https://unherd.com/2022/12/secularisation-is-leading-britain-astray/

[Outrider]

An enterprise doomed to failure when British society decided that it didn't care who other people decided to get married to.

Another example of how the Church is not well place to represent the nation at large, given how fundamentally out of touch it is on things like human rights.

The church being split eventually to those who wanted to keep the phrase Holy matrimony to mean between one man and one woman and those who the think the issue too trivial to endanger the churches overall mission.

And that's a Church matter, and outside of the Church no-one gives a shit... unless, say, 26 bishops are authorised to sit in the Lords purely because they're bishops and vote in favour of applying their religious viewpoint to laws that affect everyone, regardless of whether they follow that religion, another religion or no religion at all.

In the light of that why should an atheist gay be bothered about this except for atheist reasons.

Why limit it to atheist gay people? There are any number of Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Shintoists, Wiccans and who knows what other faith traditions, from all ends of the sexuality spectrum, who support equal marriage. And they should be bothered because who knows that the next issue is that the Bishops will vote in line with the indoctrinational recidivism against the general trend of society.

I personally was convinced by the argument that Christians don't have the monopoly on the term 'Marriage'.

And if you were in the Lords that would be relevant. Except that whilst it's an example of the problem, it's not the extent of the problem - when's the next time the Lords Spiritual are going to be fundamentally unrepresentative of the nation, yet still given a say because a fraction of a fraction of a fraction remain of an historic tradition that belongs in history?

Yes, imposing the churches view of marriage on unbelievers is overreach...but so is imposing the secular view of marriage on the church.

Imposing the church's view on ANYTHING is overreach. And as no-one is imposing the secular view of marriage on the church, that's just an attempt at a distraction.

Humanist UK and NSS under the patronage of certain swivel eyed atheist celebrities will exploit any group in it's foam flecked ambient sofa bound saturday night channel 4 debates against the church.

So stop watching Channel 4. Or, perhaps, look and realise that they are no more 'swivel-eyed' then men who rail against modernity whilst wearing dresses and bling and preaching their version of 'distorted sexuality' whilst debating the evils of other people's 'distorted sexuality'.

What are you afraid of? Why not give jews and moslems and hindus and sikhs a place in the Lords spiritual?

Because the idea of reserving seats for 'spiritual' representatives is entrenching privilege for religion. What are you afraid of, why can't the plethora of Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs and Christians already in the Lords Temporal not adequately represent those concerns?

O.

[Sebastian Toe]

The fundamental problem for Vlad......

Nevertheless I would be interested in what his actual solution would be.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

And while I'd never support actions that aim at attitudinal discomfort against groups based on their sex, race, sexuality, belief (or lack of believe) etc, etc, this is experience to a greater or lesser extent by all of those groups. However I would argue strongly that hostile societal attitudes are much greater towards ethnic minorities, gay people and (whisper it quietly) atheists, than towards christians - and indeed in the case of Williams, a white, middle-aged straight, economically-advantaged christian, who is probably about the least likely to suffer.

However there is a further level of 'discomfort' - specifically where this is embedded in the law, such that certain groups are legally disadvantaged because they are members of a particular group. This goes beyond 'discomfort' and into state-sanctioned discrimination. And while we have made a lot of progress in this regard to remove discriminatory laws (e.g. that prevented gay people getting married) or removing special privileges (which are effectively discrimination against those that don't get that special privilege), we have retained significant privileges for organised religion, and in particular the CofE that amount to discrimination against individuals and groups that are not religious.

So frankly Williams words ring hollow while his organisation gains financial and social privileges including state funded faith schools that are allowed to discriminate, opt-outs to equalities legislation, guaranteed charitable status, complete exemption from business rates, the ability to levy income from local residents to pay for church repairs etc etc - and of course 26 automatic seats in the HoLs.

So don't make me laugh that christians (still less CofE christians) are somehow a disadvantaged and discriminated against group in the UK.

