Since the house of Lords is constructed to have two classes of Lords, at other times more, I'm not sure that any of these classes recieving special treatment is appropriate
Neither am I, that's my point. I don't see any need for ANY group to get special treatment.
I need also remind you is that my approach deals with world views not specifically religion.
Every Lord will have a world-view, why reserve seats for some officially sanctioned subset?
Again the structure of the Lords is how it is.
And, again, we're talking about what we think it SHOULD be, we all know what it is.
Any solution to change it is the ''artificial skewing''.
Reserving seats for a particular viewpoint or stance, or even for a particular area of discussion, is skewing the balance. Leaving the electorate free to decide is not.
How even if that is what I was doing would that affect parliament being representative.
Because you're advocating reserving seats for a particular group, regardless of whether the electorate at large considers that particular group to be important or relevant.
Your point is non sequitur since their could be instances of what you are alleging which could make parliament more representative.
No, at best it could not affect the overall representation, but at worst it could entrench out-of-touch establishments in the parliament... like it does now.
ow then does your point of view reduce representation in parliament? Let us count the ways 1) The model of humanity represented by your proposal. Your model is the reduced narrow aspiritual, socio economic homonculus.
My view places as much importance on spirituality as the electorate does, the level of spirituality in the house is determined by the electorate at the time, not the structure imposed on the house as your model does. If in 20 years time no-one gives two shits about religion there will likely be little religious representation; on the other hand, if religion has a resurgence we might see the place riddled with funny hats.
This creature in fact is what you are selling. Embed this into government and your world view dominates.
I am one voter, I cannot shape the house individually. If there are tens of millions like me all voting that way, yes that will shape the house, that's what democracy should look like.
2) people do world views, all people, everyone has beliefs
Yes, so everyone elected to the upper house has a world view, how do you plan to reserve some seats for particular world views and justify that as anything other than privileging those particular world views?
You have no check or balance. Party politics are the soul order of the day.
How you plan to keep party politics out of the upper house (which I'd also support) is a separate issue to how you plan to avoid giving other vested interests reserved seats.
In the house of Lords that is checked by cross benchers Lords spiritual and by wisdom and experience in the temporal Lords, they in their turn are checked by Lord World view who can check on the pastoral implications and provide a much longer view which is morally oriented rather than politically expedient.
Firstly, that 'wisdom and experience' in the Lords doesn't require reserved seats. Second, that 'morally oriented' viewpoint you speak of is just as vested in the other Lords - arguably more so if they have to convince people of the fact in order to get elected rather than politicking their way up through religious organisations who have seats in parliament as an aside to their usual business.
And yet of course the current system somehow does make sure there are Lords of sport, art and music and science and that way is not one man one vote so why you are specially pleading that somehow religion needs a specially democratic approach.
Because that would put it on an even footing with everything else, it wouldn't suggest that religion is some special case that needs to be treated differently, that needs or merits different rules. That the other concerns are adequately represented through the usual process isn't an argument against my point, it is my point: if they all manage to be adequately represented, why do you persist with this idea that religious views need or deserve some sort of leg-up?
Also sport, art, music and science are only things certain people do, and have experience living it unlike world views and belief systems which everybody has, does and lives.
Many, many people probably no more actively think about a 'world view' or a 'belief system' on a regular basis than do others think about sport, or art, or even politics and economics.
You keep twisting the argument away from worldviews in question.
Because it's a useless distinction. Everything is part of a world-view - sport, music, philosophy, cheese, animal welfare, foreign affairs, spirituality. How do you plan to differentiate your spiritually aligned, morally-centred worldview concept from any of the others, and once you done it how do you plan to justify giving it special treatment?
You obviously aren't going to want to talk about my proposals.
Three pages into a thread which has been pretty much dominated by the two of us suggests that I am - certainly I keep asking you about it. Before we get into what you'd set up, though, I think we need to establish of there's a justifiable basis for setting it up that way in the first place, and you keep skipping that step.
You want this to be about me pumping religion, you are stoking a wankfantasy.
Is that your word for the week? Are you being sponsored by someone? You are pumping religion, and trying to masquerade it as some pure worldview that's morally different from any other type of worldview and therefore worthy of distinction.
I on the other hand see you wanting to inflict your narrow minded, reduced, dehumanised socio economic , aspiritual homonculus view of humanity through the organs of government.
Because I disagree with one particular aspect of life getting special treatment in parliament? How is seeking balance 'narrow-minded'? How is putting the nation's interests in the hands of the nations rather than in the structure of the establishment 'inflicting' anything 'through the organs of government'. I'm advocating for a system that's more directly representative of the electorate, more directly influenced by the electorrate, and you want to ring-fence special interests.
If it's a worldview, if these issues constitute a set of beliefs then their in the Lords worldview. If not then the Lords temporal will have to find away to get them in. Over to you.
But what falls outside of the concept of a 'world-view'? Sport? Sport is as important a piece of some people's lives as religion is to others, it's community and social activity and health and support and tribalism and financial investment and all the rest.
O.
