BS: Church V State

Subject: RE: BS: Church V State
From: Mrrzy
Date: 08 Jul 15 - 08:47 AM

Just a question, but my understanding is that the UK has a government church, being the Church of England?

Subject: RE: BS: Church V State
From: Raggytash
Date: 08 Jul 15 - 08:49 AM

So it's NOT democratic is it.!!!!

So we have established the Lords including the Bishop are not democratic we can return to the original post:

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

Subject: RE: BS: Church V State
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 08 Jul 15 - 08:50 AM

"That is up to the people of that democracy."
Democracy means having the wherewithal to remove them
You have yet to suggest how that is possible
There is no reason why any single body of unelected people should have the authority to bock parliamentary legislation - that is what democracy is NOT about.
How do you suggest we go about removing them from office - wait for revelations of mass clerical abuse maybe.
I fully realise that there is no way they can me removed in a 'democratic' society that only pays lip-service to democracy.
You are still tiptoeing around the question
By what right are they where they are and why shouldn't they be answerable?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Church V State
From: GUEST,XX
Date: 08 Jul 15 - 09:01 AM

I have been lurking for a while. My observation is that Keith, like many of us, does not alway express himself clearly.

If people wish to get others re-assess their outlook then I think nailing them on clearly expressed views, with no risk of being at cross-purposed, is most productive.

Subject: RE: BS: Church V State
From: GUEST
Date: 08 Jul 15 - 09:13 AM

There is no reason why any single body of unelected people should have the authority to bock parliamentary legislation

They do not have that authority. That is what the Parliament Acts are for. Though we may be fortunate that the hereditary peers (now gone) being a completely bonkers anachronism was a major reason for them.

Howard Jones put the situation very clearly above.

At a UK level the House of Commons is where democracy happens. No blocking second chamber, no president, the monarch can't have influence - and neither can any deity.

Subject: RE: BS: Church V State
From: Raggytash
Date: 08 Jul 15 - 09:13 AM

XX, I think you have more chance of plaiting fog than you have of KAOH being consistent in his definitions.

Subject: RE: BS: Church V State
From: GUEST,XX
Date: 08 Jul 15 - 09:18 AM

Fog can conceal changes in direction.

(The response to Jim was me too)

Subject: RE: BS: Church V State
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 08 Jul 15 - 09:34 AM

"Though we may be fortunate that the hereditary peers (now gone"
There are still 90 hereditary peers and theer is no guarantee that any of them are appointed on merit - just by establishment approval
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Church V State
From: GUEST,XX
Date: 08 Jul 15 - 10:00 AM

There is always going to be an 'establishment' in a democracy. We just need to get progressivly better at keeping an eye on it.

It's not so long ago that you could not get a List of lords with some information so easily. And then go searching the web for more about their interests etc.

My point was that with mainly non-hereditary lords the Parliament Acts would be less of a no-brainer so we may be lucky to have it.

Subject: RE: BS: Church V State
From: GUEST,Olddude
Date: 08 Jul 15 - 10:08 AM

Thomas Jefferson was once asked if a minister wanted to run for office is it Ok. Jefferson responded I would tell them don't do it, but don't you dare try to stop them from running.

Subject: RE: BS: Church V State
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Jul 15 - 10:54 AM

We do have an unelected second chamber, but we are still a democracy, and one of the better ones.
(Not in your little world obviously Rag!)

Jim,
Democracy means having the wherewithal to remove them
You have yet to suggest how that is possible

How has so much reform already been achieved Jim?
In a democracy, when enough people want change, it happens.

We achieved gay marriage before you did Jim, and we did not need a referendum.

Subject: RE: BS: Church V State
From: GUEST,XX
Date: 08 Jul 15 - 11:07 AM

I don't see why it is neccessary to ask Keith to suggest how to remove them. Something like what has already been done perhaps?

Why make a big deal of the obvious?