I don't think you can ever entertain the idea that a white middle class educated vocal secularist atheist could at all be anywhere except in the right with no need to listen to those of an alternative opinion. I was like you once all ''who can possibly be more reasonable than me?''.

You need to own that there are some people who you make unnecessarily nervous for the wrong reasons

[ProfessorDavey]

Nevertheless I would be interested in what his actual solution would be.

He doesn't have one - all he is interested in doing is protecting the special interests and special privileges of the bishops.

His solution is to somehow add a few other officials from 'World View' organisations - but of course this begs the question what is a world view and who gets to define both it and whether an organisation can be said to somehow represent a 'world view'.

In a manner Vlad's approach make the situation worse not better - just as Charles' claim to want be defender of faiths, rather than defender of the faith. At least you can simply claim the bishops or defender of the faith are a weird historical anachronism that has no real impact (it's a view), but if you change it in a manner that specifically disregards those without a religious faith (as per defender of faiths) or those who do not consider they have a 'world view' or certainly don't consider their view is represented by some organisation - then you make the situation worse not better.

[Sebastian Toe]

He doesn't have one -

I'm prepared to wait and see if that is correct or not.

[ProfessorDavey]

I'm prepared to wait and see if that is correct or not.

Well as I mentioned in my post - he actually does have one but it is completely unworkable in many regards and will make the situation of representation worse rather than better.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Another example of how the Church is not well place to represent the nation at large, given how fundamentally out of touch it is on things like human rights.

Out of touch? Or disagree with secular Humanists on human rights. In touch means live and let live, I don't care, Secular Humanism is mainly interested in being contrary to the church on the basis of get shot of religion and everything will turn out hunky dory. The church has other fish to fry. The great campaigns of secularism are atheist bus, no faith schools, getting Toksvig, Copson, Porteous Wood etc on thought for the day.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Well as I mentioned in my post - he actually does have one but it is completely unworkable in many regards and will make the situation of representation worse rather than better.

Given that human spirituality is relegated in the house of Lords to a mere 26 members we can start by splitting these up statistically based on the census between religions and world view such as secular humanism etc. Then as time goes by perhaps the privilege of the Lords Temporal of being able to extend membership can be granted to the Lords Temporal.

As opposed to human spirituality? Not even a thing.

[ProfessorDavey]

Given that human spirituality is relegated in the house of Lords to a mere 26 members ...

Which isn't true as any peer can contribute on any matter they wish, including spiritual matters. So discussion of spiritual matters is completely open to 776 members out of, err, 776.

So given that your opening statement is completely incorrect then there isn't much point in going further.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

He doesn't have one - all he is interested in doing is protecting the special interests and special privileges of the bishops.

His solution is to somehow add a few other officials from 'World View' organisations - but of course this begs the question what is a world view and who gets to define both it and whether an organisation can be said to somehow represent a 'world view'.

In a manner Vlad's approach make the situation worse not better - just as Charles' claim to want be defender of faiths, rather than defender of the faith. At least you can simply claim the bishops or defender of the faith are a weird historical anachronism that has no real impact (it's a view), but if you change it in a manner that specifically disregards those without a religious faith (as per defender of faiths) or those who do not consider they have a 'world view' or certainly don't consider their view is represented by some organisation - then you make the situation worse not better.

My scheme extends to those with world views atheist or theist. I have made that clear time and time again.

 Anyone who cared that human spirituality was represented would see this as them being represented rather than their spirituality being better represented by not being represented...as you seem to be suggesting.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Which isn't true as any peer can contribute on any matter they wish, including spiritual matters. So discussion of spiritual matters is completely open to 776 members out of, err, 776.

So given that your opening statement is completely incorrect then there isn't much point in going further.

But again Lords are chosen for expertise and experience.

[ProfessorDavey]

... we can start by splitting these up statistically based on the census between religions and world view such as secular humanism etc.

