Evil

[Walt Zingmatilder]

But only the Bishops are automatically given a place in the HoLs when they are appointed (not elected) to a leadership position in a completely different organisations. All other members of the HoLs have to go through an appointment process specifically for the HoLs. Are you unable (or unwilling to see the difference).

Regardless of how opposed you are to unelected members of the HoLs, the Bishops sit even further detached from a fair and representative appointment process.

No the Bishops sit in an unreformed part of the house of Lords as do the Lords temporal. Now we can reform the House of Lords in a number of ways. You think the aspiritual homonculus of white middle english agnosticism is what must be served by the House of Lords I believe it is the spirituality of real people from a multicultural background.

[Outrider]

No the Bishops sit in an unreformed part of the house of Lords as do the Lords temporal. Now we can reform the House of Lords in a number of ways. You think the aspiritual homonculus of white middle english agnosticism is what must be served by the House of Lords I believe it is the spirituality of real people from a multicultural background.

No ad hominems to see here, people, move along...

'Spirituality of real people...'? Are people who don't see any validity in the notion of spirituality somehow not real, then?

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No ad hominems to see here, people, move along...

'Spirituality of real people...'? Are people who don't see any validity in the notion of spirituality somehow not real, then?

O.

No I am on record on this forum as wanting a place in the house of Lords for members of the Humanist societies and Secular societies of equal standing with any anglican Lord by spirituality I mean those Lords who are there representing core views that are not represented by temporal,political and material issues.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

'Spirituality of real people...'? Are people who don't see any validity in the notion of spirituality somehow not real, then?

O.

Possibly Vlad meant real people as opposed to white, middle english, privileged people in the House of Lords, many of whom get appointed for their services to the PM and his party and could therefore be from a similar background. class and character of people who seek political favour. If I am reading it correctly Vlad feels the current HofL is not representative of real people.

He also seems to think the spirituality of real people (ie those not from the privileged background of may of those in the HofL) is different from the spirituality of those in the HofL.

Also, don't forget, some atheists (e.g Susan Doris) on here argue that you can be spiritual without being religious. So real people are not restricted to theists.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Possibly Vlad meant real people as opposed to white, middle english, privileged people in the House of Lords, many of whom get appointed for their services to the PM and his party and could therefore be from a similar background. class and character of people who seek political favour. If I am reading it correctly Vlad feels the current HofL is not representative of real people.

He also seems to think the spirituality of real people (ie those not from the privileged background of may of those in the HofL) is different from the spirituality of those in the HofL.

Also, don't forget, some atheists (e.g Susan Doris) on here argue that you can be spiritual without being religious. So real people are not restricted to theists.

I apologise for my lack of clarity. I am talking about two models of humanity represented by people arguing here. I propose a model based on real 21st century people where spirituality and non spirituality are formally represented.

The other model of humanity is the aspiritual homonculus as held by outrider. Where any representation of spirituality can be disregarded. Here the House of Lords would stand as an institution to remind people that they are what white british middle class athiests conceive them to be. That is itself a belief position and therefore would qualify for a seat.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

I apologise for my lack of clarity. I am talking about two models of humanity represented by people arguing here. I propose a model based on real 21st century people where spirituality and non spirituality are formally represented.

The other model of humanity is the aspiritual homonculus as held by outrider. Where any representation of spirituality can be disregarded. Here the House of Lords would stand as an institution to remind people that they are what white british middle class athiests conceive them to be. That is itself a belief position and therefore would qualify for a seat.

Outrider might consider himself a non-spiritual person and may or may not wish that those who form our government hold the same non-spiritual outlook. But he appears to be aware that not everyone holds that view and that the best he can hope for is to seek to persuade others to his way of thinking. Seems understandable that people - you or Outrider - want an institution of the State that reflects your respective values.
 

 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Outrider might consider himself a non-spiritual person and may or may not wish that those who form our government hold the same non-spiritual outlook. But he appears to be aware that not everyone holds that view and that the best he can hope for is to seek to persuade others to his way of thinking. Seems understandable that people - you or Outrider - want an institution of the State that reflects your respective values.

But whereas I want a member to represent his view
He wants to exclude my view to be represented.
He also wants to gaslight me into accepting that somehow I am
Being as fully represented as I can be.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

But whereas I want a member to represent his view
He wants to exclude my view to be represented.
He also wants to gaslight me into accepting that somehow I am
Being as fully represented as I can be.

