No I am not molgrips - as I said we can vote out MPs. We cannot vote out bishops nor can politicians appoint or remove them
I find it abhorrent that we have bishops in our legislature that feel they can vote in a discriminatory way because they have a faith that believes in discrimination. would you think it right we have reserved seats for racists in our legislature? We have reserved seats for people whos whole life is based on following a bigoted religion - look at the vote on gay marriage. Remember this was not going to be forcing churches to accept gay marriage - only civil gay marriage. church of Scotland actually performs gay marriage in its churches as do IIRC quakers and Methodists.
If I had my way the house of Lords would include representatives from a variety of professions and occupations, all across society. Religions included, but also scientists health professionals, teachers and many more
This all sounds good to me!
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.
Uh.. let me try and put it another way.
It is possible for people to differentiate between the personal and the public.
For example, you might be a religious person yourself, but you might not be in favour of religious involvement in schools or government. Or, maybe you like driving fast cars, but be in favour of their taxation on environmental grounds, for the greater good. You could be pro choice but not want an abortion for yourself.
So whilst the Bishops might be Christian themselves, some of them might not vote along Christian lines because they realise that we are a fairly secular society, and are acting for the benefit of society as a whole. Or they might not.
Do you see what I mean?
find it abhorrent that we have bishops in our legislature that feel they can vote in a discriminatory way because they have a faith that believes in discrimination.
Or maybe that's just their opinion anyway? Are you going to ban everyone who votes in any other way you disagree with?
I feel you do not get my point. I also feel you never will.
Molgrips - I understand your point. If people want to elect a religious figure then thats fine - its a choice freely entered into.
I think Tories are wrong and cause great harm. But if people want to elect them then thats the price of a democracy
the bishops in the house of lords act in a discriminatory way and cannot be removed. That is wrong. If an MP behaves in a discriminatory way they can be removed by their party, by parliament or by their consitituents. No one can remove the bishops.
The bishops hold these discriminatory views because of their faith.
It is possible for people to differentiate between the personal and the public.
it is not for bishops - thats the point. they must vote with their religious faith to be true to themselves and to their faith. Yes it is possible ( but very rarely seen - I can think of no examples) for someone to hold a religious faith but vote against that faith. Nick Clegg was unable to do so the best he could do was vote with his faith in early votes and abstain on final votes . Widdicombe was unable to do so. Blair on gay rights?
got any examples of this.
I would , will and have defended the rights of people to hold their faith and to be accommodated. I will never accept them using their faith to deny me my rights.
So whilst the Bishops might be Christian themselves, some of them might not vote along Christian lines because they realise that we are a fairly secular society, and are acting for the benefit of society as a whole. Or they might not.
Do you see what I mean?
I see what you mean, but I think you're being optimistic at best. For many religious people, religion trumps everything - that's kind of it's raison d'etre - and I'd hazard that most bishops aren't your "go to church for weddings, funerals and Christmas" brand of pseudo-Christians that the UK seems to specialise in. I'm happy to be proved wrong but I can't readily see any bishops voting for / against something which is in direct conflict with their faith.
Of course, you'd hope that "Christian values" would fall broadly in line with what's good for our society generally, so day to day it should be a non-issue. However, then we get thorny issues like same-sex marriage and the wheels come off.
it is not for bishops – thats the point. they must vote with their religious faith to be true to themselves and to their faith.
Hmm. I'd be interested in learning more about this concept - if a religious person is compelled in this way. I can't imagine our resident theologist is still reading though!
I see what you mean, but I think you’re being optimistic at best.
No I'm being hypothetical. The Bishops may well be ignorant conservative old farts for all I know. No idea.
For many religious people, religion trumps everything – that’s kind of it’s raison d’etre
Hmmmmmmmm... Well there are plenty of instances in history of societies respecting each others' faiths whilst they differ - having different rules for different faiths. If what you say is true, then this would not be possible would it? Those rulers who ruled those societies did in fact act one way privately and another publicly.
Religion is part of our history but it shouldn’t be part of our future. You wouldn’t you want an insane, stupid or ignorant person debating law would you?
poah, what you have said here is poor form on a number of levels. I strongly believe that you are free to not believe in a god or have any religious sympathies; I do not think, however, that you have any call to equate ‘religious’ with ‘insane, stupid or ignorant’. It’s not even just that it’s insulting; it’s very bad logic.
If what you say is true, then this would not be possible would it?
I didn't mean it was impossible. I meant that (in my opinion) I thought it unlikely.
Uh.. let me try and put it another way.
So whilst the Bishops might be Christian themselves, some of them might not vote along Christian lines because they realise that we are a fairly secular society, and are acting for the benefit of society as a whole. Or they might not.
Do you see what I mean?
Nope not a clue as you took ages to make a point then added or they might not. ;like you i am deeply confused on what you mean.
the notion the head of the church wont vote in accordance with the church but will vote in accordance with sinners is something so fanciful i cannot believe an educated adult wishes to discuss it.
I’m being hypothetical
Farcical more like- Yes the pope might ignore his role as the head of the church, the leader of catholics everywhere, and his personal heartfelt believe and his faith in god as ineffable, immutable and vote for free contraception and abortion because its a popular view in secular society. Is this what you are really wanting to discuss? You dont need a theologian for this great quandary
there are plenty of instances in history of societies respecting each others’ faiths whilst they differ
Only where this tolerance* is in accordance with their teaching, Name one where they did it at complete odds with their relgion teachings.
