Does antitheism exist?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

There are other points of view which have something to say regarding politics, but in principle yes.

We need broader experience in politics than we currently have, yes; we do not, though, need to reserve seats for one specific viewpoint regardless of the electorate, especially when the defining factor of that viewpoint is an adherence to one particular take on one particular version of one particular poetic rewrite of one particular sect of on particular religion's chosen book of fairy tales.

I'm advocating more, I'm advocating broader, but I'm also advocating better and relevant.

O.

No you’re not your advocating the one. The secular anti religious variety. Relevant? Who decides what’s relevant? Sounds like the fallacy of modernity to me.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

No you’re not your advocating the one. The secular anti religious variety. Relevant? Who decides what’s relevant? Sounds like the fallacy of modernity to me.

Still lying then. Again what he's actually advocating isn't the removal of access, it's the removal of specially privileged access that gives undue weight and influence to one sector of society. Look, here are the actual words he used: "...we do not, though, need to reserve seats for one specific viewpoint...".

[Outrider]

No you’re not your advocating the one. The secular anti religious variety. Relevant? Who decides what’s relevant? Sounds like the fallacy of modernity to me.

I'm advocating 'anti-religious' - there's no exclusion of religious people of any stripe voting, or standing in elections, or serving in a party.  I'm advocating that we shouldn't have a system where one particular religion gets a special place that's not matched by any other group in any other field of life: no reserved place for science, let alone just physicists, no reserved place for the military, let alone just the Royal Navy, no reserved for healthcare workers, let alone just oncologists, but there is a reserved place for religions, if you happen to be Church of England.

There are scientists (although arguably not enough of them) in government, there are former soldiers, sailors and airmen and women, there are people with healthcare backgrounds, despite not having reserved spaces for them.  Why is it that religion needs to have a special place when we already have:
Islam - 15 Muslim MPs (both Labour and Conservative), 19 Muslim Peers
Judaism* - 8 Jewish MPs, 10 Jewish peers
Buddhism - 1 Buddhist MP
Sikhism - 3 Sikh MPs, 2 Sikh peers

Christians - who knows?  It's rather telling that whilst there are wikipedia pages for 'List of British Jewish Politicians' and 'List of British Atheists' there isn't anything similar for Christians. Around 11% of the 2015 parliament were Catholics (vs the Catholic claim of 12% of the population based upon baptisms, and the British Social Attitudes Survey figure from 2017 of about 8%)

So why do we need Lords Spiritual?

O.

* notwithstanding that some Jews identify as Jewish in an ethnic fashion without necessarily being 'Judaists' but it's difficult to differentiate in a quick internet search.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Still lying then. Again what he's actually advocating isn't the removal of access, it's the removal of specially privileged access that gives undue weight and influence to one sector of society. Look, here are the actual words he used: "...we do not, though, need to reserve seats for one specific viewpoint...".

Apparently you do though. They need to be reserved for those on a secular ticket by the looks of things. And outrider suggests an extra device for inclusion of only the right sort....... ‘relevance’.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I'm advocating 'anti-religious' - there's no exclusion of religious people of any stripe voting, or standing in elections, or serving in a party.  I'm advocating that we shouldn't have a system where one particular religion gets a special place that's not matched by any other group in any other field of life: no reserved place for science, let alone just physicists, no reserved place for the military, let alone just the Royal Navy, no reserved for healthcare workers, let alone just oncologists, but there is a reserved place for religions, if you happen to be Church of England.

There are scientists (although arguably not enough of them) in government, there are former soldiers, sailors and airmen and women, there are people with healthcare backgrounds, despite not having reserved spaces for them.  Why is it that religion needs to have a special place when we already have:
Islam - 15 Muslim MPs (both Labour and Conservative), 19 Muslim Peers
Judaism* - 8 Jewish MPs, 10 Jewish peers
Buddhism - 1 Buddhist MP
Sikhism - 3 Sikh MPs, 2 Sikh peers

Christians - who knows?  It's rather telling that whilst there are wikipedia pages for 'List of British Jewish Politicians' and 'List of British Atheists' there isn't anything similar for Christians. Around 11% of the 2015 parliament were Catholics (vs the Catholic claim of 12% of the population based upon baptisms, and the British Social Attitudes Survey figure from 2017 of about 8%)

So why do we need Lords Spiritual?

O.

* notwithstanding that some Jews identify as Jewish in an ethnic fashion without necessarily being 'Judaists' but it's difficult to differentiate in a quick internet search.

As far as I know Lords ARE chosen for their role in the various private and public sectors and Charitable sectors. It would therefore be wrong to exclude people from such office despite their role in the spiritual life of their communities.

