Does antitheism exist?

[Outrider]

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.

Firstly - although, I say that like it's a new point and hasn't been raised multiple times already - the 'Lords Temporal' as a definition is just those lords who aren't Lords Spiritual.  They are defined by their relation to that special status group, they aren't a thing in their own right.  They are, therefore, not 'on a par' with the Lords Spiritual, they are all the lords that don't have that special 'Lords Spiritual' status.

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.

There is a difference between things that tend to happen either because it makes sense (nomination of eminent scientific or business individuals), or because it's a knock-on effect of other issues (nomination of retiring politicians) and inequity that's formally built in to the system.  If you want to change the make-up of the lords you can nominate different people, but that won't affect the structural bias that comes from having reserved seats for churchmen.

Personally, I think that putting 'spirituality' on even a nominally equal footing with science, industry, sport, healthcare and the military security of the country trivialises reality, but we're not justifying our own personal thinking, we're trying to establish what's an equitable representation for the nation.

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

Just did that.  I shall leave it to you to fail to even pretend to justify the special treatment of 'spirituality'.

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.

Which doesn't address why you think spirituality needs to be treated differently.  I'm not saying it doesn't need a level of expertise, I'm not relegating it in comparison to everything else.  We have scientists in the Lords without needing to have a special mechanism to ensure that sufficiently capable scientists have reserved seats.  We have industrialists and businesspeople in the Lords without needing to have a special mechanism to ensure that sufficiently capable business people have reserved seats.  We have former service members in the Lords, we have former healthcare workers in the Lords, we have former sportsmen and sportswomen in the Lords, we have teachers, authors, charity workers and politicians, and no special mechanism for any of them to ensure that they are sufficiently capable or to ensure a suitable minimum representation.

We have Muslims, Buddhists, Sikhs, Jews and who knows, possibly some atheists and Pagans for all I know.

But only Christianity seems to need special help.

Why is Christianity - or spirituality more generally, if you want to go that way, in need of special consideration.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Firstly - although, I say that like it's a new point and hasn't been raised multiple times already - the 'Lords Temporal' as a definition is just those lords who aren't Lords Spiritual.  They are defined by their relation to that special status group, they aren't a thing in their own right.  They are, therefore, not 'on a par' with the Lords Spiritual, they are all the lords that don't have that special 'Lords Spiritual' status.

First of all it isn't credible that the Lords temporal is not a thing.
There are over 700 of them.
In the light of the invariable selection of groups in the Lords temporal the argument is reduced to what the means of invariable selection are. In the light of this you seem to be saying 700 lords are somehow not a thing but the way bishops are invariably selected is of paramount importance.

There is a difference between things that tend to happen either because it makes sense (nomination of eminent scientific or business individuals), or because it's a knock-on effect of other issues (nomination of retiring politicians) and inequity that's formally built in to the system.  If you want to change the make-up of the lords you can nominate different people, but that won't affect the structural bias that comes from having reserved seats for churchmen.

And this is addressed in only having 26 lords spiritual.
The selection of other groups or their importance is nothing to do with the existence of a handful of Lords spiritual.

Personally, I think that putting 'spirituality' on even a nominally equal footing with science, industry, sport, healthcare and the military security of the country trivialises reality, but we're not justifying our own personal thinking, we're trying to establish what's an equitable representation for the nation.

I agree and your  wish for a comfortable technocracy with a bit of sport on a Saturday and no church on sundays appeals but it is particular and spiritual representation is minimal already..

Which doesn't address why you think spirituality needs to be treated differently.  I'm not saying it doesn't need a level of expertise, I'm not relegating it in comparison to everything else.  We have scientists in the Lords without needing to have a special mechanism to ensure that sufficiently capable scientists have reserved seats.  We have industrialists and businesspeople in the Lords without needing to have a special mechanism to ensure that sufficiently capable business people have reserved seats.  We have former service members in the Lords, we have former healthcare workers in the Lords, we have former sportsmen and sportswomen in the Lords, we have teachers, authors, charity workers and politicians, and no special mechanism for any of them to ensure that they are sufficiently capable or to ensure a suitable minimum representation.

