BS: Church V State

Subject: RE: BS: Church V State
From: GUEST,XX
Date: 10 Jul 15 - 02:35 AM

"Now you are pleading "my brand of religion is better than yours"

No, I am still trying to get to to understand about red herrings. I picked two of them from your list.

I care little for the views of those who winge about the past without suggesting anything constructive and practical for the future.

I give up.

Subject: RE: BS: Church V State
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Jul 15 - 09:29 PM

?

Subject: RE: BS: Church V State
From: GUEST,HiLo
Date: 09 Jul 15 - 08:50 PM

Jim , no point challenging, you can't reason people out of things they have not been reasoned into.

Subject: RE: BS: Church V State
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Jul 15 - 08:24 PM

Jim did not misrepresent anything at all as far as I can see. Though he did neglect to mention that Pius XII, friend of the Nazis, may soon become a saint, quite likely sat in heaven right next to that other paragon of equality, freedom and champion of human rights, Mother Teresa.

Subject: RE: BS: Church V State
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 09 Jul 15 - 08:18 PM

"Jim, find yourself a good history teacher.... Please!"
Like to challenge anything i've written rather than throwing stones and running away?
No - thought not!!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Church V State
From: GUEST,HiLo
Date: 09 Jul 15 - 08:11 PM

Jim, find yourself a good history teacher.... Please!

Subject: RE: BS: Church V State
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 09 Jul 15 - 07:37 PM

"The Anglican church's involvement in colonisation, and Catholic church's Magdelaine Laundries"
Now you are pleading "my brand of religion is better than yours" - sorry doesn't wash - on the contrary, it only underlines the threat all religions pose to our well-being.
They're all mystics, they are all unqualified to rule and the definitive nature of all religions "we are the true Christians - or whatever)" makes them all a menace.
Now - tell me how they are in any way entitled or even qualified to have a say in the running of the state.
"rather than explaining what history can teach us, "
History is made up largely of holy wars - the Church of England was built on the bunt bodies of opponents of Henry VIII new church.
We have had 95 years of ongoing persecution and warfare in Ireland because the British partitioned the country and those left in charge decided to make it a Protestant state.
Leopoled, King of the Belgians massacred up to 10 million Congloese people with the compliance and the blessing of the church
Apartheid South Africa thrived as a terrorist state with the support of the Dutch reformed Church, the Pope blessed bombs going to Abyssinia, and Pope Pius XII ("Hitler's Pope" turned his back on the thousands of Italian Jews being shipped of to the Nazi death camps.   
The Church was a supported of mass murderer Augusto Pinochet in Chile....
Wonder exactly what we should be exhorted to learn from these and many more "lessons of history" - I would have thought, "don't let the bastards anywhere near having a say in the running of any country".
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Church V State
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Jul 15 - 05:50 PM

Well, it wouldn't be by putting the fear of God into them, that's for sure.

Subject: RE: BS: Church V State
From: GUEST,XX
Date: 09 Jul 15 - 05:43 PM

It's just a thought, but how would you go about getting all these dark-fearing people to accept you in this exectuve role ?

Subject: RE: BS: Church V State
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Jul 15 - 05:37 PM

It's just a guess, but I reckon than there are more people who are scared of the dark than there are who go to church on Sunday, Do you think that if I set myself up as the general secretary of the Dark-Fearing Society I should be eligible for the Lords? After all, fear of the dark is a damn sight more rational that belief in a deity (just think of all those nocturnal big cats), and there are almost certainly more of us...

Let's face it. You think it's OK for bishops to have a say in our governance just because they're bishops. I think that bishops have made a career for themselves, with great salaries and house and staff provided, on the back of a delusion. I don't care how sage they appear or how dignified you think they look in their silly ceremonial attire, or even whether they have degrees in something non-religious. There are millions of better, more rational, candidates for the Lords. And none of them are careerist trade union officials, I might add.

Subject: RE: BS: Church V State
From: GUEST,XX
Date: 09 Jul 15 - 04:10 PM

Musket. The logic links were aimed at Jim, not Keith (in this instance). Mainly to do with his red herrings. The Anglican church's involvement in colonisation, and Catholic church's Magdelaine Laundries, are no more relevant to bishops being a minority in the UK revising house than Guy Fawkes is to a 21st Century UK government's relationship with the Pope.