My understanding of what Outrider said is not what you have written above.

Just to check - what do you mean when you say you want your view represented? I suggested that a view is represented if someone with a similar view or cultural background or outlook is elected as an MP through the normal democratic process, based on the candidate being persuasive enough to get elected. If your view is shared by an election candidate and they can persuade voters to elect them, your view will presumably be represented? Secularism does not prevent this election.

Per reply #49 from Outrider: "secularism doesn't involve banning religions, it doesn't proscribe anyone's individual beliefs," - so that seems as if he does not want to exclude beliefs or views.

Elections would work for the Commons but The HofL is not an elected body so this would not apply - how do you want to ensure that your view is represented in the HofL? And which of Outrider's posts did you interpret as Outrider saying he wants to prevent your view being represented? Because I am not seeing it.

If you mean his post where he says that currently the Church of England automatically has representation in the HofL, unlike any other religion, is the point that you are making that you don't feel represented by the Archbishops of Canterbury and York, and the Bishops of London, Durham and Winchester etc? Fair enough, but their automatic seats give their belief a privilege that other beliefs (including your belief) do not have. They are there to represent an institution - the Church of England.

If you can persuade the Church to adopt your particular belief or view or outlook then you would feel represented by the Church of England and its Bishops in the HofL. What is your reform plan that will get your views or the views of others as fully represented as they can be?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

My understanding of what Outrider said is not what you have written above.

It is my understanding that he would like there to be no Lords spiritual in the house of Lords, He states that reality is aspiritual. That is a belief which would be enshrined in a house of Lords in which there would be no Lords spiritual. As an institution it would stand as a constant denial of my beliefs in favour of his. 

Just to check - what do you mean when you say you want your view represented?

I want an institution which represents beliefs,

I suggested that a view is represented if someone with a similar view or cultural background or outlook is elected as an MP through the normal democratic process, based on the candidate being persuasive enough to get elected.

There are no MP's in the HOL and no one is elected to the house of Lords

If your view is shared by an election candidate and they can persuade voters to elect them, your view will presumably be represented? Secularism does not prevent this election.

Again we are talking about the house of Lords.

Per reply #49 from Outrider: "secularism doesn't involve banning religions, it doesn't proscribe anyone's individual beliefs," - so that seems as if he does not want to exclude beliefs or views.

A secularism that wants a believer to keep their faith private and penalises public display is involved in the banning of religion. It also makes the impossible,i.e.''Allowing someones personal, not publicly expressed views, sound like generosity on the part of secularists.

Elections would work for the Commons but The HofL is not an elected body so this would not apply - how do you want to ensure that your view is represented in the HofL?

I have not commented on the house of Commons my view being represented would involve the Lords spiritual being open to more beliefs, religious, humanistic, atheistic and secular dependent on census information perhaps

And which of Outrider's posts did you interpret as Outrider saying he wants to prevent your view being represented? Because I am not seeing it.

It is implicit. If I am wrong and he in fact agrees with me that the Lord Temporal/Lord Spiritual nature be preserved then I apologise but he doesn't make that clear at all.

If you mean his post where he says that currently the Church of England automatically has representation in the HofL, unlike any other religion, is the point that you are making that you don't feel represented by the Archbishops of Canterbury and York, and the Bishops of London, Durham and Winchester etc? Fair enough, but their automatic seats give their belief a privilege that other beliefs (including your belief) do not have. They are there to represent an institution - the Church of England.

I find myself very much in line with the former AOC Rowan Williams who I believe like me was one time at relative ease with disestablishment. However in his conversation he became aware of the growing antitheism and antireligion of the new atheist movement and that those of other religions in this country felt threatened and had become to see the Lords spiritual, even in there anglican nature a bulwark against growing antireligion. Given that I believe that beliefs need particularl representation rather than to leave it to haphazard oblique referencing a la the commons.   

[ProfessorDavey]

It is my understanding that he would like there to be no Lords spiritual in the house of Lords, He states that reality is aspiritual. That is a belief which would be enshrined in a house of Lords in which there would be no Lords spiritual. As an institution it would stand as a constant denial of my beliefs in favour of his.

