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

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Not really. It has many applications, it has many contexts, but it only really has one meaning.

Your ravings about 'antitheists' just wanting to privilege atheism suggests that you don't.

Again, why should religion have a privileged place in Parliament? "Render unto Caesar..." and all that...

Because religion is an aspect of spirituality which is an aspect of humanity. If atheists or whoever wish to abuse themselves by homoncularising their humanity into a wizened sociopolitical mere unit let them do it but don't ask me to.

Having the group that represents everyone have the largest share does not privilege anyone.

Represents everyone or absolutely no one? A secular only house of Lords is bound to represent secular as opposed to spiritual interests. It is only there to represent the transhuman automaton of secular humanism and the atheism of the four horsemen...anything else you want to know?

[Outrider]

Because religion is an aspect of spirituality which is an aspect of humanity.

That's a claim that an increasing number of people don't agree with. There are people who think spirituality is nonsense, and people who are spiritual but don't see why that needs to include religion.

If atheists or whoever wish to abuse themselves by homoncularising their humanity into a wizened sociopolitical mere unit let them do it but don't ask me to.

Nobody is asking them to, but you still need to explain why, even if your claim about spirituality were true, it's somehow different to all the other aspects of humanity to the extent it needs special seats reserved for it. Sexuality is a part of humanity, where is the special representation for that?

Represents everyone or absolutely no one?

Either of those is fairer, one of them is arguably more useful than the other.

A secular only house of Lords is bound to represent secular as opposed to spiritual interests.

SECULAR DOES NOT EXCLUDE SPIRITUAL OR RELIGIOUS!!!!

It is only there to represent the transhuman automaton of secular humanism and the atheism of the four horsemen...anything else you want to know?

Why does not giving religion a special pulpit equate to removing it from the equation entirely? If religion needs to regulated into people's lives because otherwise they'd just let it wither away why should it not be allowed to wither away?

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

That's a claim that an increasing number of people don't agree with.

Argumentum ad populum.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Why does not giving religion a special pulpit equate to removing it from the equation entirely? If religion needs to regulated into people's lives because otherwise they'd just let it wither away why should it not be allowed to wither away?

O.

Religion isn't withering away it's becoming different forms of spirituality even breaking out in humanism with it's chaplains and celebrants and sunday services and meek and priestly scientists and luvvies like Brian Cox and Alice Roberts and Fry and it's tub thumpers like Dawkins etc.

I have to admit I wonder how Dawkins feels that he's only on the media for his contraversialist style rather than for anything of substance.

[Outrider]

Argumentum ad populum.

No, because the point isn't that it's definitively wrong (or right), but that to mandate it being part of parliament when it's not representative of the population is unjustified. It was also the counterpoint to you stating the claim as though it were a fact in an attempt to continue to justify the untenable position of the Lords Spiritual, which you've still managed to adequately do.

Religion isn't withering away it's becoming different forms of spirituality

Which are, by definition, not religion. That people might be looking for something else instead doesn't change the fact that religion is withering away in this country.

even breaking out in humanism with it's chaplains and celebrants and sunday services and meek and priestly scientists and luvvies like Brian Cox and Alice Roberts and Fry and it's tub thumpers like Dawkins etc.

That still doesn't look like a justification for the Lords Spiritual, to me.

I have to admit I wonder how Dawkins feels that he's only on the media for his contraversialist style rather than for anything of substance.

I wasn't aware he was in the media at the moment, particularly. You'd have to be the sort of obsessive that shoe-horns him into discussions to go looking for him, I suppose. Maybe we could nominate him as a Lord, and then (if he got it) your comments would be at least vaguely somewhere near relevant?

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No, because the point isn't that it's definitively wrong (or right), but that to mandate it being part of parliament when it's not representative of the population is unjustified. It was also the counterpoint to you stating the claim as though it were a fact in an attempt to continue to justify the untenable position of the Lords Spiritual, which you've still managed to adequately do.

Which are, by definition, not religion. That people might be looking for something else instead doesn't change the fact that religion is withering away in this country.

