Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: GUEST,XX Date: 08 Jul 15 - 04:09 AM "why should we be ruled or even influenced by a bunch of mystics in the 21st century?" We don't need an explanation about the mystic bit because we won't accept it anyway. We observe that they have a track record in engaging with a section of the population and then weigh up whether there is any benefit to the public as a whole in drawing on that. As with a political party or non-governmental advocacy group some will agree with their stance and some won't, and that will change as time goes on. Just as the moment the church in the UK is taking a view on many issues that is on the left-liberal side of the political spectrum. All* it gets is a few votes in a chamber that has to defer to the one we elect. * Not all of course, it can lobby in the background like many other organisations, but speed with which information can now be made public and transmitted makes it harder not to get noticed. One could argue that having 'representatives' of these groups in the House of Lords makes their stance and political involvement slightly more transparent - the old trick of putting someone on a 'commitee' where you can keep an eye on them. |
Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: Dave the Gnome Date: 08 Jul 15 - 03:27 AM Well under 51℅ of people voted for this government. |
Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: Jim Carroll Date: 08 Jul 15 - 03:18 AM "In a democracy, the people should choose." Repeating this without explanation is totally meaningless What are you suggesting - that they should put up for election - that there should be a referendum on the link between church and state... what??? As things have always stood, the church has been foisted on us without consultation and has been an integral part of the State, in many cases, having a dominant influence in temporal policies to the detriment of the people as a whole. As I said, that entitles us to an explanation of what they are about - why should we be ruled or even influenced by a bunch of mystics in the 21st century? Jim Carroll |
Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: Spleen Cringe Date: 08 Jul 15 - 03:17 AM We have had this for a thousand years Bullshit. The UK has only had universal suffrage since 1923. |
Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 08 Jul 15 - 03:12 AM Joe, it does work here. XX, We meaning UK. |
Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: GUEST,XX Date: 08 Jul 15 - 02:49 AM We have had this for a thousand years "We"? Most people have had a heirarchy of auotocratic strongmen, each with a few henchmen. |
Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: Joe Offer Date: 08 Jul 15 - 02:00 AM I dunno, Keith. The tyranny of the 51% vote has prolonged the oppression of a lot of minorities through the millennia. Constitutions can help assure that individual rights are not bulldozed by the majority, but constitutions don't always work the way they should. -Joe- |
Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 08 Jul 15 - 01:30 AM Bill D, Oh, right...by simple majority? And if 51% the "people" decide to allow one particular church to decide everything? We have had this for a thousand years and it mostly works OK. In practice, the church does not try to circumvent the will of Parliament, and our prime minister has the final word on who is appointed a bishop. The church here is well to the Left politically. Like gay marriage, when enough people want change in a democracy it happens. |
Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: Steve Shaw Date: 07 Jul 15 - 09:14 PM I admire your resolve to fight within, actually, Joe. I was always far too leftie for my trade union, the NUT, and in a drawer somewhere I have two treasured letters from the then general secretary, Fred Jarvis, threatening to boot me out if I didn't desist from organising unofficial action. I didn't desist and I didn't get booted out, in fact I went on to higher things (but I never sold my soul). In the end, getting out into the sunlit uplands was a great idea. I did that with my religion too. It takes courage but I'm glad I did it. Shaking off one lot of fetters has the surprising and pleasant consequence of making it easier to shake off lots of other baggage too. |
Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: Joe Offer Date: 07 Jul 15 - 09:00 PM I seem to be having a hard time getting the idea of separation of church and state across to conservative U.S. Catholics. I tried to convince them that the Supreme Court decision on gay marriage and the Doe v. Wade decision on abortion are matters of civil law, not matters of morality. They tell me that's contrary to Catholic Church teaching and that if that's what I think, I should get out of the church I was raised in. I try to control my temper. Same thing, of course, goes for "Christian" employers who don't want their employees to have the choice of birth control in their health insurance plans. If the employers and churches don't think it's moral to use birth control, then they shouldn't use birth control - but they shouldn't compel their employees to do the same. Once again, I'm told I don't belong in the Catholic Church where I got my Theology degree. I try to control my temper. -Joe- |
Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: Bill D Date: 07 Jul 15 - 06:35 PM "If you mean democracies, I think the people should decide." Oh, right...by simple majority? And if 51% the "people" decide to allow one particular church to decide everything? You need to think VERY carefully about the implications of generalizations stated as slogans. |
Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: Steve Shaw Date: 07 Jul 15 - 06:16 PM In a democracy the people should choose what? Awkward, when you consider that in modern democracies people are lied to, not only by politicians but also by their media lackeys, and deliberately kept ignorant. Nice principle, let the people choose. If only the people were qualified to do so. Think I'm wrong? Four million people just voted UKIP... |
Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: GUEST,XX Date: 07 Jul 15 - 04:00 PM And my answer to the question in the OP is no direct role. And disestablish the church. I reckon that might happen when there is a change at the very top. |
Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: GUEST,XX Date: 07 Jul 15 - 03:51 PM The other thread also included a context in which accumulated cultural tradition was given some respect and I think that moral views based on contempory interpretations of old books have value to many irrespective of whether they are attributed to supernatural beings or wiley old churchmen or iron age autocrats. As do things like the moral codes of Jedi knights - I'll get that in before someone else does. |
Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: GUEST,# Date: 07 Jul 15 - 03:49 PM "There are enough lords that being there for life is no problem." There's enough rope to make that possible. |
Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: GUEST,XX Date: 07 Jul 15 - 03:44 PM To repeat what I said on the other thread. I think the bishops and (other faith leaders) have a "consituency" and relevant experience in the same way as the trade union and business leaders and so on in the House of Lords have. They have to demonstrate merit to members of that constitiency to get to where they are. Them being there without nomination is an anachronism though. I also think election for the House of Lords would be a disaster. But so long as the Parliament Acts stayed in force (so they could only revise and delay) I think a more democratic and transparent nomination system might work. Someone (I think I remember who but may be wrong) said on an earlier thread words to the effect that some decisions were too complicated for referendums and that delegation to elected representatives was more appropriate. There might be an appointment system for the House of Lords that I would be happy to delegate my democratic rigths to. Maybe the sort of thing that the Appointments Commision does but with a different brief. There are enough lords that being there for life is no problem. It's not as if it was, say, the US Supreme Court. |
Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 07 Jul 15 - 03:21 PM In a democracy, the people should choose. (Greg take note) |
Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: Greg F. Date: 07 Jul 15 - 03:12 PM What role, if any, should the church have in the running of a 21st Century state.<.I> No fusking role whatsoever. Period. Nor should said church impose its dogma on non-menbers thereof. Full stop. (U.S. Republicans take note) |
Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: Steve Shaw Date: 07 Jul 15 - 02:43 PM I hate to demur from democratic sentiments, but elections for the Lords would be a disaster. The turnout would be so low as to make a mockery of the better democracy that was being aspired to. I think that there does need to be a higher authority that would provide a check on the Commons, but a chamberful of sleepy geriatrics who turn up for the £300 a day is not the answer. Discuss. |
Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: Jim Carroll Date: 07 Jul 15 - 02:15 PM "But none of the Lords are elected!" 'Bout time they were - but there is no reason why clergymen should be included in that - perhaps you might explain why they should? Did't think that's what you meant for one minute - democracy - pha! Jim Carroll |
Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 07 Jul 15 - 02:11 PM I fully agree with that sentiment, if a clergyman wants to put themselves up for election fine, so how about the Bishops in the House of Lords. But none of the Lords are elected! They are appointed by elected politicians, and so are the bishops. |
Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: Don Firth Date: 07 Jul 15 - 02:03 PM I agree with Dave. The church should have no say in government. Which is to say, they should be free to howl and squawk all they want, but they should have no actual governmental control. Don Firth |
Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: Jim Carroll Date: 07 Jul 15 - 02:02 PM "I fully agree with that sentiment" Me too - let them all stand for election Not sure that's what Keith means though! Jim Carroll |
Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: Richard Bridge Date: 07 Jul 15 - 01:59 PM None. But then neither should Rupert Murdoch. |
Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: Dave the Gnome Date: 07 Jul 15 - 01:56 PM People in this particular democracy do not decide government policies though. Only a referendum on every issue would be a full democracy and this is not a practical proposition. People vote for whichever party is closest to their ideals and most often have to compromise on some of their wishes. In the last election people did not even do that. They voted against what they feared most as none of the parties seemed to offer anything positive. Anyway, in answer to the opening question, none at all. |
Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: Raggytash Date: 07 Jul 15 - 01:55 PM I fully agree with that sentiment, if a clergyman wants to put themselves up for election fine, so how about the Bishops in the House of Lords. |
Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 07 Jul 15 - 01:48 PM If you mean democracies, I think the people should decide. |
Subject: BS: Church V State From: Raggytash Date: 07 Jul 15 - 01:45 PM In order not to bugger up someone else's thread I will ask the question here. What role, if any, should the church have in the running of a 21st Century state. For example the United Kingdom. |