Evil

[ProfessorDavey]

So when a given proportion list themselves as Catholic Christians, the RC church is going to be where people go looking. When people put themselves as 'none', where do their opinions go? What's the atheist organisation that gets representation?

Quite correct - the reality is that most people in the UK choose not to nail their colours to any particular religious (or worldview) organisation, even though they may themselves have a clearly defined set of values.

In Vlad's view everyone has to be 'represented' by a small number of organised groups who they have chosen not to be part of. That is bonkers and deeply unrepresentative.

It also creates a two tier system - one in which if your 'world-view' aligns with an organised religion (or other organised group) then you get represented, but if your values are more personal and you see no organisation that is closely aligned enough for you to join then you have no representation.

We see this already - for example in commemorations, where we end up with a bunch of dignitaries to 'represent the community' - often a bunch of religious leaders from all major organised religions. Yet these people only represent perhaps 10% of the population who are themselves members of those religious organisations. They do not, and cannot, represent the 90% who have chosen not to be part of their organisations. So an attempt to be 'inclusive' and 'diverse' actually ignore the 90% of people who aren't members of organised religions in the UK.

Time and again we see the same failure - a kind of default view that as we become a more pluralistic society that we spread ourselves across a greater number of organised religions. The reality is that as we have become a more pluralistic society fewer and fewer people have engagement with any organised religion so an approach that only recognised the organised religions (or even organised non religious groups such as HumanistUK etc who also have tiny memberships) becomes less, rather than more, representative.

[Outrider]

I would imagine humanist UK

That's an immense potential range of world-views to be represented by one institution - there will be any number of 'nones' and atheists who aren't even slightly represented by a humanist point of view.

That could go the other way though If the changes are constitutionally institutionalised hijack becomes less effective.

No. You're guaranteeing a skew, which could be manipulated, rather than leaving the whole affair in the hands of the electorate.

Remember we are looking at world views so my way of assembling Lords World view isn't different from how Conservativehumanists would have a special committee
constituted

Sorry, not a clue where that was supposed to be going.

That assumption I would move is being tested in the science part at least, at this very moment and the extent to which people and population in the UK listen to scientists.

That would affect how many scientists were elected to the house, perhaps, but you'd hope that the Upper House, when it got there, would see the value of expertise and call on them appropriately; and in those circumstances I can't see religious leaders being as useful as expert scientists.

Scientists inform on what can or can't be done.

Hard scientists, yes. Social scientists comment on what's happened in similar situations when various things have been tried, or what the factors at play are in certain decisions.

Lords world view inform on what should or shouldn't be done.

And so they'd need to be informed of how those things could or could not be done, and what the knock-on effects would be.

What are you talking about?

Your notion that there's a justification for reserving seats in the upper house for one topic area.

Firstly I'm talking about worldviews and beliefs not just religions

Yeah, and the 'Intelligent Designers' weren't talking about god, except that everyone knew they were. Your coding of 'world view' for religion so that you can fight for that particular minority interest but claim not to be isn't exactly convincing.

secondly if it's darwinian struggle of ideas you want,

The evidence of a decade of Tory misrule suggests that relying on electorate doesn't result in selection based on performance. The presence of Alexander Johnson as Prime Minister suggests that fitness for purpose doesn't figure strongly. I'm not sure you can make a strong case the electing a government body is in any way 'Darwinian'.

If , Say Christianity is reduced to a weird sect meeting in a front room in Surbiton. It will not be on the selection radar.

If?

Exactly, so why reserve seats for it? If religion is reduced to a fringe activity, why reserve seats for it? If science is reduced to a carnival side-show a la Idiocracy, why reserve seats for it?

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

so why reserve seats for it?

For the nth time I am not reserving seats for religion but for world views, beliefs. The only way a world view gets represented is if it is practiced in sufficient numbers. You see there are no seats reserved for anyone in particular. And then there are the seats reserved for the lords temporal who might in the future might include toad genderers, moisture farmers and leapfroggers. Nobody is guaranteed a seat only the area of life they represent.

Moderator: quoting fixed.

[ProfessorDavey]

For the nth time I am not reserving seats for religion but for world views, beliefs. The only way a world view gets represented is if it is practiced in sufficient numbers.

Let's look beyond the point that you have completely failed to justify why it is necessary to have this complicated allocation of seats by 'world-view' (whatever that means, rather than simply recognise that if the Lords is sufficiently representative of the general population then it will involve people with all these 'world-views' anyhow.

