Does antitheism exist?

[Outrider]

A neutral secularism would recognise that it is one of two facets of humanity, not seek elimination of spirituality.

A true secularism would recognise that if 'spirituality' is actually something, then it's merely one facet of a complicated humanity, and whilst it wouldn't necessarily seek to eliminate it, it wouldn't elevate to a significance above other facets either.

Your version of secularism is imperialistic seeking at least relegate important aspects of humanity reducing everything and e everybody to utility and capital.

Making 'spiritual' compete on an even footing with other concerns is neither imperialist nor attempting to enforce some narrow conformity on everyone.

Secondly you continue to paint me as seeking to preserve the status quo. That isn't true since I would have atheists and humanists there as well.

You are still seeking to make 'spiritual' something uniquely special within the parliament - why? Why not science? Why not the military? Why not business? Why not healthcare?

Finally since the division is purely between the secular and the spiritual it is clear there is nothing being privileged.

There are many spectra of human concern, and the range from spiritual to non-spiritual is merely one dimension on it - secular is not the opposite of spiritual, secular is a position about whether spiritual (or any other concern) should be given prominence in society.

O.

[ProfessorDavey]

The logic of having another set of lords other than the lords temporal is that people need more than their physical needs met or more importantly represented. This deserves a voice and so I would Include atheists and humanists as members of this.

Then ensure that your approach to appointment to the Lords is diverse enough to ensure that there are individual atheists, humanists, vegetarians, vegans, libertarians, philosophical naturalists, environmentalists, rule utilitarians etc etc etc in the Lords. And of course the same for the countless religious denominations.

To suggest you need to find an organisation that 'represents' those people and give them an automatic place in the Lords is bonkers.

So to steal from Monty Python - who gets the automatic seat to represents the Judeans - is it the Chief Exec of the People's Front of Judea, or the Gen Sec of the Judean People's Front!

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Not at all, because the reason to remove the Lords spiritual is about fairness and creating a level playing field.

It doesn't do that since merely the temporal is served.
In other words only a certain exclusive view of people is served.
Hence your talk of comfortable secularism because the religious are put in a place where bothered atheist can limit their freedom.

[jeremyp]

It doesn't do that since merely the temporal is served.
In other words only a certain exclusive view of people is served.
Hence your talk of comfortable secularism because the religious are put in a place where bothered atheist can limit their freedom.

Your reasoning seems flawed. The so-called Lords Spiritual are in a privileged position at the moment in that they have seats specially allocated to them. Not only that, but the ones that are there are not even representative of all the Christians in the UK, never mind religions generally.

If the special privileges of the CofE were removed, there's nothing to stop their bishops from joining the House of Lords, they would just have to be selected for appointment like the leaders of the catholics, Scottish Christians, Muslims etc and the leaders of secular organisations.

As for serving merely the temporal: that would only be the case if representatives of religions were banned altogether. And there are those who would suggest that, if you want something other than the temporal to be served, you first need to demonstrate that that something exists.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Your reasoning seems flawed. The so-called Lords Spiritual are in a privileged position at the moment in that they have seats specially allocated to them.

Since the rest of the seats are also automatically given to the Lords temporal it seems that your reasoning is flawed.

Not only that, but the ones that are there are not even representative of all the Christians in the UK, never mind religions generally.

They are more representative of other Christians and religions generally than more Lords temporal.

If the special privileges of the CofE were removed, there's nothing to stop their bishops from joining the House of Lords,

would that be as Lords spiritual or temporal?

As for serving merely the temporal: that would only be the case if representatives of religions were banned altogether.

people are not merely temporal though, they have other interests and concerns other than those which can be represented by the expertise and experience gained in temporal life by the Lords temporal.

And there are those who would suggest that, if you want something other than the temporal to be served, you first need to demonstrate that that something exists.

And here you betray the central interest of the atheist which is to have his own philosophy prime and paramount and privileged rather than the anti-privilege cover story we hear so often.

