Out of interest, TJ, do you know any priests or similar?
I find it fascinating that the same person made these two posts.
On chaplaincy – now usually called spiritual care. Many of you here have no idea of their role and usefulness.
...
It an essential part of the NHS.
and
There is no place at all for religious figures in our legislature. anachronistic, undemocratic, reactionary.
That's food for thought IMHO.
Yet you see the value of equivalent people in your own line of work, odd.
That’s food for thought IMHO.
Not really, another example of an equivalent instance is studies of public opinion on MPs, as an amorphous group the public don't think much of them, but they generally have a considerably higher opinion of their local MP.
Simple to understand the difference. NHS chaplains are providing support for those that want it. The bishops in the lords are a part of the mechanism that creates laws that effect everyone.
The first for the individual is voluntary, the second is compulsory for all of the population
Its about choice. I can chose whether or not to have an NHS chaplain influence my life, I cannot chose to not have a COE bishop who sits in the lords have influence over my life
In a secular country why should the religious hold any power over the non religious?
It an essential part of the NHS. By having these people directly employed we can be sure of their levels of training, commitment and skills. they do not just mumble a few religious words. Certainly in our area they are trained counsellors, family mediators as well and also are on call 24/7. A parish priest, Rabbi, Iman could not perform their role Not just for patients but for staff as well. Not just for the religious of a denomination but for all religious of any type and also non religious who need their support.
I an see the need and the benefit. What I can't see is why the person you describe (counsellor, mediator, staff moral support etc,.) needs to be religious.
I'd rather that people in a position of power (politicians), influence (councellors, mediators,teachers etc.) and control (judges, police, solicitors etc) did not believe in fairy tales, invisible friends and supernatural intervention.
Kerley - because for some people religion is important to them and their needs should be catered for in a service provided for all - holistic medicine
Bodgy - its fine if they keep their beliefs private. Its not acceptable if they seek to use their power to make the secular behave in accordence with their beliefs
I an see the need and the benefit. What I can’t see is why the person you describe (counsellor, mediator, staff moral support etc,.) needs to be religious.
I agree entirely with this sentiment, but the beauty of calling it ‘religious’ is that it provides justification and protection for the role. It is difficult in these austere times to justify spending money on anything that does not provide a quantifiable fiscal benefit to the organisation, and pastoral care is very vulnerable to this. Couch the pastoral care as religious and it has an extra layer of protection from the bean counters.
And I speak as a card carrying, dyed in the wool secular atheist.
Bodgy – its fine if they keep their beliefs private. Its not acceptable if they seek to use their power to make the secular behave in accordence with their beliefs
Do the Lord's Spiritual actually do this? Do they push a Christian agenda? Are their examples of them rejecting legislation because it's insufficiently Christian?
If there are, what's the difference between that and a religious MP voting a certain way based on personal conviction that aligns with that of their faith? Very hard to separate the two things often.
If there are, what’s the difference between that and a religious MP voting a certain way based on personal conviction that aligns with that of their faith?
Theres one small difference between the unelected and the elected houses...
As I understand it the teams can consist of many faiths including none
An internet search for my local hospital’s pastoral care team brings up a page showing details of the team. All white, all Christian, including photos of the team (both the core and lay teams) standing in front of a cross. It’s called the ABMU Chaplaincy and Spiritual Care Service. ABMU covers a population of around 500,000 of all denominations, faiths and cultures including a large proportion of Muslims.
While I agree that the unit will provide comfort and support for non-Christians it doesn’t look as if they are going out of their way to be all-encompassing, or even to down-play the more Jesussy aspects.
>Its about choice. I can chose whether or not to have an NHS chaplain influence my life, I cannot chose to not have a COE bishop who sits in the lords have influence over my life
+1
Well argued TJ.
I quite like the idea of unelected people providing a different viewpoint on legislation.
This is is how I would have it to. I’d ban people that were mp’s or political party members being part of it to as they have specific agendas. You would have to have a mix of professional and lay people. It would be time limited as well say 5 years.
Do the Lord’s Spiritual actually do this? Do they push a Christian agenda? Are their examples of them rejecting legislation because it’s insufficiently Christian?