Subject: RE: BS: Church V State
From: Raggytash
Date: 08 Jul 15 - 11:15 AM

Keith,
I am tired of playing your silly little games, frankly I find them extremely tedious and infantile. Like others on this website I find it is impossible to conduct any kind of serious interchange with someone whose basic premis in any discussion is "I win" or "You Lose"

I do not think you have sufficient intelligence to warrant any further conversations and from now on will not respond to your unintelligent utterances.

You may respond as you wish, it will go unanswered and before you think or say it I do not lose. If anything you do, as there will be one less protaganist for you to cross swords with.

Enjoy your ignorance.

Subject: RE: BS: Church V State
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 08 Jul 15 - 11:31 AM

"Why make a big deal of the obvious"
That implies the will of the establishment to remove them - which does not exist
They are there democratically, and they cannot be removed democratically.
They serve no purpose other than to keep us in our place, so, at the very least, they should be prepared to explain themselves.
This only involves Keith inasmuch as he states that Christians have no need to make their case - they do if it involves our lives.
Personally, I have no interest in Keith's opinions on the matter - we could have given it before he put finger to keyboard.
"How has so much reform already been achieved Jim?"
Often through centuries of struggle and hardship on the part of those who would bring about such changes.
This should nit be necessary with something about as valid as bear-baiting - the Church serves no purpose in government - unless you can show us how it does, of course.
There are plenty of examples of how it has proved a threat and an instrument of oppression - many as recent as The Magdelene Laundries and the child abuse scandal.
"so we may be lucky to have it."
Then you, like Keith, are free to show us how exactly.
A pretty fair summing up
And another
"God given" duty to interfere
There are plenty of examples of the church working to keep us a century or so behind the times - Gay marriage and pregnancy termination among them
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Church V State
From: GUEST
Date: 08 Jul 15 - 11:31 AM

Wondering why most religions operate in the "tax free" zone-when many operate more like a business (effectively, or otherwise).

Subject: RE: BS: Church V State
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 08 Jul 15 - 11:32 AM

"They are there democratically"
That, of course, should read undemocratically
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Church V State
From: GUEST,XX
Date: 08 Jul 15 - 11:51 AM

They serve no purpose other than to keep us in our place

Jim. In his post above Howard Jones suggests that the House of Lords (which is where these bishops are) does have a purpose in the setup as it is. Which parts of that post do you not agree with ?

Subject: RE: BS: Church V State
From: GUEST
Date: 08 Jul 15 - 12:01 PM

Wondering why most religions operate in the "tax free" zone-when many operate more like a business (effectively, or otherwise).

Somewhere in here:
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2011/25/contents
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/50/contents
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1993/10/contents

or "because they always have done"

Subject: RE: BS: Church V State
From: GUEST,Musket sans sweeties to lure choirboys
Date: 08 Jul 15 - 12:06 PM

Mrrzy. Yes. The upper house, (a bit like the U.S. Senate but appointed) falls into The Lords Spiritual and The Lords Laity. The spiritual being the senior employees of The Anglican Church, of which The Queen is head. (Despite her being the boss, women have only been seen as equal in their hierarchy for the past few months.)

I like how Parliament tries to operate and I like unelected people scrutinising policy, even though ultimately they cannot stop it becoming law. But giving one superstition bums on seats and not the others, or even any at all in these more enlightened times is a stain on our "mother of parliaments."

To talk of historical precedents is irrelevant because they came from a time most people believed in an imaginary friend. Nowadays, the vast majority either ignore it or have a fondness for the tradition rather than the silly stuff.

Raggy. You won't be able to stop yourself prodding Keith with a stick to get a reaction. If he insists on embarrassing himself, at least by doing so, he becomes occasional entertainment.

Subject: RE: BS: Church V State
From: Raggytash
Date: 08 Jul 15 - 12:14 PM

Musket, I think I can have a more rational and intelligent conversation with my cats. At least I know exactly where they stand with them. I can provide food and they can,t be arsed to find their own.