If you had been following the argument I want the Lords spiritual to be based demographically and to include atheists and humanists who can comment through their pastoral experience and work on ethics and other aspects of humanity other than the temporal materialist view.

[Outrider]

It doesn't do that since merely the temporal is served.

Why is only the temporal served without the Lords Spiritual?  Why can't the multitude of 'spiritual' peers ensure that spirituality is adequately represented?  Why do we need special people for that one aspect, when everything else only need incidental representation?

O.

[Outrider]

Since the rest of the seats are also automatically given to the Lords temporal it seems that your reasoning is flawed.

Can you explain what single factor is used to appoint the Lords Temporal to equate them to the Lords Spiritual?

They are more representative of other Christians and religions generally than more Lords temporal.

Where is the 'more representative' cadre for science? For the military? For healthcare? Why is Christianity, or religion in general, deserving of special consideration?

people are not merely temporal though, they have other interests and concerns other than those which can be represented by the expertise and experience gained in temporal life by the Lords temporal.

Temporal isn't something, temporal (in this context) is just those lords which aren't the Lords Spiritual - they are also defined by that special privilege, just in their case by not being representative of it.

And here you betray the central interest of the atheist which is to have his own philosophy prime and paramount and privileged rather than the anti-privilege cover story we hear so often.

How is making the Church of England compete on an even field with all the other concerns privileging atheism?

If you had been following the argument I want the Lords spiritual to be based demographically and to include atheists and humanists who can comment through their pastoral experience and work on ethics and other aspects of humanity other than the temporal materialist view.

Which might make sense, to a degree, if you could establish why we need to treat spirituality differently to every other aspect of human behaviour, culture and experience.

O.

[Sebastian Toe]

If you had been following the argument I want the Lords spiritual to be based demographically and to include atheists and humanists who can comment through their pastoral experience and work on ethics and other aspects of humanity other than the temporal materialist view.

...how many do you propose and how would they be selected?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Why is only the temporal served without the Lords Spiritual?  Why can't the multitude of 'spiritual' peers ensure that spirituality is adequately represented?  Why do we need special people for that one aspect, when everything else only need incidental representation?

What we expect from the lords is expertise and experience. With the Lords spiritual or however they would be referred to after the inclusion of humanists and atheists we would expect ethical, pastoral and philosophical expertise, experience and working insight from them.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

...how many do you propose and how would they be selected?

Anything from 28 to 48 and a half. Selection would be a matter for the various groups themselves.

[Sebastian Toe]

Anything from 28 to 48 and a half. Selection would be a matter for the various groups themselves.

Which groups?

Who decides the above?

[ProfessorDavey]

Selection would be a matter for the various groups themselves.

Which groups and who decides which groups are, and which are not, allocated an automatic peer.

[Outrider]

What we expect from the lords is expertise and experience.

Isn't that what we expect from all the Lords?

With the Lords spiritual or however they would be referred to after the inclusion of humanists and atheists we would expect ethical, pastoral and philosophical expertise, experience and working insight from them.

That's what we expect from all the Lords.  Why do we need a special set to have a notionally 'spiritual' background?  Why does spirituality need to be considered differently to science, or military experience, or an understanding of healthcare, or business and industry?

O.

[ProfessorDavey]

It doesn't do that since merely the temporal is served.

Non-sense.

You do understand that the only difference between a Lord spiritual and a Lord temporal is their route of appointment. Otherwise their voting rights, remit, role etc etc etc is identical. It is not the case that Lords spiritual focus on spiritual matters, and Lords temporal focus on physical matters. Both can and do focus on both as their remit is identical.

So can you explain why this chap:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Allister

Is going to focus any more (or less) on spiritual matters, than this chap:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rowan_Williams

Or this chap:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Sacks

As examples

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Can you explain what single factor is used to appoint the Lords Temporal to equate them to the Lords Spiritual?

