Wife wants sprog Christened - I don't.
Discussion
VoziKaoFangio said:
Well if it were me, I'd move house or choose a private school if the only decent primary in my area was of the God bothering variety. In fact, I did choose a private school despite my local state primary being non-religious and very well thought of, but for reasons of restricted facilities at the local school.
Congratulations on your enormous wealth.
300bhp/ton said:
That's all fine. But I don't see how it'll cause any harm either way. They can still grow up and make an informed choice, whether they have been Christened or not. Also where do you draw the line to say they are informed enough to make such a decision? 5, 10, 16 or 18 years old maybe?
In short being Christened removes none of their choices.
Part of the problem is that despite my wife saying she believes in god, she doesn't actually bother with anything to do with religion unless it's for hatch/match/dispatch reasons. She wasn't at all bothered about a religious marriage for us, she wanted a castle so that's what we had. There is no religious reason for the christening, it's simply a case of tradition (this is her reason, exactly as she explained it). That's why I question the need, and also she knows I won't be involved apart from being there, whereas at a non-religious welcoming party I would try my best to be as involved as I can be.In short being Christened removes none of their choices.
As for when she's old enough to choose, it would depend entirely on her - mental maturity, knowledge etc.
Kermit power said:
300bhp/ton said:
So what farce would you prefer it was replaced with? Do you really think it would make any odds to your daily life?
Frankly pretty much anything would be preferable to having people in a position of national power (however restricted their actual power may be) who have achieved that position as a result of centuries of their organisation abusing the vulnerable and gullible.Get rid of the Lords completely, make them all elected, non-partisan appointments based on subject matter expertise, a random lottery of everyone over the age of 18 without a criminal record.... I'd stick any of those ahead of religious Lords.
Randomly selecting people sounds fun, but surely that would represent some sort of madness in reality?
TheHeretic said:
Because baptismal numbers, as well as people ticking 'RC' or CofE' on the census, despite not going to church, or actually believing in the religious stuff adds weight to having 26 bishops sitting in the House of Lords, affecting how the country is run. As has recently been seen with regards to gay marriage, the church is more than happy to sticks it's beak in where it doesn't belong, and these false figures they use to justify their position in the House of Lords is an issue.
If they are religious folks, fine, if not, then for f
ks sake don't add weight to an organisation that sees fit to interfere outside of its sphere.
In fairness, the stance of the CofE is that it does not recognise the concept of marriage other than between a man and a woman and that it will not endorse such marriages to take place on its premises. Whether you agree with this or not, it is their right to take this stance and is, by no means, 'beyond their remit'If they are religious folks, fine, if not, then for f
ks sake don't add weight to an organisation that sees fit to interfere outside of its sphere.ClaphamGT3 said:
Just to counterpoise KP's rather hysterical assertion that we're living in a virtual theocracy, can we just sense check how much political clout 12 bishops sitting in the House of Lords actually have?
You might like to consider in your answer the fact that the Chief Rabbi and other religious leader also happen to sit in the Lords as life peers, so its hardly a CofE stitch-up.
I'm not sure how you make the jump from a view that nobody should be in the Lords purely on the basis of their religion to "we're living in a virtual theocracy", but that's up to you, I suppose.You might like to consider in your answer the fact that the Chief Rabbi and other religious leader also happen to sit in the Lords as life peers, so its hardly a CofE stitch-up.
It would be nice if you could get your facts straight first though. First off, there are 26 Lords Spiritual, and they are all Church of England bishops or archbishops. Whilst there are current reform proposals, even if they do all go through it will take well over a decade to reduce the numbers down to 12. It's another positive step on a very long road started after the dissolution of the monasteries (before which there were more Lords Spiritual than Temporal), but it will take a while yet before they're all removed.
The chief Rabbi is there as a Lord Temporal, and whilst he probably wouldn't have that position were he not chief Rabbi, he is not entitled to it by right, and on Sackman's death, it is possible (although not probable, maybe), that he could be replaced by a purely secular Lord.
As for the next part, the answer to "how much influence do they have" could easily be "too much if they've got any at all", but let's give it a bit more grounding.
The 26 Lords Spiritual make up 4% of the House of Lords as it currently stands.
Based on the 2011 Census, only 33.8% of people in this country claim to be Anglican, and not all of those will be Church of England. Set against that, however, only 11% of the population actually go to a religious service even once a month, so it's fair to assume that not many of those 33.8% are religious beyond ticking that box on the census.
On the other hand, 78% of the population believed that religion should be a private matter which has no place in politics. Even if the Lords Spiritual only represent 4% of the Lords, that's still 4% too much when there is such a massive majority view against them being there.
walm said:
VoziKaoFangio said:
Well if it were me, I'd move house or choose a private school if the only decent primary in my area was of the God bothering variety. In fact, I did choose a private school despite my local state primary being non-religious and very well thought of, but for reasons of restricted facilities at the local school.