So let's for a moment humour you in your notion. Firstly why it is somehow important that people practice their world-view - sounds suspiciously like an appeal straight back to organised religion. And moreover, how on earth are you going to identify how many people actually practice their world-view. Imagine my values (i.e. world-view) involve me thinking it is important to consider others ahead of myself and I don't align it with any organisation (probably many, many people in the UK). If I do my best to 'practice' this in my day to day life, how on earth are you going to measure this Vlad. I just get on and do it, I don't join an organisation, I don't take part in communal organised 'consider others before myself' activities, I just do it myself. How will you know how many people are doing this, and even if you did how would you identify a suitable HoLs representative for that, almost certainly very common, world-view.

[Outrider]

For the nth time I am not reserving seats for religion but for world views, beliefs.

Even if we take that at face value, and even if we were to ignore the obvious reality that organised religions have an historic claim to representing a comprehensive world-view that pretty much no other tradition does... even if we accept that. Still why reserve a special place for 'world-views'? Even if we accept that 'world view' is not just religion masquerading as something more secular, why do 'world views' need to have seats reserved for them? Why can't they compete against all the other concerns to see if anyone gives enough of a shit about them to elect someone who espouses them?

The only way a world view gets represented is if it is practiced in sufficient numbers.

A particular world-view, perhaps. But let's say that your a member of the most popular organisation that represents a coherent 'world-view' - say, the Anglican church - but that you only actually represent two or three percent of the electorate. You'd have a seat reserved for that (and, presumably, the next half-dozen least unpopular religions 'world-views', even though virtually no-one gives a crap. Or even if half the electorate are members, but wouldn't vote for them in a parliament because that world-view outlook doesn't equip anyone to make informed decisions about the real world.

You see there are no seats reserved for anyone in particular.

You haven't explained why any seats need to be reserved at all, you've just tried to come up with wording that gives you plausible deniability that you're talking about religion.

And then there are the seats reserved for the lords temporal who might in the future might include toad genderers, moisture farmers and leapfroggers.

No seats are 'reserved' for the Lords Temporal, those are the seats that are open to any nomination (including the Church of England), not specifically reserved for the Bishops. The equivalent, in our hypothetical house, is all those elected seats that anyone can stand for.

Nobody is guaranteed a seat only the area of life they represent.

But some seats are reserved for representatives of 'world views', but not for representatives of science or medicine or finance or art or literature or fishing or toad-gendering (is like bird-sexing?)...

Still no justification for it. An unsubstantiated assertion that having a religion world-view encourages a longer-term assessment than any other group. Even if that were the case, you'd have to justify that a) that long-term view was the best policy and b) the long-termism arising from an ideological world-view was in the best interests of everyone and not just those of that world-view.  There are so many ways for this to go wrongly, even if you could justify the concept in the first place, which you haven't.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Let's look beyond the point that you have completely failed to justify why it is necessary to have this complicated allocation of seats by 'world-view' (whatever that means, rather than simply recognise that if the Lords is sufficiently representative of the general population then it will involve people with all these 'world-views' anyhow.

If there are no lords spiritual then one world view becomes the official world view enshrined in the house of Lords. Since you want me to state what that is it is a hard epistemic aspiritual secular humanism. That is unacceptable. So that takes it's place as one of many world views vouchsafed in the constitution of the house of Lords.

So let's for a moment humour you in your notion. Firstly why it is somehow important that people practice their world-view - sounds suspiciously like an appeal straight back to organised religion. And moreover, how on earth are you going to identify how many people actually practice their world-view. Imagine my values (i.e. world-view) involve me thinking it is important to consider others ahead of myself and I don't align it with any organisation (probably many, many people in the UK). If I do my best to 'practice' this in my day to day life, how on earth are you going to measure this Vlad. I just get on and do it, I don't join an organisation, I don't take part in communal organised 'consider others before myself' activities, I just do it myself. How will you know how many people are doing this, and even if you did how would you identify a suitable HoLs representative for that, almost certainly very common, world-view.

How does a humanist practice their beliefs? By the Campaign, running or taking part in the drive which is I suppose the equivalent of mission. Also I would imagine. Living a life that shows one doesn't need religion to make one a good person.
You, as you say do it......But it is not the layman in your world view or mine that should be in the house of Lords, It is the people that do their best at running the campaigns, who are experienced at maintaining and supporting your community and defending it and it's distinctiveness at the highest levels namely Government. In other words a scholar and professional in the sphere of humanism. That is the person who should be in the House of Lords because the House of Lords is a house of expertise.

 In fact, there might even be a case for the vouchsafing of a Lords place for Humanism permanently.

