Does antitheism exist?

[ProfessorDavey]

Nope - there are by elections

https://www.parliament.uk/mps-lords-and-offices/offices/lords/house-of-lords-external-communications/by-elections/


And the 2 hereditary offices continue to be hereditary

Sorry - removed my post because you are correct. There is a different process (I'd scrap that too, and there have been attempts in the Lords to do just that), however the main point remains that no hereditary peer is automatically appointed to the HoL by virtue of their title or position. The only members automatically appointed are the bishops.

[Nearly Sane]

Sorry - removed my post because you are correct. There is a different process (I'd scrap that too, and there have been attempts in the Lords to do just that), however the main point remains that no hereditary peer is automatically appointed to the HoL by virtue of their title or position. The only members automatically appointed are the bishops.

And again nope, the hereditary offices the Earl Marshal, and the Lord Great Chamberlain ( which has triggered me to hum Gilbert and Sullivan) are automatically appointed. I would scrap the lot.

[ProfessorDavey]

And again nope, the hereditary offices the Earl Marshal, and the Lord Great Chamberlain ( which has triggered me to hum Gilbert and Sullivan) are automatically appointed. I would scrap the lot.

Blimey NS - you are on fire today with your constitutional knowledge. Again you are right and again I'd abolish.

Reading from wikipedia, not sure if these are actually working members of the HoL (i.e. able to sit, make speeches, vote etc) - it appears they may only be there for ceremonial purposes:

'The House of Lords Act 1999 removed the automatic right of hereditary peers to sit in the House of Lords, but the Act provided that the persons holding the office of Earl Marshal and, if a peer, the Lord Great Chamberlain continue for the time being to have seats so as to carry out their ceremonial functions in the House of Lords.'

[Nearly Sane]

Blimey NS - you are on fire today with your constitutional knowledge. Again you are right and again I'd abolish.

Reading from wikipedia, not sure if these are actually working members of the HoL (i.e. able to sit, make speeches, vote etc) - it appears they may only be there for ceremonial purposes:

'The House of Lords Act 1999 removed the automatic right of hereditary peers to sit in the House of Lords, but the Act provided that the persons holding the office of Earl Marshal and, if a peer, the Lord Great Chamberlain continue for the time being to have seats so as to carry out their ceremonial functions in the House of Lords.'

I've been involved in a couple of campaigns to abolish the HoL and the rather bizarre flummery of the elections and the titles were part of the last campaign. I think that from memory in theory the 2 offices can participate and a couple of speeches have been made on internal matters but as a practice they don't vote. But I haven't followed it in detail recently.

[ProfessorDavey]

I've been involved in a couple of campaigns to abolish the HoL and the rather bizarre flummery of the elections and the titles were part of the last campaign. I think that from memory in theory the 2 offices can participate and a couple of speeches have been made on internal matters but as a practice they don't vote. But I haven't followed it in detail recently.

And there was me thinking this was simply advanced pub-quiz knowledge

[Nearly Sane]

And there was me thinking this was simply advanced pub-quiz knowledge

It's my turn to write the questions for our Covid 19 quiz next Wednesday - I doubt others would like a round on the HoL at this detail.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I've been involved in a couple of campaigns to abolish the HoL and the rather bizarre flummery of the elections and the titles were part of the last campaign. I think that from memory in theory the 2 offices can participate and a couple of speeches have been made on internal matters but as a practice they don't vote. But I haven't followed it in detail recently.

In your campaigning would you say it was against the House of Lords as a whole or did you just see the non Lords Spiritual as collateral?

[Nearly Sane]

In your campaigning would you say it was against the House of Lords as a whole or did you just see the non Lords Spiritual as collateral?

The HoL as a whole. The discrimination with the CoE lot is a small part of a much larger argument.

[ProfessorDavey]

That getting rid of lords spiritual reflects a view that spirituality can adequately represented by people with little experience or expertise ...

Exam question for Vlad:

Justify this statement: Justin Welby has more experience and expertise to reflect on matters of spirituality than Rowan Williams and George Carey.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Exam question for Vlad:

Justify this statement: Justin Welby has more experience and expertise to reflect on matters of spirituality than Rowan Williams and George Carey.