So:

1. Who gets to decide what is and what is not a world view?
2. How do you determine on the basis of the census who is, for example, humanist - given that the census doesn't ask this.
3. How do you deal with people who have more than one religion/world view - e.g. a secular, christian, vegan, or an atheist, buddhist, environmentalist.
4. Given that Lords Spiritual are granted to officials within organisations - who decides which organisation(s) represent e.g. environmentalists or vegetarians. Noting that these organisation likely have membership a fraction of the numbers who actually hold that world view.
5. In what manner can an official in an organisation be said to represent anyone other than a member of that organisation
 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Imposing the church's view on ANYTHING is overreach. And as no-one is imposing the secular view of marriage on the church, that's just an attempt at a distraction.

How can 26 bishops out of 1000 lords and another 600 MP's impose anything on you or anyone?

[Sebastian Toe]

Given that human spirituality is relegated in the house of Lords to a mere 26 members we can start by splitting these up statistically based on the census between religions and world view such as secular humanism etc.

Go on then, split them up!
What does your split currently look like?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

So:

1. Who gets to decide what is and what is not a world view?
2. How do you determine on the basis of the census who is, for example, humanist - given that the census doesn't ask this.
3. How do you deal with people who have more than one religion/world view - e.g. a secular, christian, vegan, or an atheist, buddhist, environmentalist.
4. Given that Lords Spiritual are granted to officials within organisations - who decides which organisation(s) represent e.g. environmentalists or vegetarians. Noting that these organisation likely have membership a fraction of the numbers who actually hold that world view.
5. In what manner can an official in an organisation be said to represent anyone other than a member of that organisation

The census could make it so the census partakers decide.

If there are any instances of gerrymandering people into a religious group that would be Humanist UK who came up with their definition of what a Christian was and wanted the census to adopt it.

So it would be by Census. As I say the big flaw in your argument is thinking that peoples spirituality is best represented by not being represented.

The only other way round all this is to give spiritual issues discussion time in the Lords. But I can't see secular humanists being interested in that unless it was from a secular angle e.g. ''How much are these religious people costing us''.

[ProfessorDavey]

How can 26 bishops out of 1000 lords and another 600 MP's impose anything on you or anyone?

Firstly there are 776 members of the HoLs.

But you could say that about any other group pf 26 members. The difference is that these 26, unlike every other member of the lords of commons are automatically appointed by virtue of holding senior office in a completely separate organisation.

And, of course, in a tight vote those 26 bishops can be determinative.

[ProfessorDavey]

The census could make it so the census partakers decide.

Eh - what on earth do you mean.

So it would be by Census.

But the census doesn't ask the necessary questions. And it would need to go way beyond asking whether someone is a christian or a vegetarian - it would need to ask whether an individual feels that their christianity or vegetarianism or scientism etc is represented by a particular organisation. And if you actually wanted to do that (not that I believe that to be the way to go), then better to consider membership numbers. If you are a member of an organisation then they legitimately can claim they represent you. If you have chosen not to be a member of an organisation, why on earth would you think a senior official of that organisation represents you - they don't.

As I say the big flaw in your argument is thinking that peoples spirituality is best represented by not being represented.

But that would only make sense if the Lords members who aren't the bishops exclusively had no spirituality and/or were banned from bringing such matters into the debates in the house. But they aren't - so the various branches of spirituality (for which you really mean religion) are perfectly well represented by existing members of the lords temporal, who I imagine will be over-representative of actively religious people compared to the population as a whole.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Go on then, split them up!
What does your split currently look like?

Sorry, Had to go a little over me budget here
12 seats christian
   9 seats Non religious
   2 seats Moslem
   1 seat Hindu
   1 seat Sikh
   1 seat Buddhist
   1 seat Jewish
   1 seats pagan
   1 seat other

Lords chosen according to congregation size primarily, Position within priesthood, clergy or organisation or election as other conditions.

[ProfessorDavey]

Sorry, Had to go a little over me budget here
12 seats christian
   9 seats Non religious
   2 seats Moslem
   1 seat Hindu
   1 seat Sikh
   1 seat Buddhist
   1 seat Jewish
   1 seats pagan
   1 seat other

Lords chosen according to congregation size primarily, Position within priesthood, clergy or organisation or election as other conditions.

