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

[Outrider]

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

Zeitgeisters, by definition, are in touch. Bandwagoners fall off after a while, and the equal rights campaigns have been going on long enough that we've replaced those wagons with mass-transit systems. Fashionistas, darling, and no longer thinking about equal rights for gay people and women, they're on to pushing the trans-agenda now, do keep up.

You what?

Well, if you're going to make up shit about humanists and the NSS, why shouldn't I impugn the Church with equally bat-shit crazy assumptions about their motivation?

How is it not restricted to that already?

You know that thing that this whole discussion is about, where the Church of England gets to send bishops to the House of Lords to play a part in shaping the laws that affect all of us, whether or not we read the Big Boys Book of Jewish Bedtime Stories... you remember that? That's where they don't stick to just interfering with the lives of people who choose to go to church.

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

You know that justification for the Lords Spiritual that you've not made yet... when they're being Lords Spiritual, that's when they're interfering with the lives of non-churchgoers.

O.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

I didn't say they don't know what they are doing when they fill out the census - moving aside the issue of the leading question, the fact of the matter is that the census doesn't ask about religious affiliation. Having 'a religion' and having 'a religious affiliation' aren't the same thing - the latter implies a much greater degree of engagement with an organisation that you 'affiliate' with, than the former. So to imply that because someone ticks the census christian box means they affiliate with any specific christian denomination or organisation is simply muddled thinking.

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

But I've pointed out that being non religious is no more a world view than being non muslim or not playing the clarinet is means you are an instrumentalist.

But you've claimed elsewhere that congregation size is important - and certainly this would show a level of affiliation that the census cannot (as it does ask about affiliation). But in that case you'll be left with just 3 of your Lords World view to be distributed amongst all the religions. Fight!!!

[Walt Zingmatilder]

But I've pointed out that being non religious is no more a world view than being non muslim or not playing the clarinet is means you are an instrumentalist.

But some of those putting non religious on the census will be National Secularists, they will be Humanist UK They will belong to other atheist organisations.

But you've claimed elsewhere that congregation size is important - and certainly this would show a level of affiliation that the census cannot (as it does ask about affiliation). But in that case you'll be left with just 3 of your Lords World view to be distributed amongst all the religions. Fight!!!

Congregation or following size is more democratic than no representation or representation if we've got space in the schedule. In the Lords Temporal a Lord drawn from Banking is more likely to come from a big bank than a small specialist bank. The producer of Block busting  west end shows is more likely to become a Lord than the chap who has run the punch and judy show at Margate for 30 years. Making Lords is not an exact science and a system based on the census and numerical information is sounder than basing lordship on fame.

Fight!!! That's a bit of a caricature of competing world views isn't it?

[ProfessorDavey]

Congregation or following size is more democratic than no representation or representation if we've got space in the schedule.

So if these people are given special places on the basis of congregation number then I presume in the interests of avoiding double counting we need to avoid having someone who is a member of a congregation allowed to be in the lords temporal as 'they'd already have their representation'. Happy with that Vlad?

[ProfessorDavey]

In the Lords Temporal a Lord drawn from Banking is more likely to come from a big bank than a small specialist bank.

But no bank is given automatic places in the HoLs for its senior officials - not even the Bank of England, which would be the equivalent of the CofE in banking terms. To become a peer as a banker (whether large or small, bank not banker!!) you'd have to be appointed through the usual route along with everyone else (except the bishops).

The producer of Block busting  west end shows is more likely to become a Lord than the chap who has run the punch and judy show at Margate for 30 years.

But there are no places reserved automatically for leading people from any cultural organisation, whether the largest West End Theatre company or the smallest theatre group - not even for the BBC, which would be the cultural organisation equivalent of the CofE. To become a peer as a member of a cultural organisation (whether large or small) you'd have to be appointed through the usual route along with everyone else (except the bishops).