 

[Gordon]

Vlad

Once you've stopped thrashing around, the issue that you need to address is this: would enough of the electorate be minded to vote for candidates who make it clear that their role in political governance would be enacted according to their religious or 'world-view' inclinations. My guess is that they won't, but that can only be tested if elections are free, fair and don't involve any ring-fencing or special privileges for 'those and such as those'.

Leave it to the electorate to decide: if enough of them want to be represented by, say, the overtly religious (which is what I suspect you really mean by 'world view', and for your tastes preferably of the Christian variety) then they will vote for them - or they won't, in which case it would be reasonable to conclude that the electorate don't see that religion/'world view' is of great import when it comes to political governance.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad

Once you've stopped thrashing around the issue that you need to address is this: would enough of the electorate be minded to vote for candidates who make it clear that their role in political governance would be enacted according to their religious or 'world-view' inclinations.

Not for a commons and not in a party system probably, That's why green party candidates don't get in and if extinction rebellion stood, they wouldn't get in either didn't get in. If a gay candidate presented themselves to you, you wouldn't probably vote for them. It's a question of focus and whether theirs is apt for the function of the particular house. You were telt how unsatisfactory a carbon copy of the commons, a second commons would be even in a secular context.

My guess is that they won't, but that can only be tested if elections are free, fair and don't involve any ring-fencing or special privileges for 'those and such as those'.

A second house of commons that wasn't your awful rerun of the first could proceed with the requisite that each member stands as an independent and here yes that might give scope for the focussed world view candidate and that explains why you probably wouldn't want it. Please inform me if  I am wrong about that.
How would people feel about an overt humanist ?

[Outrider]

If there are no lords spiritual then one world view becomes the official world view enshrined in the house of Lords.

How? Which 'world-view' is disproportionately represented, given that reserving no seats enforces exactly no representation for any view? How does not giving anything a free pass enshrine any particular view?

Since you want me to state what that is it is a hard epistemic aspiritual secular humanism. That is unacceptable.

Let's assume that's a world-view. Let's also presume that Anglicanism is another. How does not reserving seats for anyone guarantee that no Anglican can sit in the house and only 'hardcore anti-theists' are allowed?

So that takes it's place as one of many world views vouchsafed in the constitution of the house of Lords.

You are vesting importance in 'world view'. What if very few people give a crap? What if that's a poor basis to choose people to sit in the upper house? Why is world view worthy of reserved seating?

That is the person who should be in the House of Lords because the House of Lords is a house of expertise.

And if they can convince the electorate of their expertise, and that their expertise is relevant, they get in: why do they need to have a second chance to compete for special seats when virtuoso flautists don't?

In fact, there might even be a case for the vouchsafing of a Lords place for Humanism permanently.

Or, conversely, for not granting anyone influence in perpetuity, but rather leaving it up to the electorate of the day to select by whom they wish to be governed. You know, like in a democracy...

O.

[Gordon]

Not for a commons and not in a party system probably, That's why green party candidates don't get in and if extinction rebellion stood, they wouldn't get in either didn't get in.

Then revise the electoral system away from FPP - doesn't guarantee election but it would ensure that where there was enough general support it would potentially result in election - again it's up to the electorate.
 

If a gay candidate presented themselves to you, you wouldn't probably vote for them.

What an unpleasant homophobic comment: you should be ashamed of yourself. For your information, a previous MP for my constituency was gay - and I voted for him.
 

It's a question of focus and whether there's is apt for the function of the house. You were telt how unsatisfactory a carbon copy of the commons, a second commons would be even in a secular context. A second house of commons that wasn't your awful rerun of the first could proceed with the requisite that each member stands as an independent and here yes that might give scope for the focussed world view candidate and that explains why you probably wouldn't want it. Please inform me if  I am wrong about that.
How would people feel about an overt humanist ?

Don't be silly - it's about the electorate and who presents themselves as a candidate, and on what basis they set out aims and priorities.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

For your information, a previous MP for my constituency was gay - and I voted for him.

Was he standing on a focussed LGBT ticket? Did you vote for him because of his party?

If you would have voted for him whether he was gay or not then he has no place in what we are talking about.

[Gordon]

Was he standing on a focussed LGBT ticket? Did you vote for him because of his party?

If you would have voted for him whether he was gay or not then he has no place in what we are talking about.

Don't be silly - first, you need to look again at how you expressed yourself, and recognise that you need to take more care with the way you use words.

Secondly, you're indulging in simplistic thinking again if you've concluded that electoral candidates stand on the basis of a 'focussed ticket'. I'd imagine that for a candidate to be elected, that the electorate, or most of them, would tend to look beyond a single characteristic or inclination of said candidate: the policies they advocate, their political history and their personal reputation might be factors, don't you think?

