BS: Church V State

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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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,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: 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
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 - 11:31 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: 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: 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: 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,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: 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: 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 - 09:18 AM

Fog can conceal changes in direction.

(The response to Jim was me too)

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
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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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.

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: 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: 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: Raggytash
Date: 08 Jul 15 - 08:03 AM

See my post 07.59

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 - 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: 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: 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: 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 - 07:21 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: 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 - 07:18 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: 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,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: 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,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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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?