Again it is the ever so slightly swivel eyed focus on the spiritual Lords.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Apparently you do though. They need to be reserved for those on a secular ticket by the looks of things.

Still lying then. I neither said nor implied such thing of course.

And outrider suggests an extra device for inclusion of only the right sort....... ‘relevance’.

Yes – do you not think relevance to be, well, relevant? If we are to have an unelected Chamber, how else would to propose to select its members except according to their relevance? 

Oh, and I see you just ducked your dishonest claim about what Outy had said, when in fact he was arguing for the removal only of privileged access.

I see too that you have just ignored being found out when you fell flat on your face again by trying to cite Wiki for support. Why is that?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

As far as I know Lords ARE chosen for their role in the various private and public sectors and Charitable sectors. It would therefore be wrong to exclude people from such office despite their role in the spiritual life of their communities.

No-one has said that they should be excluded. It'd be nice if you stopped lying about that.

Again it is the ever so slightly swivel eyed focus on the spiritual Lords.

Paranoid gibberish.

[Outrider]

As far as I know Lords ARE chosen for their role in the various private and public sectors and Charitable sectors. It would therefore be wrong to exclude people from such office despite their role in the spiritual life of their communities.

And, again, no-one is suggesting that they should - you'll note the the specific role I'm against wasn't included in the list.  The Lords Spiritual are maintained IN ADDITION to any 'outstanding service to religion' appointments in the Lords, and IN ADDITION to any 'outstanding contribution to some other field' appointments who happen to also be people of a particular religion.

They are a specifically reserved place to ensure that the Church of England has a disproportionate voice.  Christians, in all their guises, represent somewhere between 35 and 50% of the UK populace; non-believers around 35-40%.  Why does one particular group within Christianity get a special voice?

Again it is the ever so slightly swivel eyed focus on the spiritual Lords.

I picked out a range of examples of religious privilege in the public debate - you narrowed down on the Lords Spiritual out of all the things I mentioned.

No you’re not your advocating the one. The secular anti religious variety.

Secularism isn't 'one view' any more than 'Labour' or 'Socialism' or 'Conservatism' - in fact it's considerably less focussed than any of those.  Secularism is just 'religion shouldn't get a special voice' - it gets a voice, just like any other viewpoint, it's not banned, it's not restricted, it's not deliberately ostracised, but neither is it privileged; it doesn't get to set its own rules, have its own reserved place in the public sphere.  It has to stand or fall on its own merits, or lack thereof, in the public arena.

O.

[ProfessorDavey]

As far as I know Lords ARE chosen for their role in the various private and public sectors and Charitable sectors.

No they aren't - there are no other peers (except the Bishops) who are automatically given a place in the Lords on the basis of their position within another organisation. Every other peer is considered on their individual merit, not on the basis of their role. And just to be clear how anomalous this is - once you get beyond the leading Archbishops/Bishops (Canterbury, York, London, Durham and Winchester) the other 21 gain their seats in the Lords just by being the longest-in-office as Bishops. So if a long serving Bishops of Lincoln retires he will automatically be replaces by the longest serving Bishop not in the Lords - there is no process, there is no assessment of his suitability etc (as occurs for all other appointments to the Lords) - he just gets the seat.

It would therefore be wrong to exclude people from such office despite their role in the spiritual life of their communities.

Who is excluding them - certainly not me - but their appointment should be the same as for any other peer.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Still lying then. I neither said nor implied such thing of course.

Yes – do you not think relevance to be, well, relevant? If we are to have an unelected Chamber, how else would to propose to select its members except according to their relevance? 

Oh, and I see you just ducked your dishonest claim about what Outy had said, when in fact he was arguing for the removal only of privileged access.

I see too that you have just ignored being found out when you fell flat on your face again by trying to cite Wiki for support. Why is that?

Relevant to whom and what though Hillside? The relevance argument sounds like what is being used to justify exclusion of atheists from Bible States.

Removal of the spiritual results in a preference for the secular.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

And, again, no-one is suggesting that they should - you'll note the the specific role I'm against wasn't included in the list.  The Lords Spiritual are maintained IN ADDITION to any 'outstanding service to religion' appointments in the Lords, and IN ADDITION to any 'outstanding contribution to some other field' appointments who happen to also be people of a particular religion.

They are a specifically reserved place to ensure that the Church of England has a disproportionate voice.  Christians, in all their guises, represent somewhere between 35 and 50% of the UK populace; non-believers around 35-40%.  Why does one particular group within Christianity get a special voice?

I picked out a range of examples of religious privilege in the public debate - you narrowed down on the Lords Spiritual out of all the things I mentioned.

