Does antitheism exist?

[Outrider]

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.

Can't see the bit in that which explains why spirituality needs special consideration... in the absence of that, treating sprirituality like everything else is not privileging a certain atheistic view, it's removing the undue privilege a certain religious view current enjoys.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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.

I find myself not wanting to begrudge Dawkins a seat in the house of Lords.
The question is this regarding the scientific contribution of Dawkins and his elevation to the HoL. If Dawkins had just written the books would we still be discussing him. I DONT THINK WE WOULD. This only qualification for Dawkins at the moment to get in seems to be that in terms of Life beliefs he is on a par with Jonathan Sacks and Immanuel Jacovits.Not his contribution to science where I'm thinking more of someone like Martin Poliokoff of Universìty of Nottingham.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Can't see the bit in that which explains why spirituality needs special consideration... in the absence of that, treating sprirituality like everything else is not privileging a certain atheistic view, it's removing the undue privilege a certain religious view current enjoys.

O.

Professor Davey has I believe been quite cunning. Instead of presenting Bishops or the spiritual as a class he casts them and only them as individuals guaranteed invariably and automatically selected. I can see why he has done that because,as a class Lords spiritual are on a par with Lords temporal. There are automatically hundreds and hundreds of Lords temporal.

Secondly,you have obviously not picked up on the observation of invariable selection of groups to the house of Lords and we have always known that there are invariably political appointments,invariably captains of industry,finance ,academia,entertainment, sport etc.(and frankly your claim that spirituality is on a par with some of these is frankly trivialising spirituality.

I shall leave it to you to sort out the difference between invariably and automatically.

Which brings us to the crux of the matter. The HoL are chosen because of expertise and experience. The moment you say that spirituality does not need the level of expertise in the HoL you are absolutely relegating spirituality to trivial proportions which only reflect a certain viewpoint.

[ProfessorDavey]

Which brings us to the crux of the matter. The HoL are chosen because of expertise and experience.

Indeed and spiritual expertise is just as welcomed in the Lords temporal as other kinds of expertise, so there is no need for that expertise to require the special privilege of a separate class of member all to itself.

The moment you say that spirituality does not need the level of expertise in the HoL you are absolutely relegating spirituality to trivial proportions which only reflect a certain viewpoint.

I have never said that spirituality does not need the level of expertise in the HoL - said as all sorts of other types of expertise - what it does not need is the special privilege of a separate class of member all to itself, which no other type of expertise benefits from.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Indeed and spiritual expertise is just as welcomed in the Lords temporal as other kinds of expertise, so there is no need for that expertise to require the special privilege of a separate class of member all to itself.
I have never said that spirituality does not need the level of expertise in the HoL - said as all sorts of other types of expertise - what it does not need is the special privilege of a separate class of member all to itself, which no other type of expertise benefits from.

I dont think that's true. Have you managed to sort out the difference between invariably selected and automatically selected yet?

[ProfessorDavey]

I dont think that's true.

Special pleading - me thinks.

[ProfessorDavey]

Have you managed to sort out the difference between invariably selected and automatically selected yet?

You're clearly desperate to tell us, so why don't you let us all know what you mean Vlad.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You're clearly desperate to tell us, so why don't you let us all know what you mean Vlad.

There isn't one. Bankers are therefore automatically selected to the HoL evidence.......they invariably are.

So the Lords spiritual are advantaged over Lords temporal are they?
26 Lords spiritual. 750 Lords temporal.

So if you wish to get rid of that which is automatic in the HoL do you also want to get rid of that which is invariable?

[ProfessorDavey]

There isn't one. Bankers are therefore automatically selected to the HoL evidence.......they invariably are.

Oh dear - more Vlad non-sense. The equivalent would be if the governor of the bank of england automatically became a member by virtue of being appointed to that position. That does not happen. It is in no way equivalent to the bishops.

The rules for appointment of Lords temporal are completely silent on banking, so 100% of the Lords temporal could be bankers, or 0%. The rules require 100% of the Lords spiritual to be CofE bishops.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Oh dear - more Vlad non-sense. The equivalent would be if the governor of the bank of england automatically became a member by virtue of being appointed to that position. That does not happen. It is in no way equivalent to the bishops.

The rules for appointment of Lords temporal are completely silent on banking, so 100% of the Lords temporal could be bankers, or 0%. The rules require 100% of the Lords spiritual to be CofE bishops.

