A nasty case of secular overreach

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Human variety is not your enemy, despite the efforts of right wing popularism's to convince you otherwise.

It doesn't matter who your enemy is Jeremy. Can you bring yourself to love them.

[Outrider]

Do you mean that bit about loving your enemy?

I was rather more thinking about the not preaching about how gay people are abominations and not having your bishops vote against granting them equal rights under the law, predominantly.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I was rather more thinking about the not preaching about how gay people are abominations and not having your bishops vote against granting them equal rights under the law, predominantly.

O.

I don’t see how you can legally enforce what God is to decide. Sorry but that’s a bit obvious isn’t it.
I am heartened though that you aren’t requiring approval. That I believe goes beyond the law.

[Outrider]

I don’t see how you can legally enforce what God is to decide. Sorry but that’s a bit obvious isn’t it.

I'm not aware that the law has tried to say what a god can or can't decide - I'd agree it's a bit obvious, but probably not for the same reasons you do.

I am heartened though that you aren’t requiring approval.

I don't think we should require their approval, I don't think we should be considering their opinion particularly at all in parliament.

That I believe goes beyond the law.

As do so many of their 'special dispensations'. Tax exemptions, discriminatory hiring practices, special employment classifications...

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I'm not aware that the law has tried to say what a god can or can't decide - I'd agree it's a bit obvious, but probably not for the same reasons you do.

Obviously.

I don't think we should require their approval, I don't think we should be considering their opinion particularly at all in parliament.

I don't think we should be considering the opinions of Conservatives but it is how it is

As do so many of their 'special dispensations'. Tax exemptions, discriminatory hiring practices, special employment classifications...

O.

I obviously don't mind everything you do. Do I need a violin?

[Outrider]

Obviously. I don't think we should be considering the opinions of Conservatives but it is how it is.

The Conservatives are parliamentary party, offering a political view for people to adopt or not - we absolutely should be considering their opinion in parliament. We can disagree with it - I'm fairly confident we'd both disagree with their stance on pretty much everything - but it's the right forum for them.

Bishops, on the other hand, don't have a place in parliament, it's outside of their wheelhouse. Parliament shouldn't be making laws with consideration to religion, and religion should put out its moral codes for its adherents to follow or not.

I obviously don't mind everything you do. Do I need a violin?

Only if it's very, very small, and you have a busker's permit - got to claw back that tax exemption money somehow, right?

O.

[jeremyp]

It doesn't matter who your enemy is Jeremy.

Your clear implication is that you believe human variety is your enemy. If you stop seeing people as your enemies just because they are different to you, you wouldn't need special commandments to love them.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Bishops, on the other hand, don't have a place in parliament, it's outside of their wheelhouse.

Evidently theÿ have a place and it's in their wheelhouse. Until it isn't

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Your clear implication is that you believe human variety is your enemy. If you stop seeing people as your enemies just because they are different to you, you wouldn't need special commandments to love them.

Unfortunately we need commandments as many millions of "good chaps" found under kinds of pressure they turn out to be not so good after all.

[jeremyp]

Unfortunately we need commandments as many millions of "good chaps" found under kinds of pressure they turn out to be not so good after all.

And the commandments stop that do they?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

And the commandments stop that do they?

You've answered it yourself Jeremy. Laws only work for those with the heart to follow them and as you suggest they are not a success. That means the man, made zeitgeist is not as strong as all that.

[Outrider]

Evidently theÿ have a place and it's in their wheelhouse. Until it isn't

No, they don't have a place there, but they currently have the authority to go anyway.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I don't think we should require their approval, I don't think we should be considering their opinion particularly at all in parliament.

Careful now, this seems to go beyond the fairness issue and into some generic condemnation of a group of people.
Democracy should represent a greater diversity of people not, surely.

Surely a selection of people who find their way into parliament without having to be chums with a politician is a valuable thing as is representing spirituality.

[Outrider]

Careful now, this seems to go beyond the fairness issue and into some generic condemnation of a group of people. Democracy should represent a greater diversity of people not, surely.

And that's why we shouldn't ignore their opinion, but we shouldn't pay PARTICULAR attention to it, as I said. If the only reason they have for wanting something to be the law is it's in their book, then it can be their law of conscience. If they can show, regardless of what their motivation for raising it is, that their suggestion is beneficial for society as a whole, then it stands or falls on those merits - it neither gets implemented nor ignored on the basis of its religious basis.

Surely a selection of people who find their way into parliament without having to be chums with a politician is a valuable thing as is representing spirituality.

We have plenty of MPs who aren't chums with other politicians, just look at Reform right now. Seriously, though, probably not - we need people who will go to Parliament, know that it's full of vested interests and ideologies clothed in marketing, and be able to work with those people - if they can't, parliament breaks down and we get something akin to the US' current position.

As to whether representing spirituality is a valuable thing, you're welcome to try to make the case just as soon as you can come up with a definition of 'spiritual' that means anything.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Thanks for your responses, Outrider.
We have thought deviated from the case in question which is the Chinese authorities contradicting the Dalai Lama on where and whom he is going to be reborn as after this incarnation passes. What is your reaction on the secular authorities directing a spiritual matter?

[Outrider]

Thanks for your responses, Outrider.
We have thought deviated from the case in question which is the Chinese authorities contradicting the Dalai Lama on where and whom he is going to be reborn as after this incarnation passes. What is your reaction on the secular authorities directing a spiritual matter?

Again, the premise of your question is flawed. China is not a secular country, the government does not take a stance that religion and politics should be separate, it takes the stance that any religion in China must serve the state. I think that's a better principle than the state serving religious principles, as we see too often in the US (for example), but I think it's worse than a secular approach where the government says 'religious principle? Don't care, unless it impinges on something we actually govern."

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Again, the premise of your question is flawed. China is not a secular country, the government does not take a stance that religion and politics should be separate,

Sorry, my AI says it has elements of secularism

it takes the stance that any religion in China must serve the state. I think that's a better principle than the state serving religious principles

I thought this might elicit a response like that. What you see as a better principle is of course a bad thing, a rotten totalitarian sentiment on your part. Having said that, the state has IMV had the better end of the deal out of inevitably controlling relationships since at least Henry VIII,

[Outrider]

Sorry, my AI says it has elements of secularism

AI has a long way to go, it seems.

I thought this might elicit a response like that. What you see as a better principle is of course a bad thing, a rotten totalitarian sentiment on your part.

Bully for you. I'd rather have a state keeping superstition in check than the power of the state in hock to the tribalism of religion - I don't like either, but not all bad results are equally bad.

Having said that, the state has IMV had the better end of the deal out of inevitably controlling relationships since at least Henry VIII

Well, I'm sure you'll go in depth on that opinion and not just wander off to try and shift the burden of proof somewhere else.

O.