The Church of England.Time for a moderator?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Seems fair enough, we want policy based upon demonstrable facts, not supernatural suspicions.

What policies are based on supernatural suspicions?

Not the root of all evil, but demonstrably a net negative in the world.

You might not think it but sufficient numbers thought it for Dawkins to answer it in his documentary “Religion, root of all evil?”

They don't pose a direct danger, but they validate the nonsense that's used by religious fanatics to justify their atrocities.

You will have to justify if, where and how they validate it. How for instance does the religion that gets people to wear masks so as to not hurt flies, validate atrocities?

I object - it's up there with having a hereditary head of state as something with a lack of an moral justification, but it's lower on the list of priorities than, say, sorting out education or the health and care services.

That presupposes that without religion health and care would be a priority, ignoring religions historic role in health and care and indeed education. None of which are guaranteed in a religionless society.

[Outrider]

What policies are based on supernatural suspicions?

In part, all of them, given the input of The Church of the England in the drafting and the Head of the Church in the ratification of all legislation. In the specific it's been instrumental in the past in laws on slavery, denying women suffrage, denying women rights, denying gay people rights, and currently it's active in opposition to things like the assisted dying bill.

You might not think it but sufficient numbers thought it for Dawkins to answer it in his documentary “Religion, root of all evil?”

Channel 4's documentary - Professor Dawkins explicitly did not want that title, as he's said at the time and since. And maybe some do, but I was answering for me.

You will have to justify if, where and how they validate it. How for instance does the religion that gets people to wear masks so as to not hurt flies, validate atrocities?

When they say that a world-view based upon fairy stories is valid. When 'I believe' becomes sufficient to deny reality, the exact same argument can be utilised whether the tenet you want to cleave to is 'all good dogs go to heaven' or 'all the infidels should be bombed to a paste'. 'God wants it' isn't open to rational debate, regardless of what 'it' is.

That presupposes that without religion health and care would be a priority, ignoring religions historic role in health and care and indeed education.

Money's role in health and care is important. Societal structures role in health and care is important. Religion's role in trying to dominate those fields implicates in health and care, but health and care are available in other places. Sure, religion sometimes offers - for religious reasons - health and care, but sometimes it uses health and care to syphon up money and prestige for the Vatican while lauding suffering for poor people in India. And whichever of those it does, it's doing it for poor reasons.

None of which are guaranteed in a religionless society.

But it is guaranteed that suicide bombings will go down, that sectarian violence will go down, that one more pillar of institutional and cultural homophobia and misogyny will go away, that fewer children will be signed up by their parents for harmful conversion therapy.

O.

[Maeght]

Ideally and if intentions were pure.

No, by definition.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

In part, all of them, given the input of The Church of the England in the drafting and the Head of the Church in the ratification of all legislation. In the specific it's been instrumental in the past in laws on slavery, denying women suffrage, denying women rights, denying gay people rights, and currently it's active in opposition to things like the assisted dying bill.

Since there are about 1432 secular MP’s and Lords in the HoP and 26 Lords spiritual I make that each policy has a maximum of just under 2% of religious input.

When they say that a world-view based upon fairy stories is valid. When 'I believe' becomes sufficient to deny reality, the exact same argument can be utilised whether the tenet you want to cleave to is 'all good dogs go to heaven' or 'all the infidels should be bombed to a paste'. 'God wants it' isn't open to rational debate, regardless of what 'it' is.

Again in terms policy only 2% maximum of any policy can be attributed to the Lords spiritual. For the second time of asking can you give a policy founded on a fairy story?”

[Outrider]

Since there are about 1432 secular MP’s and Lords in the HoP and 26 Lords spiritual I make that each policy has a maximum of just under 2% of religious input.

If you're talking about input that is intended to be specifically reliigious, why does it have any? If you're looking at people participating who have a religious affiliation there's significantly more than that 2%. The problem is that there is 2% that is reserved specifically for religious input, and specifically for religious input from one particular sect of one particular branch of one particular domain of one religion.

Again in terms policy only 2% maximum of any policy can be attributed to the Lords spiritual. For the second time of asking can you give a policy founded on a fairy story?”

Did you miss this bit: "In the specific it's been instrumental in the past in laws on slavery, denying women suffrage, denying women rights, denying gay people rights, and currently it's active in opposition to things like the assisted dying bill."?

You could add their blanket support for the 'Listed Places of Worship' scheme which saw them add their voice to a £150 million+ pot of money to subsidise their building maintenance costs, their near blanket opposition to the Civil Partnership Act, their 90% opposition voting record to the Gordon Brown labour government (in contrast to their greater than 60% support of Cameron's government, and less than 30% support of the Coalition), blanket opposition to the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act, their support of the £20 million extension of the First World War Centenary Cathedral Repair bill, the Place of Worship Security funding (twice) and the extension of the Gift Aid eligibility criteria.