And without a proper explanation they don't contribute to a global debate about Church v State, which is not happening in this thread anyway. Wingeing about the past, rather than explaining what history can teach us, doesn't help anyone much. It just looks like chips on shoulders.

So yes Jim, iffy logic.

Subject: RE: BS: Church V State
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 09 Jul 15 - 03:37 PM

There are, around the world, many millilions of people who believe in one religion or another."
There are still many thousands round the world tearing each others heads off because the other feller doesn't believe in the "right God"
"Jim, I think you ought to have a look at the links in this post"
Fine - couple of links to Logic
If you are suggesting mine is iffy - please point out where.
I am saying fairly clearly (I hope) why I don't think the unelected Church has any place in politics.
Doesn't seem like rocket science o point out where I am wrong.
Surely, if I am wrong, the first thing is to point out "where"
If the critics prove to be correct, I'm happy to discuss "why" at a later stage.
This isn't about my atheism, just my attitude to the Church
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Church V State
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Jul 15 - 03:27 PM

Musket,
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.

Made up shit about me again.

Subject: RE: BS: Church V State
From: GUEST
Date: 09 Jul 15 - 03:25 PM

There are, around the world, many millilions of people who believe in one religion or another. A study of theology gives an insight into the mindset of groups who influence (or seek to influence) societies, politics and morality. To study theology does not presume belief in any kind of deity.
Given that Musket has been the CEO of several companies; run the NHS; is one of the foremost guitarists of this or any other generation; is a trained investigator and one of a minority of ex miners to have a PhD as well as an ex health regulator (this is not a comprehensive list of his achievements) I would have thought that he might have realised that.

Subject: RE: BS: Church V State
From: GUEST,Howard jones
Date: 09 Jul 15 - 03:14 PM

The House of Lords cannot block the elected government. It can amend legislation, and do so with the benefit of not being subject to political short-termism and with considerable expertise and knowledge. It can try to prevent the Commons from passing bad and unworkable laws. However ultimately the House of Commons can force its legislation through.

As I have said before, the Lords encompass a very wide range of experience across the entire spectrum of national activities. It would be strangerif religious leaders were not amongst them.

There are 26 bishops in the Lords, out of about 760 eligible working peers. Hardly a dominant voice.

Subject: RE: BS: Church V State
From: GUEST,Musket sans pedantry
Date: 09 Jul 15 - 02:06 PM

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.)

Subject: RE: BS: Church V State
From: GUEST,XX
Date: 09 Jul 15 - 02:05 PM

Jim, I think you ought to have a look at the links in this post

Subject: RE: BS: Church V State
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 09 Jul 15 - 12:57 PM

"The anachronistic inconsistency is that the Church automatically gets some people who have worked their way up through their own ranks My point - surely
Why are they represented as a body at all - they have no qualifications?
"Ten percent of the UK population is a lot of votes"
These are not votes - they are people who attend church to worship god, not to give the churchmen authority to represent them politically.
My point is that even their traditional role is dwindling.
"That's the sort of thing happens in a democracy."
They have no basis in democracy - they were never put their democratically - just tactically by politicians (and before that, by Royalty).
Democracy plays no part in any of this.
"The Magdelaine Laundries are a red herring."
Certainly not - they are a perfect example of collusion between church and state in confining 'unacceptable members of society) out of the public view.
From day one of the laundries, the Government was fully away of what was happening to 'sinners' who were sent there, many of the girls were actually put into them at the request old local politicians.
The appalling conditions were well known and the state dis nothing to improve them.
Even whan the Laundries were closed (the last one in 1996); when the inmates began to sue their captors, the Government acknowledged the part played by politicians by paying a large part of the monetary awards out of taxpayers money.
As I say - a perfect example of criminal collusion between church and state.
As for my"issue with the Catholic Church" - I would have thought that, given the revelations, most human beings would have - as human beings.
My concern is that such people, of whatever denomination, should play any part in politics.
No qualifications, no special skills, no reason to be there.
They should not be involved in any way in our non religious lives any more than our local football team or golf club should, and there is every reason why they shouldn't.
You still haven't begun to put up an argument to show why they should - nor has Keith.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Church V State
From: GUEST
Date: 09 Jul 15 - 12:25 PM

You seem to be happy with the rest of my posting as you choose only to challenge one part of it.