We have Muslims, Buddhists, Sikhs, Jews and who knows, possibly some atheists and Pagans for all I know.

But only Christianity seems to need special help.

Why is Christianity - or spirituality more generally, if you want to go that way, in need of special consideration.

O.

I AM NOT FOR ONLY CoE representation. Our beliefs are at the root of our world view, our morality, the are part of peoples heritage, iit is peoples society,it is peoples hope in that it is the basis of charity. Religions,humanists uk etc provide important social networks and they Express important concerns.

Without representation of the spiritual aspect of humanity people
 are viewed narrowly and there are narrow expectations.

[Outrider]

First of all it isn't credible that the Lords temporal is not a thing. There are over 700 of them.

I didn't say they weren't a thing, I said the term arises solely out of the presence of the Lords Spiritual.  If you didn't have the concept of special seats for the Lords Spiritual you wouldn't have Lords Temporal, you'd just have Lords.

In the light of the invariable selection of groups in the Lords temporal the argument is reduced to what the means of invariable selection are. In the light of this you seem to be saying 700 lords are somehow not a thing but the way bishops are invariably selected is of paramount importance.And this is addressed in only having 26 lords spiritual.

No, I'm saying that if you have two different problems you need solutions for each.  If you think there is an issue with, say, too many former politicians being elected to the Lords to bolster the support for the standing government (I'd not disagree with you) then by all means suggest a solution to it.  It's unlikely that solution will also resolve the issue with special treatment for religion which comes from the existence of the Lords Spiritual.  The 'invariable' selection you talk about is culture, practice and habit, and nothing is stopping anyone changing that; the Lords Spiritual are a requirement of the Lords, and needs a change in the rules to alter it.

The selection of other groups or their importance is nothing to do with the existence of a handful of Lords spiritual.

Excellent - then you're going to stop talking about the invariable demographics of the other lords as a smokescreen to hide your lack of any justification for the Lords Spiritual?

I agree and your  wish for a comfortable technocracy with a bit of sport on a Saturday and no church on sundays appeals but it is particular and spiritual representation is minimal already.

Maybe that's because 'spirituality' is of minimal importance to the British people?  Maybe it's because its importance isn't relevant in many instances to the law of the land, and so whilst it might be important it doesn't need representation in the House of Lords?  Or maybe with a range of spiritual people already in the Lords, in addition to the special seats for the Church of England, spirituality is actually already well-represented and not, in fact, 'minimal' at all.

I AM NOT FOR ONLY CoE representation. Our beliefs are at the root of our world view, our morality, the are part of peoples heritage, iit is peoples society,it is peoples hope in that it is the basis of charity. Religions,humanists uk etc provide important social networks and they Express important concerns.

Is it more important, though, than our healthcare system, our military, science, industry, sport, entertainment - is it sufficiently more important as to warrant reserved seats and special treatment?

Without representation of the spiritual aspect of humanity people  are viewed narrowly and there are narrow expectations.

And, again, no-one is suggesting that people with 'spiritual' beliefs be evicted wholesale from the Upper Chamber - but why do they need to have specially reserved seats, why do they need a different process to ensure that, in addition to the background representation of spiritual beliefs that are already present from the Lords as a group, there are additional special seats based purely on 'spirituality' when no other measure of human existence needs that sort of mechanism?

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

But if invariability is removed from the groups you mention how are you going to ensure ANY kind of balance?
Given invariable selection then.How it is done is no big deal as far as I can see.

Which leaves the importance of spirituality.
At the moment as far as the House of Lords is concerned the figure is about 3.3 % ofthe house are those specifically representing spirituality.
The significance of human spirituality and the sterility of the homonculus produced by a wholly secular vision has been pointed out to you.
The importance of spirituality therefore merits this small level at least. To bleat about not being able to make it even smaller is preposterous.

