BS: Church V State

Subject: BS: Church V State
From: Raggytash
Date: 07 Jul 15 - 01:45 PM

In order not to bugger up someone else's thread I will ask the question here.

What role, if any, should the church have in the running of a 21st Century state. For example the United Kingdom.

Subject: RE: BS: Church V State
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 07 Jul 15 - 01:48 PM

If you mean democracies, I think the people should decide.

Subject: RE: BS: Church V State
From: Raggytash
Date: 07 Jul 15 - 01:55 PM

I fully agree with that sentiment, if a clergyman wants to put themselves up for election fine, so how about the Bishops in the House of Lords.

Subject: RE: BS: Church V State
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 07 Jul 15 - 01:56 PM

People in this particular democracy do not decide government policies though. Only a referendum on every issue would be a full democracy and this is not a practical proposition. People vote for whichever party is closest to their ideals and most often have to compromise on some of their wishes. In the last election people did not even do that. They voted against what they feared most as none of the parties seemed to offer anything positive.

Anyway, in answer to the opening question, none at all.

Subject: RE: BS: Church V State
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 07 Jul 15 - 01:59 PM

None. But then neither should Rupert Murdoch.

Subject: RE: BS: Church V State
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 07 Jul 15 - 02:02 PM

"I fully agree with that sentiment"
Me too - let them all stand for election
Not sure that's what Keith means though!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Church V State
From: Don Firth
Date: 07 Jul 15 - 02:03 PM

I agree with Dave. The church should have no say in government.

Which is to say, they should be free to howl and squawk all they want, but they should have no actual governmental control.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Church V State
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 07 Jul 15 - 02:11 PM

I fully agree with that sentiment, if a clergyman wants to put themselves up for election fine, so how about the Bishops in the House of Lords.

But none of the Lords are elected!
They are appointed by elected politicians, and so are the bishops.

Subject: RE: BS: Church V State
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 07 Jul 15 - 02:15 PM

"But none of the Lords are elected!"
'Bout time they were - but there is no reason why clergymen should be included in that - perhaps you might explain why they should?
Did't think that's what you meant for one minute - democracy - pha!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Church V State
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Jul 15 - 02:43 PM

I hate to demur from democratic sentiments, but elections for the Lords would be a disaster. The turnout would be so low as to make a mockery of the better democracy that was being aspired to. I think that there does need to be a higher authority that would provide a check on the Commons, but a chamberful of sleepy geriatrics who turn up for the £300 a day is not the answer. Discuss.

Subject: RE: BS: Church V State
From: Greg F.
Date: 07 Jul 15 - 03:12 PM

What role, if any, should the church have in the running of a 21st Century state.<.I>

No fusking role whatsoever. Period. Nor should said church impose its dogma on non-menbers thereof.

Full stop.

(U.S. Republicans take note)

Subject: RE: BS: Church V State
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 07 Jul 15 - 03:21 PM

In a democracy, the people should choose.
(Greg take note)

Subject: RE: BS: Church V State
From: GUEST,XX
Date: 07 Jul 15 - 03:44 PM

To repeat what I said on the other thread. I think the bishops and (other faith leaders) have a "consituency" and relevant experience in the same way as the trade union and business leaders and so on in the House of Lords have. They have to demonstrate merit to members of that constitiency to get to where they are. Them being there without nomination is an anachronism though.

I also think election for the House of Lords would be a disaster. But so long as the Parliament Acts stayed in force (so they could only revise and delay) I think a more democratic and transparent nomination system might work.

Someone (I think I remember who but may be wrong) said on an earlier thread words to the effect that some decisions were too complicated for referendums and that delegation to elected representatives was more appropriate. There might be an appointment system for the House of Lords that I would be happy to delegate my democratic rigths to. Maybe the sort of thing that the Appointments Commision does but with a different brief.

There are enough lords that being there for life is no problem. It's not as if it was, say, the US Supreme Court.

Subject: RE: BS: Church V State
From: GUEST,#
Date: 07 Jul 15 - 03:49 PM

"There are enough lords that being there for life is no problem."

There's enough rope to make that possible.

Subject: RE: BS: Church V State
From: GUEST,XX
Date: 07 Jul 15 - 03:51 PM

The other thread also included a context in which accumulated cultural tradition was given some respect and I think that moral views based on contempory interpretations of old books have value to many irrespective of whether they are attributed to supernatural beings or wiley old churchmen or iron age autocrats.

As do things like the moral codes of Jedi knights - I'll get that in before someone else does.

