Seats reserved exclusively for men in the House of Lords

[gregorach]

Yes, well, I've often gotten the impression that the situation is somewhat different in France, but I have no direct experience, so I'll take your word for it. Still, the fact that other people misuse words and abuse concepts is no reason to follow them into error.

I really can't see the C of E getting militant... I mean, what would that look like? And if they did, I don't imagine they'd keep all of those 26 million members. I suspect that a lot of them are only there because of inertia, or for the tea and biscuits...

(Thinking about a militant C of E, I've just got this picture in my head from an episode of Dr Who, of a khaki Dalek with a tea-tray shouting "WOULD YOU CARE FOR SOME TEA!?"...)

[demi]

Demi - what you need to understand is that personal religious belief influences personal political belief. The two can not be separated. Saying that religion is wrong and should not be allowed to influence society is meaningless. Where freedom of belief is permitted (and frankly even where it isn't), religion and society are fused together. Forcing people to all think the same way has been tried often enough and it always ends up getting messy.

Sorry to disagree but this is the 21st century and there is no need in today's modern society to live by the laws of the bible. We are supposed to have evolved beyond the barbaric days of the bible. Society does not need religion anymore as we today are able to live honest, ethical and moral lives without the need to be scared of burning in hell for eternity with Satan. The majority of the bible is irrelevant today and we have our own laws, most of which fit well with today's society. Following laws from the bible, like those against abortion, is dangerous. This is not the dark ages.
I understand that a lot of people still hold on to their religious beliefs due to fear for death, ignorance or just because they don't know any better, but that doesn't mean it should be forced on the entire population. I have no problem with people of whatever faith being elected into the parliament, but as was said before being a bishop should not entitle you to a free seat in the house of lords. Same as being a rich toff should not entitle you free entry. Every person should be elected fair and square. And what about all the other faiths, why don't they get free seats too? Do they have something against Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists or any other faith we have in the UK? It's not fair practice to allow some people free entry just because of their job title. They should earn their seat like everyone else.
Religion is a dying practice anyway, and i suspect 100 years from now the UK will be majority atheist. Bring it on!

[The Riff-Raff Element]

I really can't see the C of E getting militant... I mean, what would that look like? And if they did, I don't imagine they'd keep all of those 26 million members. I suspect that a lot of them are only there because of inertia, or for the tea and biscuits...

What would it look like? I don't know. I suspect that is what probably scares most politicos into maintaining the status quo. What would happen if the C of E started endorsing candidates, or offered moral guidance on manifestos? Perhaps nothing; on the other hand, they might influence the voting choice of enough people to change the course of an election. Far safer, from the establishment point of view, to keep them out of the equation and dozing gently on the benches.

[MKG]

People who are kept out of the equation have a nasty habit of upping and changing the equation. However, I wasn't talking about keeping religion out of politics - as you say, Jon, that's simply not possible. What I meant was keeping religious organisations out of politics. Equally, trade unionism is a force in politics, but Trade Unions should not have automatic representation. Even more to the point, though, is that ANY organisation should not be allowed to opt out of national laws. If we are to defeat prejudice, then it should be attacked wherever it occurs. Allowing an opt-out for an organisation which bases its rationale on the supposed utterings of a nigh-on 2000 year old Roman tax collector, or even a set of bored Iron Age nomads, is primitive.

According to the census, there were 35 million christians in the UK in 2001, and some 4 to 5 million less in 2011. The churches in the UK would, of course, love that to be true - but they know it isn't. Most of those millions of people simply ticked the christian box because they couldn't be bothered to do anything else. Churches are closing left, right and centre because of non-attendance and apathy. Not exactly a force to be reckoned with any longer, I think. The UK is increasingly secular (a move in the right direction as far as I'm concerned).

I don't mind the bishops burbling away making up inane comments on modern society - but make them do it in a legal way on their own account.

[demi]

I agree with MKG :)

[gregorach]

Far safer, from the establishment point of view, to keep them out of the equation and dozing gently on the benches.

They're not "dozing gently on the benches". They managed to substantially revise a major piece of legislation relating to benefit caps only last year. OK, the revision was a definite improvement in my book, but still, you can't argue that they're not actually having a significant effect.

[Helsbells]

If you make the assumption that religions are innately evil and bad then I can fully understand not wanting it to be involved in politics. However I would argue that religion is innately GOOD, with goodness at it's core, and based on that assumption having religion in politics can be positive.

Some of the views of religion on this forum make me very sad, you must have had bad experiences of religion in the past and I am sorry for this. These comments makes me particularly sad:

I understand that a lot of people still hold on to their religious beliefs due to fear for death, ignorance or just because they don't know any better

Religion, as far as I'm concerned, should not be allowed to rear its ugly head in any walk of life, let alone politics. It's dangerous

I really hope that these views come from misunderstanding and not a desire to be hurtful.