That is a load of non-sense. Not having places reserved for the 26 most senior members of the Church of England, under the mis-titled Lords Spiritual (as it implies that spiritual is the sole preserve of the CofE) would in no way whatsoever expunge the recognition of 'spiritual' in the HofL. While there are members of the HoLs who consider themselves to be spiritual and consider that their spiritual nature is important then the HoLs will continue to represent those views. And of course there are many, many Peers who are religious, do consider themselves to be spiritual, consider that to be important who aren't part of the 26 Bishops block (including, let's be clear ex Archbishops of Canterbury).

The notion that a HofL without the automatic places for the 26 Bishops would be aspiritual is as bonkers are implying the following:

1. As there aren't any 'Lords Environmental' (automatic places for members of a single environmental organisation) then the HofL is aenvironmental, anti environmentalist and denying the views of environmentalists.

2. As there aren't any 'Lords Vegetarian' (automatic places for members of a single vegetarian organisation) then the HofL is avegetarian, anti vegetarian and denying the views of vegetarians.

3. As there aren't any 'Lords Sporting' (automatic places for members of a single football club) then the HofL is asporting, anti sport and denying the views of people who consider sport to be important in their lives.

The Bishops represent a special privilege afforded to a single religious organisation, that is not afforded to any other organisation, religious or otherwise. The only justification is an appeal to tradition, but that is one that I reject. If they were removed that appeal to tradition would vanish overnight and would any sensible person suggest their reinstatement.

By the way - I have no issue with CofE Bishops putting themselves forward to be appointed as peers in exactly the same manner as everyone else. Fine by me, what I object to is their automatic appointment due to their role in a completely separate organisation.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

It is my understanding that he would like there to be no Lords spiritual in the house of Lords, He states that reality is aspiritual. That is a belief which would be enshrined in a house of Lords in which there would be no Lords spiritual. As an institution it would stand as a constant denial of my beliefs in favour of his.   I want an institution which represents beliefs.

A secularism that wants a believer to keep their faith private and penalises public display is involved in the banning of religion. It also makes the impossible,i.e. probing someones personal, not publicly expressed view sound like generosity on the part of secularists.

I have not commented on the house of Commons my view being represented would involve the Lords spiritual being open to more beliefs, religious, humanistic, atheistic and secular dependent on census information perhaps  It is implicit. If I am wrong and he in fact agrees with me that the Lord Temporal/Lord Spiritual nature be preserved then I apologise but he doesn't make that clear at all.  I find myself very much in line with the former AOC Rowan Williams who I believe like me was one time at relative ease with disestablishment. However in his conversation he became aware of the growing antitheism and antireligion of the new atheist movement and that those of other religions in this country felt threatened and had become to see the Lords spiritual, even in there anglican nature a bulwark against growing antireligion. Given that I believe that beliefs need particularl representation rather than to leave it to haphazard oblique referencing a la the commons.

Ah ok so focus on the HofL. I have not seen anyone argue on here for not allowing public displays of religion. I don't think there is a suggestion that people should not talk about their religious beliefs or not wear sandwich boards proclaiming God. Please define what you mean by not allowing public displays of religion.

My understanding was that Outrider did not want the Church of England to automatically have seats, rather than there be no place for spiritual people in the House of Lords. Are you saying there needs to be some people in the House of Lords who are automatically given a seat and who represent one institution that primarily exists to reflect the spiritual, or many different institutions that primarily exist to reflect the spiritual? Should they be an institution that specifically represents an established religion? Or do you mean any new appointments to the HofL should automatically include a certain number of members who are people who believe in the spiritual? Like a quota for religious people? What is your ask?

Regardless of your answer, any reforms to the HofL depends on the House of Commons, which depends on the MPs that voters elect. So ultimately it is up to voters as to how important it is to them to preserve the spiritual / religious aspect of the HofL. What are the views of voters and MPs?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Ah ok so focus on the HofL. I have not seen anyone argue on here for not allowing public displays of religion. I don't think there is a suggestion that people should not talk about their religious beliefs or not wear sandwich boards proclaiming God. Please define what you mean by not allowing public displays of religion.

Wearing of religious clothing and symbols, talking in faith terms in public. If you say you would still allow or desire religion to be a private matter, that sentiment is meaningless unless it implies public proscription.
 

