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

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Whoosh!

No it isn’t – but that’s effectively what it would be in a secular state. That's the point.

What on earth is that even supposed to mean?

Utter gibberish. Did this mean something in your head when you typed it?

Secularism doesn’t deny the “right of access to power” to anyone; it just denies the automatic right to that power because of religiosity – ie, it merely says that religious people shouldn’t have that power solely because they happen to be religious. If, say, the Archbishop of Canterbury wanted to stand for election to a political or civic office he’d be as free to do so as would anyone else.

Good grief.   

Meaning what? Your random word generator seems to have kicked in again here…

Meaning atheists have coopted the word secular and have changed it's meaning. Particularly with regard to secular Humanists.
As mentioned before secularity was that aspect of life not considered spiritual which services our material needs and concerns. Unbalanced theocracy has it's mirror image.

To suggest that 26 Lords spiritual against hundreds and hundreds of secular Lords is unbalanced theocracy is ridiculous and IMV antitheism masquerading as reasonable.

[ProfessorDavey]

To suggest that 26 Lords spiritual against hundreds and hundreds of secular Lords is unbalanced theocracy is ridiculous and IMV antitheism masquerading as reasonable.

There aren't any 'secular' Lords - there are Lords 'temporal' but that is an entirely different matter, and as I pointed out many of those Lords temporal will be highly religious, including some whose reason for being a Lord temporal is because they used to be Archbishop of Canterbury or Archbishop of York.

You are trying to promulgate an argument that Lords temporal are anti-religion while Lords spiritual are pro-religion. That argument is totally unsustainable - the reality is that Lords temporal are (usually) not appointed due to their religious position although many will be religious and potentially highly pro-religion. There is also no bar on a member of the Lords temporal from bringing their religiosity into the chamber in terms of their support for, values based on etc etc religion. But there are no members of the Lords temporal who are automatically appointed to the Lords by virtue of holding a senior position in a completely separate organisation.

By contrast the Lords spiritual are appointed purely on the basis of their seniority in a completely separate organisation and that single organisation is a religious organisation. There is no equivalence with any other members of the Lords.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

There aren't any 'secular' Lords - there are Lords 'temporal' but that is an entirely different matter, and as I pointed out many of those Lords temporal will be highly religious, including some whose reason for being a Lord temporal is because they used to be Archbishop of Canterbury or Archbishop of York.

You are trying to promulgate an argument that Lords temporal are anti-religion while Lords spiritual are pro-religion. That argument is totally unsustainable - the reality is that Lords temporal are (usually) not appointed due to their religious position although many will be religious and potentially highly pro-religion. There is also no bar on a member of the Lords temporal from bringing their religiosity into the chamber in terms of their support for, values based on etc etc religion. But there are no members of the Lords temporal who are automatically appointed to the Lords by virtue of holding a senior position in a completely separate organisation.

By contrast the Lords spiritual are appointed purely on the basis of their seniority in a completely separate organisation and that single organisation is a religious organisation. There is no equivalence with any other members of the Lords.

Regarding the definition of Lords Temporal as secular I offer this.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lords_Temporal

Regarding promulgation what I am arguing for is that people have concerns that are termed spiritual that are not the same as  those concerned with our material well being and a totally secular government distorts this, homoncularises the citizen and in the end fails to meet their needs or properly represent them. Of course that doesn't have to be Bishops or even totally christian and I have suggested Copson, Fry, Dawkins to which you could add Toksvig. And that's it as far as that goes

[ProfessorDavey]

Regarding the definition of Lords Temporal as secular I offer this.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lords_Temporal

But you are being deeply disingenuous - they are only secular to contrast with the bishops - they are not secular in the manner that you claim is the common parlance. So they are secular in the manner that a secular priest may be secular - to distinguish from a member of a religious order in the same manner as lords temporal are secular to distinguish from members automatically appointed by virtue of their seniority in the CofE.