Williams and Carey are but two.
I notice Wikipedia has former archbishops as invariably selected for HoL after retirement from post.
This is what I said earlier.
There are automatically appointments of Lords temporal, hereditary peers as a class are automatically appointed as are political  preferments. There are also other classes other than ex archbishops who would go under the title of invariably selected for the HoL. Captains of Industry,Civil servants, the speaker, retired military and the like.

The case of the speaker underlines how fragile any assurance of invariable representation is and Outrider proposes some sort of competition for places. I think we can all guess HIS rules for that.

I still maintain removal of the Lords spiritual to be an antitheist ruse to privilege a certain view of humanity and ensure we all stick with it.

[ProfessorDavey]

Williams and Carey are but two.
I notice Wikipedia has former archbishops as invariably selected for HoL after retirement from post.
This is what I said earlier.
There are automatically appointments of Lords temporal, hereditary peers as a class are automatically appointed as are political  preferments. There are also other classes other than ex archbishops who would go under the title of invariably selected for the HoL. Captains of Industry,Civil servants, the speaker, retired military and the like.

The case of the speaker underlines how fragile any assurance of invariable representation is and Outrider proposes some sort of competition for places. I think we can all guess HIS rules for that.

I still maintain removal of the Lords spiritual to be an antitheist ruse to privilege a certain view of humanity and ensure we all stick with it.

Oh dear - I'm afraid that is an exam fail with virtually zero marks as you completely failed to answer the question.

Let's give you another go - the exam question is:

Justify this statement: Justin Welby has more experience and expertise to reflect on matters of spirituality than Rowan Williams and George Carey.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Exam question for Professor Davy.

You have the casting vote on who gets into the temporal Lords Welby or Dawkins. Show your Wawkins, sorry workings.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Oh dear - I'm afraid that is an exam fail with virtually zero marks as you completely failed to answer the question.

Let's give you another go - the exam question is:

Justify this statement: Justin Welby has more experience and expertise to reflect on matters of spirituality than Rowan Williams and George Carey.

Clearly William's and Carey.

[ProfessorDavey]

Clearly William's and Carey.

To clarify - you are saying that clearly Williams and Carey have greater experience and expertise to reflect on matters of spirituality than Welby?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

To clarify - you are saying that clearly Williams and Carey have greater experience and expertise to reflect on matters of spirituality than Welby?

Clearly.......How are you getting on with your exam question?

[ProfessorDavey]

Clearly.......How are you getting on with your exam question?

Thank you

So you are clear that Carey and Williams (both Lords temporal) are better placed than Welby (Lords spiritual) to reflect on matters of spirituality due to their greater experience and expertise.

Which completely destroys your argument that you need Lords spiritual as spiritual matters cannot be adequately addressed by Lords temporal.

[ProfessorDavey]

Exam question for Professor Davy.

You have the casting vote on who gets into the temporal Lords Welby or Dawkins. Show your Wawkins, sorry workings.

I'd need to see the details of their nominations of course.

But given that active members of the CofE are over-represented in the Lords and CofE bishops massively over-represented, while I think that non religious people and individuals with a background in science are under-represented then for those reasons I'd likely support Dawkins.

Another potential point in Dawkin's favour is that he is effectively retired and therefore would more credibly be able to claim to give sufficient time commitment to the role. I think it is tricky for Welby to commit sufficiently to the role as he also has a full time and high pressure leadership role as CofE.

However, neither does much to address other demographic under-representation issues, being male, white and fairly old. So I think my preference may be for neither, rather I'd support someone else.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Thank you

So you are clear that Carey and Williams (both Lords temporal) are better placed than Welby (Lords spiritual) to reflect on matters of spirituality due to their greater experience and expertise.

Which completely destroys your argument that you need Lords spiritual as spiritual matters cannot be adequately addressed by Lords temporal.

Again. They are but two.
And the practice of invariably selecting retired archbishops in the fashion that others are invariably selected to the Lords temporal.
Would this adequately ensure the level of representation of spirituality,even the paltry level of today, unlikely. And your thesis only works if the practice of invariable selection works.