[Walt Zingmatilder]

But no bank is given automatic places in the HoLs for its senior officials - not even the Bank of England, which would be the equivalent of the CofE in banking terms. To become a peer as a banker (whether large or small, bank not banker!!) you'd have to be appointed through the usual route along with everyone else (except the bishops).
But there are no places reserved automatically for leading people from any cultural organisation, whether the largest West End Theatre company or the smallest theatre group - not even for the BBC, which would be the cultural organisation equivalent of the CofE. To become a peer as a member of a cultural organisation (whether large or small) you'd have to be appointed through the usual route along with everyone else (except the bishops).

And there would be no automatic institutional right for any world view to be there because it would depend on census returns and be far more democratic than being called to the Ermine as any secular Lord Temporal.

[ProfessorDavey]

And there would be no automatic institutional right for any world view to be there because it would depend on census returns and be far more democratic than being called to the Ermine as any secular Lord Temporal.

I think you are confusing 'democratic' with 'representative'.

Selecting a bunch of office holders in other organisations to become members of the HoLs on the basis of a census question on religion wouldn't be democratic whatsoever. In some respects you could argue that is was representative, but only for one narrow aspect of the demographic make up of the nation. If 1% of Lords are required automatically to be CofE Bishops because 1% of people attend CofE church (or 40% because 40% same they are christian on a census), what about the proportion that attend Premier League matches - surely the COEs of the requisite number of Premier League football clubs should also get automatic places (or would it me the number of their supporter?).

But the census only asks about certain aspects of demographics to force the Lords to be 'representative' on those groups, would necessarily come into conflict with other demographic traits that aren't assessed in the census. And also it would hit up against other traits that are assesses. So surely for the Lords to be 'representative' it would need to have approx. 55% women, 13% ethnic minority, one third from London/South East etc etc.

Rather than try to 'force' the Lords to include the requisite number of black, bisexual, non-religious, home-owning women better to work to make our overall society fairer and more inclusive and make the appointment process for the HoLs also open and inclusive and then it is likely that the make up of the Lords will better reflect society.

Alternatively you could actually make it democratic and we'd get whoever the public votes in. But remember an organisation that selects democratically doesn't necessarily end up with a make up that is representative of the country - often far from it.

[Gordon]

There is an alternative solution: dispose of the HoL and ensure that in future, if there is to be a second chamber, that all those participating in political governance in this chamber are elected and are subject to re-election at regular intervals, and also consider whether a form of PR would be a better option for a second chamber.

Wouldn't matter if they were a bishop or a ballet-dancer - it would be for the electorate to choose.
   

[ProfessorDavey]

There is an alternative solution: dispose of the HoL and ensure that in future, if there is to be a second chamber, that all those participating in political governance in this chamber are elected and are subject to re-election at regular intervals, and also consider whether a form of PR would be a better option for a second chamber.

Wouldn't matter if they were a bishop or a ballet-dancer - it would be for the electorate to choose.
 

Absolutely - I don't think anyone here is suggesting that bishops, priests, rabbis, imams etc should be banned from being members of the Lords, or indeed the Commons. All we are saying is that they should be appointed or elected in the same manner as everybody else.

Interestingly, there is an organisation that not only thinks that certain religious clergy should be banned from the Lords or the Commons, and has actually been successful in achieving a ban. That organisation - the Roman Catholic Church who ban their clergy from being members of the Lords or Commons.

[Outrider]

And there would be no automatic institutional right for any world view to be there because it would depend on census returns and be far more democratic than being called to the Ermine as any secular Lord Temporal.

You're still rearranging those deckchairs - how they're chosen is only an issue to be discussed if they're there in the first place, and you've still not established a reason to have Lords Spiritual in the first place. Why does 'spirituality' need special representation that other issues don't? Why don't we need special Lords for medicine, sport, science, sexuality, or cheese, but we do for the religious?

O.

[jeremyp]

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.

Church of England is a minority as well.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Church of England is a minority as well.