Subject: RE: BS: Church V State
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 08 Jul 15 - 12:22 PM

"Jim. In his post above Howard Jones suggests that the House of Lords (which is where these bishops are) does have a purpose in the setup as it is"
The usefulness or otherwise of the House of Lords has been argued ad-nauseum without my ever being convinced that an appointed bunch of non-qualified toffs serve any purpose whatever in the grand order of things, but this is beside the point.
My argument is that something as unworldly as the Church should have no part of this and has, comparatively recently, showed quite convincingly that they most certainly should not.
You may as well appoint a group of milkmen - at least they don't come with a track record of long-term persecution, a claim of divine right and a belief in the unseeable and unprovable.
I can see the logic of appointing representatives of industry (which should include both workers and management), but for the life of me, I can't see why priests should play any part in our lives without our having voluntarily requested them to do so.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Church V State
From: Bill D
Date: 08 Jul 15 - 12:23 PM

In the USA we are beginning our tedious process of electing a president- (every 4 years, beginning about 1 year after the previous election). Because the conservative party, the Republicans, is in disarray, they have put forth the largest group of candidates ever. Several of these are totally immersed in very conservative religious backgrounds..(Rick Santorum, Ted Cruz, Mike Huckabee, Dr. Ben Carson.... and various others pay various degrees of homage to religiously based political positions.
Our Constitution, on the face of it, is well-worded to allow freedom OF religion, while restricting/preventing "establishment" of any religion as a controlling influence in government.
The problem is, the various fundamentalist groups seem unable to grasp that concept, and continue to throw out phrases like "we are a Christian nation". They seem to **believe** that all would be better if that silly restriction in the Constitution were discarded... or at least ignored and circumvented. Their point seems to be (though never expresses quite explicitly) that 'freedom of religion' includes the right to insert the 'right' religion(s) into every facet of life... including prayer in schools, banning of 'immoral' practices (abortion, same-sex marriage... etc.)

   We have had one Catholic president, JFK, who explicitly promised NOT to insert his private religious beliefs into government, and now Obama, while maintaining a personal religious belief, has carefully avoided crossing the line the Constitution sets out.

There is little doubt that the Republicans I listed above would NOT restrain themselves, and would sign legislation put forth by a conservative Congress which would do what their religious beliefs suggest, while using all sorts of rhetorical devices to defend the practice in other ways. There have already been many clinics that include abortion as one service which have been closed without USING one word of religious language! Does anyone doubt that they would find similar language to attempt removing Roe v. Wade from the SCOTUS decisions?

Keith A. continues to promote "democracy" as the proper way to decide controversy, while ignoring the many ways that it can be distorted to restrict basic human rights and favor those who manipulate the system to insert their narrow set of beliefs. He says:
"That is up to the people of that democracy.
That is what democracy means."

No... that is not what democracy means. When 'majority rule' includes controlling who is allowed to vote and how the very language of what they are allowed to vote FOR is worded, then it is no longer democracy. In the USA, the last election was controlled by Gerrymandered districts, and produced more Gerrymandering. Several million more votes were cast for Democrats than Republicans, but many more Republicans were elected.

The UK has a fairly good system... but various people above have noted the problems inherent in it. The US has a similar situation as we try to steer a large & diverse nation in ways that are fair to all, but do not automatically favor any group. If church gets domination over state, fairness is endangered.

Subject: RE: BS: Church V State
From: GUEST,XX
Date: 08 Jul 15 - 12:35 PM

I can see the logic of appointing representatives of industry

I don't think the lords are there as 'representatives'. They are there because of their knowldege and experience in areas that people think are important. And - like it or not - some people centre their view of moral issues on organised religion.

I already said I dont think the bishops should be there by right, they should be nominated like everyone else.

Subject: RE: BS: Church V State
From: GUEST,XX
Date: 08 Jul 15 - 12:50 PM

But giving one superstition bums on seats and not the others...

I think it is particulary unfair on superstitions that don't organise themselves in a heirarchical manner.