Subject: RE: BS: Church V State
From: GUEST,XX
Date: 07 Jul 15 - 04:00 PM

And my answer to the question in the OP is no direct role. And disestablish the church. I reckon that might happen when there is a change at the very top.

Subject: RE: BS: Church V State
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Jul 15 - 06:16 PM

In a democracy the people should choose what? Awkward, when you consider that in modern democracies people are lied to, not only by politicians but also by their media lackeys, and deliberately kept ignorant. Nice principle, let the people choose. If only the people were qualified to do so. Think I'm wrong? Four million people just voted UKIP...

Subject: RE: BS: Church V State
From: Bill D
Date: 07 Jul 15 - 06:35 PM

"If you mean democracies, I think the people should decide."

Oh, right...by simple majority? And if 51% the "people" decide to allow one particular church to decide everything?

You need to think VERY carefully about the implications of generalizations stated as slogans.

Subject: RE: BS: Church V State
From: Joe Offer
Date: 07 Jul 15 - 09:00 PM

I seem to be having a hard time getting the idea of separation of church and state across to conservative U.S. Catholics. I tried to convince them that the Supreme Court decision on gay marriage and the Doe v. Wade decision on abortion are matters of civil law, not matters of morality. They tell me that's contrary to Catholic Church teaching and that if that's what I think, I should get out of the church I was raised in.

I try to control my temper.

Same thing, of course, goes for "Christian" employers who don't want their employees to have the choice of birth control in their health insurance plans. If the employers and churches don't think it's moral to use birth control, then they shouldn't use birth control - but they shouldn't compel their employees to do the same.

Once again, I'm told I don't belong in the Catholic Church where I got my Theology degree.

I try to control my temper.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Church V State
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Jul 15 - 09:14 PM

I admire your resolve to fight within, actually, Joe. I was always far too leftie for my trade union, the NUT, and in a drawer somewhere I have two treasured letters from the then general secretary, Fred Jarvis, threatening to boot me out if I didn't desist from organising unofficial action. I didn't desist and I didn't get booted out, in fact I went on to higher things (but I never sold my soul). In the end, getting out into the sunlit uplands was a great idea. I did that with my religion too. It takes courage but I'm glad I did it. Shaking off one lot of fetters has the surprising and pleasant consequence of making it easier to shake off lots of other baggage too.

Subject: RE: BS: Church V State
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Jul 15 - 01:30 AM

Bill D,
Oh, right...by simple majority? And if 51% the "people" decide to allow one particular church to decide everything?

We have had this for a thousand years and it mostly works OK.
In practice, the church does not try to circumvent the will of Parliament, and our prime minister has the final word on who is appointed a bishop.
The church here is well to the Left politically.

Like gay marriage, when enough people want change in a democracy it happens.

Subject: RE: BS: Church V State
From: Joe Offer
Date: 08 Jul 15 - 02:00 AM

I dunno, Keith. The tyranny of the 51% vote has prolonged the oppression of a lot of minorities through the millennia. Constitutions can help assure that individual rights are not bulldozed by the majority, but constitutions don't always work the way they should.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Church V State
From: GUEST,XX
Date: 08 Jul 15 - 02:49 AM

We have had this for a thousand years

"We"?

Most people have had a heirarchy of auotocratic strongmen, each with a few henchmen.

Subject: RE: BS: Church V State
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Jul 15 - 03:12 AM

Joe, it does work here.
XX, We meaning UK.

Subject: RE: BS: Church V State
From: Spleen Cringe
Date: 08 Jul 15 - 03:17 AM

We have had this for a thousand years

Bullshit. The UK has only had universal suffrage since 1923.

Subject: RE: BS: Church V State
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 08 Jul 15 - 03:18 AM

"In a democracy, the people should choose."
Repeating this without explanation is totally meaningless
What are you suggesting - that they should put up for election - that there should be a referendum on the link between church and state... what???
As things have always stood, the church has been foisted on us without consultation and has been an integral part of the State, in many cases, having a dominant influence in temporal policies to the detriment of the people as a whole.
As I said, that entitles us to an explanation of what they are about - why should we be ruled or even influenced by a bunch of mystics in the 21st century?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Church V State
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 08 Jul 15 - 03:27 AM

Well under 51℅ of people voted for this government.

Subject: RE: BS: Church V State
From: GUEST,XX
Date: 08 Jul 15 - 04:09 AM

"why should we be ruled or even influenced by a bunch of mystics in the 21st century?"