The rules are silent on banking but they invariably get there and it's more than likely that the Governer of the bank of England will get there.

I know the rules refer to 100%CoE but I have said that is not a situation I want to happen.
Both your approaches are the equivalent of using a sledge hammer to crack a walnut  but we know who is wielding the hammer and their reasons for doing it.
On the other hand I don't want a future as envisaged by you or Outrider.......so for now 100% C of E bishops it is.

[ProfessorDavey]

The rules are silent on banking but they invariably get there and it's more than likely that the Governer of the bank of England will get there.

Has a serving Governor of the Bank of England ever been a member of the House of Lords. Has a Governor of the Bank of England been made a member of the HoLs automatically when they become governor. e.g. this chap:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Bailey_(banker)

Who became governor in March - where is his automatic seat in the HoLs - oh yes, there isn't one!

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Has a serving Governor of the Bank of England ever been a member of the House of Lords. Has a Governor of the Bank of England been made a member of the HoLs automatically when they become governor. e.g. this chap:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Bailey_(banker)

Who became governor in March - where is his automatic seat in the HoLs - oh yes, there isn't one!

Sledgehammers and Walnuts Dr. They could make the governer a Lord.
Don't worry he will very probably get to the House of Lords.
Bankers as a class invariably do. How do you feel about religious and life belief leaders invariably getting to the House of Lords?

[ProfessorDavey]

Sledgehammers and Walnuts Dr. They could make the governer a Lord.

Could, but they don't.

And could is very different from must which is the situation for a newly appointed CoE archbishop/bishop of Canterbury, York, London, Durham and Winchester in relation to membership of the HoLs.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Could, but they don't.

And could is very different from must which is the situation for a newly appointed CoE archbishop/bishop of Canterbury, York, London, Durham and Winchester in relation to membership of the HoLs.

Since there is nothing I seem to be able to say to convey my sympathy with you over the present status quo.
Would a plaintiff lament on my violin be  appropriate?

[ProfessorDavey]

Since there is nothing I seem to be able to say to convey my sympathy with you over the present status quo.
Would a plaintiff lament on my violin be  appropriate?

Don't worry Vlad - I recognise that it is a long game I'm playing, but I have little doubt that sooner or later the Lords spiritual will be abolished, just as the automatic seats for hereditaries were.

The question to ask yourself is - were the automatic seats for bishops to be abolished, would anyone credibly argue to bring them back. Just as no-one is arguing that automatic seats for the hereditaries should be brought back I think the answer is clearly 'no'. Which means the only real argument in their favour is preserving the status quo and the tradition. If that's all you can credibly argue, then frankly you've lost the argument even if it takes some while for someone to have the moral courage to actually get rid of them.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Don't worry Vlad - I recognise that it is a long game I'm playing, but I have little doubt that sooner or later the Lords spiritual will be abolished, just as the automatic seats for hereditaries were.

Not so fast Antitheist domination Man........As long as there are Old holy geezers in women's clothing in the Lords I, Lords spiritual Protection man will be there to stand in the way of your nefarious schemes.

The hereditaries were only ever there for themselves and as a class there are still hereditary peers.

[Owlswing]

Not so fast Antitheist domination Man........As long as there are Old holy geezers in women's clothing in the Lords I, Lords spiritual Protection man will be there to stand in the way of your nefarious schemes.

The hereditaries were only ever there for themselves and as a class there are still hereditary peers.

And the Lords Spiritual have outlived their usefulness by several orders of magnitude more than the hereditaries have!

The sooner we get a totally elected Upper House the better, with anyone who has served in the Lower House being banned from entering the Upper House.

If they haven't achieved their aims in the Lower House I see no reason to give them a second bite of the cherry.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

And the Lords Spiritual have outlived their usefulness by several orders of magnitude more than the hereditaries have!

The sooner we get a totally elected Upper House the better, with anyone who has served in the Lower House being banned from entering the Upper House.

If they haven't achieved their aims in the Lower House I see no reason to give them a second bite of the cherry.

I take it that your average denizens of the upper house would be the more senior lady or gentleman or trans person.

[Owlswing]

I take it that your average denizens of the upper house would be the more senior lady or gentleman or trans person.

For 'senior' I am reading 'elderly'. And I am reading it in a derogatory sense. If that is correct I would say 'no', not necessarily, just not having sat in the Lower House

As to their gender, male, female, straight, bi, gay. lesbian, pre- or post-op transgender is immaterial.