I've yet to come across a candidate whose campaign consists solely of 'vote for me because I'm 'x' and/or because I believe in 'y' - and if I ever did I'd be wary that they were just a one trick pony, and as such best avoided.

     

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Don't be silly - first, you need to look again at how your expressed yourself, and recognise that you need to take more care with the way you use words.

Of course. It was not meant to be homophobic, nor suggesting that you would not vote for a gay person. We were of course talking about the tickets people stand on and my point is that single issue politicians rarely get elected.

.

   

[Gordon]

Of course. It was not meant to be homophobic, nor suggesting that you would not vote for a gay person. We were of course talking about the tickets people stand on and my point is that single issue politicians rarely get elected.

It maybe wasn't intended to be homophobic - but it read that way.

I'd agree that single issue politicians are less likely to get elected, which is why I'm puzzled that you keep banging on about 'world view' since, in my experience, politicians tend to explain their agenda primarily in political terms and not in religious, philosophical or 'world view' terms. I've seen the odd candidate stand on a overtly religious platform but then they tend to lose their deposits.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I'd agree that single issue politicians are less likely to get elected, which is why I'm puzzled that you keep banging on about 'world view' since, in my experience, politicians tend to explain their agenda primarily in political terms

Yes, commons politicians do because that is the focus of the house of commons. But that is not been the only focus of the Lords. As it stands religion has been part of the agenda in the Lords and to this date the Lords it has stood as the repository of and defender of reflection on the government of the country no matter how imperfectly.

It has been where, however weakly, religion, philosophy and world view has impinged on governmental decision

That heritage needs to be strengthened and broadened and that is not diametrically opposed to the idea of elections.

  and not in religious, philosophical or 'world view' terms.

Fine for the commons but a malcontents demolition of the idea of representing world view or philosophy itself constitutes a philosophy which is part of a world view. That world view would therefore be the only world view institutionalised in the house, exactly what you wanted, supposedly, to avoid

I've seen the odd candidate stand on a overtly religious platform but then they tend to lose their deposits.

again, lost his deposit for the commons but religion has it's place in the Lords without having to have it's deposit.

[Gordon]

That world view would therefore be the only world view institutionalised in the house, exactly what you wanted, supposedly, to avoid again, lost his deposit for the commons but religion has it's place in the Lords without having to have it's deposit.

Religion, in the form of the CofE chaps (and they are all chaps) in the HofL is due solely to special privileges awarded to the CofE: but whether religion, in the form of the CofE, actually deserves this place is another matter. In my view any overt religious representation in political governance arrangements should be the consequence of electoral support - and nothing else. 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Religion, in the form of the CofE chaps

At present they are the only group representing a world view from what I understand and this I think is from Rowan Williams was that some in some religious communities are grateful even for that since it acts as some kind of bulwark against a malevolent secularising antireligion.

(and they are all chaps)

Blimey, that must have come as a shock to the five women bishops in the HoL.

Again you cannot avoid an institutionalised worldview in government. At present it favours mine and frustrates yours.

[Gordon]

Blimey, that must have come as a shock to the five women bishops in the HoL.

My mistake then - I'm clearly not up to speed with what the CofE set-up is, being neither a theist, English or a resident of England.

Again you cannot avoid an institutionalised worldview in government. At present it favours mine and frustrates yours.

Which bit of my view that 'world view' is meaningless as regards politics, since you could apply the term to pretty much any outlook that any one has, are you struggling to understand?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

My mistake then

Not just a mistake but grevious and gross turpitude IMO

- I'm clearly not up to speed with what the CofE set-up is, being neither a theist, English or a resident of England.

Interestingly enough I've met a couple of moderators of the Church of Scotland and a couple of Scottish moderators of the religious ethics forum via the internet

Which bit of my view that 'world view' is meaningless as regards politics, since you could apply the term to pretty much any outlook that any one has, are you struggling to understand?

You can politicise anything Gordon, In fact that's why you need a repository of expertise on everything within your houses of government....what's your point?

[Gordon]

You can politicise anything Gordon, In fact that's why you need a repository of expertise on everything within your houses of government....what's your point?

My point is simply that the special privilege that allows the CofE to sit in the HofL is anachronistic and anti-democratic, as is the HofL itself.

[ProfessorDavey]

How does a humanist practice their beliefs?

By living their life according to humanist principles - I'd have thought that would be obvious.

By the Campaign, running or taking part in the drive which is I suppose the equivalent of mission.