And a curious tidbit that popped up while I was looking that lot up that I hadn't realised before: the Lords Temporal aren't permitted to vote in a General Election... but the Lords Spiritual are.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

If you're talking about input that is intended to be specifically reliigious, why does it have any? If you're looking at people participating who have a religious affiliation there's significantly more than that 2%. The problem is that there is 2% that is reserved specifically for religious input, and specifically for religious input from one particular sect of one particular branch of one particular domain of one religion.

Did you miss this bit: "In the specific it's been instrumental in the past in laws on slavery, denying women suffrage, denying women rights, denying gay people rights, and currently it's active in opposition to things like the assisted dying bill."?

You could add their blanket support for the 'Listed Places of Worship' scheme which saw them add their voice to a £150 million+ pot of money to subsidise their building maintenance costs, their near blanket opposition to the Civil Partnership Act, their 90% opposition voting record to the Gordon Brown labour government (in contrast to their greater than 60% support of Cameron's government, and less than 30% support of the Coalition), blanket opposition to the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act, their support of the £20 million extension of the First World War Centenary Cathedral Repair bill, the Place of Worship Security funding (twice) and the extension of the Gift Aid eligibility criteria.

And a curious tidbit that popped up while I was looking that lot up that I hadn't realised before: the Lords Temporal aren't permitted to vote in a General Election... but the Lords Spiritual are.

O.

And Again there are 1432 secular lords and MPs. Including782 secular Lords against 26 Spiritual Lords.

Your fears seem to be based on secular superstition rather than data.

Then there is the question of whether a notional minuscule input is invariably bad or good.

[Outrider]

And Again there are 1432 secular lords and MPs. Including782 secular Lords against 26 Spiritual Lords.

The 'it's only a little bit biased' argument. I said it wasn't a high priority of mine, in the grand scheme of things, but it's still a situation that appears to be a blatant sop to a particular religious viewpoint at the expense of everyone else, and so is not justifiable. Your 'it's not much' is effectively a tacit admission of that.

Your fears seem to be based on secular superstition rather than data.

Which is why you asked for data? Or is it because now that you've been given the data it serves you to ignore it?

Then there is the question of whether a notional minuscule input is invariably bad or good.

No, there really isn't. Whether you agree or disagree with their voting record is irrelevant, the problem is that they have a reserved place for one particular sect of spellcasters, when no-one else does. It's special treatment, it's a double-helping that hasn't been justified.

I'm particularly exercised because they so regularly vote against the principles I'd espouse, but my argument against their inclusion isn't that I disagree with their stance, it's that I disagree with the notion that they should get to have a stance when everyone else instead gets to have the opportunity to write to a Lord of their choice.

O.

[ProfessorDavey]

And Again there are 1432 secular lords and MPs. Including782 secular Lords against 26 Spiritual Lords.

But not a simple of the 'secular' lords are appointed automatically on the basis of their position in another organisation. All need to be nominated, considered and if thought suitable, then appointed.

I have no issue with individuals who are Bishops (or indeed clergy in whatever church or other religious organisation) being nominated, assessed and appointed to the Lords, provided the process is that same as for everyone else.

The issue here is one of special privileges that are not (and realistically could not as we'd end up with a Lords with tens or perhaps hundreds of thousands of members) be applied consistently to other organisations.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

But not a simple of the 'secular' lords are appointed automatically on the basis of their position in another organisation. All need to be nominated, considered and if thought suitable, then appointed.

I have no issue with individuals who are Bishops (or indeed clergy in whatever church or other religious organisation) being nominated, assessed and appointed to the Lords, provided the process is that same as for everyone else.

The issue here is one of special privileges that are not (and realistically could not as we'd end up with a Lords with tens or perhaps hundreds of thousands of members) be applied consistently to other organisations.

Yes but introducing a system that automatically favours secular humanism and is atheistic and naturalistic cannot as far as I can see eliminate special privilege.

Since eliminating special privilege is an ideal it is better served imo by representing more world views not just the atheistic ones.

[Nearly Sane]

Yes but introducing a system that automatically favours secular humanism and is atheistic and naturalistic cannot as far as I can see eliminate special privilege.

Since eliminating special privilege is an ideal it is better served imo by representing more world views not just the atheistic ones.

Not having special privileges for religion is not favouring humanism or atheism. And given that no one has suggested doing so, then stop lying about what they say.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Not having special privileges for religion is not favouring humanism or atheism. And given that no one has suggested doing so, then stop lying about what they say.

No one suggests it but it is unavoidable.

[Outrider]

Yes but introducing a system that automatically favours secular humanism and is atheistic and naturalistic cannot as far as I can see eliminate special privilege.

Can you explain who is given special privelege by 'favouring secular humanism'? Humanism is the position that we should consider humans, so unless you're harbouring ACTUAL aliens I'm not sure you have even a straw-point in your straw-man argument.

Since eliminating special privilege is an ideal it is better served imo by representing more world views not just the atheistic ones.