You cannot have it both ways Vlad - either you use secular in its most historic definition, in which case it does apply to the lords temporal, or you use it in a manner more akin to NSS or HumanistsUK in which case it does not apply to the lords temporal.

[ProfessorDavey]

Regarding promulgation what I am arguing for is that people have concerns that are termed spiritual that are not the same as  those concerned with our material well being and a totally secular government distorts this, homoncularises the citizen and in the end fails to meet their needs or properly represent them. Of course that doesn't have to be Bishops or even totally christian and I have suggested Copson, Fry, Dawkins to which you could add Toksvig. And that's it as far as that goes

Can you explain to me how 26 people who are all appointed due their seniority within one religion adds to diversity. It is the very model of a monoculture - beyond the obvious that they are all from one specific denomination from one religion of the 26 I think there are just five women, one from a minority ethnic group and every one of them is age 55-69 so incredible non diverse in age either. And let's not even bring in LGBT diversity!

[Outrider]

I only say ''only'' to contrast that with the hundreds suitable to the two secular denominations HumanistUK and the NSS.

You mean the hundreds who represent all other interest groups and individuals, as well as religious people, whilst there are STILL these reserved seats for one priveleged position on one (increasingly irrelevant) aspect of the nation's interests.

I do understand why your average english person is going to have a problem with the established Church of England and it's regulation of the unwilling is seared into the collective consciousness. That's why I initially was pro disestablishment. But todays patrons of Humanist UK are powerful and frankly antitheist and people of religion are in, I fear real danger from them and their exaggerated response to an imagined history.

What danger are they in? Where is this perceived threat? Or are you equating losing that privileged position with being somehow mistreated? Perhaps you should look to groups who have actually been disadvantaged in the distant and recent past by the explicit campaigns of the church and its privileged position - on issues such as equal access to marriage, women's right to divorce, marital rape allegations and the like.

I can therefore find myself supporting american atheists against christian fundamentalists and nationalists but here see the dodgy antitheist agenda of the Humanists.

The humanists (some of whom, I'll remind you again, are religious, and some of those particularly are Christian) are campaigning in part to prevent places like the UK backsliding into the sort of situation we see in the US, and in places like Uganda and Nigeria, places like Israel and India, places like the recent history of Northern Ireland.

That's not what the game is and you know it. The prime aim of Secularists is the removal of religion from public life and having a complete secular bandwith.

And you equate that with the elimination of religion, you interpret that (willfully wrongly or not I'm not sure) as antitheist, and it's not. Removing religion from the public realm does not mean suppressing religion from all aspects of life, it doesn't make it a secret that must be hidden away, it just means that policy that affects everyone shouldn't be based upon the religious beliefs of a few.

They are play acting at being reasonable.

No, they are being reasonable, you're just not inclined to view their output dispassionately because you have the Christian victim-mentality to preserve and the historic privilege feels normalised to you so any challenge to it feels unreasonable.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

But you are being deeply disingenuous - they are only secular to contrast with the bishops - they are not secular in the manner that you claim is the common parlance. So they are secular in the manner that a secular priest may be secular - to distinguish from a member of a religious order in the same manner as lords temporal are secular to distinguish from members automatically appointed by virtue of their seniority in the CofE.

You cannot have it both ways Vlad - either you use secular in its most historic definition, in which case it does apply to the lords temporal, or you use it in a manner more akin to NSS or HumanistsUK in which case it does not apply to the lords temporal.

They are named for their focus as Lords.
Lords temporal are therefore for skills I'm the quotidian temporal aspect of life material well being employment politics finance law etc.
Lords spiritual for the less easily quantifiable aspects. If Dawkins was in the Lords spiritual his focus would be antitheism representing the antitheism as a moral necessity in society. We're he to be made a Lord Temporal for his atheism that could be valid under the definitions the Lords works on.
He could be made a Lord Temporal for his skill in shepherding and managing  the atheist community though.

At the moment the argument seems to be "There are less spiritual people year on year and so more of us people who know we haven't got spirit so kick them out".