Where are the:

Environmentalists
Vegetarians
Vegans
Flat earthers
Crystal healers
Astrologists
etc, etc, etc

Effectively this is simply a sop to religion with a 'non religion' thrown in, which is no more a world-view than non-muslim.

[ProfessorDavey]

Sorry, Had to go a little over me budget here
12 seats christian
   9 seats Non religious
   2 seats Moslem
   1 seat Hindu
   1 seat Sikh
   1 seat Buddhist
   1 seat Jewish
   1 seats pagan
   1 seat other

Lords chosen according to congregation size primarily, Position within priesthood, clergy or organisation or election as other conditions.

But why on earth would the vast majority of 'census' christians (who I presume is the basis of the calculations), who aren't practicing, don't affiliate with any specific christian denomination consider themselves to be represented by a CofE bishop or a RCC priest etc. If they thought the CofE or RCC represented them then surely they'd be members of those organisations.

And good luck with an approach to determine which of the many branches of judaism gets the 'one' seat.

[Outrider]

Out of touch?

Yes.

Or disagree with secular Humanists on human rights.

It's not either/or, you can be both. And, indeed, the Church was during the parliamentary discussions. And out of touch with the significant majority of the populace, too.

In touch means live and let live, I don't care,

As opposed to 'out of touch', which in this context would mean voting against liberalisation to keep everyone else living according to their understanding. See, you do understand, keep going.

Secular Humanism is mainly interested in being contrary to the church on the basis of get shot of religion and everything will turn out hunky dory.

To exactly the same extent that the Church of England is on a power-trip to take over the world and re-establish the British Empire, the monarchy's hold over all nations and therefore the scope of the established church. Secular humanism is interested in restricting the church's hold over people to only those who've volunteered to go that church; it's only when the church interferes in the lives of non-churchgoers that the secularists give a shit at all.

The church has other fish to fry.

Trying to walk that tightrope between being homophobic enough to satisfy the broader church whilst being moderate enough at home as not to alienate too many more of the public and become even more of an irrelevance.

The great campaigns of secularism are atheist bus, no faith schools, getting Toksvig, Copson, Porteous Wood etc on thought for the day.

Right. Moderate, fair, generally uncontentious small things, yes. That you are so exercised about these, despite their relatively moderate scope, suggests that your hand-wringing, desperate clinging to established privilege, portents of doom and claims of victimisation is disproportionate.

None of which, of course, has come close to that attempted justification for the continued existence of the notion of Lords Spiritual that we're all waiting on.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

But why on earth would the vast majority of 'census' christians (who I presume is the basis of the calculations), who aren't practicing, don't affiliate with any specific christian denomination consider themselves to be represented by a CofE bishop or a RCC priest etc. If they thought the CofE or RCC represented them then surely they'd be members of those organisations.

And good luck with an approach to determine which of the many branches of judaism gets the 'one' seat.

Nobody declares a person a christian on a census but the person themselves. We can assume that Humanist UK were successful in their appeal that those of no religion don't just put down C of E. You mention people who don't affiliate with religion, they would have registered that they were non religious wouldn't they? Since the Census asks for religious affiliation.

Given the non necessity of even being a nominal christian or whatever one could assume that these were at least ''something in it'' folk rather than the religiously apathetic.

Reformed or orthodox jewish, shia or sunni, Catholic or protestant, Humanist UK or third tabernacle of atheists? That would of course go on congregation size.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Yes.

How do you tell the ''in touch'' then from Bandwagoners, Zeitgeisters, herd surfers, fashionistas etc?

To exactly the same extent that the Church of England is on a power-trip to take over the world and re-establish the British Empire, the monarchy's hold over all nations and therefore the scope of the established church.

You what?

Secular humanism is interested in restricting the church's hold over people to only those who've volunteered to go that church;

How is it not restricted to that already?

it's only when the church interferes in the lives of non-churchgoers that the secularists give a shit at all.