[Outrider]

But if invariability is removed from the groups you mention how are you going to ensure ANY kind of balance?

How does structurally privileging one group currently achieve any kind of balance?

Given invariable selection then.  How it is done is no big deal as far as I can see.

If you have issue with the selection process that 'invariably' leads to one particular outcome, address the selection process, but that doesn't affect the structurally privileged current position of the Lords Spiritual.

Which leaves the importance of spirituality. At the moment as far as the House of Lords is concerned the figure is about 3.3 % ofthe house are those specifically representing spirituality.

Vs 0% specifically representing any other facet of human existence.

The significance of human spirituality and the sterility of the homonculus produced by a wholly secular vision has been pointed out to you.

Where? You suggested that "beliefs are at the root of our world view, our morality, the are part of peoples heritage, iit is peoples society,it is peoples hope in that it is the basis of charity."  All of those beliefs are espoused by each and every individual in the Lords, apparently, because they are 'the root of our world view'.  Why does it need a special squad to represent it?  There are non-scientists in the Lords, people without a healthcare background, even Tory MPs without a sense of decency, but there isn't a single person in there who doesn't have 'a world view'.

The importance of spirituality therefore merits this small level at least.

No; you've suggested that it might be relevant, and for the sake of this argument I'll grant that there is a place for it.  What I don't see established here is justification for treating as something in more need of inclusion than anything else.

To bleat about not being able to make it even smaller is preposterous.

To note that it's special privilege for one facet of human existence, especially given that the current implementation specifically favours one particular small group, is hardly preposterous.  I acknowledge that you'd happily expand it beyond the CofE, but I don't see any justification for keeping it at all.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

How does structurally privileging one group currently achieve any kind of balance?

If you have issue with the selection process that 'invariably' leads to one particular outcome, address the selection process, but that doesn't affect the structurally privileged current position of the Lords Spiritual.

Vs 0% specifically representing any other facet of human existence.

Where? You suggested that "beliefs are at the root of our world view, our morality, the are part of peoples heritage, iit is peoples society,it is peoples hope in that it is the basis of charity."  All of those beliefs are espoused by each and every individual in the Lords, apparently, because they are 'the root of our world view'.  Why does it need a special squad to represent it?  There are non-scientists in the Lords, people without a healthcare background, even Tory MPs without a sense of decency, but there isn't a single person in there who doesn't have 'a world view'.

No; you've suggested that it might be relevant, and for the sake of this argument I'll grant that there is a place for it.  What I don't see established here is justification for treating as something in more need of inclusion than anything else.

To note that it's special privilege for one facet of human existence, especially given that the current implementation specifically favours one particular small group, is hardly preposterous.  I acknowledge that you'd happily expand it beyond the CofE, but I don't see any justification for keeping it at all.

O.

The point of the Lords is expertise and experience and to that we can add leadership. That is why dismissing the need for it as far as spirituality is concerned trivialises it and exposes an anti spiritual bias.
Since there is no effective difference between invariable and automatic selection suggesting that spirituality doesn't need expertise is tantamount to saying it is less important than,well,just about everything.

[ProfessorDavey]

The point of the Lords is expertise and experience and to that we can add leadership. That is why dismissing the need for it as far as spirituality is concerned trivialises it and exposes an anti spiritual bias.

As far as I'm aware no-one is dismissing or trivialising religions, merely pointing out that religious people (including religious people) can and are appointed to the Lords temporal in just the same manner as individuals with different expertise. That being the case there is no justification for a special category for religious leaders, with automatic appointment.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

As far as I'm aware no-one is dismissing or trivialising religions, merely pointing out that religious people (including religious people) can and are appointed to the Lords temporal in just the same manner as individuals with different expertise. That being the case there is no justification for a special category for religious leaders, with automatic appointment.