Yep that's why even now it only has 26 seats as opposed to a greater flexible number of secular Lords.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You're still rearranging those deckchairs - how they're chosen is only an issue to be discussed if they're there in the first place, and you've still not established a reason to have Lords Spiritual in the first place. Why does 'spirituality' need special representation that other issues don't? Why don't we need special Lords for medicine, sport, science, sexuality, or cheese, but we do for the religious?

O.

Let's cut to the chase it's your view of humanity where spirituality is akin to one's favourite cheese against mine where man's spirit is as important to her or nearly as fiscal and economic policy for the coming year and nothing trivial at all. At the moment my side has the upper hand...suck it up.

[ProfessorDavey]

Yep that's why even now it only has 26 seats as opposed to a greater flexible number of secular Lords.

'... only has 26 seats ...'

And of course there are also ex-bishops in the lords temporal.

So if one organisation with less than a million members in the UK should get only 26 automatic seats, surely you should be arguing for organisations with far larger memberships e.g. NUS, National Trust to be guaranteed their fair share of seats. Which would be approx. 150 seats if 1 million members buys you 26 automatic seats.

[ProfessorDavey]

Let's cut to the chase it's your view of humanity where spirituality is akin to one's favourite cheese against mine where man's spirit is as important to her or nearly as fiscal and economic policy for the coming year and nothing trivial at all.

I suspect you are misinterpreting Outrider's view, but regardless we are all equally entitled to an option on the matter. And therefore we should be equally entitled to be appointed to the HoLs where we would make our opinions known should we choose. But currently there is a mismatch - in that those of your opinion could gain membership as either a Lords Temporal or a Lords Spiritual, but someone of a 'cheese-ism' view would only be able to gain membership as a Lords Temporal

At the moment my side has the upper hand...suck it up.

In terms of the Lords Spiritual - currently your side only has the 'upper hand' on the basis of inertia and incumbency. It certainly doesn't have the upper hand in terms of a justifiable argument, nor in terms of public opinion. Effectively the only argument for them being there is because they are ... err ... there.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I suspect you are misinterpreting Outrider's view, but regardless we are all equally entitled to an option on the matter. And therefore we should be equally entitled to be appointed to the HoLs where we would make our opinions known should we choose. But currently there is a mismatch - in that those of your opinion could gain membership as either a Lords Temporal or a Lords Spiritual, but someone of a 'cheese-ism' view would only be able to gain membership as a Lords Temporal
In terms of the Lords Spiritual - currently your side only has the 'upper hand' on the basis of inertia and incumbency. It certainly doesn't have the upper hand in terms of a justifiable argument, nor in terms of public opinion. Effectively the only argument for them being there is because they are ... err ... there.

To me the humanist argument based on privilege is hypocritical multiple times over as I have pointed out.
It comes down to the secular humanists getting their own way with absolutely no sign of compromise. This is redolent of fundamentalism on the part of yourself and atheists on this board.
I'm am also puzzled as to why the secularist organisations prefer to campaign ineffectively it seems outside the House of Lords when they could have under a broadening of the Lords spiritual, a voice within it. This strange behaviour is only fathomable if those organisations assume that everybody thinks like them and their motivation is the elimination of ideas or a higher view of humanity than the materialist secular Humanist view.

[Gordon]

To me the humanist argument based on privilege is hypocritical multiple times over as I have pointed out.
It comes down to the secular humanists getting their own way with absolutely no sign of compromise. This is redolent of fundamentalism on the part of yourself and atheists on this board.

Why should anyone compromise in order to maintain an archaic, dysfunctional and anti-democratic institution: we should just get rid.

I'm am also puzzled as to why the secularist organisations prefer to campaign ineffectively it seems outside the House of Lords when they could have under a broadening of the Lords spiritual, a voice within it. This strange behaviour is only fathomable if those organisations assume that everybody thinks like them and their motivation is the elimination of ideas or a higher view of humanity than the materialist secular Humanist view.