There is no such invariability afforded either to other beliefs.

It can only end up privileging antitheists and materialist views of humanity

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I'd need to see the details of their nominations of course.

But given that active members of the CofE are over-represented in the Lords and CofE bishops massively over-represented, while I think that non religious people and individuals with a background in science are under-represented then for those reasons I'd likely support Dawkins.

Another potential point in Dawkin's favour is that he is effectively retired and therefore would more credibly be able to claim to give sufficient time commitment to the role. I think it is tricky for Welby to commit sufficiently to the role as he also has a full time and high pressure leadership role as CofE.

However, neither does much to address other demographic under-representation issues, being male, white and fairly old. So I think my preference may be for neither, rather I'd support someone else.

Dawkins though has gone out of his way to ridicule and other people. He is a divisive figure.

He does not have the administrative,managerial or pastoral experience on an international level in multiple industries.

However,Under my scheme he would be considered as a leader of a life beliefs grouping. And eminently suited for a reformed Lords spiritual.

Who would you support.

[Owlswing]

Again. They are but two.
And the practice of invariably selecting retired archbishops in the fashion that others are invariably selected to the Lords temporal.

Would this adequately ensure the level of representation of spirituality,even the paltry level of today, unlikely. And your thesis only works if the practice of invariable selection works.

There is no such invariability afforded either to other beliefs.

It can only end up privileging antitheists and materialist views of humanity

Would it not be better to throw all those who are seated because they represent a religious viewpoint be thrown out until they can present proof positive that the deity/deities they represent actually exist in order that their followers deserve unelected representation?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Would it not be better to throw all those who are seated because they represent a religious viewpoint be thrown out until they can present proof positive that the deity/deities they represent actually exist in order that their followers deserve unelected representation?

That would favour naturalism, scientism and materialistic views none of which can be demonstrated in the fashion you are requiring.

We have an elected commons. We could have some elected Lords but I wouldn't want more than a few elected.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Maybe it's time we had one of these
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wizard_of_New_Zealand

[Owlswing]

That would favour naturalism, scientism and materialistic views none of which can be demonstrated in the fashion you are requiring.

We have an elected commons. We could have some elected Lords but I wouldn't want more than a few elected.

And you think that you represent a majority?

[ProfessorDavey]

Dawkins though has gone out of his way to ridicule and other people.

Matter of opinion, but that is why I'd need to see their nomination details.

He is a divisive figure.

So is Welby - see his views and actions on homosexuality (e.g. banning Mohan Sharma from attending the Lambeth Conference). Welby's views on the matter are certainly not aligned with mainstream public opinion.

But being divisive and having views out of step with the public should not preclude consideration for the Lords - and that goes for both Welby and Dawkins.

He does not have the administrative,managerial or pastoral experience on an international level in multiple industries.

Welby doesn't have an international scientific profile based on a career of many decades (not just the 11 years Welby had in a single industry - oil). Nor does he have the profile in terms of public engagement that Dawkins has. So you'd have to take your pick of attributes that are considered most important in that appointment. You'd be comparing apples and pears.

As I've pointed out perhaps neither is ideal and there may be far better candidates. But although both are pretty rubbish in this regard (being elderly white men) in terms of addressing under-representation in the Lords Dawkins adds something (being both a scientist and non religious), Welby adds nothing simply adding to an already massively over-represented group (active members of the CofE).

[ProfessorDavey]

However,Under my scheme he would be considered as a leader of a life beliefs grouping. And eminently suited for a reformed Lords spiritual.

But we are not talking about your scheme are we - simply who is a more credible candidate for appointment as a Lords temporal.

But if you want to reform the Lords spiritual surely the last thing you'd want to do is simply replace a leading CofE bishop with err a leading CofE bishop. Surely in the interests of reform and diversity you wouldn't be looking at Welby - nope you'd want a leading figure from another christian denomination, or from another religion or from another 'world-view' (as you like to call them altogether). So in the spirit of your reform weirdly Dawkins (as a leading proponent of a non religious world view) should be preferable to you compared to Welby as the latter reflects more of the same rather than reform.