You seem obsessed with organisation, campaigning, mission etc - most people in the UK aren't interested in that, hence they aren't active participants in any organised religion, nor secularly philosophical organisations - e.g. HumanistsUK. Why is their 'world-view' less important than one aligned with an organised and campaigning structure. Answer - it isn't. But in your view the one trumps the other, and given that it is largely religions than rely on and expect organised structure, mission etc you view is simply one that privileges religion albeit couched in disingenuous terms to imply it is somehow neutral in the religion vs non-religion axis.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

By living their life according to humanist principles - I'd have thought that would be obvious.
You seem obsessed with organisation, campaigning, mission etc - most people in the UK aren't interested in that, hence they aren't active participants in any organised religion, nor secularly philosophical organisations - e.g. HumanistsUK. Why is their 'world-view' less important than one aligned with an organised and campaigning structure. Answer - it isn't. But in your view the one trumps the other, and given that it is largely religions than rely on and expect organised structure, mission etc you view is simply one that privileges religion albeit couched in disingenuous terms to imply it is somehow neutral in the religion vs non-religion axis.

This is the house of Lords we are talking about. None of 'em are elected.All are privileged.

I'm against religion privileged over other world views anyway so I'm left wondering who this invisible pro status quo fantasy figure you are arguing with is.

[ProfessorDavey]

.But it is not the layman in your world view or mine that should be in the house of Lords, It is the people that do their best at running the campaigns, who are experienced at maintaining and supporting your community and defending it and it's distinctiveness at the highest levels namely Government.

Nice aregument for a HoLs full of extremists.

An example - presumably you accept that vegetarianism and veganism are 'world-views'. Most vegetarians and vegans simply don't eat meat/use animal-based products. They don't go around hectoring others, campaigning etc. But those people aren't worthy to represent vegetarians and vegans (despite being like most vegetarians and vegans). Nope in your world they'd have to be represented by the most extreme campaigning vegetarians and vegans - the ones actively disrupting farms, the farming industry. The people who are in your face 'evangelicals'. Those people aren't representative of vegetarians and vegans - yet those are the active 'campaigners'.

Same with environmentalists - your argument would have extinction rebellion extremists representing environmentalists, rather than rank and file people who are concerned about the environment or even David Attenborough or academics who study environmentalism, as they are as active as 'campaigners' as people who glue themselves to roads.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Nice aregument for a HoLs full of extremists.

even I wouldn't describe C of E bishops as extremist and the present AofC might be described an extreme chocolate teapot. But I suppose such is the mind set of public atheism.]

An example - presumably you accept that vegetarianism and veganism are 'world-views'.

Here's the thing. I'm thinking of a very successful youtuber and broadcaster who is a public and campaigning atheist who has started also to campaign for veganism I understand at a most philosophical level. Is his world view now veganism since he hasn't abandon any of his skepticism or philosophical stance or does veganism just describe his dietary habits and new respect for animals? I plump for his public and campaigning atheism and skepticism being his world view

  Most vegetarians and vegans simply don't eat meat/use animal-based products. They don't go around hectoring others, campaigning etc. But those people aren't worthy to represent vegetarians and vegans (despite being like most vegetarians and vegans). Nope in your world they'd have to be represented by the most extreme campaigning vegetarians and vegans - the ones actively disrupting farms, the farming industry. The people who are in your face 'evangelicals'. Those people aren't representative of vegetarians and vegans - yet those are the active 'campaigners'.

Let me stop you there....I don't see veganism as a world view. So the question doesn't arise.

Same with environmentalists - your argument would have extinction rebellion extremists representing environmentalists, rather than rank and file people who are concerned about the environment or even David Attenborough or academics who study environmentalism, as they are as active as 'campaigners' as people who glue themselves to roads.

Now this is more interesting...... does environmentalism necessitate extreme action?.....Is one's attitude to the environment a world view? For example Can you be a secular humanist environmentalist or a Buddhist environmentalist? If the answer is yes, then I'm not sure environmentalism is a world view I see no issue though with appointing environmentalists or vegans to the Lords Temporal.

[ProfessorDavey]

then I'm not sure environmentalism is a world view I see no issue though with appointing environmentalists or vegans to the Lords Temporal.

So you need to define what you mean by 'world-view' then don't you Vlad, seeing as you see all sorts of things that represent an important philosophical position for some people, that they alter their lives to practice and yet somehow it isn't a world view.

Somehow the obvious conclusion is that by 'world-view' you really mean 'religion' with perhaps a little tokenism on the side for humanism (which of course may well be aligned with a religion anyhow). So let's be honest here Vlad, all you want to do is reserve automatic places for more religions - which of course would exacerbate the unfairness, not resolve it.