Christians who don't make my skin crawl!

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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

I would insist that if they are non believers they are professional non believers.
As I have said already I wouldn't mind full time antitheists in place. I would insist though that they were styledLords Spiritual and did not have the power to dissolve themselves.

[bluehillside Retd.]

I would insist that if they are non believers they are professional non believers.
As I have said already I wouldn't mind full time antitheists in place. I would insist though that they were styledLords Spiritual and did not have the power to dissolve themselves.

In which Vladdo fails to notice that only if there were "antitheists" in place by right in the HofL would his previous hundred-odd posts make any sense.

As that's not the case though, they don't.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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.

There is no privilege in terms of having Lords spiritual and Lords temporal. That should be blindingly obvious. That's the way it is constituted. whether the composition of the Lords Spiritual is within the original spirit of the establishment is I grant you less clear.
It is a house of privilege in that Lords are recommended and appointed in different ways. We know there is a bias towards certain groups in the Lords Temporal and I have already posted a link which outlines where privilege exists in the Lords Temporal.

Given that the HOL is not electoral representation. We cannot argue about it along electoral representational lines.
As it happens many aspects of temporal life are not represented. I have therefore no representation from the many Lords who are ex civil servants or theatrical Lords similarly someone with an apprenticeship is hardly represented by academic lords.

The house of Lords positively notionally represents aspects of our national lives and is a notionally oversight and advisory organisation.

Practically the Lords spiritual only comprises 3.3% of total Lords. Easily overruled and leaves a mere suggestive voice.

Given all of that the nature of the HOL is overwhelmingly secular and any further demands are IMV a manifestation of OCD.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

In which Vladdo fails to notice that only if there were "antitheists" in place by right in the HofL would his previous hundred-odd posts make any sense.

As that's not the case though, they don't.

Lords temporal are there by right too Hillside in that the HOL is the Lords spiritual and temporal.

[Nearly Sane]

Lords temporal are there by right too Hillside in that the HOL is the Lords spiritual and temporal.

Yes the Lords of every race including white people in the equivalence are there but they have their special seats available only to them in your apartheid state

[Maeght]

There is no privilege in terms of having Lords spiritual and Lords temporal. That should be blindingly obvious. That's the way it is constituted. whether the composition of the Lords Spiritual is within the original spirit of the establishment is I grant you less clear.
It is a house of privilege in that Lords are recommended and appointed in different ways. We know there is a bias towards certain groups in the Lords Temporal and I have already posted a link which outlines where privilege exists in the Lords Temporal.

Given that the HOL is not electoral representation. We cannot argue about it along electoral representational lines.
As it happens many aspects of temporal life are not represented. I have therefore no representation from the many Lords who are ex civil servants or theatrical Lords similarly someone with an apprenticeship is hardly represented by academic lords.

The house of Lords positively notionally represents aspects of our national lives and is a notionally oversight and advisory organisation.

Practically the Lords spiritual only comprises 3.3% of total Lords. Easily overruled and leaves a mere suggestive voice.

Given all of that the nature of the HOL is overwhelmingly secular and any further demands are IMV a manifestation of OCD.

It should be 100% secular. Note this does not mean 100% atheist or antitheist or non religious. It means no seats guaranteed for those from certain religious offices.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

It should be 100% secular. Note this does not mean 100% atheist or antitheist or non religious. It means no seats guaranteed for those from certain religious offices.

That then states that people do not have/should not have a spiritual life beyond what is of material interest and that spiritual life should have no expression in our system of government.

That makes government an atheist proposition and you have taken us directly into a totalitarian atheocracy.

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

Yup.

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). 

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?

No, the belief, isn't treated differently, it's just that you know more about the belief from the declaration. If someone applied for the job and stated on the application 'I don't think blood transfusions should be give' then that belief should be treated exactly the same.

As to the question of the minister of defence, no, it wouldn't bother me. I know people who pray all the time, and they don't seem to do anything different to me in terms of making decisions.

As a return question, if you know a candidate for the minister of defence practices a religion, does that weigh against them in your consideration?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

So there would just be Lords Temporal.
Are you aware of who gets into the HOL and how they get there?
Let's have a scenario. The Lords spiritual have been abolished. Do you think that former archbishops and bishops are not as likely to be promoted to the HOL as former prime ministers. careful now because you cannot make special clause against the elevation of Bishops?
If you elevate Bishops would you not have to then not elevate Imams, rabbis, Gurus etc?
How many lords who were effectively spiritual would you end up with then? How then could you keep them focussed on temporal business? How do you limit their proliferation?

Poser eh? Although it doesn't imv detract from my argument that spiritual life should be enshrined in the HOL.

[Gonnagle]

Dear Blue,

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.

Prayer, for me and I suspect most Christians, a time for reflection, a inner searching, when asking God for guidance, the answer is already there, it is in your heart, in your mind, prayer is just a time to stop, be still, and now that I have reflected on this subject, most of the time I am simply asking God to give me the courage to make important decisions.