That still doesn't look like a justification for the Lords Spiritual, to me.

I wasn't aware he was in the media at the moment, particularly. You'd have to be the sort of obsessive that shoe-horns him into discussions to go looking for him, I suppose. Maybe we could nominate him as a Lord, and then (if he got it) your comments would be at least vaguely somewhere near relevant?

O.

Well then we can rejoice that Dawkins is going the same way but with increased rapidity than religion. Let's hope he takes the monstrous homoncularisation of contemporary British atheism with him.

[Outrider]

Well then we can rejoice that Dawkins is going the same way but with increased rapidity than religion. Let's hope he takes the monstrous homoncularisation of contemporary British atheism with him.

Should I presume that you've run out of pop-up Dawkins references to try to distract from the fact that you don't have a point and have accepted that there's no justification for maintaining the privileged seats reserved in the Lords for the religious?

O.

[jeremyp]

The lords spiritual and the Lords Temporal are both guaranteed places in the house of Lords with the Lords secular privileged in terms of share and expansion of numbers of seats.

Is it your belief that the Lords Temporal are all atheists?

[jeremyp]

Argumentum ad populum.

In a country that is, at least nominally, a democracy, what the majority thinks is fairly important in political matters.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Is it your belief that the Lords Temporal are all atheists?

No but for all of the Lords Temporal secular issues and their secular expertise or achievement are their focus and raison d'etre.
No Lords temporal are expected to provide spiritual insight.

[Outrider]

No but for all of the Lords Temporal secular issues and their secular expertise or achievement are their focus and raison d'etre.

The Lords is there as part of the legislature, we shouldn't be legislating individuals' spiritual issues. If you want spiritual insight, you go to the religious establishment of your choice. Providing 'spiritual insight' is not what the Lords is for. If there is a 'spiritual' aspect to an issue of law there are any  number of religious Lords who can provide that insight, from multiple perspectives. Why do you need additional, reserved, privileged representation?

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

The Lords is there as part of the legislature, we shouldn't be legislating individuals' spiritual issues. If you want spiritual insight, you go to the religious establishment of your choice. Providing 'spiritual insight' is not what the Lords is for. If there is a 'spiritual' aspect to an issue of law there are any  number of religious Lords who can provide that insight, from multiple perspectives. Why do you need additional, reserved, privileged representation?

O.

Yes like you don't go to the Lords for a heart bypass but you hopefully do have some medical professionals in the house of Lords that can add insight when it comes to spending money on them. Ditto we need those that understand their communities and while 46% of census fillers put down Christian that'd be the church. I want Humanists in the Lords spiritual but what we don't want is bonkers atheists running around unchecked ripping up the infra structure for the 46% because of some homoncularised vision of humanity, or the infrastructure for any religion for that matter.

[jeremyp]

Yes like you don't go to the Lords for a heart bypass but you hopefully do have some medical professionals in the house of Lords that can add insight when it comes to spending money on them.

Good point. We need some Lords Medical. We also need some Lords Athletic to give advice on sporting matters and some Lords Mechanical to deal with issues relating to cars.

Can't you see how silly your objection to abolishing the Lords Spiritual is?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Good point. We need some Lords Medical. We also need some Lords Athletic to give advice on sporting matters and some Lords Mechanical to deal with issues relating to cars.

Can't you see how silly your objection to abolishing the Lords Spiritual is?

No, democratically accepting the assertions of a minority of census participants makes no sense particularly when their argument is based on the inaccurate notion that the Lords temporal do not have reserved places and the lions share to boot.

Regarding Lords medical I take it that would exclude people like hospital chaplains.

[Outrider]

Yes like you don't go to the Lords for a heart bypass but you hopefully do have some medical professionals in the house of Lords that can add insight when it comes to spending money on them.

Yes, but I don't see 26 seats reserved for the 'Lords Surgical'.

Ditto we need those that understand their communities and while 46% of census fillers put down Christian that'd be the church.

The Church of England does not represent all of those 46%, and there are significant communities that it doesn't represent at all. And, again, if you consider that expertise is lacking in the house they can appoint someone with that understanding, that still fails to justify having 26 reserved seats for one particular special interest group.