To which the question must be, why kick them out rather than put you in?"

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Can you explain to me how 26 people who are all appointed due their seniority within one religion adds to diversity. It is the very model of a monoculture - beyond the obvious that they are all from one specific denomination from one religion of the 26 I think there are just five women, one from a minority ethnic group and every one of them is age 55-69 so incredible non diverse in age either. And let's not even bring in LGBT diversity!

I can't and I don't I want other beliefs and world views in the house of Lords. Any one else can be made a Lord.

[ProfessorDavey]

I can't and I don't I want other beliefs and world views in the house of Lords. Any one else can be made a Lord.

There would be no bar for a bishop (or several bishops) being appointed to the lords even if the lords spiritual were abolished. They just wouldn't be given an automatic place (unlike any other peers), they'd have to be appointed (just like other peers).

[Walt Zingmatilder]

There would be no bar for a bishop (or several bishops) being appointed to the lords even if the lords spiritual were abolished. They just wouldn't be given an automatic place (unlike any other peers), they'd have to be appointed (just like other peers).

Do you honestly think that a person elected to the House of Lords because of their religion and spirituality is ever going to be acceptible to humanist UK or NSS?  Of course not.

[ProfessorDavey]

Do you honestly think that a person elected to the House of Lords because of their religion and spirituality is ever going to be acceptible to humanist UK or NSS?  Of course not.

You really don't understand secularism do you Vlad.

The point is that it provides a level playing field - so as long as a person goes through the same process and evaluation regardless of whether they are president of the Royal Society, an ex-government minister, president of the NSS, a bishop in the CofE or a member of the public with no special role then that's fine. If that is the case then bishops can apply and be successful in exactly the same manner as anyone else - that is exactly what secularism is about. The issue is when people are specially privileged because of their religion.

[Outrider]

Do you honestly think that a person elected to the House of Lords because of their religion and spirituality is ever going to be acceptible to humanist UK or NSS?  Of course not.

Do you think that Humanists UK have a veto power of some sort? There are any number of Lords I find unacceptable on a personal basis, but my dislike of them isn't a basis for objecting to their appointment. It's not (just) the content of their activity which is objectionable in the status of the Lords Spiritual, it's that they have a fundamentally different framework of selection, appointment and representation to all the other Lords, which affords one particular cult of one sect of one religious family additional influence.

You still haven't managed to actually come up with something to attempt to justify that, so far as I can see. You keep wandering off onto this paranoid rant about Humanist UK's new world order, instead...

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Do you think that Humanists UK have a veto power of some sort? There are any number of Lords I find unacceptable on a personal basis, but my dislike of them isn't a basis for objecting to their appointment. It's not (just) the content of their activity which is objectionable in the status of the Lords Spiritual, it's that they have a fundamentally different framework of selection, appointment and representation to all the other Lords, which affords one particular cult of one sect of one religious family additional influence.

You still haven't managed to actually come up with something to attempt to justify that, so far as I can see. You keep wandering off onto this paranoid rant about Humanist UK's new world order, instead...

O.

Veto power or not Humanist UK and NSS are not going to tolerate an appointment to the HOL on the grounds of religion or spirituality so let's have less of this "They don't want a veto in there favour" suggestion you seem to be making..

[ProfessorDavey]

Veto power or not Humanist UK and NSS are not going to tolerate an appointment to the HOL on the grounds of religion or spirituality so let's have less of this "They don't want a veto in there favour" suggestion you seem to be making..

You really have no idea what secularism means Vlad.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Meaning atheists have coopted the word secular and have changed it's meaning. Particularly with regard to secular Humanists.

That’s both simply not true and deeply ironic as the only person trying to re-define the term “secularism” here is you. Secularism means what I told you it means – the separation of church from state in matters political and civic. Your bizarre re-characterisation of it as some sort of witch hunt that “endangers” theists is just counterfactual.
 

