fully human in your apartheid state are privileged

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Nobody is appointed "not to reflect spirituality".

If you can't see the simple, simple, plain, obvious fact that reserving a number of seats for just one special interest group (in this case the CofE) represents a privilege for that group, I really don't see how to make it more plain.

What would you be saying if 26 seats were reserved for antitheists and none for any other view of religion?

I'd be cool with that, they would have to be full time antitheists unless you see an issue with a basic capability to represent the spiritual nature of humanity, people like Keith and Terry, Indeed why not change the composition yearly, Goddodgers one year, Botherers the next

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Which means that those appointed to reflect what it is to be fully human in your apartheid state are privileged

No because those appointed to represent the remainder are there as well.....so where's the privilege?

[Rhiannon]

26 seats to those appointed to reflect spirituality 725 appointed not to reflect spirituality.

So you wouldn’t object to every other post being filled by non believers?

[Nearly Sane]

No because those appointed to represent the remainder are there as well.....so where's the privilege?

Because there are certain seats just for the white's who represent what is fully human in your apartheid state

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No, all the seats can represent the 'spirituall' whatever that may be but 256 are specifically for the spiritual/white people who represent what it is to be fully human in your apartheid

Presumably though those are/were not fulltime clergy/priests and are appointed for other secular skills and attributes,

[Nearly Sane]

Presumably though those are/were not fulltime clergy/priests and are appointed for other secular skills and attributes,

Which is fine - because those people can represent everyone - it's just those who you want specially privileged because they are white spiritual and represent the superior race people who represent what it is to be fully human that are exercising that extra privilege in your apartheid state

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Which is fine - because those people can represent everyone - it's just those who you want specially privileged because they are white spiritual and represent the superior race people who represent what it is to be fully human that are exercising that extra privilege in your apartheid state

I have not even mentioned race or superior race.
I think i'm out of here if these shenanigans are being pulled.

[Nearly Sane]

I have not even mentioned race or superior race.
I think i'm out of here if these shenanigans are being pulled.

You mean pointing out that you think that a set of people who if we talked about them being white as an equivalence, one that you haven't managed to even present an argument against. and  are superior for you  as you presented as representing what it is to be fully human, as opposed to all the rest is the same equivalence in the apartheid state that you think is fair?

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

I think treating the belief as if it is different plays into that idea that it is something different. In the case of the person wanting to have sex with 5 year olds applying for the job, I don't care what the reason is and they aren't getting hired.

Yup.

I agree that if a JW applied for head of blood transfusion I would ask questions but just because it's obvious it doesn't mean that it should be treated any differently

But that is being treated differently isn’t it?

If I applied you’d want to know about my experience etc. If a JW applied you’d want to know about his experience etc plus whether he’d leave his religious beliefs at the door. At that point he may well have said nothing on the subject, but as soon as you saw the “JW” label you’d apply a different process (as would I). 

ANd I may be wrong but I get the impression that what you might see as obvious or at least an alert isn't the same as me. I don't have any issue with someone saying they pray for guidance

Of course it is – one man’s “obvious” is another man’s “meh”. Who’s to say who’s right though, and when?

On praying for example if the candidate was applying to be a lollipop lady I’d be a “meh”; if she was applying to be minister of defence though then damn right I’d have a concern.

Wouldn’t you?

[Maeght]

Here's another one

725 secular Lords against 26 spiritual ones.

Secular Lords are not non spiritual people!

[bluehillside Retd.]

I have not even mentioned race or superior race.
I think i'm out of here if these shenanigans are being pulled.

Poor Vlad never has grasped how analogies work has he. What NS was doing was applying exactly Vlad "logic" ("vlogic"?) to a different differentiator - ie, race rather than "spirituality". If the logic is sound it should apply regardless of the subjects concerned. Yikes!

[jeremyp]

Secular for the NSS equals atheism.

That may well be true but so what? Words are not defined by the goals of organisations that put them in their names. You might be able to argue that the word "secular" in "National Secular Society" has been used incorrectly but we are not arguing about whether the NSS is atheist, we are arguing about the meaning of the word "secular".

Freedom from religion does not equate with freedom of religion

Yes it does.

If I am free to have any religion, the right to be free from any religion is implied (or I could just make up my own religion that is practically indistinguishable from atheism - much like Anglicanism). Conversely, a right to be free from religion is not really a right if it is compulsory.

The House of Lords is a house of privilege. So it is not reasonable to talk about religion having special privilege. That is a nonsense tautological meme which you have allowed in, I'm afraid.

Is it nonsense or is it tautological. It can't be both.

In fact, I think it is neither. Privilege is not binary. For example, I am privileged by virtue of being born a white heterosexual male in an affluent Western democracy with universal healthcare and state education. It is absurd to suggest that I wouldn't acquire some extra privilege on being elevated to the House of Lords.

I understand that many of my fellow religionists feel secure enough about secularism to want to go fully secular in terms of parliament. They underestimate what and who drives the NSS these days namely the idea that any majority of the non religious validates the large scale dismantling of religion from public forum as demonstrated by their claims about religious coverage on the BBC.

You seem obsessed with the National Secular Society. I think you overestimate their influence.

[jeremyp]

725 appointed not to reflect spirituality.

Bzzzzzt wrong. There is no remit for any of the holders of those seats to not reflect spirituality.

[ippy]

Here's another one

725 secular Lords against 26 spiritual ones.

If it was only one bishop the principle is exactly similar, no group or any one person should be having a privileged position there in the house, including those of us that are all for the secular standpoint, ie., no privileges for any person or group of people no matter what they happen to believe.

You really don't get it Vlad, you're as bad as I am with supporting Milan tonight rather than supporting Woolwich Wanderers, but there I was lucky enough to have been born within walking distance of the Spurs ground, having said that, I will admit to having a total bias against Woolwich Wanderers, don't even like saying their name, without copious amounts mouthwash immediately available.

Now I've admitted my bias, when are you going to admit yours about religious privilege in the house of Lords?

Come on Milan, I love hearing Venga moan.

Regards ippy