So do you have anything against the invariable selection of spiritual leaders?

[Outrider]

The point of the Lords is expertise and experience and to that we can add leadership. That is why dismissing the need for it as far as spirituality is concerned trivialises it and exposes an anti spiritual bias.

And if anyone was dismissing it you'd have a point, but no-one is.

Since there is no effective difference between invariable and automatic selection suggesting that spirituality doesn't need expertise is tantamount to saying it is less important than,well,just about everything.

And no-one is saying that it doesn't need expertise, and no-one is saying that there is no difference between invariable and automatic selection - quite the opposite, I'm pointing out that they are different things which pose different issues and require different solutions.

So, again, given that any area of human experience requires some degree of expertise in order to adequately represent it in the Upper Chamber, and given that there are other issues with the selection of the Lords that also require invervention, and given that for the purposes of this discussion we'll presume that spirituality actually means something and is a valid area for the Lords to include in its deliberations... why does it need a special status that other areas of human experience do not?  Why do we need a minimum number of reserved seats to ensure adequate involvement for a range of spiritual takes when we don't need to do the same for, say, the range of subjects and opinions within science, or the arts, or sport?

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

And if anyone was dismissing it you'd have a point, but no-one is.

And no-one is saying that it doesn't need expertise, and no-one is saying that there is no difference between invariable and automatic selection - quite the opposite, I'm pointing out that they are different things which pose different issues and require different solutions.

So, again, given that any area of human experience requires some degree of expertise in order to adequately represent it in the Upper Chamber, and given that there are other issues with the selection of the Lords that also require invervention, and given that for the purposes of this discussion we'll presume that spirituality actually means something and is a valid area for the Lords to include in its deliberations... why does it need a special status that other areas of human experience do not?  Why do we need a minimum number of reserved seats to ensure adequate involvement for a range of spiritual takes when we don't need to do the same for, say, the range of subjects and opinions within science, or the arts, or sport?

O.

Again, whether there are adequate numbers of science Lords etc, is a separate issue from the Lords spiritual. Perhaps there is a minimal number of scientists that need to be invariably selected.

Where the minimal number is allowed to be zero there is no invariable selection and spirituality will be negatively privileged aka discriminated against.

[Outrider]

Again, whether there are adequate numbers of science Lords etc, is a separate issue from the Lords spiritual. Perhaps there is a minimal number of scientists that need to be invariably selected.

Where the minimal number is allowed to be zero there is no invariable selection and spirituality will be negatively privileged aka discriminated against.

The ONLY area where there is not currently a minimal number allowed to be zero is the area of Christianity, in the form of the Lords Spiritual.  Practically there might also be other areas that in realistic terms won't have zero representation - politics, for instance - but theoretically it could be.

Christianity currently cannot be unrepresented in the Upper Chamber - your proposal is to expand this be 'spiritual' representatives, which still doesn't address the question of why we'd allow science to possibly not be represented, why we'd allow healthcare to be unrepresented, why we'd allow sport, the arts and the military to be unrepresented, but you feel we have to have safeguards in place to ensure that spirituality has spokespeople: why is spirituality important in a way that other areas of human endeavour are not.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

The ONLY area where there is not currently a minimal number allowed to be zero is the area of Christianity, in the form of the Lords Spiritual.  Practically there might also be other areas that in realistic terms won't have zero representation - politics, for instance - but theoretically it could be.

Christianity currently cannot be unrepresented in the Upper Chamber - your proposal is to expand this be 'spiritual' representatives, which still doesn't address the question of why we'd allow science to possibly not be represented, why we'd allow healthcare to be unrepresented, why we'd allow sport, the arts and the military to be unrepresented, but you feel we have to have safeguards in place to ensure that spirituality has spokespeople: why is spirituality important in a way that other areas of human endeavour are not.

O.