Regardless of your answer, any reforms to the HofL depends on the House of Commons, which depends on the MPs that voters elect. So ultimately it is up to voters as to how important it is to them to preserve the spiritual / religious aspect of the HofL. What are the views of voters and MPs?

Of course.

[ProfessorDavey]

The 1949 Parliament Act reformed the 1911 Parliament Act and reduced the powers of the HofL. There was a legal challenge to the 1949 Act where the courts  decided that the 1949 Act was valid - ie it was not delegated legislation subject to HofL veto https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliament_Act_1949

That's interesting - I didn't know that.

Reading the article I think one of the elements in the legal case was that the 1949 'Act' was actually an amendment rather than a new act. Would be interesting to see whether a new act that changes the Lords and is blocked by the Lords would be also covered under the Parliament Act. I imagine we might see another legal challenge. I guess the point might rest on whether the Commons could simply abolish the Lords, i.e. remove any second chamber and do so without approval of that current second chamber.

[ProfessorDavey]

Wearing of religious clothing and symbols, talking in faith terms in public. If you say you would still allow or desire religion to be a private matter, that sentiment is meaningless unless it implies public proscription.

Just non-sense.

There is no prescription on a private individual expressing their religious views in public - for example wearing religious symbols. What you seem to be misunderstanding (perhaps deliberately) is what I can and cannot do as a private individual in my own time (including in public) and what I may be able to do within a work context. We all accept that there are things that we can do in our private lives (including in public) that we cannot do when we are at work. So I might be able to wear an old ripped Iron Maiden t-shirt in the park at the weekend, but if my employer has a smart dress code (quite reasonably as I am representing the company when talking to clients) and therefore I would not be able to wear it in the office. In my private life I can go to the pub and get drunk, but if I turned up blind drunk to work I'd be disciplined.

Same is true for religion - that religious people can express their religion within their private lives (including in public) does not mean that they can always do so within a work context, particularly if doing so means that they aren't doing their job properly (e.g. refusing to serve certain clients/customers) or where dress codes (including driven by health and safety considerations) preclude wearing of certain clothes or jewellery.

But this has nothing to do with some kind of persecution of religious people - the company that does not allow the Iron Maiden t-shirt would also not allow a 'Jesus loves us' t-shirt for exactly the same reasons.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Just non-sense.

There is no prescription on a private individual expressing their religious views in public - for example wearing religious symbols.

And thank goodness for that. But what do people desire and if they desire it does what they desire never come to pass?

What you seem to be misunderstanding (perhaps deliberately) is what I can and cannot do as a private individual in my own time (including in public) and what I may be able to do within a work context. We all accept that there are things that we can do in our private lives (including in public) that we cannot do when we are at work. So I might be able to wear an old ripped Iron Maiden t-shirt in the park at the weekend, but if my employer has a smart dress code (quite reasonably as I am representing the company when talking to clients) and therefore I would not be able to wear it in the office. In my private life I can go to the pub and get drunk, but if I turned up blind drunk to work I'd be disciplined.

Would you extend that to the proscription of rainbow flag signs or aids awareness or poppies?

Same is true for religion - that religious people can express their religion within their private lives (including in public) does not mean that they can always do so within a work context, particularly if doing so means that they aren't doing their job properly (e.g. refusing to serve certain clients/customers) or where dress codes (including driven by health and safety considerations) preclude wearing of certain clothes or jewellery.

Again would you proscribe similarly against poppies, Prostate cancer badges etc?

Since we have established that the desire to make religion a private affair while allowing it to be public is a bit contradictory......will you be advocating that religion should be a private affair?

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Wearing of religious clothing and symbols, talking in faith terms in public. If you say you would still allow or desire religion to be a private matter, that sentiment is meaningless unless it implies public proscription.
 Of course.

There is a court case happening at the moment I think about a Christian nurse who was allegedly bullied for wearing a Christian cross and asked to remove it on H&S grounds but she alleges that Sikh bracelets and hijabs and symbols of other religions were permitted to be worn. If that is true then that is outrageous.

If it's a discreet display, not seeing the problem and I think any employer or organisation or user of a service who does have a problem with a religious symbol being displayed is attempting to unreasonably limit freedom of expression and should be prevented from doing so. I would vote for an MP who reflected my views in their job, though if they were a liar and a crook I might have to re-think my voting priorities. 