How can and does the church interfere in the lives of church goers for goodness sake? What are you even talking about here?

[ProfessorDavey]

Nobody declares a person a christian on a census but the person themselves.

Well parents typically make census submissions on behalf of their children, but besides that yes. But what's your point.

We can assume that Humanist UK were successful in their appeal that those of no religion don't just put down C of E.

I have no idea what you are talking about Vlad - what HumanistUK appeal? Which court is this being held at?

You mention people who don't affiliate with religion, they would have registered that they were non religious wouldn't they? Since the Census asks for religious affiliation.

Actually the census doesn't mention affiliation at all - all it asks is 'What is your religion?', which, as you well know has been criticised as a leading question. I suspect if the census actually asked for someone's religious affiliation there would be rather greater levels of 'none' as asking about 'affiliation' is suggesting a greater level of engagement compared to just asking 'religion' which might be considered in a purely cultural/upbringing manner that isn't really a current affiliation.

But you are missing the point - the CofE Bishops aren't general christian representatives, nope they are officials of a specific religious denomination. The census doesn't ask 'Are you CofE' or 'Are you RCC' etc and there will plenty of people who are vaguely culturally christian, may tick that box on the census but would never consider themselves CofE or RCC etc. Moreover there will be active christians who have specifically chosen not to be affiliated with CofE, RCC etc and would never consider themselves to be represented by them. Would the Rev Ian Paisley have considered himself to be represented by a RCC Bishop - hmm.

Reformed or orthodox jewish, shia or sunni, Catholic or protestant, Humanist UK or third tabernacle of atheists? That would of course go on congregation size.

Cakeism and double standards - so on the one hand (where is suits you) you want numbers based on nominal census religion, most of whom won't affiliate with any specific denomination and most won't be active whatsoever. But then later you want congregation size to be the determining factor. You can't have it both ways.

So on congregation size, about 90% of people in the UK aren't members of any congregation, so you starting point for your 26 Lords World-View would be 23 non-religious, leaving 3 (actually should be 2.6), but let's go for three, to be fought over by all religions. Good luck with that.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Well parents typically make census submissions on behalf of their children, but besides that yes. But what's your point.
I have no idea what you are talking about Vlad - what HumanistUK appeal? Which court is this being held at?
Actually the census doesn't mention affiliation at all - all it asks is 'What is your religion?', which, as you well know has been criticised as a leading question. I suspect if the census actually asked for someone's religious affiliation there would be rather greater levels of 'none' as asking about 'affiliation' is suggesting a greater level of engagement compared to just asking 'religion' which might be considered in a purely cultural/upbringing manner that isn't really a current affiliation.

But you are missing the point - the CofE Bishops aren't general christian representatives, nope they are officials of a specific religious denomination. The census doesn't ask 'Are you CofE' or 'Are you RCC' etc and there will plenty of people who are vaguely culturally christian, may tick that box on the census but would never consider themselves CofE or RCC etc. Moreover there will be active christians who have specifically chosen not to be affiliated with CofE, RCC etc and would never consider themselves to be represented by them. Would the Rev Ian Paisley have considered himself to be represented by a RCC Bishop - hmm.
Cakeism and double standards - so on the one hand (where is suits you) you want numbers based on nominal census religion, most of whom won't affiliate with any specific denomination and most won't be active whatsoever. But then later you want congregation size to be the determining factor. You can't have it both ways.

So on congregation size, about 90% of people in the UK aren't members of any congregation, so you starting point for your 26 Lords World-View would be 23 non-religious, leaving 3 (actually should be 2.6), but let's go for three, to be fought over by all religions. Good luck with that.

If the census doesn't mention religious affiliation but religion that's worse for your argument which is the patronising assumption that people don't know what they are doing when they fill it out.

Anyway your argument is a red herring since I propose the inclusion of the non religious.

I think we are now at that point where your demands for parity in selecting lords spiritual are more draconian than your demands and criteria for ensuring a good cross section of Lords Temporal.