The CoE does enjoy a minimum number of invariably selected places. Perhaps the answer is for others so to have.
Inherited Lords have a minimum number of invariably selected members too 58 I believe. So it would be perfectly possible to have a minimum number for anything. The situation with regards to numbers has nothing to do with Lords Spiritual.

Until a minimum number of invariably selected Lords Life Belief are selected we need a bulwark against a secularism which desires a religion free public forum and if that means the CoE as placeholder then so be it.

[Outrider]

The CoE does enjoy a minimum number of invariably selected places. Perhaps the answer is for others so to have.

That would result in spirituality being treated equally with some other aspects of life, which would be an improvement, but there's the practical issue of which elements do you include and which do you exclude.  How far down into special insterests do you go before you stop reserving seats for particular areas?  Surely the better method is to have a generally competent group of lords who are not selected for any particular  concern, and then have them call experts for advice on a particular topic if and when it's required?

Inherited Lords have a minimum number of invariably selected members too 58 I believe.

Currently, there are a number of former life peers who are, as I understand it, sitting out their terms but I believe that they are not being replaced from the existing titled nobility?  If I'm wrong on that, it's another area which I'd suggest should be eliminated.

So it would be perfectly possible to have a minimum number for anything.

Possibly, but how do you avoid bloating the numbers and getting to the point where you have the gambling industry fighting for three reserved seats because they aren't covered (in their opinion) by the existing combination of sport, entertainment and/or industry?

The situation with regards to numbers has nothing to do with Lords Spiritual.

Then why do you keep bringing up how many Lords Temporal there are?

Until a minimum number of invariably selected Lords Life Belief are selected we need a bulwark against a secularism which desires a religion free public forum and if that means the CoE as placeholder then so be it.

And there's the straw-man.  Neither secularism, nor my position, are arguing for a 'life belief'- or religion-free upper house; I am arguing for an Upper House in which 'life belief' - or, currently, the CofE - is not given preferential treatment.

Currently the CofE is given special treatment.  Your proposals are that either/both of opening the membership of that special interest group to a wider group of 'spiritual' outlooks, and/or creating further special interest groups.  Both of those still result in a two-tier upper house where some areas of concern are privileged over others - you've still not explained why we need to structurally stratify the areas of concern in the Lords, and why we can't have a broad base of generally competent Lords to deal with whatever specific combination of concerns come into the house.

O.

[Nearly Sane]

Currently, there are a number of former life peers who are, as I understand it, sitting out their terms but I believe that they are not being replaced from the existing titled nobility?  If I'm wrong on that, it's another area which I'd suggest should be eliminated.


O.

Just to point out that I think you mean hereditary peers here, rather than life peers, and as I covered earlier, see link below, there are a total of 92 hereditary peers. 90 places are subject to election from the other hereditary peers, and 2 are because there because they hold hereditary offices of state.

http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=17483.msg800627#msg800627

[ProfessorDavey]

Just to point out that I think you mean hereditary peers here, rather than life peers, and as I covered earlier, see link below, there are a total of 92 hereditary peers. 90 places are subject to election from the other hereditary peers, and 2 are because there because they hold hereditary offices of state.

http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=17483.msg800627#msg800627

I think the terminology is confusing - I don't think there are any hereditary peers in the previously accepted definition - in other words that membership of the lords passes from parent to child when the title passes to the next generation.

So the remaining hereditaries are effectively life peers - their membership is relinquished when they die or retire, it isn't passed onto the next generation.

[Nearly Sane]

I think the terminology is confusing - I don't think there are any hereditary peers in the previously accepted definition - in other words that membership of the lords passes from parent to child when the title passes to the next generation.

So the remaining hereditaries are effectively life peers - their membership is relinquished when they die or retire, it isn't passed onto the next generation.

No, I don't think that makes sense since most of the peers are life peers. So you need something that splits them off. So these are the elected hereditary peers.

[ProfessorDavey]

No, I don't think that makes sense since most of the peers are life peers. So you need something that splits them off. So these are the elected hereditary peers.