No I am picking the parts where a challenge is easiest to set out.

We must at cross purposes over politics. Of course the Church has a political role. By the bishops being in the lords they are involved in politics. That's the idea. No one here is suggesting that the bishops being there by right is not an anachronism.

The anachronistic inconsistency is that the Church automatically gets some people who have worked their way up through their own ranks but organisations like the CBI and TUC don't get some who have worked their way up through theirs - those people get there by being nominated.

Ten percent of the UK population is a lot of votes, so politicians won't change things lightly. That's the sort of thing happens in a democracy.

So far as the bishops in the House of Lords is concerned "the Church" is the Anglican Church. The Magdelaine Laundries are a red herring. My own staunchley athiest ex-Catholic friends get worked up about the bishops in the same way. My fellow ex-Anglican friends are mainly vaguely agnostic and don't get worked up about it. Why do you think that is ? If you have an issue with the Roman Catholic church take it up with them.

Subject: RE: BS: Church V State
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 09 Jul 15 - 11:27 AM

""What role, if any, should the church have in the running of a 21st Century state." My emphasis."
You asked me to prove that the Church's role was a political one
I would have thought that the fact that the church now 'enjoys' only %10 support of the British population, its role in the 21st century is self-evident.
You seem to be happy with the rest f my posting as you choose only to challenge one part of it.
"Can you point to a 21st Century state that has government without politics"
Who on earth suggested Government without politics, certainly not me?
While my sympathies tend to lie with the Anarchist's exhortation "Don't vote, it only encourages them", I am certainly not one of them.
You seem to be happy with the rest of my posting as you choose only to quibble on two minor points.
Could have gone at length on Clerical abuse, Thhe Madgdelene Laundries, the Industrial schools.... and all the abuses of power that the Church has been found to indulge in, but, mustn't over-butter the bread (just yet!!)
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Church V State
From: GUEST
Date: 09 Jul 15 - 10:20 AM

From the OP "What role, if any, should the church have in the running of a 21st Century state." My emphasis.

From Jim "The Church's role in establishing and securing the colonies was a political act"

Red Herring (for the same reason as pre-revolution France)

But, yes it's politics. Can you point to a 21st Century state that has government without politics ? If so, would you like to live there ?

Subject: RE: BS: Church V State
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 09 Jul 15 - 10:10 AM

"Don't get that. Politics is what they do in Parliament."
Sending young man to their deaths in wartime is a political act.
The Church's role in establishing and securing the colonies was a political act
In 2012, the Church of England bishops brought about the defeat of a government bill capping benefits - certainly not a bad thing, as far as I'm concerned, but questions were raised as to whether it was appropriate for them to be able to wield such power
A quote from the Church of England's own site:
"26 bishops of the Church of England sit in the House of Lords. Known as the Lords Spiritual, they read prayers at the start of each daily meeting and play a full and active role in the life and work of the Upper House."
"Evidence please ?"
Also from the Church of England's own site:
"Christian religious leaders have had an active role in the legislative affairs of the country since before the formation of the Church of England. Prior to the 11th century feudal landlords and religious leaders were regularly consulted by Saxon kings."
"red herring."
Prove it
"The explanation can be founn in Howard Jones' first post."
Howard argued for a Second House - he most certainly didn't provide evidence of why an appointed bunch of elderly, exclusively male, largely misogynistic mystics should play any part in that Second House (even if you accepted the need for an unelected body capable of blocking Government policy).
While it is true that many churchmen are humanistic and progressive in their attitudes and have in some cases made a magnificent contribution to some aspects of our lives, the hierarchy is traditionally reactionary and has backed the state in some of its worst excesses.
The danger of religious interference in State affairs is to be seen at its worst in some of the Catholic Countries, where they have thrown their weight behind dictators like Franco and Pinochet and have blocked (or attempted to) on homosexuality, contraception, pregnancy termination (and even the playing of music - notably Jazz and traditional music, in the case of Ireland.   
One of the greatest threats to humanity today are the Holy Wars taking place throughout the world, involving all of the major religions.
I get a little tired of suggesting that religion and politics is a toxic mix -it seems so obvious as to be unnecessary to point that out -obviously not!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Church V State
From: GUEST,XX
Date: 09 Jul 15 - 09:37 AM

A long accepted fact Keith - the Church of England has always been described as "The Tory Party at Prayer" It was not accepted as fact by someone on a nearby discussion only yesterday (or has something been deleted here ?)

their presence is purely a political one and always has been. Don't get that. Politics is what they do in Parliament.