I'm puzzled at your attempts to defend the indefensible. Make the second chamber subject to election, and any clerics looking to play a role would be free to seek election on the same basis as anyone else.

[Outrider]

Let's cut to the chase it's your view of humanity where spirituality is akin to one's favourite cheese against mine where man's spirit is as important to her or nearly as fiscal and economic policy for the coming year and nothing trivial at all. At the moment my side has the upper hand...suck it up.

That I think claims of spirit are akin to assertions of magic is irrelevant. Even if 'spirit' was real, that's still not establishing the basis whereby it's something significant enough that it needs to be treated differently in parliament to every other concern. I've not challenged you to justify the claims of spirituality in the first place, that's not what the discussion is about.

Let's, for the sake of argument, assume that claims of spirituality are considered to have some validity - why are those concerns enough to merit the Lords Spiritual, in addition to the representation they already have amongst the Lords Temporal who happen to be prone to adopting a spiritual viewpoint, but other concerns are not considered significant enough to merit reserved seats.

Why do we not have seats for the heads of the armed forces, or the chairmen of the biggest football clubs, or the president of the Royal Society, or the chair of the National Operas? Even if you presume that spirituality is a valid cause, why is it more important than other concerns.

O.

[Outrider]

To me the humanist argument based on privilege is hypocritical multiple times over as I have pointed out.

No, you've claimed it, dribbled out a poor misspelling of homonculus, falsely equate secularism with atheism and/or humanism and avoided justifying the Lords Spiritual at all.

It comes down to the secular humanists getting their own way with absolutely no sign of compromise.

Secularism IS the compromise, everyone is afforded equal access, everyone is afforded the same opportunities, neither religion nor irreligion is privileged.

This is redolent of fundamentalism on the part of yourself and atheists on this board.

You argument is redolent of Trump and Johnson - deny reality, stick to the mistake, when the mistake is pointed out shun the shame of being wrong by turning ignorance into deceit and continue the same claim knowing that it's now a lie. You know that secularism and atheism are not synonyms, you know that a secular Lords is not an atheist institution, but you keep making the assertion, you keep claiming that secularism somehow is an assault on believers without ever explaining how.

I'm am also puzzled as to why the secularist organisations prefer to campaign ineffectively it seems outside the House of Lords when they could have under a broadening of the Lords spiritual, a voice within it.

Because, unlike you, they have principles, and integrity, and a coherent argument? Any one of the three will do, but I suspect it's a combination.

This strange behaviour is only fathomable if those organisations assume that everybody thinks like them and their motivation is the elimination of ideas or a higher view of humanity than the materialist secular Humanist view.

You say higher, they say wrong, but regardless of that... they are expressly not presuming that everyone thinks like them, that's why they're advocating to not have, for instance, their own reserved seats in the Lords Spiritual, they are against anyone, including them, having that degree of privilege. You know, like.. I don't know, maybe, secularism?

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Why should anyone compromise in order to maintain an archaic, dysfunctional and anti-democratic institution: we should just get rid.

I'm actually borderline between your proposal and an expanded Lords spiritual. I'm havering

I'm puzzled at your attempts to defend the indefensible. Make the second chamber subject to election, and any clerics looking to play a role would be free to seek election on the same basis as anyone else.

I have reservations on the defensibility of yet another house of people chosen for their politics.

1: We already have that kind of democracy.
2: We need expertise and wisdom, the latter conspicuously lacking in the HOC
3: The inordinate amount of deluded dreamchasing in the HOC and elected namely Lib dem grandeur, English nationalism, the 19th century, Corbynism, anticorbynism and sadly to a smaller extent Scottish nationalism all of which have conspired to give us Truss, Johnson and Sunak
4: The Lords have recently been on the side of the angels in chucking back unwise legislation.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No, you've claimed it, dribbled out a poor misspelling of homonculus, falsely equate secularism with atheism and/or humanism and avoided justifying the Lords Spiritual at all. I've made justification.
Secularism IS the compromise, everyone is afforded equal access, everyone is afforded the same opportunities, neither religion nor irreligion is privileged.