We don't need an explanation about the mystic bit because we won't accept it anyway. We observe that they have a track record in engaging with a section of the population and then weigh up whether there is any benefit to the public as a whole in drawing on that. As with a political party or non-governmental advocacy group some will agree with their stance and some won't, and that will change as time goes on.

Just as the moment the church in the UK is taking a view on many issues that is on the left-liberal side of the political spectrum. All* it gets is a few votes in a chamber that has to defer to the one we elect.

* Not all of course, it can lobby in the background like many other organisations, but speed with which information can now be made public and transmitted makes it harder not to get noticed. One could argue that having 'representatives' of these groups in the House of Lords makes their stance and political involvement slightly more transparent - the old trick of putting someone on a 'commitee' where you can keep an eye on them.

Subject: RE: BS: Church V State
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Jul 15 - 04:10 AM

What are you suggesting - that they should put up for election - that there should be a referendum on the link between church and state... what???
As with gay marriage, when enough people in a democracy want change, it happens.

Bullshit. The UK has only had universal suffrage since 1923.
So what?
Church and state have been linked for a thousand years.


Well under 51℅ of people voted for this government.
So what?

Subject: RE: BS: Church V State
From: GUEST,Musket sans dog collar
Date: 08 Jul 15 - 04:21 AM

If people wish to influence society then standing for election is a good way.

However, if it means dumbing down, insulting the intelligence of normal people with simpleton superstition and trying to enforce controlling of people by offering a rancid comfort blanket to the vulnerable, then forgive me if I ignore them.

You see, running for political office means governing for everyone. As religions are by their own constitution misogynist, homophobic and bigoted, I fail to see what they have to offer anyone except middle aged men who don't give a flying fuck for others.

Anyway, the Church of England is said to be the Conservative party at prayer, so god botherers should be happy now.

Subject: RE: BS: Church V State
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 08 Jul 15 - 04:30 AM

It was in answer to Bill D's question "And if 51% the "people" decide to allow one particular church to decide everything?"

Subject: RE: BS: Church V State
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Jul 15 - 04:31 AM

the Church of England is said to be the Conservative party at prayer,

That has not been said for a long time.
In recent years it has been known for opposing Tory policy.

Subject: RE: BS: Church V State
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 08 Jul 15 - 04:32 AM

"As with gay marriage, when enough people in a democracy want change, it happens."
It seldom does, most outdated institutions wither away - referendums to bring abou#t real change are extremely rare in Britain, less so in Ireland.
The establishment has a vested interest in keeping the Church on its side ad will never change that situation of its own free will.
The voice of the people have no say in the matter and never will have
Bang goes your democracy.
So we have a bunch of mystics helping keep us is our place without having to account for its mysticism.   
Here, it to the rape of children to loosen the grasp the church had over the people - is the same to be the case for Britain?
It is interesting that the establishment in (British) Northern Ireland are refusing to investigate clerical abuse there to the extent that the Southern Government has been forced to and that Amnesty International has mounted a campaign to get the matters investigated independently and fairly in British Ireland.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Church V State
From: GUEST,XX
Date: 08 Jul 15 - 04:40 AM

If people wish to influence society then standing for election is a good way.

Yes, but so is, say, becoming a senior executive of an NGO and I'm not sure that my elected representative understands all issues well enough without hearing them discussed by knowledgeable people in a formal environment.

That's mainly to Steve's topic drift House of Lords discussion, but the argument applies to faith leaders who have specialist knowledge of their communities.

Politicians, by the nature of the game, make 'unholy' (in the metaphorical sense) alliances. People representing special interest groups can't do that so easily. I think government needs both those who have to compromise to get things done and those who don't need to.

Subject: RE: BS: Church V State
From: Raggytash
Date: 08 Jul 15 - 06:55 AM

The UK is the only western democracy to allow a religious organisation the automatic right to sit in the legislature. Has the time has come when such factions should be debarred from any position of power within a democracy.

Subject: RE: BS: Church V State
From: GUEST,Musket sans rubric
Date: 08 Jul 15 - 06:57 AM

Ah well. In that case XX, I don't agree with the approach our government is taking on tackling the deficit, although I get some comfort in seeing somebody is taking it seriously.

Yet the budget in under an hour's time will include the first steps in knocking off the superstitious law on Sunday trading, so great for them!

Acheson. - The Conservative party and CofE have a fundamental similar approach. They both try telling the masses what is good for them whilst hiring experts in gilding their treasures whilst throwing a few bones your way.

(Fook me, I almost sounded socialist then.. Must go and lie down.)

Subject: RE: BS: Church V State
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Jul 15 - 07:05 AM

Has the time has come when such factions should be debarred from any position of power within a democracy.