Yes. Research on embryos was one. they have done their very best to stop medical research not for scientific reasons but for religious
Its about choice. I can chose whether or not to have an NHS chaplain influence my life, I cannot chose to not have a COE bishop who sits in the lords have influence over my life
Although, when I was in hospital in November I could choose to not speak to an NHS chaplain, but I couldn't choose to speak to a qualified psychologist, which actually I would have been up for, and I believe could have been beneficial. Now maybe I could have enquired and cajoled until I could, but the offer wasn't there as standard.
If there is to be serious "holistic" care, make it through properly qualified psychologists, backed up with multi faith chaplains for those that want it. When the access point to counselling services is chaplains, that deters many, especially in a largely atheist society.
Personally I see no need at all for a second chamber.
I've not read the whole thread, but just caught a few comments about NHS chaplains. I briefly worked as a hospital chaplain before becoming an army chaplain. Just a few highlights from my 3 months in a hospital:
Spoon feeding a terminally ill Buddhist patient because the nurses were too busy.
Spending an hour talking to a suicidal woman and then supporting her for the rest of her stay.
Supporting a woman with anorexia who I was told would die within the week, but ended up eating and being discharged.
Numerous times being present with families at the death of loved ones, some wanted prayers, some just wanted an individual present.
Supporting medical staff who were at their wits tend.
I could go on. A very challenging yet rewarding role.
MSP - a psychologist is not the same set of skills at all. I am not sure why you wanted to speak to one. Counselling is available from other sources than "spiritual care" but to use a psychologist for counselling would be like using a fork to peel a potato in may cases
I thought I'd posted this yesterday but can't find it. You absolutely can make an argument for their being representatives of faith groups in the house of lords. But what's totally indefensible is that they're all Church of England.
Proportionally, of the 26 Lords Spiritual, Anglicanism should have 10. Other christian groups should share about 7, though I imagine the argument for exactly who gets what will go on for at least another 500 years among protestants alone. Catholicism about 4, Islam 2 (though again the division between sects is going to be a laugh), Hinduism and Sikhism 1 each, and 1 to represent Others, which is going to be a brilliant job, representing Jews, jains, zoroastrians, baha'is, wikkans, and of course jedis. That leaves one from the rounding, which privately I think you probably have to give to judaism if only to stop Jambalaya from catching fire. Oh, and it'll want assessing constantly because Anglican membership continues to crash, I'm sure they'll enjoy handing over their 10th Lord to the sunnis
Although, when I was in hospital in November I could choose to not speak to an NHS chaplain, but I couldn’t choose to speak to a qualified psychologist, which actually I would have been up for"
I can't even guess what the cost of having full time psychological coverage in every hospital to the extent that they're available on call would be. Not £25 million.
Just realised my post above might mean this one from kja78 might be missed. this is why I support hospital chaplains
I’ve not read the whole thread, but just caught a few comments about NHS chaplains. I briefly worked as a hospital chaplain before becoming an army chaplain. Just a few highlights from my 3 months in a hospital:
Spoon feeding a terminally ill Buddhist patient because the nurses were too busy.
Spending an hour talking to a suicidal woman and then supporting her for the rest of her stay.
Supporting a woman with anorexia who I was told would die within the week, but ended up eating and being discharged.
Numerous times being present with families at the death of loved ones, some wanted prayers, some just wanted an individual present.
Supporting medical staff who were at their wits tend.
I could go on. A very challenging yet rewarding role.
Counselling may have been available from other sources, but I didn't know that and I doubt many do, so all we get is religious do gooders (trained or not), which is a barrier to many people.
The access point should be counselling, if some want to speak to a chaplain service then I have no problem with that being available as an option afterwards.
but to use a psychologist for counselling would be like using a fork to peel a potato in may cases
No, it really wouldn't, your analogy might work if I wanted to speak to a London cabbie but I didn't, it would have been good however to speak to a qualified professional.
I thought I’d posted this yesterday but can’t find it. You absolutely can make an argument for their being representatives of faith groups in the house of lords. But what’s totally indefensible is that they’re all Church of England.