There has never been any doubt about the political role of the church Evidence please ?

Up to The French Revolution France red herring.

Nor did I think that you would offer an explanation of why the Church should play any part in the governance of Britain. He doesn't need to. The explanation can be foudn in Howard Jones' first post.


You guys think that arguing with Keith is like shooting fish in a barrel. Well its a barrel with a lot of mud in it that you keep stirring up. When it comes to logical fallacies other people's posts can provide much easier targets. They line the fish up neatly in a row. And some of them are red herrings.

Watch it guys. The Keith's may win.

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

Yes Steve, but I was responding to Jim saying they were 'unqualified' and in anticipation of someone (a Musket in this case) leaping on the matter of theological qualifications I checked that Welby did have something relevant to his previous career.

As to qualifications through experience I don't see how that of a bishop, especially an archbishop, differs that much from a top trade union official, business leader, university professor or whatever. They know the problems of keeping a complicated show on the road and have a constituency of people who's views they understand. Like it or not a fair proportion of the individuals in this country do have a faith.

If you had risen high enough in your Trade Union maybe people would have noticed you and think you should be in the lords.

Religions are not all about their deity, quite a lot of what they do is done by people who believe in other dieties or none

Raggytash. As Howard says it is a revising house. They have more time and a different/better pool of skills than the Commons to publicly chew over what the folks in the Whitehall backrooms have drafted.

I think the non-elected people we need to worry about are the lobbyists. If these folks were not in the lords many of them would be bending the ear of politicians and journalist in places like London private clubs.

Subject: RE: BS: Church V State
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 09 Jul 15 - 09:06 AM

"Certainly of my invention"
Bloody sticky keyboard - must have been the glass of whiskey I spilt on it !
Should read "Certainly not of my invention"
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Church V State
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 09 Jul 15 - 09:03 AM

"Why do you say that Jim?"
A long accepted fact Keith - the Church of England has always been described as "The Tory Party at Prayer"
Certainly of my invention, if that is what ou are suggesting.
- their presence is purely a political one and always has been.
In the past, it has been used to divert the public's attention from crises, to validate colonisation, to send Brtitan's youth to their deaths "For God, King and Country"
There is simply no other reason for Churchmen to play any part in the House of Lords - they have no expertise outside their own particular field
Up to The French Revolution France divided the country into "The Three Estates (or Powers)", which were the clergy (first estate), the nobility (second estate), and commoners (third estate) (in Britain, a (fourth estate) was added, the news media.
There has never been any doubt about the political role of the church - today, the pretence of it being "the will of the people" has disappeared with the dwindling support of the Church (didn't think for a minute that you would respond to the fact that only one in ten of Britons support the church).
Nor did I think that you would offer an explanation of why the Church should play any part in the governance of Britain.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Church V State
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Jul 15 - 08:48 AM

"According to Wikipedia Justin Welby has a degree in History and Law"

Well I have a degree in Botany and a PGCE. The one difference between me and Welby that qualifies him to be a lord but not me is that he's an archbishop and I'm not. His academic credentials are not why he's there. They just happen to come with his baggage.

We all harbour delusions, some more serious than others (being a supporter of The Owls, for example). But men of the cloth have an extra delusion, and it's quite a serious one because they fashion careers for themselves out of it, instead of keeping it to themselves, which is the only respectable behaviour possible for believers. I'd have thought that we should be vetting people for their delusions before letting them be lords. He shouldn't really be making the cut in my view.

Subject: RE: BS: Church V State
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 09 Jul 15 - 08:45 AM

Howard,

I would consider that it means more people are in the House of Lords because of a religion or faith, call it what you will. The fact that the Jewish faith or Jedi Warriors are also represented has no bearing on my argument which is that no church, faith or religion should have a place in the LEGISLATION of a modern democratic country.

Cheers

Raggytash

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.

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,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 - 07:42 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: 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 - 07:34 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 - 07:32 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,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: 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,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: 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: 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 - 04:24 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: 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: 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: GUEST,XX
Date: 08 Jul 15 - 04:20 PM

How is he relevant ?

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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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