That is up to the people of that democracy.
That is what democracy means.

Subject: RE: BS: Church V State
From: GUEST,XX
Date: 08 Jul 15 - 07:18 AM

I don't think it needs a religious angle to support a shared day of rest. It could have been a cultural thing**. If a god didn't tell them to do it (even though that's the story) someone must have come up with the idea. It's not really practical in the UK anyway since they seem to have decided on different days.

A lot of us now like to spend our days of doing the same sorts of things, so it gets busy if we do them on the same day, and those things use services that people get work from. So our culture has moved on.

**I have heard it suggested that in some places very strict Sunday observance was as much about being able to stand up to the bosses as needing a whole day for worship.

Subject: RE: BS: Church V State
From: GUEST,Derrick
Date: 08 Jul 15 - 07:19 AM

Has the time has come when such factions should be debarred from any position of power within a democracy.

That is up to the people of that democracy.
That is what democracy means.

The people of that democracy can only give their decision on the matter if they are asked the question in the first place.

Subject: RE: BS: Church V State
From: GUEST,XX
Date: 08 Jul 15 - 07:21 AM

And in the UK the strictest observance in the last 150 years wasn't from followers of the established church.

Subject: RE: BS: Church V State
From: Raggytash
Date: 08 Jul 15 - 07:24 AM

KAOH, I know you try and twist things with your bewilderingly perverse logic but the bishops in the House of Lords are not democratically elected. They are appointed. Look it up.

Subject: RE: BS: Church V State
From: GUEST,XX
Date: 08 Jul 15 - 07:25 AM

The people of that democracy can only give their decision on the matter if they are asked the question in the first place.

That can happen by political parties adopting it as policy because their research shows that there are votes in it.

Subject: RE: BS: Church V State
From: GUEST,Howard Jones
Date: 08 Jul 15 - 07:54 AM

In a characteristically British process of accident, compromise and fudge we have ended up with a constitutional setup which actually works quite well. Democracy is all well and good, but democratically elected parliaments have passed any number of daft laws (I'm sure we all have our own long lists). The House of Lords is now largely made up of people who have achieved eminence in a very wide range of fields and there are acknowledged experts on almost any topic you care to name. Its role is to revise and amend, and at times to tell the elected house not to be so bloody stupid, but it cannot overrule the elected house.

The problem with single-chamber legislatures is that they lack this oversight. The problem with two elected chambers is that they may disagree and fight for supremacy, each claiming a democratic mandate. The British system has the best of both worlds, and the House of Lords itself recognises that it is subordinate to the Commons. Of course there is room for improvement, but I can see no need for the Lords to become elected and many disadvantages if this were to happen.

Whether or not you agree with religion, it is important to a lot of people. I don't think it is inappropriate to have people in the House of Lords who can present a certain viewpoint and a certain moral perspective. The position of the CofE bishops is probably anacronistic, but their numbers have been reduced and other major religious viewpoints are in practice also represented.

Subject: RE: BS: Church V State
From: Raggytash
Date: 08 Jul 15 - 07:59 AM

The fact is we do not live in a democracy, no matter how you try and paint it. One example of this is Bishops being appointed to the legislature.

Subject: RE: BS: Church V State
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Jul 15 - 07:59 AM

Rag,
the bishops in the House of Lords are not democratically elected. They are appointed. Look it up.

I know.
That is what I said.
Look it up.

Subject: RE: BS: Church V State
From: Raggytash
Date: 08 Jul 15 - 08:03 AM

See my post 07.59

Subject: RE: BS: Church V State
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 08 Jul 15 - 08:14 AM

To give the thread a musical leaning

Like a spiral in a spiral
Like a wheel withing a wheel
Never ending or beginning
On an ever spinning reel

It would wear anyone down eventually. Maybe that is the idea?

Subject: RE: BS: Church V State
From: GUEST,XX
Date: 08 Jul 15 - 08:24 AM

I read it that Keith had opined that the debarring should be done through the democratic process.

Odd that people did not think of reading it that way - and that he didn't realise they had misread.

Subject: RE: BS: Church V State
From: Raggytash
Date: 08 Jul 15 - 08:31 AM

XX are you new to the wonderful world of KAOH logic? Definitions tend to change by the hour, if not minutes.

Subject: RE: BS: Church V State
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Jul 15 - 08:37 AM

Rag, XX understood what I said.

You failed to understand simple sentences like,
"But none of the Lords are elected!
They are appointed by elected politicians, and so are the bishops."

I just do not know how to make it more accessible for you Rag.
Sorry.