BS: Church V State

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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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
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 - 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 - 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 - 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,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: 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,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
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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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 - 05:50 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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 - 09:29 PM

?

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: Jim Carroll
Date: 10 Jul 15 - 02:37 AM

"Jim , no point challenging, you can't reason people out of things they have not been reasoned into."
Let me help - what you are trying to say is "I have no challenge to anything you have written".
Every single thig I stated is historically documented, has been aprt of my upbringing throughout my life (my 'thing' is 19th and 20th century European and social history) and is, I have no doubt, Googleable (not felt the need to do so here, a really believed it was common knowledge)
You wish to challenge anything I have said - Google away (that goes for your mates too).
Your starter for ten
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Church V State
From: GUEST,Rt Rev Musket
Date: 10 Jul 15 - 02:38 AM

CEO of one company which owned a few others actually. Oh, and still learning the guitar forty years on. You seem fascinated by me, which is odd because as Musket is three people, you might add Prof, MD, another PhD and I don't recall everything else Daarrnn Souf Musket has, but he hadn't to my knowledge posted lately. McMusket and Musket are obviously better than you, so I'd live with it if I were you.

Anyway, you forgot to mention my good looks and rather large willy. I'm sure I've mentioned both in passing.

The bit about theology? Sports science, media studies... A waste of a good education and normally seen as credits towards being commissioned to write a divinity doctorate if it has to be useful for anything and with one of those you can jump a few rings on the dog collar ladder. My brother in law is preparing his thesis apparently.

XX. I know you are Jim baiting and I could smile at some of the irrelevant or nonsensical things he occasionally says but essentially his heart is in the right place and let's face it, when he and Keith kick off, all it takes is to occasionally sprinkle petrol on the fire.

I love serious subjects to debate and find them in the music section here. But the BS bit? Does anyone take this shit to heart? Do the likes of Keith stand braying like that in the pub? Dear Clapton...,

Subject: RE: BS: Church V State
From: GUEST,Howard Jones
Date: 10 Jul 15 - 07:30 AM

If you are going to exclude people with deluded ideas from politics then that rules out most politicians.

In the context of the British constitution, which has a second chamber whose role is to bring wisdom, experience and expertise to the legislative process, then that chamber should be drawn as widely as possible. Even if bishops did not sit as of right it would be extraordinary if some were not included for balance.

What happens in other countries, with different histories and different constitutional arrangements, is a different matter and quite possibly has different answers in each case.

What I find most objectionable is not the criticism of religion, much of which I agree with, but the idea which some people appear to hold that only viewpoints which they agree with have a right to be heard.

Subject: RE: BS: Church V State
From: GUEST,XX
Date: 10 Jul 15 - 07:51 AM

some people appear to hold that only viewpoints which they agree with have a right to be heard.

Yes. I think some people have difficulty with the situation of differening opinions all based on incomplete evidence.

Faith, belief without evidence, is an easy option for debate, and accusations of delusion, because most can agree that there is no evidence. Debating the pros and cons of the views of, say, Adam Smith and Karl Marx, often involves taking stances that can look like 'belief with incomplete evidence'. Delusions of certainty maybe.

Subject: RE: BS: Church V State
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 10 Jul 15 - 08:35 AM

"If you are going to exclude people with deluded ideas from politics then that rules out most politicians."
It isn't "ruling out" anybody
It's objecting to unqualified, non-elected bodies from being granted positions of power - in this case a Church dedicated to propagating mysticism with a track record that would bar them holding a bus pass!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Church V State
From: GUEST,Howard Jones
Date: 10 Jul 15 - 08:57 AM

On that basis, some might object to unqualified, non-elected trade unionists from being granted positions of power (by non-elected I mean they are elected only by their members, not the wider public).

To be clear, I don't object to either. However I do believe that the political process is benefited by allowing input from a body of people who can provide the widest range of wisdom, experience and expertise, something our elected representatives all too often lack. That includes both religious and trade union leaders, along with many others.

Subject: RE: BS: Church V State
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Jul 15 - 09:00 AM

WHAAAT !! You mean there are TRADE UNIONISTS in that place. How can that be allowed ?