No it isn't. Of course irreligion is privileged. How much time do you envisaged should be spent on spiritual issues? The amount of time religion should get reserved on BBC as recommended by the National Secular Society ie none?

You argument is redolent of Trump and Johnson - deny reality, stick to the mistake, when the mistake is pointed out shun the shame of being wrong by turning ignorance into deceit and continue the same claim knowing that it's now a lie. You know that secularism and atheism are not synonyms, you know that a secular Lords is not an atheist institution, but you keep making the assertion, you keep claiming that secularism somehow is an assault on believers without ever explaining how.

No, your argument is redolent of Johnson and Trump with it's premature and gaderene rush to proroge the Lords Spiritual and it's deviousness in not coming clean on the antitheist agenda and it's hypocritical approach to privilege. And while we're about it, Humanist UK with it's ''all religious people welcome, come, come and we shall give the religious rest'' mullarky one minute and it's ''we are proud to be involved in the atheist bus campaign'' schtick the next.

All you are doing is cutting down on religion and spirituality and expanding the atheist environment. That is incontravertable.

[ProfessorDavey]

To me the humanist argument based on privilege is hypocritical multiple times over as I have pointed out.
It comes down to the secular humanists getting their own way with absolutely no sign of compromise. This is redolent of fundamentalism on the part of yourself and atheists on this board.

Hmm - what, a bit like those pesky suffragettes demanding women had the vote in exactly the same manner as men, rather than accepting a compromise of 50% of women having the vote, compared to 100% of men.

Ot those pesky feminists demanding equal pay with men, rather than accepting a compromise where women had to be paid at least 75% of the rate paid to men for the same job.

Equality is about levelling the playing field, and the playing field is either level, or it isn't level. A so-called 'compromise' where you accept an un-level playing field, but just a bit less unlevel than it used to be isn't a compromise at all - it is capitulation to maintaining advantage and special privilege. A level playing field is the compromise as it is the point at which no group is specially privileged and all are treated equally.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Hmm - what, a bit like those pesky suffragettes demanding women had the vote in exactly the same manner as men, rather than accepting a compromise of 50% of women having the vote, compared to 100% of men.

Bad analogy since representation was increased with none taken away. No side had to cede anything except the idea of a limited stock of representation to be redistributed which was exploded only to be revived by people like yourself.

Ot those pesky feminists demanding equal pay with men, rather than accepting a compromise where women had to be paid at least 75% of the rate paid to men for the same job.

But nobody is asking in this case for men to get less money

Equality is about levelling the playing field, and the playing field is either level, or it isn't level. A so-called 'compromise' where you accept an un-level playing field, but just a bit less unlevel than it used to be isn't a compromise at all - it is capitulation to maintaining advantage and special privilege. A level playing field is the compromise as it is the point at which no group is specially privileged and all are treated equally.

There is then a bit of schizophrenia in the atheist secular movement on how this is to be achieved. Firstly there is the let atheists speak on thought for the day approach and then there is the diminish the representation of religion in the lords approach. Two prong approach or just pulling out what you think you can get away with when it suits AKA humbug?

[ProfessorDavey]

Bad analogy since representation was increased with none taken away. No side had to cede anything except the idea of a limited stock of representation to be redistributed which was exploded only to be revived by people like yourself. But nobody is asking in this case for men to get less money

But actually in both cases those with the initial special privilege do have something taken away.

In the case of the vote men lose out on control of outcome - when women don't have the vote men have 100% of the say in terms of determining who is election. When women get the vote the men lose approx. 50% of their control over electoral outcomes.