Expertise and experience in areas other than religion or humanism.

Where is the 'more representative' cadre for science? For the military? For healthcare? Why is Christianity, or religion in general, deserving of special consideration?

Effectively people from science, the military and even healthcare do seem to find themselves in the HoL. The Lords spiritual are not the only special consideration group if you look at the parliament website on selection you will find others.

If you are arguing they are not more represented then that isn't really connected to whether there are Lords spiritual or not.

Temporal isn't something

Apparently it is

temporal (in this context) is just those lords which aren't the Lords Spiritual - they are also defined by that special privilege, just in their case by not being representative of it.

sorry I don't follow.

How is making the Church of England compete on an even field with all the other concerns privileging atheism?

The question is really how would making potential lords spiritual compete for places in the Lords temporal privilege atheism.

Which might make sense, to a degree, if you could establish why we need to treat spirituality differently to every other aspect of human behaviour, culture and experience.

The treatment isn't different there are would be Lords who can offer experience and expertise in spiritual aspects and those who can do the same for the material aspects.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Isn't that what we expect from all the Lords?

That's what I just said

That's what we expect from all the Lords.

I just said that! This is uncanny!

Why do we need a special set to have a notionally 'spiritual' background?  Why does spirituality need to be considered differently to science, or military experience, or an understanding of healthcare, or business and industry?

It would be considered differently if not considered at all. Lords temporal are appointed for their experience in administration and knowledge experience and expertise in a secular field. What you are arguing is for exclusion for those with experience in ethical, pastoral, spiritual and philosophical fields. And that privileges an atheist viewpoint. Yet more evidence that ''fairness'' is a cover story.

[ProfessorDavey]

Expertise and experience in areas other than religion or humanism.

And what exactly is this chap's experience in areas other than religion or humanism:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rowan_Williams

Or this chap:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Sacks

[ProfessorDavey]

You do understand that the only difference between a Lord spiritual and a Lord temporal is their route of appointment. Otherwise their voting rights, remit, role etc etc etc is identical. It is not the case that Lords spiritual focus on spiritual matters, and Lords temporal focus on physical matters. Both can and do focus on both as their remit is identical.

Oh there is one other difference.

The attendance record of the Lords spiritual is shocking - average attendance over the past 15 years is just 18%, compared to 58% for the house as a whole.

So if they are somehow representing the spiritual needs of the country in the house they are doing a pretty crap job at it as they aren't even turning up most of the time.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Oh there is one other difference.

The attendance record of the Lords spiritual is shocking - average attendance over the past 15 years is just 18%, compared to 58% for the house as a whole.

So if they are somehow representing the spiritual needs of the country in the house they are doing a pretty crap job at it as they aren't even turning up most of the time.

Most Bishops are working people though. What is their attendance compared with Lords temporal who have other jobs?

[ProfessorDavey]

Most Bishops are working people though. What is their attendance compared with Lords temporal who have other jobs?

Yet another issue with automatically appointing someone to the Lords on the basis of being appointed to another position in another organisation.

[Outrider]

That's what I just said

Except that it isn't, you were calling out a need for Lords Spiritual (of a new ilk) to provide this particular viewpoint.

It would be considered differently if not considered at all.

Science isn't 'considered' at all by virtue of having specific peers to represent it, and yet when it's relevant it's introduced by various peers who feel that it's relevant.  Why can't 'spiritual' issues have the same representation, why do they need a special status?

Lords temporal are appointed for their experience in administration and knowledge experience and expertise in a secular field.

Lord Temporal are appointed for any number of reasons, but they are appointed as Lords Temporal because they aren't one of the 26 reserved positions for the Church of England.  There is nothing in the nature of being one of the Lords Temporal that precludes them from weighing in on 'spiritual' issues.

So, again... why does spirituality need something different to every other aspect of human life in the Lords?

