|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Jan 4, 2021 18:56:59 GMT
I think if we're going to have an unelected second chamber (and I'm not keen on either element of that) then it's not that daft to reserve seats for religious leaders, as they represent a sizeable current in society that ought to have its voice heard. There's no very good reason to solely afford that privilege to Anglican bishops or to have 26 of them, but any appointed house would benefit from having a handful of them.
|
|
CatholicLeft
Labour
2032 posts until I was "accidentally" deleted.
Posts: 6,189
|
Post by CatholicLeft on Jan 4, 2021 19:23:20 GMT
I think if we're going to have an unelected second chamber (and I'm not keen on either element of that) then it's not that daft to reserve seats for religious leaders, as they represent a sizeable current in society that ought to have its voice heard. There's no very good reason to solely afford that privilege to Anglican bishops or to have 26 of them, but any appointed house would benefit from having a handful of them. I understand that, but I would rather that provision be made in a different manner to the current method.
|
|
mboy
Liberal
Listen. Think. Speak.
Posts: 22,170
|
Post by mboy on Jan 4, 2021 19:36:32 GMT
"Experts" could be chosen for their religious knowledge in the same way as they are currently chosen for their science/education/legal/etc knowledge. Even I wouldn't object to that (on the assumption that we had to have an appointed 'expert' chamber in the first place). There would need to be not many of them and cover all relevant religions, inc humanism.
|
|
|
Post by greenchristian on Jan 4, 2021 20:28:45 GMT
Of course, various authorities are trying to crush faith out of existence. If only. But as only one of two nations on the planet that reserves spaces in its legislature for clerics (the other being Iran), that day is a long way away. I think if we're going to have an unelected second chamber (and I'm not keen on either element of that) then it's not that daft to reserve seats for religious leaders, as they represent a sizeable current in society that ought to have its voice heard. There's no very good reason to solely afford that privilege to Anglican bishops or to have 26 of them, but any appointed house would benefit from having a handful of them. You both seem to be forgetting that the reason the Anglican bishops have seats in the Lords is because Parliament has specific, and quite substantial, powers over the Church of England's internal affairs (including complete power of veto over the church's General Synod). The relationship between these two institutions is very heavily weighted in Parliament's favour. I'd say it's closer to the relationship between the Chinese state and the Three-Self Patriotic Movement (its state-controlled church) than it is to Iran's theocracy.
|
|
|
Post by gwynthegriff on Jan 4, 2021 20:31:41 GMT
If only. But as only one of two nations on the planet that reserves spaces in its legislature for clerics (the other being Iran), that day is a long way away. I think if we're going to have an unelected second chamber (and I'm not keen on either element of that) then it's not that daft to reserve seats for religious leaders, as they represent a sizeable current in society that ought to have its voice heard. There's no very good reason to solely afford that privilege to Anglican bishops or to have 26 of them, but any appointed house would benefit from having a handful of them. You both seem to be forgetting that the reason the Anglican bishops have seats in the Lords is because Parliament has specific, and quite substantial, powers over the Church of England's internal affairs (including complete power of veto over the church's General Synod). The relationship between these two institutions is very heavily weighted in Parliament's favour. I'd say it's closer to the relationship between the Chinese state and the Three-Self Patriotic Movement (its state-controlled church) than it is to Iran's theocracy. Well, we all know the solution to that issue . . .
|
|
|
Post by greenchristian on Jan 4, 2021 21:01:45 GMT
You both seem to be forgetting that the reason the Anglican bishops have seats in the Lords is because Parliament has specific, and quite substantial, powers over the Church of England's internal affairs (including complete power of veto over the church's General Synod). The relationship between these two institutions is very heavily weighted in Parliament's favour. I'd say it's closer to the relationship between the Chinese state and the Three-Self Patriotic Movement (its state-controlled church) than it is to Iran's theocracy. Well, we all know the solution to that issue . . . I'm all in favour of disestablishment. My point was simply that there is, at present, a good reason why they are there. And that it isn't because we are anything like an Iran-style theocracy, as one poster implied.
|
|
cj
Socialist
These fragments I have shored against my ruins
Posts: 3,282
|
Post by cj on Jan 4, 2021 21:08:09 GMT
Could someone administratorial sort out the socialist room it still shows Merseymike as admin, it was bad enough having your posts amended him when he was a socialist but its a bit too rich if he's now able to do it as a 'libertarian!
hot bed of posting that it is. I'm not sure how the other socialists feel but you can close it as far as I'm concerned.
Does the socialist label stand for some kind of trotskyst small (tautology here) party ? I'm a french socialist but I know that in some countries "socialist" stands for people advocating for a specific socialist internationale. Is it the case here ? In my description do you mean?
If so, absolutely not in my case, I'm not sure what number socialist internationale is still being called for any more (I gave up at 5th!) and at heart I think I'm too louche and lazy to be a trot, they always seem too busy for me to be comfortable with.
I have never found a political tribe/home, I made some doggy decisions after 2010 and found myself in the Labour Party before getting myself kicked out and once the 2015 general election had passed had no ties left to the Party even on a local level. I, in no way could describe myself as unaligned and as socialist existed as an alignment on the forum I asked for it and got it.