Proportionally, of the 26 Lords Spiritual, Anglicanism should have 10. Other christian groups should share about 7, though I imagine the argument for exactly who gets what will go on for at least another 500 years among protestants alone. Catholicism about 4, Islam 2 (though again the division between sects is going to be a laugh), Hinduism and Sikhism 1 each, and 1 to represent Others, which is going to be a brilliant job, representing Jews, jains, zoroastrians, baha’is, wikkans, and of course jedis. That leaves one from the rounding, which privately I think you probably have to give to judaism if only to stop Jambalaya from catching fire. Oh, and it’ll want assessing constantly because Anglican membership continues to crash, I’m sure they’ll enjoy handing over their 10th Lord to the sunnis
How many do the Atheists get...
Why do you think the poster required counselling ? the role of a psychologistcan be quite diverse so it not unreasonable to think they can speak to patients and help - certainly to the skill level a chaplain can
https://www.healthcareers.nhs.uk/explore-roles/psychological-therapies/roles/health-psychologist
Do the Lord’s Spiritual actually do this? Do they push a Christian agenda?
Is this a serious questions ? Yes Molly the highest ranking and longest serving Bishops and archbishops in the C of E do indeed push and subscrive to a christain agenda - WTF have you asked this for and WTF do you expect them to do? Ignore the Bible and promote secularism?
Junkyard - clumsily put from me. Not knowing what the poster wanted to speak to a psychologist makes it hard to be sure but psychologists are in very sort supply and there is a referral process to go thru to make sure their skills are not used inappropriately. Whether this would be inappropriate or not in this case I cannot know
where as the church is rich so they pay for the Chaplain ?
Gonefishin: "How many do the Atheists get…"
None. As you know.
MSP wrote,
"No, it really wouldn’t, your analogy might work if I wanted to speak to a London cabbie but I didn’t, it would have been good however to speak to a qualified professional."
I think you're misunderstanding- psychologists and counselors aren't exactly the same thing.
You absolutely can make an argument for their being representatives of faith groups in the house of lords
no you can't - as it was said above, those that believe in fairies, superstition and deny science have no place in making laws for society.
tjagain
<div class="bbp-author-role">
<div>Member</div>
</div>
<div class="bbp-reply-content">Personally I see no need at all for a second chamber.
</div>
you need oversight - remember they blocked the government making major cuts to benefits.
poah - thats because our first chamber is not fit for purpose either when on a minority of the vote you can get a majority of seats. A first chamber fit for purpose would not need a second chamber. But thats whole different can of worms
Yes Molly the highest ranking and longest serving Bishops and archbishops in the C of E do indeed push and subscrive to a christain agenda – WTF have you asked this for
Because I don't pay enough attention to know. It was a genuine question. Can you cite examples?
Human fertilisation and embryology act 2008 was fought against by faith groups.
Here is one of them - doesn't vote much but makes sure he does everything he can to block this bill scroll down to 2008 also consistently voting against any moves towards dignity in death.
http://www.publicwhip.org.uk/mp.php?id=uk.org.publicwhip/member/100900&showall=yes#divisions
And another
http://www.publicwhip.org.uk/mp.php?id=uk.org.publicwhip/member/100829&showall=yes#divisions
Are you trolling? you want examples of say the archbishop of Canterbury, the head of the C of E and leader of the worldwide Anglican movement has a christian ethos. No one is so dense they require this. I am genuinely laughing that you are asking this. its extremely silly.
WTF do you think he does preaches paganism and has no regard for christian values and voted for equal rights for gays and is well keen on abortions?
What do i need to do next prove the Pope is a catholic?
Also against gay marriage
FOURTEEN diocesan bishops were present at the vote on a wrecking amendment to the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill in the House of Lords on Tuesday night, the most to attend a vote in recent times.
Of the 14, nine voted for Lord Dear's amendment to deny the Bill a Second Reading. Five abstained. The nine were: the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Bishops of Bristol, Birmingham, Chester, Coventry, Exeter, Hereford, London, and Winchester. The Bishops of Derby, Guildford, Leicester, Norwich, and St Edmundsbury & Ipswich abstained.