What you are arguing is for exclusion for those with experience in ethical, pastoral, spiritual and philosophical fields.

No, it isn't.  What I'm arguing for is that they get nominated and appointed by the same process as everyone else, that we do away with special representation for one special interest group.

And that privileges an atheist viewpoint.

Eradicating religious privilege does not 'privilege' an atheist viewpoint, it balances the scales.

Yet more evidence that ''fairness'' is a cover story.

Yet more evidence of selective understanding on your part, Vlad.

O.

[ProfessorDavey]

There is nothing in the nature of being one of the Lords Temporal that precludes them from weighing in on 'spiritual' issues.

There are more (former) Archbishops in the Lords temporal than Archbishops in the Lords spiritual.

Do you really think that Lords Carey, Williams, Eames and Hope somehow restrict themselves to discussing non spiritual issues because they are in the Lords temporal - of course they don't. And nor do the countless other actively religious Lords temporal.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

There are more (former) Archbishops in the Lords temporal than Archbishops in the Lords spiritual.

Do you really think that Lords Carey, Williams, Eames and Hope somehow restrict themselves to discussing non spiritual issues because they are in the Lords temporal - of course they don't. And nor do the countless other actively religious Lords temporal.

I could live with these guys not remaining in the HoL.
Presumably someone thinks the would make good Lords temporal.

Are you talking of expelling Lords who have a religion until there are but 28?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Except that it isn't, you were calling out a need for Lords Spiritual (of a new ilk) to provide this particular viewpoint.

Science isn't 'considered' at all by virtue of having specific peers to represent it, and yet when it's relevant it's introduced by various peers who feel that it's relevant.  Why can't 'spiritual' issues have the same representation, why do they need a special status?

Lord Temporal are appointed for any number of reasons, but they are appointed as Lords Temporal because they aren't one of the 26 reserved positions for the Church of England.  There is nothing in the nature of being one of the Lords Temporal that precludes them from weighing in on 'spiritual' issues.

So, again... why does spirituality need something different to every other aspect of human life in the Lords?

No, it isn't.  What I'm arguing for is that they get nominated and appointed by the same process as everyone else, that we do away with special representation for one special interest group.

Eradicating religious privilege does not 'privilege' an atheist viewpoint, it balances the scales.

Yet more evidence of selective understanding on your part, Vlad.

O.

There are two aspects to our lives where and how we get our daily bread and the maintenance of it i....otherwise known as our material or temporal life nd our spiritual or reflective life concerned with issues which complete and distinguish our humanity.

None of that excludes various temporal groups representing the various temporal fields having guaranteed places.

[ProfessorDavey]

Presumably someone thinks the would make good Lords temporal.

What on earth do you mean good Lords temporal the only difference between the Lords temporal and Lords spiritual is their method of appointment - once appointed their role, rights to vote, remit etc etc etc is identical.

Are you talking of expelling Lords who have a religion until there are but 28?

Why 28?

And no I'm not talking about expelling Lords with a religion - there are countless religious people who I'm sure are, or would make, excellent members of the HoLs. Likewise there are countless non religious people. I think the HoL should be broadly representative of the population in a range of respects, including but not limited to religion - but I certainly don't think you can put hard quotas or targets on that. I think the HoLs should try to actively address clear under-representation amongst certain groups (I suspect be most pressing being women and BAME peers) - I don't think there is any evidence that religious people are under-represented in the HoL, and even less so christians.

What I don't agree with is automatic appointment of any peer on the basis of their appointment to a different role in a different organisation. That is not right and is similar too the challenge of hereditary peers, who similarly were automatically appointed (usually when their Dad died). That issue is further compounded by the fact that we have 26 from the very same external organisation. So just as the hereditary peers had to go (although those peers were put themselves forward to be nominated and appointed via the normal appointment process) I think the bishops must go too, as automatic appointments, but again they should be able to be nominate and appointed via the same process as anyone else if appropriate.