Subject: RE: BS: Church V State
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 08 Jul 15 - 12:57 PM

"They are there because of their knowledge and experience in areas that people think are important."
Which people think them "important" and what "experience" do a bunch of celibate (allegedly) celibate men have of the modern world, having spent a large part of their lives away from it?
I come from a traditionally Catholic family and I never saw the pries unless he was knocking on the door asking for money - never saw HIM (no women allowed) in my various workplaces, or sitting next to me in the cinema, or down the pub having a drink and playing darts with the lads.
If I'd have gone to church, I would have seen him in strange get-up waving crisps and wine about and telling us they were flesh and blood.
They are unworldly, inexperienced in anything, largely misogynistic and extremely reactionary on some of the subjects that concern us most.
Our schooteachers, doctors, nurses... have more of a grasp on the world and the certainly do more for humanity than do a group of self-appointed mystics who (certainly as far as the Republic of Ireland is concerned - they won't tell us about the British bit) are not to be trusted with our children, or with the problems of childbirth, or homosexuality....
Out local traffic warden is more in touch with the real world than they are as a profession.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Church V State
From: Donuel
Date: 08 Jul 15 - 01:02 PM

jOE
If religion had one rule only and that rule was to be kind to each other and people actually behaved in ACCORDANCE TO THAT ONE RULE, there would be no need for anyone to invite you out of the club from which you were raised. There would be no need for civil law for that matter but alas people misbehave in contrast or opposition to some other culture or belief system.

My belief in a trinity is that 1/3 don't care or want to be involved, 1/3 want their religion or club to rule and 1/3 want a fair organization to rum things fairly by a constitution that is fair to everybody.

When one of those thirds get busy we could get a Hitler or a State sponsored religious supreme ruler. The 1/3 that doesn't care won't get involved until the suffering is unbearable.

The third that doesn't care keeps the anal retentive types and the "God said" types in balance but only after things get really bad.

So, lets toast the uncaring apathetic, the we don't give a shits, and the its not my job types. For it is they that order society and civilization.

Subject: RE: BS: Church V State
From: GUEST,XX
Date: 08 Jul 15 - 01:54 PM

I don't see the 'traditional Catholic family' and Republic or Ireland pespective as particulary relevant to a discussion that, as invited by the OP, has gone down a UK and Anglican church line. There are some rather large differences.

Subject: RE: BS: Church V State
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Jul 15 - 02:21 PM

If there was a public demand for a change, one party or other would put that reform into their manifesto.
That is how reform gets achieved.

I have no opinion about the Lords and Bishops either way, but am very happy to be living in a vibrant and evolving democracy.

Subject: RE: BS: Church V State
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 08 Jul 15 - 02:56 PM

"one party or other would put that reform into their manifesto."
So the decision as to whether priests re qualified to have a voice in running the country are not taken by the people choosing them by election, but by politicians - and that is your idea of democracy?
Whatever happened to your foirst argument that change was brought about by enough people wanting it to happen.
You appear to be making it up as you go along - again!
Now tell us - why do you think priests are qualified to have a say in running a country - bearing in mind of course that you once said that the church had no say whatever in what happened in Ireland (re a woman dying after being refused a pregnancy termination)?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Church V State
From: GUEST,XX
Date: 08 Jul 15 - 03:15 PM

not taken by the people choosing them by election, but by politicians - and that is your idea of democracy?

Oh for heavans sake. That's what happens in a chamber with a nominated membership. If we don't like who the politicians chose to be there we choose different politicans.

One of these days one of you will run into a Keith in real life, will screw up your arguments and people will adopt his point of view, or elect him to parliament or something.

Subject: RE: BS: Church V State
From: GUEST
Date: 08 Jul 15 - 03:17 PM

Jim, the House of Lords is no longer made up of "a bunch of non-qualified toffs", neither do they have "a track record of long-term persecution, a claim of divine right"

There are now 92 hereditary peers out of 790. You may think that's 92 too many, but the fact remains that the overwhelming majority are there because they have achieved eminence and expertise in all walks of life, including business, trade unions, the arts the sciences, politics and yes religion too. Like it or not (and I quite understand why you do not) it is part of society, and religious leaders of all faiths and denominations bring a different perspective to bear. Just because it is a perspective you disagree with doesn't mean it should not have a voice.