I want Humanists in the Lords spiritual but what we don't want is bonkers atheists running around unchecked ripping up the infra structure for the 46% because of some homoncularised vision of humanity, or the infrastructure for any religion for that matter.

Go on, throw in another badly-spelt homonculise in lieu of  having a point. If you want broader representation the answer is not a different balance of reserved seats, it's don't reserve seats. You've still not explained why the Church of England, Christianity, Religion or even spirituality merits reserved places when other considerations don't.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Yes, but I don't see 26 seats reserved for the 'Lords Surgical'.

Perhaps we could combine the Lords Surgical with the Lords spiritual and have the Lods Surgical Spirit.

[ProfessorDavey]

The Church of England does not represent all of those 46%, and there are significant communities that it doesn't represent at all.

Indeed - CofE bishops can only legitimately be said to represent the CofE membership, which they tend to describe now as their worshipful community, which currently stands at 966k, in other words about 1.4% of the UK population. And as the CofE operates in England they don't really represent anyone in three of the four nations of the UK.

There are a whole bunch of organisations that have membership greater than the CofE - should they get automatic places in the Lords? Well if they should and they should proportionately be represented to the level the CofE are officially in the Lords Spiritual (not counting all the Lords Temporal peers who may also be CofE members), we'd need to reserve 30 places to automatically be awarded to the 30 most senior officials of the Caravan and Motorhome Club!!!

Oh and you'll need to set aside 154 automatic places for officials of the National Trust (officials, note, not members).

And 161 automatic places for officials of the National Union of Students (officials, note, not members).

etc, etc

Gonna be one hell of a large House of Lords.

[Nearly Sane]

Perhaps we could combine the Lords Surgical with the Lords spiritual and have the Lods Surgical Spirit.

Like this


https://youtu.be/EYcnKkBOcmI

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Like this


https://youtu.be/EYcnKkBOcmI

Yes, Very Good.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Indeed - CofE bishops can only legitimately be said to represent the CofE membership, which they tend to describe now as their worshipful community, which currently stands at 966k, in other words about 1.4% of the UK population. And as the CofE operates in England they don't really represent anyone in three of the four nations of the UK.

There are a whole bunch of organisations that have membership greater than the CofE - should they get automatic places in the Lords? Well if they should and they should proportionately be represented to the level the CofE are officially in the Lords Spiritual (not counting all the Lords Temporal peers who may also be CofE members), we'd need to reserve 30 places to automatically be awarded to the 30 most senior officials of the Caravan and Motorhome Club!!!

Oh and you'll need to set aside 154 automatic places for officials of the National Trust (officials, note, not members).

And 161 automatic places for officials of the National Union of Students (officials, note, not members).

etc, etc

Gonna be one hell of a large House of Lords.

I recall Rowan Williams I think saying he was formerly not opposed to disestablishment but then noted the discomfort felt by people of the main religious groups in this country at a hostile attitude from secularists towards them and how the leadership of these groups were thankful of even the bishops presence. Of course this attitude is probably not nearly so hostile as the secular attitude in say, France but that doesn't make it any more ''right''

So caught up in their own self righteousness certain prominent patrons of Humanist UK and the NSS fail to see the effect their pitchfork and torch rhetoric is actually having.

26 members of the Lords spiritual drawn statistically from census information would be the place to start with HumanistUK doing a Sinn Fein by not taking their seats if they so wished.

[Outrider]

I recall Rowan Williams I think saying he was formerly not opposed to disestablishment but then noted the discomfort felt by people of the main religious groups in this country at a hostile attitude from secularists towards them and how the leadership of these groups were thankful of even the bishops presence.

I'm sure that 'discomfort' at the 'hostile attitude' ranks right up there alongside, say, the distaste amongst the gay community and their allies at the church using its entrenched position to try to prevent equal marriage.

So caught up in their own self righteousness certain prominent patrons of Humanist UK and the NSS fail to see the effect their pitchfork and torch rhetoric is actually having.