I agree that there should be a different way of describing them, but to use the same term (hereditary) as used to be used when the situation is entirely different and the seats are not inherited is the best term in my opinion.

[Nearly Sane]

I agree that there should be a different way of describing them, but to use the same term (hereditary) as used to be used when the situation is entirely different and the seats are not inherited is the best term in my opinion.

Is there a 'not' missing there? The point is that they are hereditary peers, as are the ones who don't get elected. They aren't life peers. So you either refer to them as hereditary elected, elected hereditary. To call them life peers is simply wrong

[ProfessorDavey]

Is there a 'not' missing there? The point is that they are hereditary peers, as are the ones who don't get elected. They aren't life peers. So you either refer to them as hereditary elected, elected hereditary. To call them life peers is simply wrong

But their membership of the house of lords is not 'hereditary' (as used to be the case) - membership is not inherited - hence why I think a better title is needed.

They are, in effect, life peers (their membership ends on death or resignation) but selected from a pool of titled individuals via an electoral process.

I think the confusion is about what 'hereditary' refers to - in other words whether their title is inherited or their membership of the HoLs. It used to be both, but now only the former is inherited.

[Nearly Sane]

But their membership of the house of lords is not 'hereditary' (as used to be the case) - membership is not inherited - hence why I think a better title is needed.

They are, in effect, life peers (their membership ends on death or resignation) but selected from a pool of titled individuals via an electoral process.

I think the confusion is about what 'hereditary' refers to - in other words whether their title is inherited or their membership of the HoLs. It used to be both, but now only the former is inherited.

Their peerages are hereditary. They are not therefore life peers. Their membership of the HoL always ended with death or resignation so your point there is specious.

[ProfessorDavey]

Their peerages are hereditary. They are not therefore life peers. Their membership of the HoL always ended with death or resignation so your point there is specious.

But the key thing is that their membership of the HoLs is no longer hereditary as it used to be.

And also I don't think it is correct that their 'membership of the HoL always ended with death or resignation' - I don't think that under the previous rules a hereditary peer could simply resign from the HofL (unless they revoked their title).

The current system does allow the individual to resign their membership of the HoLs but still retain their title.

[ProfessorDavey]

Take another group who seem to be invariably selected. Show business. Is Loyd Webber forbidden from composing ...is Michael Cashman forbidden from acting?

Come back to me when you've found a category of members of the HoLs reserved solely for creatives, and where membership is automatically granted on the basis of appointment to a different role in an completely separate organisation - for example Director of the Royal Shakespeare company or Director of the Royal Ballet of principal conductor of the London Symphony Orchestra.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Come back to me when you've found a category of members of the HoLs reserved solely for creatives, and where membership is automatically granted on the basis of appointment to a different role in an completely separate organisation - for example Director of the Royal Shakespeare company or Director of the Royal Ballet of principal conductor of the London Symphony Orchestra.

Show business I would imagine is one of those areas which has members invariably selected to the HoL which has a harder time being a convincing source of Lords. However there they are,invariably.
How many show biz Lords are invariably elected is not dependent on the presence of the Lords spiritual and is a separate issue.

[ProfessorDavey]

Show business I would imagine is one of those areas which has members invariably selected to the HoL which has a harder time being a convincing source of Lords. However there they are,invariably.
How many show biz Lords are invariably elected is not dependent on the presence of the Lords spiritual and is a separate issue.

So you have confirmed that no showbiz people are automatically appointed to the Lords, in contract to CofE bishops, 26 of whom are automatically appointed to the Lords.

Thanks for further confirming the special privilege for the bishops.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

So you have confirmed that no showbiz people are automatically appointed to the Lords, in contract to CofE bishops, 26 of whom are automatically appointed to the Lords.

Thanks for further confirming the special privilege for the bishops.

of course showbiz people invariably reach the HoL when did that last not happen?

Are you in agreement with spiritual leaders being invariably selected for the House of Lords?