Evil

[Outrider]

No this'll do. How then does recognition of religion figure in this example. How does religion end up being represented equally with non religion?

Actually, technically, this one doesn't - the upper legislature retains privileged seats for one particular sect of one particular branch of one particular religion... You remember, that institution who's authority and influence is overstated but which is the only organisation of any sort which has a reserved place in the Houses of Parliament...

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Still can't quite understand... How about I write you a checklist?

Am I about to suggest secularism means banning one or more religions?
Am I about to equate secularism with privileging atheism?
Am I about to go off on one about 'antitheists'?
Am I about to conflate secularism with Soviet-era USSR or Communist China?

If so, I've probably got it wrong and need to try again.

No charge, consider it a public service.

For the last time, secularism doesn't involve banning religions, it doesn't proscribe anyone's individual beliefs, it even lets professional religio-twats like Rees-Smugg put themselves up for election, if they wish. It's merely the principal that there is no justification to a law that's implemented purely on the basis of religious belief.

O.

What of religion characterises Rees Mogg? Not much. What of acquisitive materialism characterises Rees Mogg? A great deal. Rees Mogg is the kind of chap who is highly influenced stylistically by Brideshead Revisited without twigging the deeper meaning. I've outlined what I find objectionable about Mogg. What is it about him you find objectionable.

[ProfessorDavey]

What religion then should be allowed to survive in your secularist cull?

As many or as few as the individuals in that country choose to follow.

All secularism means is that those individuals will be neither privileged nor discriminated against whether or not they choose to be a member of a religion. And religious groups will also be neither privileged nor discriminated against compared to non religious organisations.

Simply as that.

There is nothing incompatible whatsoever with there being 100% adherence to religion by individuals living in a secular country.

[ProfessorDavey]

What of religion characterises Rees Mogg? Not much.

Sounds a bit 'no true scotsman' Vlad.

As far as I'm aware Rees Mogg is a practicing Roman Catholic and staunchly traditional in his religious beliefs. He may not be your kind of christian, but then you are probably not his kind of christian. But you are both actively religious - if you want to argue that he is not, then I suggest you take it up with him at is would be an internal 'you're no christian', 'no, you're no christian' spat that the rest of us can just watch from the outside.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

I'm sorry I see no religion or atheism here only non religion.

Oh ok - yes instead of atheist, we could say being religious or non-religious is not barrier to standing for election.

Religious voters are free to vote for the candidate that best represents them, their interests and values
Non-religious voters are free to vote for the candidate that best represents them, their interests and values

The candidate with the highest number of votes is elected.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Actually, technically, this one doesn't - the upper legislature retains privileged seats

we could stop here and that would be adequate

for one particular sect of one particular branch of one particular religion... You remember, that institution who's authority and influence is overstated but which is the only organisation of any sort which has a reserved place in the Houses of Parliament...

O.

The house of Lords is all privilege seats. Some of the complexion of it has changed. Part of what remains is the set up where the matters pertaining to the laws were divided into secular and spiritual since that reflected the operating environment of making rules for people.
What it represents today is that people are just a wee bit spiritual, and that can be served by anybody in a dogcollar.

Now I don't think that is representative at all and the Lords should express the broader spiritual complexion.

You on the other hand think that spirituality is INVALID and should be left out of the government of people.
We know the complexion of the Lords has happened before and will again if enough people of your particular and in my view shallow and narrow view of humanity have the political will and numbers.

[Outrider]

What of religion characterises Rees Mogg?

Apart from his repeated characterisation of how his faith informs his position on things like gay marriage? Apart from that, you mean? https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/sep/06/jacob-rees-mogg-opposed-to-gay-marriage-and-abortion-even-after

What of acquisitive materialism characterises Rees Mogg? A great deal.

And you can back this up with something more than inference? I don't disagree that his consistent support for reductions in regulation on industry and - particularly - the financial sector, his championing of academy schools and any number of other traditionally 'right wing' causes gives cause to presume that he has those inclinations, but he's not to my knowledge been so gauche as to actually come straight out and say it.

Rees Mogg is the kind of chap who is highly influenced stylistically by Brideshead Revisited without twigging the deeper meaning. I've outlined what I find objectionable about Mogg. What is it about him you find objectionable.

Most of the same things as you, I suspect - the distasteful impression that other people are a disposable resource to be utilised to further the largely financial interests of him, and perhaps some of his select colleagues.

O.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Actually, technically, this one doesn't - the upper legislature retains privileged seats for one particular sect of one particular branch of one particular religion... You remember, that institution who's authority and influence is overstated but which is the only organisation of any sort which has a reserved place in the Houses of Parliament...

O.

In my post I was only referring to elected MPs, as the Commons can override any amendments to Bills passed by the unelected House of Lords if they wish. 

[Outrider]

we could stop here and that would be adequate

No, we couldn't because we're making the point about RELIGIOUS privilege.

The house of Lords is all privilege seats.

No. There remain some privileged seats, but only one institution has reserved seats.

Some of the complexion of it has changed. Part of what remains is the set up where the matters pertaining to the laws were divided into secular and spiritual since that reflected the operating environment of making rules for people. What it represents today is that people are just a wee bit spiritual, and that can be served by anybody in a dogcollar.

People are a 'wee bit' scientific, where are the reserved seats for the Royal Society?

Now I don't think that is representative at all and the Lords should express the broader spiritual complexion.

It does. There are Jews, Muslims, Catholics, Hindus, Buddhists, atheists and who knows what else in there - it's just those people are not there BECAUSE of that, that's incidental, as it should be because religion should be incidental to the establishment of laws.