And most of the time, the answer I receive, shut up you numpty and get on with it.

Gonnagle. 

[bluehillside Retd.]

Lords temporal are there by right too Hillside in that the HOL is the Lords spiritual and temporal.

And still he doesn’t grasp that “Lords temporal” and “antitheist” are not the same thing at all.

We really, really need a face palm emoji here…

[Stranger]

We really, really need a face palm emoji here…

 
  .-'---`-.
,'          `.
|             \
|              \
\           _  \
,\  _    ,'-,/-)\
( * \ \,' ,' ,'-)
 `._,)     -',-')
   \/         ''/
    )        / /
   /       ,'-'

[bluehillside Retd.]

Stranger,

  .-'---`-.
,'          `.
|             
|             
           _ 
,  _    ,'-,/-)
( *  ,' ,' ,'-)
 `._,)     -',-')
   /         ''/
    )        / /
   /       ,'-'

Genius!

[SteveH]

How about just scrapping the HoL? Second best - replace it with an entirely directly elected second chamber, BUT members are elected until a fixed retirement age (80?), unless they resign or are ejected for misbehaviour. That way, they won't have to worry about re-election, and will be able to do what they really think is for the good of the country, not what will appeal to hoi-polloi.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

 
  .-'---`-.
,'          `.
|             \
|              \
\           _  \
,\  _    ,'-,/-)\
( * \ \,' ,' ,'-)
 `._,)     -',-')
   \/         ''/
    )        / /
   /       ,'-'

Reminds me of Sooty whispering to Harry Corbett.

[ProfessorDavey]

How about just scrapping the HoL? Second best - replace it with an entirely directly elected second chamber, BUT members are elected until a fixed retirement age (80?), unless they resign or are ejected for misbehaviour. That way, they won't have to worry about re-election, and will be able to do what they really think is for the good of the country, not what will appeal to hoi-polloi.

I remember many years ago, during the Blair government there was lots of discussion about Lords reforms and I went to a public meeting about it. One of the speaker (I can't remember who it was) made, what I thought was a key point. He said that the focus was always on how we select the members (appointed, elected, term length etc), but that this should be secondary to deciding what the second chamber should do.

Once the key question of its role is agreed, then you can come onto discussing the most appropriate way to populate the chamber to ensure it is best equipped to fulfil that role.

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

No, the belief, isn't treated differently, it's just that you know more about the belief from the declaration. If someone applied for the job and stated on the application 'I don't think blood transfusions should be give' then that belief should be treated exactly the same.

But what I said was that the process you’d apply would be different (“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).”) That said, surely the belief would be treated differently too wouldn’t it if the candidate then said he would act on his beliefs in a way that’s incompatible with the remit of (for example) the transfusion service?

As to the question of the minister of defence, no, it wouldn't bother me. I know people who pray all the time, and they don't seem to do anything different to me in terms of making decisions.

As a return question, if you know a candidate for the minister of defence practices a religion, does that weigh against them in your consideration?

In a general way, yes. Why? Because I’d rather not have an irrationalist have access to weaponry. More specifically though if, say, by “prayer” he meant something like, “I like to take a moment of quiet contemplation to consider difficult questions” it wouldn’t bother me at all (in fact I’d approve); if though he meant, “I let the voices in my head tell me what to do” then it’s a thanks but no thanks from me. 

Also, when you say “a religion” that allows for any manner of weird and whacky stuff – from Jainism at one end to Jihadist Islam, Westboro Baptist Christianity etc at the other. For some of them the candidate practising his faith probably wouldn’t matter much but for others though it’d be a very different story.   

Sort answer I suppose: it depends.

[ippy]

There is no privilege in terms of having Lords spiritual and Lords temporal. That should be blindingly obvious. That's the way it is constituted. whether the composition of the Lords Spiritual is within the original spirit of the establishment is I grant you less clear.
It is a house of privilege in that Lords are recommended and appointed in different ways. We know there is a bias towards certain groups in the Lords Temporal and I have already posted a link which outlines where privilege exists in the Lords Temporal.

Given that the HOL is not electoral representation. We cannot argue about it along electoral representational lines.
As it happens many aspects of temporal life are not represented. I have therefore no representation from the many Lords who are ex civil servants or theatrical Lords similarly someone with an apprenticeship is hardly represented by academic lords.

The house of Lords positively notionally represents aspects of our national lives and is a notionally oversight and advisory organisation.

Practically the Lords spiritual only comprises 3.3% of total Lords. Easily overruled and leaves a mere suggestive voice.

Given all of that the nature of the HOL is overwhelmingly secular and any further demands are IMV a manifestation of OCD.