As mentioned before secularity was that aspect of life not considered spiritual which services our material needs and concerns. Unbalanced theocracy has it's mirror image.

No it isn’t. It’s not “unbalanced” not to afford to theists by right the automatic right to positions of authority in matters political and civic.   

To suggest that 26 Lords spiritual against hundreds and hundreds of secular Lords is unbalanced theocracy is ridiculous and IMV antitheism masquerading as reasonable.

Way to miss the point again. The point here concerns the granting of certain position by right, rather than by elections or achievement. There is no equivalence to the automatic right afforded to 26 bishops here as you wrongly suggest - no lords temporal are afforded their positions by right for being atheists, indeed no doubt many of them aren't atheists in any case.   

[Outrider]

Veto power or not Humanist UK and NSS are not going to tolerate an appointment to the HOL on the grounds of religion or spirituality so let's have less of this "They don't want a veto in there favour" suggestion you seem to be making.

They don't have any authority to appoint or to refuse an appointment. No-one doe... oh, wait, no, one group does have the authority to appoint their chosen 26 Lords... if only we could remember who it might be that has that unwarranted privilege....

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You really have no idea what secularism means Vlad.

I know what it means to you and the conception of secular held by humanistUK and NSS.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You really don't understand secularism do you Vlad.

The point is that it provides a level playing field - so as long as a person goes through the same process and evaluation regardless of whether they are president of the Royal Society, an ex-government minister, president of the NSS, a bishop in the CofE or a member of the public with no special role then that's fine. If that is the case then bishops can apply and be successful in exactly the same manner as anyone else - that is exactly what secularism is about. The issue is when people are specially privileged because of their religion.

You don't know why there are Lords temporal and Lords spiritual.
The bogus level playing field you are wanting is for all to go through the process of electing secular Lords. It's gamed in the favour of atheists from the get go.
It's just what Dawkins calls being "Mischievious". It's like the jesuits were accused of.....a little bit of handwaving justifies the end.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

The bogus level playing field you are wanting is for all to go through the process of electing secular Lords.

No it isn't. What people are "wanting" is for everyone to be appointed on the same basis - eg, by election – rather than for one group alone (the Bishops) to have the automatic right to those positions solely because they happen to be bishops. If a bishop stood for election and won, no-one would have an issue.

This isn't hard to understand, even for you. 

[ProfessorDavey]

You don't know why there are Lords temporal and Lords spiritual.

Yes I do - it is due to the historical distinction between hereditary peers, representing the nobility and bishops as representatives of the established church. Through history the make up of the HoLs and distinction between lords temporal and spiritual was there to embed the notion of establishment and entitlement. It is a purely historical anachronism.

And of course the lords temporal has changed massively over the years - once it was entirely hereditary nobility, now it largely comprises appointed life peer who aren't hereditary. By contrast, the only major change in the lords spiritual over centuries has been their number - they remain the most senior members of the CofE now as they have been for centuries (albeit pre 1847 there were Irish and Welsh bishops too).

The automatic appointment of bishops to the HoLs is as anachronistic as the automatic appointment of peers on a hereditary basis - but we've got rid of the latter, yet the former remain.

[Outrider]

You don't know why there are Lords temporal and Lords spiritual.

We know why there were, we don't know why there still are, and you're still to give us any idea of what your justification for them is.

The bogus level playing field you are wanting is for all to go through the process of electing secular Lords. It's gamed in the favour of atheists from the get go.

Secular ≄ atheist. Secular lords does not exclude anyone from consideration, it just doesn't reserve seats for Bishops.

It's just what Dawkins calls being "Mischievious". It's like the jesuits were accused of.....a little bit of handwaving justifies the end.

Regardless of how serious or not you think people are, you've still consistently failed to justify continuing with a parallel system of reserved seats for the Church of England which appears even less acceptable as religiosity and church membership continue to decline in this country.

O.