[jeremyp]

That's interesting - I didn't know that.

Reading the article I think one of the elements in the legal case was that the 1949 'Act' was actually an amendment rather than a new act. Would be interesting to see whether a new act that changes the Lords and is blocked by the Lords would be also covered under the Parliament Act. I imagine we might see another legal challenge. I guess the point might rest on whether the Commons could simply abolish the Lords, i.e. remove any second chamber and do so without approval of that current second chamber.

The Lords can't permanently block a bill introduced in the Commons. If they vote it down twice, the Commons can push it through without their assent.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

There is a court case happening at the moment I think about a Christian nurse who was allegedly bullied for wearing a Christian cross and asked to remove it on H&S grounds but she alleges that Sikh bracelets and hijabs and symbols of other religions were permitted to be worn. If that is true then that is outrageous.

If it's a discreet display, not seeing the problem and I think any employer or organisation or user of a service who does have a problem with a religious symbol being displayed is attempting to unreasonably limit freedom of expression and should be prevented from doing so. I would vote for an MP who reflected my views in their job, though if they were a liar and a crook I might have to re-think my voting priorities.

This was the case I was thinking of brought by Mary Onuoha against Croydon Health Services Trust - I did not realise that it had gone to tribunal and been decided. It was found that:

The trust had “directly discriminated against and harassed” Onuoha, and her “dismissal had been both discriminatory and unfair”.

However, the suggestion that the trust had deliberately targeted the cross necklace as a symbol of the Christian faith or that the trust had acted out of “any kind of prejudice towards the Christian faith” was rejected by a majority of the tribunal.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2022/jan/05/nurse-victimised-for-wearing-cross-at-work-was-unfairly-dismissed-tribunal-rules

[Outrider]

No I am on record on this forum as wanting a place in the house of Lords for members of the Humanist societies and Secular societies of equal standing with any anglican Lord by spirituality I mean those Lords who are there representing core views that are not represented by temporal,political and material issues.

Why does 'spirituality' require reserved seats in the legislature, as opposed to any other determination or group? Sexuality - reserved seats for the full range of the LGBTQI+ communities? Philosophy? Sport - who can argue that the snowboarders and synchronised swimmers are under-represented?

Spirituality is, at best, just one aspect of human experience - why does it need a special place at the table?

O.

[Outrider]

I apologise for my lack of clarity. I am talking about two models of humanity represented by people arguing here. I propose a model based on real 21st century people where spirituality and non spirituality are formally represented.

We already have that - we have people with a range of spiritual outlooks in both houses.

The other model of humanity is the aspiritual homonculus as held by outrider. Where any representation of spirituality can be disregarded.

Worzel Gummidge? Dr Johnathan Crane? Jack Pumpkinhead?

Here the House of Lords would stand as an institution to remind people that they are what white british middle class athiests conceive them to be. That is itself a belief position and therefore would qualify for a seat.

Except for the bit where no-one was suggesting that... except for that, you're just plain wrong. Including that, by the time we get here, it has to be close to the point where we have to conclude that you're not misunderstanding, you're just deliberately misrepresenting. Which is sort of a tacit admission that you don't really have an argument against the points that are actually being made, so you're trying to manufacture an argument against a case that isn't being made.

I'm in favour of an elected upper house - at this point in time, at a functional level, that would possible result in MORE people who profess to a spiritual belief than are currently there. The point is, though, that their position would not purely be BECAUSE of their spirituality, but either because spirituality was important to the people they were representing or was irrelevant to the decision entirely.

O.

[ProfessorDavey]

The Lords can't permanently block a bill introduced in the Commons. If they vote it down twice, the Commons can push it through without their assent.

True in most, but not all cases.

So the Commons cannot use the Parliament Act to extend its parliamentary term. And I think there was (and still is) legal argument as to whether the commons can use the Parliament Act to extend its own powers. So, for example, were the commons to bring forward an act to abolish the second chamber entirely and bring the current role of the Lords into the commons thereby extending its powers then I'd be confident there would be a legal challenge over whether this could be achieved under the parliament act.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Why does 'spirituality' require reserved seats in the legislature, as opposed to any other determination or group? Sexuality - reserved seats for the full range of the LGBTQI+ communities? Philosophy? Sport - who can argue that the snowboarders and synchronised swimmers are under-represented?