Is that effect having reserved seats in Parliament? No, it's just them exercising their free speech - the 'pitchfork and torch' rhetoric coming from Humanists UK and the NSS is pitched against the institutional homophobia and misogyny of the Church, and if you're looking to expand the remit of the Lords Spiritual, formal religion in general.

26 members of the Lords spiritual drawn statistically from census information would be the place to start with HumanistUK doing a Sinn Fein by not taking their seats if they so wished.

You're somewhere between begging the question and rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic. Why are you quibbling about the make-up of a special group to represent 'spiritual' ideas when you've still not managed to justify special treatment in Parliament for 'spirit' anyway. Why do we need Lords Spiritual at all?

O.

[ProfessorDavey]

I'm sure that 'discomfort' at the 'hostile attitude' ranks right up there alongside, say, the distaste amongst the gay community and their allies at the church using its entrenched position to try to prevent equal marriage.

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.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I'm sure that 'discomfort' at the 'hostile attitude' ranks right up there alongside, say, the distaste amongst the gay community and their allies at the church using its entrenched position to try to prevent equal marriage.

An enterprise doomed to failure when British society decided that it didn't care who other people decided to get married to. 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. In the light of that why should an atheist gay be bothered about this except for atheist reasons. I personally was convinced by the argument that Christians don't have the monopoly on the term 'Marriage'. Yes, imposing the churches view of marriage on unbelievers is overreach...but so is imposing the secular view of marriage on the church.

Is that effect having reserved seats in Parliament? No, it's just them exercising their free speech - the 'pitchfork and torch' rhetoric coming from Humanists UK and the NSS is pitched against the institutional homophobia and misogyny of the Church, and if you're looking to expand the remit of the Lords Spiritual, formal religion in general.

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.

You're somewhere between begging the question and rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic. Why are you quibbling about the make-up of a special group to represent 'spiritual' ideas when you've still not managed to justify special treatment in Parliament for 'spirit' anyway. Why do we need Lords Spiritual at all?

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

[Sebastian Toe]

26 members of the Lords spiritual drawn statistically from census information would be the place to start with HumanistUK doing a Sinn Fein by not taking their seats if they so wished.

So give us your seat breakdown based on the latest census returns.
That would be a good way to figure out how your New age HOL would pan out.

[ProfessorDavey]

So give us your seat breakdown based on the latest census returns.
That would be a good way to figure out how your New age HOL would pan out.

The fundamental problem for Vlad is that he wants to provide special interest groups (for want of a better term) automatic seats on the basis of the proportion of the public that aligns themselves with that special interest. This is his argument for Lords 'World View'.

But of course many people align themselves with more than one 'special interest' - so someone may be a CofE, environmentalist, union-member, yoga practicing, concert goer. All of which may be incredibly important to their 'world view'. So under Vlad's ill thought through plans they need to be represented by a Bishop, a senior official of WWF, a union general sec., a senior official of the UK yoga organisation and the chair of the professional musician's union.

Quite apart from the obvious that many of these people may be far too busy in their own jobs to want to be members of the HoLs, we would end up needing many times more peers than the house could sensibly cope with.

I've already showed that is proportionately the CofE should get 26 seats, you'd need another nigh on 350 just to be fair, proportionately, to the NUS, National Trust and Caravan and Motorhome Club.

But there is a further major flaw in Vlad's argument - he assumes that people are 'joiner' - effectively that if they think something important, they join the club. But actually many don't and that is the case across the board. Polls suggest that a majority of the population are concerned with environmental issues, yet I imagine only a small proportion will actually join their local Wildlife Trust, or friends of the Earth, Greenpeace, WWF etc. But those organisations can only legitimately claim to be representing their members - not a bunch of other people that, for various reasons, have chosen not to join.

And the same is true across many aspects of life, not least religion - so the likes of Vlad like to bandy around figure such as 50%-ish of the UK population are christian (in census terms). But the CofE cannot claim to represent those that are active and not CofE, nor those who tick christian on the census but are not members of any denomination. They could choose to be members of the CofE, but they've chosen not to be, so the CofE does not represent them.