( google found the link! )
reactionary, predjudicial, no place in modern society
Personally I see no need at all for a second chamber.
I guess there's an argument for having a parliament not made up entirely from career politicians. A bit like jury service - would you want a jury comprised of people who have actively applied to be there?
IIRC Douglas Adams once said something like, "anyone who wants to be president of the galaxy should automatically be excluded from being so."
"Poah:
no you can’t – as it was said above, those that believe in fairies, superstition and deny science have no place in making laws for society."
Saying it doesn't make it true. Religious people are a part of our society, are there any other minorities you don't want to have a say in making its laws? Irish, or dogs?
I agree that you can make a good argument against it too, though- but a good place to start would be to at least make it representative and proportional.
Or to look at it the other way, most defendants of special privilege for the anglicans won't want to give the same special privilege to other faiths and so it becomes a good divide-and-rule argument against the whole thing.
Or to look at it the other way, most defendants of special privilege for the anglicans won’t want to give the same special privilege to other faiths and so it becomes a good divide-and-rule argument against the whole thing.
Not sure that is the case, an interesting parliamentary briefing here. The main reason that the Bishops argue they need a few is that they have busy day jobs and split attendance by rota so generally only one is present at each sitting.
Are you trolling? you want examples of say the archbishop of Canterbury, the head of the C of E and leader of the worldwide Anglican movement has a christian ethos. No one is so dense they require this.
Exactly, so maybe you've misunderstood the question...?
What I meant was, give me examples of specific votes where they've pushed an Anglican position that's counter to the majority point of view and/or against the secular viewpoint. Like TJ's examples.
However:
reactionary, predjudicial, no place in modern society
Is it because they are Christian leaders? Or simply because they are reactionary and prejudicial? Did other peers vote the same way?
Unpicking these things is a little complicated. If you are Christian and have an opinion, is that opinion held because you are a Christian? Or are you Christian because you hold that opinion?
Recommend you read that paper I linked but the essential conclusion is no they dont. TJ's example isnt very good, there were wide spread moral concerns, which no doubt included some bishops but as noted few are ever in attendance - again see paper.
Apart from where they made the big push to be there to vote down gay marriage 14 of them.
completely at odds with your suggestion Mefty that they would be more in step with the general population. Or where they voted against dignity in death - again massively out of step with the general population.
They are at odds with society and should not be allowed to have any influence on our legislature because of their faith - that is clear or why does only one or two turn up for most things but 14 for a vote against gay marriage. Its disgraceful and the UK is the ONLY democracy that hs religious people in their legislature simply because of the position they hold in their faith.
Keep your religion private. do not attempt to impose your reactionary and discriminatory views on me.
Keep your religion private. do not attempt to impose your reactionary and discriminatory views on me.
Yes but you haven't answered my question. Lords (and MPs) impose their views on us all the time. How do we know if a view is held religiously or not?
Molgrips - nothing good will come of this discussion
MPs we can theoretically vote out. I do not want a second chamber at all let alone an unelected one. Bishops in the lords consistently vote against public opinion because of their allegiance to their creed as in the two examples I gave which is why there is no place for them in our legislature as adherence to their creed allows them to claim the moral high ground while also being discriminatory.
Right, but what about other people who consistently vote against public opinion? You're on the verge of condemning people simply because they don't share your opinion.
maybe you’ve misunderstood the question…?
Maybe you are still taking pish ?Is there a way to make this more obvious to you?yes the christian leaders have a christian ethos-its supremely moronic to ask this and then require proof of this.
What next are the leaders of the KKK a bit racist
give me examples of specific votes where they’ve pushed an Anglican position that’s counter to the majority point of view
Why does it need to be against the majority view ?>why have you moved the goalposts?Secondly did you see that bit where I gave you gay marriage and abortion? Respectfully <span style="font-size: 0.8rem;">you are the densest wise person I have ever met and your questions are just odd, Of course the church leaders push a religous view point - its what they dedicated their life to. I dont think you will find anyone to argue otherwise so why are you STILL asking?</span>