* You can pay a tax to be a non muslim for exampe - but its in the Koran and the Hadith jizya
I do not think, however, that you have any call to equate ‘religious’ with ‘insane, stupid or ignorant’. It’s not even just that it’s insulting; it’s very bad logic.
ignorant - just don't know
stupid - can't understand
insane - in a state of mind which prevents normal perception, behaviour or social interaction
while 2000 years or more ago we didn't know any better we do now. If you believe in a god(s) you fall into one of those categories with the likelihood of it being ignorance.
the notion the head of the church wont vote in accordance with the church but will vote in accordance with sinners is something so fanciful i cannot believe an educated adult wishes to discuss it.
You trying to belittle me?
It's like Poah's a plant, operating on behalf of the religious.
However, then we get thorny issues like same-sex marriage and the wheels come off.
Again this assumes that there is only one viewpoint within the CofE which is clearly wrong, whilst there is almost unanimity among Bishops, the House of Clergy voted against the status quo last year and there was only a small majority in the House of Laity for it.
Much of the concern at the time of the debate was how the government had "solved" the CofE's problems and the consequent risk of a successful legal challenge to the CofE's wish not to be obliged to marry same sex couples . The issue arises as the CofE is the established church, Church Law is entwined with the laws of the country, for instance, all changes in Church Law have to be approved by the Houses of Parliament. Likewise all senior CofE appointments are made by the Queen on advice from the Prime Minister
Again Molgrips I suggest if you want to learn something, you should read the link I posted. A typical quote being
The Bishops are interesting because—like the Crossbenchers—they do not take
a party whip, but also because their continued presence in the chamber is
controversial. The Bishops‘ impact, however, is limited by the fact that they are a
small group, and that like the Crossbenchers they vote relatively little, and do not
vote as a cohesive block. On most occasions there is one Bishop ‗on duty‘ in the
House (they have a formal rota) and the average turnout from the group in
government-whipped divisions is only 3.2 percent (ie, less than one person). On
only 10 occasions over this period did more than five Bishops participate in
whipped divisions, and indeed on only 66 occasions did more than two Bishops
take part. The largest turnouts were eleven votes on the balloting of grammar
schools in 2000 (when nine Bishops supported the government and two
opposed), on the Civil Partnerships Bill in 2004 (eight supporting, two opposed),
and on the Learning and Skills Bill in 2000 with respect to sex education
guidelines to replace Section 28. In the last of these cases the compromise
amendment agreed with the government was moved by a Bishop, and nine
supported this with one voting against.
I know I have stated this before, but it is entirely possible for a religious person to believe in the separation of Church and State, and still contribute positively to a broader social debate.
In this respect, I have referred in the past to the late Canadian Prime Minister, Pierre Trudeau, who:
a) brought in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
b) decriminalised homosexuality
c) decriminalised pron
d) declared "The State has no business in the bedrooms of the Nation"
He did these things because he was a genuine liberal and believed in human freedom, as well as the unassailable dignity of the individual.
After he died in 2000, it became known that he was a devout Roman Catholic, who spent many years visiting a friend of his who was a monk, and taking counsel on political ideas he was wrestling with at various different times.
At no point did he suspend his faith in order to legislate. He simply saw the Church and State as two separate categories. This is not remotely odd, and has not been since at least the Reformation.
Having said that, even if a religious leader puts forward his/her opinion on a matter in the context of public discourse and that opinion was based directly on his/her religious understanding, should s/he not be allowed to state it? I agree 100% that the idea should not be afforded [I]more[/I] weight than other ideas, but should we suppress it entirely? And what if, like Trudeau, s/he is religious, but is deliberately making a case quite separate to his/her faith?
Eradicating the religious voice from the public square is a slippery slope. Affording it more of a platform than other voices would definitely be inappropriate, but shutting it out smacks of a sort of neo-totalitarianism.
we are discussing Bishops and archbishops not politicians with convictions. I do not believe anyone is saying people cannot state their religious<span style="font-size: 0.8rem;"> beliefs what we are objecting to is them being given a direct say in the democratic process simply by virtue of being high ranking within that faith. Can an equal number of atheists get such a position to counter them ?TBH I dont care what anyone religious says, thinks or believes as long as it does not affect me. Clearly active lords fail this test as they influence legislation and therefore my life. To have this say that no other minority gets is as unfair to others of faith as it is to those who have none.</span>
mefty - according to that link from the curch times 14 turned out to vote against gay marriage - 9 voting against, 5 abstaining.
What right do they have to sit in our legislature when they vote and act in a discriminatory way?
It is completely bogus to state that they might have been forced to offer gay marriage in their churches. There was no chance of that. It was purely civil ceremonies that the bill was talking about
the real reason as I am sure you realise is that the african churches in the anglian communion are mainly very strongly predjudiced against homosexuals and the bishops do not want to antagonise them.
Saxonrider - I have no problem with religious voices being heard. It is abhorrent to me that they have power no matter how small in our legislature. this is compounded when they actively seek to discriminate against people. Anglican churches do get more say than any other religious group and those of no religion.
I know I have stated this before, but it is entirely possible for a religious person to believe in the separation of Church and State
he was voted in, the bishops in the house of lords have 26 seats just because they are bishops in the church of England. Think of it another way, up until recently you had 26 seats in the house of lords reserved for white men.
Again Molgrips I suggest if you want to learn something, you should read the link I posted. A typical quote being
Mefty I don't think anyone objects to people in public office having religious beliefs, that would be foolish to try and legislate for. Speaking personally I don't have a particular issue if someone is a member of the house of lords and a bishop or arch bishop. What I and others do object to is a member of the house of lords because they are a bishop or arch bishop. To think anyone in such a position will do other than vote along with their particular religious doctrine is foolish at best.
