The Keith's what may win?

Anyway. Logic chopping is not a way to "win" because a) opinions are subjective so there are no winners and losers and b) Keith is clouded by judging everything against his suspect agenda coupled with a rather childish approach to what he thinks is debate.

It is like shooting fish in a barrel actually. His "facts" are usually subjective opinions in themselves. See his insistence that a published hack and a handful of glory seeking revisionists know more about a war than the poor bastards that were in it. Or that terrorists can call schools and hospitals legitimate targets if they are paid by the Israeli government.

Anyway, back to qualifications... Yeah, a history degree is good for history. Theology is good for in depth history of fantasy. I fail to see the point? I do like the point above that a retired bishop may make an excellent member of the upper house, but not for it to be in the job description by default. Superstitious clubs with less hierarchy in their constitution couldn't offer leaders in the same way so disenfranchising is a good way to protect the existence of superstition clubs for those who need or indeed want such a crutch or social outlet.

Be buggered to them having legitimacy in government in c21 though.... Only a handful of people see bishops as representing them anyway. Excellent survey commissioned a few years ago by Channel 4. Fifty churches, as people came out after a service. They were asked two questions.

Which diocese does this church come under? Who is the bishop?

63% overall knew the diocese. 21% knew the name of the bishop.

This was from those who actually attend church. (1.3% of the population the House of Lords works on behalf of.)