Subject: RE: BS: Church V State
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Jul 15 - 03:34 PM

Jim, is there any legislation that the bishops have blocked or instigated?
No.
They get to speak in the Lords, but they are never reported.
No wonder no-one cares!

You believe that there is an establishment conspiracy to keep them there against the will of the people.
I find that laughable.
Do you have any actual knowledge to support such a ludicrous notion?

When enough people want change in a democracy, it happens.
If there is a demand for a change, one party or another will take it up.

That is how most of the hereditaries have been kicked out, and no more will ever inherit.
That is how we achieved gay marriage.

Subject: RE: BS: Church V State
From: Raggytash
Date: 08 Jul 15 - 04:06 PM

perhaps guest 03.17 could explain to us what valuble contribution marrk thatcher has made to society

Subject: RE: BS: Church V State
From: GUEST,Kampervan
Date: 08 Jul 15 - 04:17 PM

Raggytash

I don't think that Mark Thatcher has done much good at all. He is,unfortunately the son of one the last hereditary peers to be created.

I thought that was a mistake at the time. Let's hope that there are no more.

Subject: RE: BS: Church V State
From: GUEST,XX
Date: 08 Jul 15 - 04:20 PM

How is he relevant ?

Subject: RE: BS: Church V State
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 08 Jul 15 - 05:27 PM

"You believe that there is an establishment conspiracy to keep them there against the will of the people"
Don'tput words in my mouth
I believe they have no qualifications to be there so they have no right to be there - simple as that.
"When enough people want change in a democracy"
No it doesn't
Onlyy one out of ten people in Britain go to church, so, by your logic, that is the number of people who spport the church - nine out of ten people are against the church
Can't have it both ways
Once again
Why is the church a part of the state - certainly not by the will of the people - ie "democratically?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Church V State
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Jul 15 - 04:03 AM

Jim,
There are still 90 hereditary peers and theer is no guarantee that any of them are appointed on merit - just by establishment approval

That implies the will of the establishment to remove them - which does not exist

I took those statements to mean that the "establishment" wanted to keep the lords and the bishops against the will of the people Jim.

They are there democratically, and they cannot be removed democratically.

Yes they can Jim.
Much reform has happened already

Subject: RE: BS: Church V State
From: GUEST,XX
Date: 09 Jul 15 - 04:24 AM

Just to point out before things move on too far that Mark Thatcher is a baronet, that baronets are not peers so never sat in the House of Lords. Even if they did what politician would suggest him as one of the hereditary ones to keep on ?

Red herring.

Subject: RE: BS: Church V State
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 09 Jul 15 - 04:54 AM

"Mark Thatcher is a baronet, that baronets are not peers so never sat in the House of Lords."
Mark Thatcher is a crook who only avoided jail because of his mother's influence in being able to broker a deal, if he grassed up his accomplices, which he happily did.
"I took those statements to mean that the "establishment" wanted to keep the lords and the bishops against the will of the people Jim."
Take it anyway it suits - as you want, I never mentioned "against the will of the people - that is your interpretation
"Yes they can Jim."
No they can't, and even if they could, it shouldn't be necessary - there is no reason in the world why a bunch of unqualified, elderly misogynistic mystics should be any part of a modern state - you can't think of one otherwise you would not continue to avoid the point.
As I said, nine out of ten people in Britain have rejected the church - it is part of the establishment for the convenience of politicians.
You continue to ignore that fact too.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Church V State
From: GUEST,XX
Date: 09 Jul 15 - 04:59 AM

Mark Thatcher is still complete red herring Jim, so not a useful contribution to the debate. Why bring him up again ?

Subject: RE: BS: Church V State
From: GUEST,XX
Date: 09 Jul 15 - 05:26 AM

there is no reason in the world why a bunch of unqualified, elderly misogynistic mystics should be any part of a modern state

Unqualifed: The Archbishop of Canterbury has a Cambridge degree and 11 years in industry before being ordained.

Elderly: Experience often increases with age. Are you being ageist ?