[SqueakyVoice]

Yes I do - it is due to the historical distinction...
The automatic appointment of bishops to the HoLs is as anachronistic as the automatic appointment of peers on a hereditary basis - but we've got rid of the latter, yet the former remain.

IMO, the best way of finding new Lords for parliament would picking people  from some randomised lottery.
Similar to selecting people for a jury court.
The only people I know who were members  of the jury knew their decisions would be serious and they took them seriously.
There might be a way of ensuring they weren't fraudulent or gaming on their new position. But that should be what happens now.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

IMO, the best way of finding new Lords for parliament would picking people  from some randomised lottery.
Similar to selecting people for a jury court.
The only people I know who were members  of the jury knew their decisions would be serious and they took them seriously.
There might be a way of ensuring they weren't fraudulent or gaming on their new position. But that should be what happens now.

I agree though I'm not sure Humanist UK or NSS would be pleased about replacement Apostles having been selected by lot in the NT.

[ProfessorDavey]

IMO, the best way of finding new Lords for parliament would picking people  from some randomised lottery.
Similar to selecting people for a jury court.
The only people I know who were members  of the jury knew their decisions would be serious and they took them seriously.
There might be a way of ensuring they weren't fraudulent or gaming on their new position. But that should be what happens now.

Not sure I agree for a range of reasons.

Juries are required to make decisions, but are not expected to be experts in any regard. Peers in the HoLs are expected to scrutinise legislation, which requires a level of expertise through the house, and not just make decisions. There is a distinction in the role of jury and HoLs member.

Also I think it would be really challenging. Fair enough to randomly pick members of the public and expect them to be a jury member in a local court for a couple of weeks. You couldn't do that for the HoLs - how many people could put the rest of their lives on hold, relocate to be working in London for however long unless they'd specifically chosen to. So I suspect this approach would inadvertently be tipped towards certain types of people, so not actually representative, as others find a way to opt out.

Overall I think there are three reasonable approaches to select people (whether in parliament, jobs etc) - the first is on merit - that's how we decide who to select in job interviews, and to an extend the HoLs claims that it's members are there on merit (except the lords spiritual of course), albeit I'm not sure this works particularly well. The second is democratically - put yourself up for election and see who gets the most votes, as per the HoCs (again there are limitations but the principle applies). The first is representative - in other words the members of an organisation such as HoLs are representative of the population - this is the approach for juries, but democracy nor merit-based methods will necessarily deliver a representative chamber.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Not sure I agree for a range of reasons.

Juries are required to make decisions, but are not expected to be experts in any regard. Peers in the HoLs are expected to scrutinise legislation, which requires a level of expertise through the house, and not just make decisions. There is a distinction in the role of jury and HoLs member.

Also I think it would be really challenging. Fair enough to randomly pick members of the public and expect them to be a jury member in a local court for a couple of weeks. You couldn't do that for the HoLs - how many people could put the rest of their lives on hold, relocate to be working in London for however long unless they'd specifically chosen to. So I suspect this approach would inadvertently be tipped towards certain types of people, so not actually representative, as others find a way to opt out.

Overall I think there are three reasonable approaches to select people (whether in parliament, jobs etc) - the first is on merit - that's how we decide who to select in job interviews, and to an extend the HoLs claims that it's members are there on merit (except the lords spiritual of course), albeit I'm not sure this works particularly well. The second is democratically - put yourself up for election and see who gets the most votes, as per the HoCs (again there are limitations but the principle applies). The first is representative - in other words the members of an organisation such as HoLs are representative of the population - this is the approach for juries, but democracy nor merit-based methods will necessarily deliver a representative chamber.

And a lot of this would be fine until you consider that until recently the idiot sons of idiot fathers had as much right in the House of Lords as those of intelligent fathers on the grounds of inheritence.

It is not true to say that Bishops have no expertise or merit. They have reached the rank of Bishop and manage Diocese if not archdiocese or even global communions(soft power) What expertise or merit do political Cronies have I wonder? Aside from that, Davey, good to see you making progress.