So we have 4,200 religious sects in the world that would require representation, as a starting point - by the time you factor in representation for all the non-religious differences - flat-earthers, breatharians, turtle-breeders etc. we're practically going to be at direct democracy. Even if that were the ideal, which I'd argue, it's not practical.

What is there in the current 750+ Lords Spiritual that isn't sufficient to represent a suitable variety of world views?

O.

[Nearly Sane]

No one suggests it but it is unavoidable.

He asserted

[Walt Zingmatilder]

In part, all of them, given the input of The Church of the England in the drafting and the Head of the Church in the ratification of all legislation.

Nothing supernatural in that since those functions are carried out by the head of state

In the specific it's been instrumental in the past in laws on slavery, denying women suffrage, denying women rights, denying gay people rights, and currently it's active in opposition to things like the assisted dying bill.

You seem to be saying that Homophobia, misogyny, and not wanting a national death service are supernatural

Channel 4's documentary - Professor Dawkins explicitly did not want that title, as he's said at the time and since. And maybe some do, but I was answering for me.

He should have removed consent for broadcast.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

The 'it's only a little bit biased' argument.

You have some balls claiming a huge bias towards the secular is in fact a little bias toward the church

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Can you explain who is given special privelege by 'favouring secular humanism'?

secular humanists

Humanism is the position that we should consider humans, so unless you're harbouring ACTUAL aliens I'm not sure you have even a straw-point in your straw-man argument.

But it’s how we consider humans...sophisticated ape, image of God, pinnacle of evolution, winners and losers, Spirit or mechanism

So we have 4,200 religious sects in the world that would require representation, as a starting point - by the time you factor in representation for all the non-religious differences - flat-earthers, breatharians, turtle-breeders etc. we're practically going to be at direct democracy. Even if that were the ideal, which I'd argue, it's not practical.

So the best thing to do is ignore religion and just go with secular humanism which seems to be the minority view in terms of the world and indeed England

[Outrider]

secular humanists

So you're opposed to treating everyone equally, but with the assumptions of rights based on the fact that they're human?

But it’s how we consider humans...sophisticated ape, image of God, pinnacle of evolution, winners and losers, Spirit or mechanism

All of those, but favouring none.

So the best thing to do is ignore religion and just go with secular humanism which seems to be the minority view in terms of the world and indeed England

It's a good thing you're not allergic to straw. Nobody is talking about 'ignoring religion', but religion - and one particular viewpoint of one particular religion - should not be afforded any special status or access. And, given a reasonably sized representative body, those religions will be represented, as we know they already are (if not slightly over-represented) in both houses, without needing to resort the Lords Spiritual.

You have some balls claiming a huge bias towards the secular is in fact a little bias toward the church

And they say educational standards have gotten worse... can you read?

YOU made the argument that we should not be worried about the existence of the Lords Spiritual, on the basis (your maths) that it's only 2% religious input - your argument, therefore, is that yes it is biased towards religion (that particular stripe of that particular sect of that particular religion) but it's OK, because it's not much.

It's more than anyone else. Where's the reserved representation for science? Or sport? Or law? Or economics? Or cheese?

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

So you're opposed to treating everyone equally, but with the assumptions of rights based on the fact that they're human?

I would be opposed to treating everyone equally if I was to favour Secular Humanism.

[Outrider]

I would be opposed to treating everyone equally if I was to favour Secular Humanism.

Tell me you don't understand secular humanism without telling me you don't understand...

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Tell me you don't understand secular humanism without telling me you don't understand...

O.

I shall let them speak for themselves.
https://humanists.uk/humanism/

[ProfessorDavey]

I would be opposed to treating everyone equally if I was to favour Secular Humanism.

You do understand that secularism and humanism aren't the same thing. And the

And regarding secularism, well yes you would, as one of the key tenets of secularism is that people are treated equally regardless of whether or not they are religious and if religious are treated equally regardless of their religion.

[ProfessorDavey]

I shall let them speak for themselves.
https://humanists.uk/humanism/

Can you explain where in that description humanism does it state that people should not be treated equally. Oh, that's right, it doesn't.

I think you will find that it is many religions who have a long and disreputable history of failing to treat people equally, from refusing accept equality for women (e.g. to permit women to be clergy), to discriminating against gay people (including supporting jailing them or worse), to executing people for not being of the right religion etc etc.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Can you explain where in that description humanism does it state that people should not be treated equally. Oh, that's right, it doesn't.

I think you will find that it is many religions who have a long and disreputable history of failing to treat people equally, from refusing accept equality for women (e.g. to permit women to be clergy), to discriminating against gay people (including supporting jailing them or worse), to executing people for not being of the right religion etc etc.

I think you will find UK secular society has a disreputable recent history of not treating people equally.

[Maeght]

I think you will find UK secular society has a disreputable recent history of not treating people equally.

Examples please.

[Gordon]

I think you will find UK secular society has a disreputable recent history of not treating people equally.

Even if there are examples of inequality, such as the RC proscription of female priests, where are you seeing that 'secular' has a  specific social role that leads to directly to inequality?