Misogynistic: Most bishops have wives and it was not them who were blocking women joining their number (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18702908)

Mystic: person who seeks by contemplation and self-surrender to attain unity with the Deity or the absolute, and so reach truths beyond human understanding. Not my cup of tea or that of many here, but an awful lot more than 1 in 10 of the UK population have some respect for that (statistics in a recent discussion, can't be bothered to check them).

No reason in the world: even if they were what you say the reason is that politicians we vote for have not agreed to change the situation. Sour grapes that they are not the politcians you voted for is part of any modern state.

Subject: RE: BS: Church V State
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Jul 15 - 05:44 AM

- it (the church) is part of the establishment for the convenience of politicians.

Why do you say that Jim?
What reason do you have for believing that?

Subject: RE: BS: Church V State
From: GUEST,Musket sans dog collar
Date: 09 Jul 15 - 07:16 AM

Not all XX.

The disgusting specimen of a bishop who blocked a gay married vicar from getting a job as a hospital chaplain because he "couldn't give a reference to a vicar who disobeyed his instruction not to marry his partner" is getting his day in court.

I really and sincerely hope it bankrupts the swine. The clause in the equalities act do not extend to fettering the chances of someone gaining employment outside of their bigoted church. As an ex health regulator, I have written to CQC reminding them of the regulations the trust are in breach of by insisting that the bishops refusal to provide a reference negated the successful applicant's appointment.

You see, they are still there. To say they have degrees merely shows how worthless humanities degrees are. How you can get a degree in fantasy is beyond me. History or fantasy as fantasy yes, but to think theology as an academic subject? It's up there with media studies and teacher training certificates for me.

Subject: RE: BS: Church V State
From: Raggytash
Date: 09 Jul 15 - 07:32 AM

Musket me old love unfortunately Justin Welbys degree is in

HISTORY (!!) and Law.

And as he has probably published things (possible not historically related)he must be a REAL historian. Well I'll go to the foot of our stairs.

Subject: RE: BS: Church V State
From: GUEST,XX
Date: 09 Jul 15 - 07:34 AM

According to Wikipedia Justin Welby has a degree in History and Law, not fantasy (I checked before posting). I picked him because it was the quick way of discounting Jim's blanket 'unqualified'.

Homophobia and related biases were not on Jim's list and you don't need to be a bishop to be called out over that.

To repeat I think they should be nominated like everyone else. Preferably after they have retired, though work-related conflicts of interest seem to be catered for.

Subject: RE: BS: Church V State
From: Raggytash
Date: 09 Jul 15 - 07:40 AM

XX, my concern is that members of a church are given a position in the House of Lords merely because they are members of a church.

I do not think that a church should play any role is the legislature.

My arguments against the House of Lords per se are somewhat different and I will happily discuss this if someone wants to start another thread.

Subject: RE: BS: Church V State
From: GUEST,XX
Date: 09 Jul 15 - 07:42 AM

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/aug/04/church-legal-challenge-blocking-job

Was he in the Lords ? The current bishop of Bedford does not seem to be.

And he looks to have a university chemistry qualification.

Subject: RE: BS: Church V State
From: GUEST,XX
Date: 09 Jul 15 - 07:48 AM

Raggytash. Yes, there (or not) on the same basis as, say, a retired Chief Rabbi.

IIRC the heir to the throne has spoken about being "a Defender of Faith" not "the Faith". Things may change. No value in stirring up a popular old lady.

Subject: RE: BS: Church V State
From: GUEST,XX
Date: 09 Jul 15 - 07:50 AM

Sorry, the "Yes" meant I was agreeing wiht you concern.

Subject: RE: BS: Church V State
From: GUEST,Howard Jones
Date: 09 Jul 15 - 08:34 AM

As I said in an earlier post, the position of the CofE bishops is probably an anacronism. However other religious leaders from other denominations and faiths are also included which partially redresses the balance.

A legislature, and especially a revising chamber which is what the Lords is, should include the widest possible range of experience, expertise and opinions. This includes religious views, which are probably important to rather more people than regularly attend church. I am not religious myself, but I recognise that many people are. I also recognise that other people may hold views I disagree with, but that does not mean they should not be heard.