On the point of male bishops in the chamber, again if you assume that religions fight for good then I think it is positive for them to be there, however I am very upset that it was decided that women could not be Bishops and think that that is wrong.

[oldjerry]

I think fundamentalism , be it Christian,Muslim,Atheist,or whatever,by it's very certainty,inherently portrays an insecurity of belief. Apart from being rude,it's fatuous to deny the power of belief,in the same way as it is to suggest that only people with belief are capable of good.

I'm not sure why it's necessary to communicate only with people who share one's core values,surely most people have something to contribute that is of benefit,even if it's only to reinforce your opinion that they're talking rubbish!

I s'pose it the difference between finding 'the answer' , and finding the answer that suits you.

(..and wether they wear pointy hats or not, an unelected chamber is indefensible....)

[MKG]

If you make the assumption that religions are innately evil and bad then I can fully understand not wanting it to be involved in politics. However I would argue that religion is innately GOOD, with goodness at it's core, and based on that assumption having religion in politics can be positive.

Some of the views of religion on this forum make me very sad, you must have had bad experiences of religion in the past and I am sorry for this. These comments makes me particularly sad:

I understand that a lot of people still hold on to their religious beliefs due to fear for death, ignorance or just because they don't know any better

Religion, as far as I'm concerned, should not be allowed to rear its ugly head in any walk of life, let alone politics. It's dangerous

I really hope that these views come from misunderstanding and not a desire to be hurtful.

On the point of male bishops in the chamber, again if you assume that religions fight for good then I think it is positive for them to be there, however I am very upset that it was decided that women could not be Bishops and think that that is wrong.

All of that, Helsbells, is down to the fact that you're a nice person. You have your religious views, and they ain't nobody's bizness but your own. But perhaps I haven't made myself very clear - it's the institution of religion I object to. When I look back through history and see what has been done in the name of organised religion, I see red. Thank goodness we're more enlightened now - but, of course, we're not because the same horrendous ideas and actions are still being foisted upon the world in the name of religion. The idea that the development of nations and individuals can be frustrated by unfounded and dictatorial "Goddidit" and "Godsaidit" rules is not merely primitive - it is physically damaging (and I'm not restricting myself here to any particular flavour of god).

For every "but look at the good religion did in ..." I can come up with two massacres. For every example of the comfort offered by religion, I can come up with two examples of oppression and murder. How can I possibly take up a position which sanctions that kind of activity in a modern world? How can I stand back and watch idiots insisting upon the teaching of creationism in schools and getting their way? How can anyone sit quietly whilst the Church of England comes up with "it's OK for a bishop to be gay and live in a gay relationship as long as he doesn't have sex"? Any organisation which can come up with an illogical and hypocritical load of tat like that should be barred from any political activity for fear of their infecting the rest of the population with stoopiditis.

Yes, of course a lot - possibly even the majority - of people who hold religious views are good, virtuous souls. Of course they want the best for their family, neighbours and friends. However, their beliefs tend to lead them into situations in which they allow parrotting bigots to take over their institutions and speak for them. Bigots of any description are hard to swallow. Religious bigots are some of the most dangerous animals in the world.

Mike

[Green Aura]

It's impossible to keep religion out of politics, and it may (or, more likely may not) have some benefits in terms of balancing/tempering points of view.

But an individual bringing his or her belief to either House is completely different from having the state sanctioned religion occupying reserved places - the fact that they're also solely male seats highlights how preposterous that situation is.

[gregorach]

To mangle Plato somewhat... The good can be justified on the grounds that it's good, without any appeal to religious doctrine. Therefore, if you need to appeal to religious doctrine to justify something, it's probably not good.

Or as somebody else once put it, without religion good people will still do good, and evil people will still do evil , but only religion can persuade good people to do evil.

I've not personally had "bad experiences of religion", I've just spent quite a lot of time considering many thorny questions of theology and philosophy and come to the conclusion that religion offers very little of benefit, and that what good it does offer can be achieved by other means, with fewer associated problems.

[boboff]

Personally I think discussion of religion should not be undertaken on this site anymore.

That and calling people fat are not right.

Can't we just leave it? Please.

[oldjerry]

Then I can't call Eric Pickles a F-t G-t.???

[Green Aura]

Well if you didn't you'd be lying. I'm sure that's discouraged more

[The Riff-Raff Element]

Far safer, from the establishment point of view, to keep them out of the equation and dozing gently on the benches.

They're not "dozing gently on the benches". They managed to substantially revise a major piece of legislation relating to benefit caps only last year. OK, the revision was a definite improvement in my book, but still, you can't argue that they're not actually having a significant effect.

Well it's nice to see them using their privileged position to do some good, though, of course, the Parliament Acts make sure that Their Lordships have only an advisory capacity.

Which begs another question: why bother with second chambers at all? Rather than attempting to reform it, why not simply eliminate it? It's not as if other forums do not exist in which governments could seek advice, should they so desire.