As is their religious affiliation incidentally, as long as they have never held a preaching or administrative or other post that was dependant upon their attachment to said religion, i e any job that you would be barred from if you were not a member of the 'right' religion.

   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

For 'senior' I am reading 'elderly'. And I am reading it in a derogatory sense. If that is correct I would say 'no', not necessarily, just not having sat in the Lower House

As to their gender, male, female, straight, bi, gay. lesbian, pre- or post-op transgender is immaterial.

As is their religious affiliation incidentally, as long as they have never held a preaching or administrative or other post that was dependant upon their attachment to said religion, i e any job that you would be barred from if you were not a member of the 'right' religion.

 

I dont think even the Prof or the Outrider would go as far as you in the banning of people who have held office. What you are suggesting of course is payback and it must be a terrible thing to be as consumed by it as all that.

Is there a  a hidden motive in your proposa?
As you told us there is secrecy surrounding your faith so the office holders of your religion would never be known.

[ProfessorDavey]

I dont think even the Prof or the Outrider would go as far as you in the banning of people who have held office. What you are suggesting of course is payback and it must be a terrible thing to be as consumed by it as all that.

Is there a  a hidden motive in your proposa?
As you told us there is secrecy surrounding your faith so the office holders of your religion would never be known.

No I don't think that religious leaders should be banned from the HoLs - my only objection is providing automatic seats for them. Provided they are appointed via the standard route for Lords temporal, fine with me.

However I do think that every member of the HoLs needs to make a commitment to a reasonable level of attendance (unless there are legitimate reasons, such as illness). 18% attendance is way below that reasonable threshold - in other forms of public life, e.g. a school governor, if you only attended 18% of meetings you'd be kicked off the governing body. The same should apply to the HoLs - if someone, over perhaps a 2 year period fails to attend at a reasonable level (say 50% threshold) then their membership of the house should be revoked.

Returning to banning leaders of religions. Well RCC priests are banned from being members of the HoLs - who has banned them - well that would be the RCC itself.

[Owlswing]

I dont think even the Prof or the Outrider would go as far as you in the banning of people who have held office. What you are suggesting of course is payback and it must be a terrible thing to be as consumed by it as all that.

Is there a  a hidden motive in your proposa?

As you told us there is secrecy surrounding your faith so the office holders of your religion would never be known.

And I specifically stated that secrecy ONLY applied to what went on in Circle - during a religious ritual! The wording, the actions etc.

I have yet to meet a Pagan who discusses politics during a ritual - their membership of a coven would, in all probability, not survive the end of the ritual!

I have no doubt that the adherents to your unpleasant (if Spud is anything to go by) religion might wish it to be otherwise, but you would be sorely disappointed.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

And I specifically stated that secrecy ONLY applied to what went on in Circle - during a religious ritual! The wording, the actions etc.

I have yet to meet a Pagan who discusses politics during a ritual - their membership of a coven would, in all probability, not survive the end of the ritual!

How would they know if it’s all a secret?

[ProfessorDavey]

And I specifically stated that secrecy ONLY applied to what went on in Circle - during a religious ritual! The wording, the actions etc.

I have yet to meet a Pagan who discusses politics during a ritual - their membership of a coven would, in all probability, not survive the end of the ritual!

I have no doubt that the adherents to your unpleasant (if Spud is anything to go by) religion might wish it to be otherwise, but you would be sorely disappointed.

Returning to holding public office - in this case being a member of the HoLs. There is a process by which members are required to declare member interests and this should include declaration that a particular member of HoLs is also a member of a pagan coven. I don't believe that requires the person to reveal what goes on during meetings of the coven, but they should declare their membership.

[Owlswing]

How would they know if it’s all a secret?

Please don't try to pretend that you are even more obtuse than you really are! They, the members of the Coven, are those who make up the Circle!

Any more frivolous comments/questions to try and take the piss out of something you know Fuck All about and you can find someone else to answer them.

I hold my beliefs as important to me as you hold yours to you, so I resent you taking the piss out of my beliefs as you do when it is done to yours!

So, when you decide to stop being a shit-stirring ass with regard to Paganism and the Craft, come back, until then, stay away!

As I have said before. I was brought up by a seriously Christain father, so I know a bloody sight more about Christainity that you know about Paganism which is two-thirds of three-fifths of fuck all!