In the case of money, for employers to provide equal pay, which would mean increasing women's pay, they'd need either to reduce men's pay or let it increase at a lower rate. Alternatively they'd increase cost of products/services. In either case men have something taken away - namely spending power.

So these aren't bad examples although perhaps a clearer one would be where there were certain jobs restricted to men only, but no jobs that men weren't allowed to do. The level playing field would be that all jobs would be open to both men and women - your 'compromise' would be simply to have fewer jobs that women were banned from. All that would do would be to embed discrimination and unfairness, not to provide equality and a level playing field.

Now you might say 'ah, but don't that justify my view that Lord Spiritual is opened up to other groups'. But the answer is 'no' - it is easy when you simply have two groups, men and women, to suggest that you can level the playing field. But that doesn't work for the Lords Spiritual, as there aren't just two groups (e.g. CofE and HumanistsUK for example) - nope there are literally thousands of organisations that could legitimately claim they are important to the UK and its population and therefore need to be represented. So you'd end with an impossible situation where to level the playing relied for all groups you'd need to provide appropriate automatic representation for all groups.

The alternative, of course, and the only sensible way forward it to say that no organisations have automatic representation - there is a level playing field, no organisation is specially privileged, no organisations are discriminated against. And of course no-one is denied representation as anyone can be appointed to the Lords through the usual process. Oh, except the RCC who are denied representation because the RCC bans its clergy from being appointed to the Lords - but that is their idiocy.

[Outrider]

No it isn't.

Panto season isn't for months, yet.

Of course irreligion is privileged.

Because of the reserved seats we currently have for one particular religious outlook, you mean? I fail to understand how you can suggest that privileges irreligion.

How much time do you envisaged should be spent on spiritual issues?

Very little. As you've established, spiritual advice is the purview of the church, not parliament. If, as you suggest, parliament is not considering spiritual issues, why do we need special seats for spiritual consideration of those issues?

Regardless, though, the agenda of the Lords is largely determined by the activity of the Commons, not the make-up of the upper chamber, and the Lords then deal with whatever is passed to them. Why, if the issue that arises is 'spiritual' do we need a crack unit of 'Ethereal Commandos' to handle it, but when it's a matter of science, art, sexuality, food standards, health and safety or electoral reform we can make do with Michelle Mone?

The amount of time religion should get reserved on BBC as recommended by the National Secular Society ie none?

Sounds good to me, given the impartial stance the BBC's mandate imposes on it. Would they then completely divest themselves of religious content, perhaps, but they wouldn't be forced to, whereas currently they're forced to conduct religious programming even if there's no appetite or need for it.

No, your argument is redolent of Johnson and Trump with it's premature and gaderene rush to proroge the Lords Spiritual and it's deviousness in not coming clean on the antitheist agenda and it's hypocritical approach to privilege.

Do you think there's anyone that's convinced you have an argument in the background when you throw out ad hominems like that? If you have an actual point, make it.

And while we're about it, Humanist UK with it's ''all religious people welcome, come, come and we shall give the religious rest'' mullarky one minute and it's ''we are proud to be involved in the atheist bus campaign'' schtick the next.

Is it too confusing to you that a group with a political purpose might attempt to appeal to people on both sides of the theism question? Secularism is not equivalent to atheism, it just feels like to you because you're steeped in that victim mentality of 'they're trying to take my religion away'. No-one is coming for your religion, we're just wanting you, and yours, to stop forcing it on other people; in schools, in parliament, on the national broadcaster.

All you are doing is cutting down on religion and spirituality and expanding the atheist environment. That is incontravertable.

Yes it is. Is it justifiable is the relevant question, and I'd say it is, and increasingly so as the proportion of the religious in this country drops, and even more increasingly when the entrenched privilege of religion that's being addressed is not even religion at large but one particular cult.

Which is the long version of 'that still doesn't sound like an attempt to justify the Lords Spiritual in their own right, it just sounds like someone railing against the prospect of change'.

O.