Secularism isn't 'one view' any more than 'Labour' or 'Socialism' or 'Conservatism' - in fact it's considerably less focussed than any of those.  Secularism is just 'religion shouldn't get a special voice' - it gets a voice, just like any other viewpoint, it's not banned, it's not restricted, it's not deliberately ostracised, but neither is it privileged; it doesn't get to set its own rules, have its own reserved place in the public sphere.  It has to stand or fall on its own merits, or lack thereof, in the public arena.

O.

You keep on ignoring the idea of widening the composition of the lords spiritual and even renaming it to include Lady Roberts, Lord Dawkins,Lady Korsandi, Lord Fry and Lord Porteous Wood.

I,m sure a secularism without specific exclusion of the spiritual does exist but you are not representing it.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Relevant to whom and what though Hillside?

That’s a different question, and it has nothing to do with your mistake about what antitheism entails (see Wiki if you’re still unclear) or with your misrepresentations of what people here were saying about specially privileged access.   

The relevance argument sounds like what is being used to justify exclusion of atheists from Bible States.

No it doesn’t. The relevance argument concerns the skills, experience etc candidates could bring to the role. The privileged access/exclusion point concerns only whether the candidates happen to believe in god(s) or not regardless of the relevant skills and experience they may or may not have.   

Removal of the spiritual results in a preference for the secular.

Again, no-one argues for “removal of the spiritual”. What they actually argue for is removal of the specially privileged access the “spiritual” have by automatic right regardless of their suitability or value for the role. You’re going to have to stop lying about this eventually…

…or maybe not?   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No they aren't - there are no other peers (except the Bishops) who are automatically given a place in the Lords on the basis of their position within another organisation. Every other peer is considered on their individual merit, not on the basis of their role. And just to be clear how anomalous this is - once you get beyond the leading Archbishops/Bishops (Canterbury, York, London, Durham and Winchester) the other 21 gain their seats in the Lords just by being the longest-in-office as Bishops. So if a long serving Bishops of Lincoln retires he will automatically be replaces by the longest serving Bishop not in the Lords - there is no process, there is no assessment of his suitability etc (as occurs for all other appointments to the Lords) - he just gets the seat.
Who is excluding them - certainly not me - but their appointment should be the same as for any other peer.

Effectively there are groups of people who can be guaranteed a slot in the House of Lords sometimes in squadron numbers,

The House of Lords represents the division of life into the secular and spiritual. The removal of the latter reduces that broader view of humanity.

The secular is well represented in the House of Lords. You guys are advocating secular imperialism.

[ProfessorDavey]

You keep on ignoring the idea of widening the composition of the lords spiritual and even renaming it to include Lady Roberts, Lord Dawkins,Lady Korsandi, Lord Fry and Lord Porteous Wood.

Or better still to abolish the Lords Spiritual and allow Lord Welby, Lord Conway, Lord Smith, Lord Warner and Lord Croft to be consider for membership of the Lords in exactly the same manner as  Lady Roberts, Lord Dawkins, Lady Korsandi, Lord Fry and Lord Porteous Wood (and every other Lord) and vice versa.

[ProfessorDavey]

Effectively there are groups of people who can be guaranteed a slot in the House of Lords sometimes in squadron numbers

No there aren't - each appointment to the Lords has to go through an appointment process, except for the Bishops who are automatically appointed when they are appointed to a completely separate position in a completely separate organisation or have simply served enough time in a completely separate position in a completely separate organisation.

[Gordon]

Effectively there are groups of people who can be guaranteed a slot in the House of Lords sometimes in squadron numbers,

The House of Lords represents the division of life into the secular and spiritual. The removal of the latter reduces that broader view of humanity.

Vlad

Putting to one side my preference that the HoL is just binned, please explain why the non-existent 'spiritual' aspect of my life, being a Scottish atheist who isn't even a baptised Christian, can in any sense be represented by a bunch of Church of England clerics?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No there aren't - each appointment to the Lords has to go through an appointment process, except for the Bishops who are automatically appointed when they are appointed to a completely separate position in a completely separate organisation or have simply served enough time in a completely separate position in a completely separate organisation.

Check this out for what are considered the special circumstances of appointment to the House of Lords

https://www.parliament.uk/business/lords/whos-in-the-house-of-lords/members-and-their-roles/how-members-are-appointed/

Number of Lords spiritual restricted. Not sure temporal special circumstance lords are restricted in number though.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad

Putting to one side my preference that the HoL is just binned, please explain why the non-existent 'spiritual' aspect of my life, being a Scottish atheist who isn't even a baptised Christian, can in any sense be represented by a bunch of Church of England clerics?