Spirituality is, at best, just one aspect of human experience - why does it need a special place at the table?

O.

The model of the split between the temporal and spiritual has survived in my opinion because a check and balance between the short term material expedients and the moral and human integrity as encapsulated in the idea of the spiritual.

Temporal lords who probably shared this view back along welcomed a check on their being absorbed, hijacked even by these short term material expedients.

That is why it needs a special place at the table, so there is a check on the fad, the fashion, taste, flights of self indulgent ego etc, and short termism. Rather like the Roman emperors who had somebody reminding them who they really were.

So given the need for an alternative view, what are the merits of doing away with the checks and balances which you seem to be proposing. To me yours is a view which exists just to promote your aspiritual model of humanity something which has precious little to offer even short term quotidien issues.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

We already have that - we have people with a range of spiritual outlooks in both houses.

Worzel Gummidge? Dr Johnathan Crane? Jack Pumpkinhead?

Except for the bit where no-one was suggesting that... except for that, you're just plain wrong. Including that, by the time we get here, it has to be close to the point where we have to conclude that you're not misunderstanding, you're just deliberately misrepresenting. Which is sort of a tacit admission that you don't really have an argument against the points that are actually being made, so you're trying to manufacture an argument against a case that isn't being made.

I'm in favour of an elected upper house - at this point in time, at a functional level, that would possible result in MORE people who profess to a spiritual belief than are currently there. The point is, though, that their position would not purely be BECAUSE of their spirituality, but either because spirituality was important to the people they were representing or was irrelevant to the decision entirely.

O.

How do we know we have a range of spiritualites represented?
How do we know these spiritualities are being represented? How do we know that anything other than party politics is being represented?
Wit the Lords spiritual we would know that there would be checks on short term material or political expedients.

[Outrider]

The model of the split between the temporal and spiritual has survived in my opinion because a check and balance between the short term material expedients and the moral and human integrity as encapsulated in the idea of the spiritual.

Like the way they consistently worked against equality?

That is why it needs a special place at the table, so there is a check on the fad, the fashion, taste, flights of self indulgent ego etc, and short termism.

That's what the whole of the upper house is for.

So given the need for an alternative view, what are the merits of doing away with the checks and balances which you seem to be proposing.

Except that they aren't a proportionate check or balance, they are a reserved place for one particular viewpoint, regardless of its relevance to the nation at large. Even if you were to make the case that their history, or even their current incarnation, is broadly beneficial, it doesn't change the underlying issue that nothing in the existence of the Lords Spiritual makes that a requirement.

To me yours is a view which exists just to promote your aspiritual model of humanity something which has precious little to offer even short term quotidien issues.

Whereas you just seem to want to cling to historic privilege because it suits YOUR worldview, failing to appreciate that it's not just your Parliament, it's everyone's Parliament, and everyone should be represented equally. You know, for the long-term, moral good of all, rather than the short-term, temporal power-grab that keeping the Lords Spiritual represents.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Like the way they consistently worked against equality?

I think you have to look at the complete record over several decades. By equality are you talking about economic equality, gender equality, sexual equalty, racial equality or what? Usually your type majors of sexual equality to the exclusion of all other equalities IMHO

Except that they aren't a proportionate check or balance

Any check is better than the zero check you are proposing,

they are a reserved place for one particular viewpoint, regardless of its relevance to the nation at large.

Firstly it is a superior model than yours for the reasons I have said. Secondly a house of Lords whose intrinsic use is merely to remind people that according to the current Hegemony i.e. white middle class agnostic secularism, They are just politico economic beings.

Even if you were to make the case that their history, or even their current incarnation, is broadly beneficial,

It offers an undiluted view of things from a different perspective but that can be better served by widening it's membership not removing it just for the purposes of reminding the people that they are merely the politico-economic homonculus of Middle class atheism.

Whereas you just seem to want to cling to historic privilege because it suits YOUR worldview,

No, I want it, the Lords spiritual, to contain professional humanists and secularists as well as the religious I want it's membership to contain people with your anthropo-psychological understanding of humanity.