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

Just returning briefly to Mark Thatcher, when the hereditary title was awarded to Denis Thatcher in 1990 baronets were entitled to take part in the workings of the House of Lords. It was only in 1999 that this was limited to 92 hereditary peers.

Subject: RE: BS: Church V State
From: GUEST,XX
Date: 10 Jul 15 - 09:17 AM

Baronets are not Peers. They never sat in the House of Lords.

Subject: RE: BS: Church V State
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 10 Jul 15 - 09:21 AM

XX, I stand corrected.

Subject: RE: BS: Church V State
From: GUEST,Musket sans gong
Date: 10 Jul 15 - 12:01 PM

I'm sure we had a baronet? It was on the wall in our last house. I reckon we left it with the light bulbs and spare bog roll.

Differing views are certainly needed to be aired. However, take this scenario..

Me: You know, he used to play left back for West Ham!

Him: In blue with the sloping dash running away from you and a chevron middled steering wheel.

You see, I'm talking football and he's talking Cortina MkIII.

A bit like bringing superstition into debates about reality.

Subject: RE: BS: Church V State
From: GUEST,XX
Date: 10 Jul 15 - 01:09 PM

You see, I'm talking football and he's talking Cortina MkIII.

And here was me thinking you were picking up on the Adam Smith v Karl Marx.

Subject: RE: BS: Church V State
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 10 Jul 15 - 02:02 PM

The Philosophers' Football Match

So, if Karl Marx is the footballer, that means Adam Smith must be driving the Cortina.

Yes?

Subject: RE: BS: Church V State
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 11 Jul 15 - 01:48 AM

"On that basis, some might object to unqualified, non-elected trade unionists from being granted positions of power"
On the same basis, the unelected 'Captains of Industry' would have no place in the House of Lords, unless you would like to argue that Britain could run purely on the efforts of the bosses, without the workers.   
I often get the impression some people hold the view that working people are a bit of a fluff in the wheels of progress and should have no voice.
As I said, the church fulfils no practical role.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Church V State
From: GUEST,Musket in 70s pap pap
Date: 11 Jul 15 - 02:04 AM

Adam Smith would have liked the cortina. Henry Ford was a product of Smith's theory. It freed people up to go places and experience adventures that spur you on to consume.

Karl Marx would have liked the cortina. A true people's car and kept going wrong, wasn't efficient, cost more over years than it was designed to.

Subject: RE: BS: Church V State
From: GUEST,XX
Date: 11 Jul 15 - 04:29 AM

How would constitute a revising house Jim ? Do you like the Irish method (Seanad Éireann) better ?

That seems to give the church no automatic influence. So everyone is happy, right ?

Subject: RE: BS: Church V State
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 11 Jul 15 - 04:50 AM

I'm very suspicious of an unelected second house, however it is organised.
I find both the Lords, Parliament and The Dail an insult to the British and Irish people whenever I tune in and see the level of attendance - if so few workers turned up for work the country would grind to a halt within minutes - who do these people think they are?
Jim Carrroll

Subject: RE: BS: Church V State
From: GUEST,XX
Date: 11 Jul 15 - 05:19 AM

I hope that there is more to the job than what goes on where we can see them. Just so long as we can see them doing the decision making.

So do I have it right then, that by not being in the upper house the church has no influence on government in Ireland ?

Subject: RE: BS: Church V State
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 11 Jul 15 - 08:23 AM

"I hope that there is more to the job than what goes on where we can see them."
Do you - I don't
May as well dissolve parliament if the attendance is anything to go by
They are untrustworthy enough when you can see the, god knows what they get up to behind our backs
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Church V State
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 11 Jul 15 - 07:11 PM

Hey Dave,

Another 111 posts and I'll have WON!!!!

Cheers

Raggytash

Subject: RE: BS: Church V State
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 11 Jul 15 - 07:12 PM

Bugger that should have said 110


No sod it 109!!

Subject: RE: BS: Church V State
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 11 Jul 15 - 07:13 PM

Shouldn't mix Guinness and Port !