There are a lot of things wrong with how the people are selected to have seats in the house of lords and it's virtually impossible to recommend an ideal solution but there is one blindingly obviously to anyone with only a half of a brain and that would be the bishops sitting in the house as of right, there' no sane way of justifying their seats as of right, unless of course we use the logic of the madhouse to argue for this particular anachronism to remain as it is.

They will have to go eventually it's just a case of looking forward to that day whenever it happens as it surly will, having said that I can't think of how anyone could justify preventing a bishop taking a seat in the house on merit, I would have no objection to that.

Regards ippy

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I remember many years ago, during the Blair government there was lots of discussion about Lords reforms and I went to a public meeting about it. One of the speaker (I can't remember who it was) made, what I thought was a key point. He said that the focus was always on how we select the members (appointed, elected, term length etc), but that this should be secondary to deciding what the second chamber should do.

Once the key question of its role is agreed, then you can come onto discussing the most appropriate way to populate the chamber to ensure it is best equipped to fulfil that role.

Fair point and part of that would be to look at it's foundational purposes were, how it has evolved, how it works, what it stands for now.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Another point is who is going to decide on overhaul/abolition/replacement of the HOL?
And what proportion of that power will be in the hands of the Bishops.

[SusanDoris]

 
  .-'---`-.
,'          `.
|             
|              
           _  
,  _    ,'-,/-)
( *  ,' ,' ,'-)
 `._,)     -',-')
   /         ''/
    )        / /
   /       ,'-'

Can you please put that into words for me?!

[Stranger]

Can you please put that into words for me?!

It's an attempt to draw a facepalm with just ordinary characters (not my attempt, I copied it).

[Maeght]

That then states that people do not have/should not have a spiritual life beyond what is of material interest and that spiritual life should have no expression in our system of government.

That makes government an atheist proposition and you have taken us directly into a totalitarian atheocracy.

No it does not at all. It simply menas that people from certain religious offices are not guaranteed seats in the Lords. Nothing more than that. The Lords can and will contain people of faith and people with spiritual views.

I and others have said this so many times on here. Do you not actually read people's posts? You may not agree with them but your posts suggest no knowledge that your points have been responded to before.

Do you accept that without Lords Spiritual there will be Members of the House of Lords who are religious and or spiritual or do you imagine that all Lords Temporal are atheists?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No it does not at all. It simply menas that people from certain religious offices are not guaranteed seats in the Lords. Nothing more than that. The Lords can and will contain people of faith and people with spiritual views.

I and others have said this so many times on here. Do you not actually read people's posts? You may not agree with them but your posts suggest no knowledge that your points have been responded to before.

Do you accept that without Lords Spiritual there will be Members of the House of Lords who are religious and or spiritual or do you imagine that all Lords Temporal are atheists?

No it does not at all. It simply menas that people from certain religious offices are not guaranteed seats in the Lords. Nothing more than that. The Lords can and will contain people of faith and people with spiritual views.

I and others have said this so many times on here. Do you not actually read people's posts? You may not agree with them but your posts suggest no knowledge that your points have been responded to before.

Do you accept that without Lords Spiritual there will be Members of the House of Lords who are religious and or spiritual or do you imagine that all Lords Temporal are atheists?

I probably wont be posting much more on this topic since I feel I have made my point.
To complain singularly of religious privilege of 3.3% of the house as opposed to 96.4% of secular lords drawn from privileged groups hereditary, politics, commerce is vaguely ridiculous and therefore I side with those who look to abolition or reform rather than the special pleaders other than that the secularisers have got all sorts of assumptions wrong IMV. In view of that I choose to tackle your assumptions.
If it can be guaranteed that there will be spiritual consideration and the spiritual worldviewpoint is enshrined rather than just saying that oh well some have been baptised or bat mitzvah'd etc that'll be good enough, in the business of the HOL or any future and that a secularism of a more plural nature is the order of the day I'm open to proposal.

[Maeght]

I probably wont be posting much more on this topic since I feel I have made my point.
To complain singularly of religious privilege of 3.3% of the house as opposed to 96.4% of secular lords drawn from privileged groups hereditary, politics, commerce is vaguely ridiculous and therefore I side with those who look to abolition or reform rather than the special pleaders other than that the secularisers have got all sorts of assumptions wrong IMV.

I am all for reform or even abolishion of the HoL but that wasn't what we were talking about and since this is Religion and Ethics forum seems sreasonable that the focus was on the Religious privilege.

In view of that I choose to tackle your assumptions.
If it can be guaranteed that there will be spiritual consideration and the spiritual worldviewpoint is enshrined rather than just saying that oh well some have been baptised or bat mitzvah'd etc that'll be good enough, in the business of the HOL or any future and that a secularism of a more plural nature is the order of the day I'm open to proposal.

Why should the spiritual world view point (?) be enshrined. The Lords membership should reflect society as a whole so it spiritual elements exist in society (which they do) they the Lords should reflect that.