You on the other hand think that spirituality is INVALID and should be left out of the government of people.

But not out of the people of government.

We know the complexion of the Lords has happened before and will again if enough people of your particular and in my view shallow and narrow view of humanity have the political will and numbers.

I think we'll get PR in the lower house before we get rid of the Lords Spiritual, and I don't imagine that's going to happen in my lifetime.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Sounds a bit 'no true scotsman' Vlad.

It isn't, his behaviour definitely directs one to refer to the epistle pf James though.

As far as I'm aware Rees Mogg is a practicing Roman Catholic and staunchly traditional in his religious beliefs

and all his other beliefs and the way he speaks and dresses?

He may not be your kind of christian, but then you are probably not his kind of christian. But you are both actively religious - if you want to argue that he is not, then I suggest you take it up with him at is would be an internal 'you're no christian', 'no, you're no christian' spat that the rest of us can just watch from the outside.

Atheist wankfantasy?
[/quote] I have a few beefs with Roman Catholicism but my chief difficulty with the man is that he is the worst sort of Tory.

[Outrider]

In my post I was only referring to elected MPs, as the Commons can override any amendments to Bills passed by the unelected House of Lords if they wish.

I appreciate that, G, and I apologise for hijacking your train of thought, I was sort of redirecting that back at Vlad.

O.

[ProfessorDavey]

... as the Commons can override any amendments to Bills passed by the unelected House of Lords if they wish.

To pick nits - that isn't strictly true. The commons can override the Lords only under certain circumstances, but not in all cases. The parliament act doesn't apply to all legislation.

[ProfessorDavey]

and all his other beliefs and the way he speaks and dressesAtheist wankfantasy?
 I have a few beefs with Roman Catholicism but my chief difficulty with the man is that he is the worst sort of Tory.

So you accept that he is a practicing christian and presumably uses his interpretation of his christian faith to inform his views.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

So you accept that he is a practicing christian and presumably uses his interpretation of his christian faith to inform his views.

Yes but I don't presume he let's his christianity inform a lot of what he does.

I think you are judging him in your own terms he is likely to be a lukewarm christian more stylistically and culturally influenced by the Brideshead revisited life than spiritually.
You on the other hand are more of a zealot for the secular cause. His commitment is nowhere near yours.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No, we couldn't because we're making the point about RELIGIOUS privilege.

No. There remain some privileged seats, but only one institution has reserved seats.

No they are all priviliged. They are all unelected.

[Outrider]

No they are all priviliged. They are all unelected.

Still desperately trying to sidestep the actual point, I see.

O.

[ProfessorDavey]

No they are all priviliged. They are all unelected.

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.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

To pick nits - that isn't strictly true. The commons can override the Lords only under certain circumstances, but not in all cases. The parliament act doesn't apply to all legislation.

Ok but if the Commons decide the House of Lords are unduly getting in their way they can introduce legislation (another Parliament Act) to strip the HofL's of one or all of their veto powers. 

[ProfessorDavey]

Yes but I don't presume he let's his christianity inform a lot of what he does.

Why not - I would have thought that a lot of his views are entirely consistent with his uber-traditionalist christianity. It may be that your view of christianity is different to his and therefore that your faith might lead you to a different political position, but that doesn't mean that he isn't informed by his own christian views. The issue isn't whether your christianity informs your political position and his doesn't - nope, the issue is that his view of christianity differs to yours. But given that neither of you can 'prove' your views to be correct then it is merely one person's opinion against another.

[ProfessorDavey]

Ok but if the Commons decide the House of Lords are unduly getting in their way they can introduce legislation (another Parliament Act) to strip the HofL's of one or all of their veto powers.

Interesting constitutional question - would a new Parliament Act be subject to the Parliament Act?

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Yes but I don't presume he let's his christianity inform a lot of what he does.

I think you are judging him in your own terms he is likely to be a lukewarm christian more stylistically and culturally influenced by the Brideshead revisited life than spiritually.
You on the other hand are more of a zealot for the secular cause. His commitment is nowhere near yours.

Ok but his inclination to be public about his religion has not prevented him from getting elected as an MP. Surely that's a good thing in terms of equal opportunity? People who subscribe to your flavour of Christianity and values ....and who have the funds and time and ability to campaign, persuade and get elected...are also not barred by their public display of religion from getting elected.

[jeremyp]

Interesting constitutional question - would a new Parliament Act be subject to the Parliament Act?

Well yes it would, but it doesn't matter because, under the Parliament Act, the HoC can force through any legislation it likes. If the Lords rejects a bill twice, the Commons can present it for the Royal Assent anyway.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Interesting constitutional question - would a new Parliament Act be subject to the Parliament Act?

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

[ProfessorDavey]

Ok but his inclination to be public about his religion has not prevented him from getting elected as an MP. Surely that's a good thing in terms of equal opportunity? People who subscribe to your flavour of Christianity and values ....and who have the funds and time and ability to campaign, persuade and get elected...are also not barred by their public display of religion from getting elected.

Absolutely true.

And if they wish (and indeed have) they could set up an overtly Christian party and stand for election on that platform. If enough people voted for them, they'd get elected. And should Richard Dawkins choose to set up an Atheist party, he'd be allowed to do so and stand on that platform. If enough people voted for them, they'd get elected

[Sebastian Toe]

the deceptions of the evil one.

What are they and more intetestingly how exactly does he make them materialise?