Personally if I had to try and pigeon hole my leftist position its seems to fall to a hodgepodge leveller, anarcho-syndicalist, council communist, left libertarian.
If you didn't mean in my description, sorry for the self-indulgent screed
|
|
cj
Socialist
These fragments I have shored against my ruins
Posts: 3,282
|
Post by cj on Jan 4, 2021 21:13:19 GMT
Whatever they're called this week...
I'm Independent; I don't see it as a group, though I guess it is for board management purposes.
I chose Independent a self-descriptor because I am not in a party group, and prefer it to the non-aligned label.
If you want to call me by another label this week, how about unquantifiable? We have quite a quantity of those here...
|
|
|
Post by 🏴☠️ Neath West 🏴☠️ on Jan 4, 2021 21:14:38 GMT
Whatever they're called this week...
I'm Independent; I don't see it as a group, though I guess it is for board management purposes.
I chose Independent a self-descriptor because I am not in a party group, and prefer it to the non-aligned label.
If you want to call me by another label this week, how about unquantifiable? It was a joke...
|
|
|
Post by Daft H'a'porth A'peth A'pith on Jan 4, 2021 21:26:13 GMT
I'm Independent; I don't see it as a group, though I guess it is for board management purposes.
I chose Independent a self-descriptor because I am not in a party group, and prefer it to the non-aligned label.
If you want to call me by another label this week, how about unquantifiable? It was a joke... I half expected it was, my reply was in many ways as much a reaction to others response to merseymike going independent as it was to your actual post.
|
|
Sandy
Forum Regular
Posts: 2,673
|
Post by Sandy on Jan 4, 2021 21:37:41 GMT
Of course, various authorities are trying to crush faith out of existence. If only. But as only one of two nations on the planet that reserves spaces in its legislature for clerics (the other being Iran), that day is a long way away. This is exactly why I support the continued presence of the Lords Spiritual. Not because I am particularly fond of the concept (I'm a Presbyterian and don't much care for Bishops) but because it gets up the nose of you "Liberal" atheists. That is more than enough to justify their existence for me.
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Jan 4, 2021 21:41:16 GMT
This is exactly why I support the continued presence of the Lords Spiritual. Not because I am particularly fond of the concept (I'm a Presbyterian and don't much care for Bishops) but because it gets up the nose of you "Liberal" atheists. That is more than enough to justify their existence for me. A very dangerous attitude.
|
|
|
Post by Daft H'a'porth A'peth A'pith on Jan 4, 2021 21:42:10 GMT
This is exactly why I support the continued presence of the Lords Spiritual. Not because I am particularly fond of the concept (I'm a Presbyterian and don't much care for Bishops) but because it gets up the nose of you "Liberal" atheists. That is more than enough to justify their existence for me. A very dangerous attitude. Why dangerous?
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Jan 4, 2021 21:46:07 GMT
A very dangerous attitude. Why dangerous? Because it leads directly to a situation where there are two entrenched sides at war with each other, and anything is assessed not on its merits but on how it furthers the battle against themums. It may be nothing in itself but if themums are for it, we are against it. And if you want to see what happens when you go down that road, go to Northern Ireland.
|
|
Sandy
Forum Regular
Posts: 2,673
|
Post by Sandy on Jan 4, 2021 21:47:34 GMT
Because it leads directly to a situation where there are two entranched sides at war with each other, and anything is assessed not on its merits but on how it furthers the battle against themums. It may be nothing in itself but if themums are for it, we are against it. And if you want to see what happens when you go down that road, go to Northern Ireland. No surrender to atheism!!!!!!!!
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Jan 4, 2021 21:49:25 GMT
What a twat you truly are.
Atheism isn't a belief.
|
|
middyman
Conservative
"The problem with socialism is that, sooner or later, you run out of other people's money."
Posts: 8,050
|
Post by middyman on Jan 4, 2021 21:52:54 GMT
What a twat you truly are. Atheism isn't a belief. Not sure that’s right. An atheist believes that there is no God but cannot know any more than a theist can know that there is.
|
|
Sandy
Forum Regular
Posts: 2,673
|
Post by Sandy on Jan 4, 2021 21:57:29 GMT
What a twat you truly are. Atheism isn't a belief. your point being? (not your first point, that one is duly noted....*sniggers* )
|
|
Jack
Reform Party
Posts: 8,079
|
Post by Jack on Jan 4, 2021 21:58:12 GMT
Because it leads directly to a situation where there are two entranched sides at war with each other, and anything is assessed not on its merits but on how it furthers the battle against themums. It may be nothing in itself but if themums are for it, we are against it. And if you want to see what happens when you go down that road, go to Northern Ireland. No surrender to atheism!!!!!!!! Why would not want people to know the truth though?
|
|
|
Post by Merseymike on Jan 4, 2021 22:04:14 GMT
What a twat you truly are. Atheism isn't a belief. Not sure that’s right. An atheist believes that there is no God but cannot know any more than a theist can know that there is. And the organised new atheist movement is positively evangelical about their belief. Rejecting belief in something is still a belief. On all sorts of issues I'm strongly opposed to the religious agenda but the professional atheists always make religion seem quite appealing
|
|