I’m sure their presence is welcomed by many people of all faiths.
You can bet your bottom dollar that there is at least one Lord with zero interest in religion who likes motorbikes and plays the banjo......or at least could pick it up if they gave it a go.

[Enki]

Check this out for what are considered the special circumstances of appointment to the House of Lords

https://www.parliament.uk/business/lords/whos-in-the-house-of-lords/members-and-their-roles/how-members-are-appointed/

Number of Lords spiritual restricted. Not sure temporal special circumstance lords are restricted in number though.

I have checked it out and it clearly suggests that the Bishops are a privileged group. I don't want to see any privileged groups in the HoL at all. Indeed, personally, I would want the HoL to be abolished, or, at the very least, to be fully democratically elected.

[Outrider]

You keep on ignoring the idea of widening the composition of the lords spiritual and even renaming it to include Lady Roberts, Lord Dawkins,Lady Korsandi, Lord Fry and Lord Porteous Wood.

Why widen it, the issue is with having reserved places for specific groups, you don't solve that by simply including a few more select groups, you resolve that issue by dissolving the concept of reserved seats in the parliament.

I,m sure a secularism without specific exclusion of the spiritual does exist but you are not representing it.

Nothing in secularism that is intrinsically against spiritual concepts or practices; it's about eradicating the privilege of religion, regardless of how spiritual they are or aren't.  If there were an issue with spiritual I'd object to there being Sikh, Muslim, Buddhist, Christian and Jewish MPs, but I'm not - if that's who a particular part of the electorate has duly selected to represent them then fair enough.  I'm opposed to the idea of there being reserved seats to represent the Church of England in a parliament that's supposed to represent the people.

O.

[ProfessorDavey]

Check this out for what are considered the special circumstances of appointment to the House of Lords

https://www.parliament.uk/business/lords/whos-in-the-house-of-lords/members-and-their-roles/how-members-are-appointed/

Number of Lords spiritual restricted. Not sure temporal special circumstance lords are restricted in number though.

From the link:

The House of Lords Appointments Commission was established in 2000. It is independent and separate from the House of Lords.

The Appointments Commission recommends individuals for appointment as non-party-political life peers. It also vets nominations for all life peers, including those recommended by the UK political parties, to ensure the highest standards of propriety. Members can be suggested by the public and political parties. Once approved by the prime minister, appointments are formalised by the Queen.

In other words there is a multi-step process involving nomination, vetting and approval of an individual before that person is appointed to the House of Lords. That process applies to all peers ... except the Bishops who are simply automatically appointed when they are appointed to another position in another organisation (or may even be automatically appointed when another of their number retires).

The equivalent would be if the person appointed as General Secretary of the TUC (not an unreasonable comparison) was automatically also appointed to the House of Lords at the same time. Now Frances Lorraine O'Grady may well be a suitable person to be a peer, but in order for her to become one she'd have to go through the nomination, vetting and approval regardless of the fact of being appointed as general secretary of the TUC. By contrast John Sentamu (to give an example) was automatically appointed as a peer the moment he was appointed as Archbishop of York.

Surely even you can see the disparity Vlad.

[Gordon]

I’m sure their presence is welcomed by many people of all faiths.

Perhaps - but my question was about the relevance of Church of England clerics to Scottish atheists (like me).
 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I have checked it out and it clearly suggests that the Bishops are a privileged group. I don't want to see any privileged groups in the HoL at all. Indeed, personally, I would want the HoL to be abolished, or, at the very least, to be fully democratically elected.

Not sure about that. It would be first past the post all over again.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Why widen it, the issue is with having reserved places for specific groups, you don't solve that by simply including a few more select groups, you resolve that issue by dissolving the concept of reserved seats in the parliament.

Nothing in secularism that is intrinsically against spiritual concepts or practices; it's about eradicating the privilege of religion, regardless of how spiritual they are or aren't.  If there were an issue with spiritual I'd object to there being Sikh, Muslim, Buddhist, Christian and Jewish MPs, but I'm not - if that's who a particular part of the electorate has duly selected to represent them then fair enough.  I'm opposed to the idea of there being reserved seats to represent the Church of England in a parliament that's supposed to represent the people.

O.

Which is why I am advocating membership of more religions and world views.
There is room too for elected lordships,Lords elected by lot,as well. We don't need another elected house where those that are good at the dark arts choose to be on what looks like the party of winners.Career politicians political animals who spend there time divesting themselves of wisdom rather than getting real and representative experience.

That is why it's best not to have one route into parliament which can be dominated by a narrow cadre.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Perhaps - but my question was about the relevance of Church of England clerics to Scottish atheists (like me).

What a strange thing to bring up..Is this a rhetorical flourish. Gordon?
How is it different from how are inherited wealth old Etonian relevant to me?