Congratulations on your enormous wealth.Thanks for the assumption, though.
Kermit power said:
On the other hand, 78% of the population believed that religion should be a private matter which has no place in politics. Even if the Lords Spiritual only represent 4% of the Lords, that's still 4% too much when there is such a massive majority view against them being there.
[Devil's Advocate]Surely then 22% of the Lords should be Lords Spiritual to give an accurate and proportionate representation of those that believe religion SHOULD have a place in politics?
[/Devil's Advocate]
We're verging on some very dangerous territory here (and completely OT) so perhaps we should start a separate thread to discuss whether majority rule is ethical?
300bhp/ton said:
walm said:
300bhp/ton said:
Randomly selecting people sounds fun, but surely that would represent some sort of madness in reality?
What - like juries?VoziKaoFangio said:
walm said:
VoziKaoFangio said:
Well if it were me, I'd move house or choose a private school if the only decent primary in my area was of the God bothering variety. In fact, I did choose a private school despite my local state primary being non-religious and very well thought of, but for reasons of restricted facilities at the local school.
Congratulations on your enormous wealth.Thanks for the assumption, though.
But to suggest "if you don't want the religious school you can move or go private" is madness.
Those two options are simply out of reach for the vast majority of parents!!!
I applaud the sacrifices you are making for your kids and I don't really mean to have a go but there is sticking to your principles and sticking to your principles!!
To contemplate blowing 5 figures a year or god knows how much on moving house to avoid a tiny amount of religion for your kids is bordering on lunacy IMHO.
To get a materially better education and opportunities for them - fair enough but just to avoid some God bothering??
walm said:
VoziKaoFangio said:
walm said:
VoziKaoFangio said:
Well if it were me, I'd move house or choose a private school if the only decent primary in my area was of the God bothering variety. In fact, I did choose a private school despite my local state primary being non-religious and very well thought of, but for reasons of restricted facilities at the local school.
Congratulations on your enormous wealth.Thanks for the assumption, though.
But to suggest "if you don't want the religious school you can move or go private" is madness.
Those two options are simply out of reach for the vast majority of parents!!!
I applaud the sacrifices you are making for your kids and I don't really mean to have a go but there is sticking to your principles and sticking to your principles!!
To contemplate blowing 5 figures a year or god knows how much on moving house to avoid a tiny amount of religion for your kids is bordering on lunacy IMHO.
To get a materially better education and opportunities for them - fair enough but just to avoid some God bothering??
Kermit power said:
I'm not sure how you make the jump from a view that nobody should be in the Lords purely on the basis of their religion to "we're living in a virtual theocracy", but that's up to you, I suppose.
It would be nice if you could get your facts straight first though. First off, there are 26 Lords Spiritual, and they are all Church of England bishops or archbishops. Whilst there are current reform proposals, even if they do all go through it will take well over a decade to reduce the numbers down to 12. It's another positive step on a very long road started after the dissolution of the monasteries (before which there were more Lords Spiritual than Temporal), but it will take a while yet before they're all removed.
The chief Rabbi is there as a Lord Temporal, and whilst he probably wouldn't have that position were he not chief Rabbi, he is not entitled to it by right, and on Sackman's death, it is possible (although not probable, maybe), that he could be replaced by a purely secular Lord.
As for the next part, the answer to "how much influence do they have" could easily be "too much if they've got any at all", but let's give it a bit more grounding.
The 26 Lords Spiritual make up 4% of the House of Lords as it currently stands.
Based on the 2011 Census, only 33.8% of people in this country claim to be Anglican, and not all of those will be Church of England. Set against that, however, only 11% of the population actually go to a religious service even once a month, so it's fair to assume that not many of those 33.8% are religious beyond ticking that box on the census.
On the other hand, 78% of the population believed that religion should be a private matter which has no place in politics. Even if the Lords Spiritual only represent 4% of the Lords, that's still 4% too much when there is such a massive majority view against them being there.
Excellent well-informed post. It would be nice if you could get your facts straight first though. First off, there are 26 Lords Spiritual, and they are all Church of England bishops or archbishops. Whilst there are current reform proposals, even if they do all go through it will take well over a decade to reduce the numbers down to 12. It's another positive step on a very long road started after the dissolution of the monasteries (before which there were more Lords Spiritual than Temporal), but it will take a while yet before they're all removed.
The chief Rabbi is there as a Lord Temporal, and whilst he probably wouldn't have that position were he not chief Rabbi, he is not entitled to it by right, and on Sackman's death, it is possible (although not probable, maybe), that he could be replaced by a purely secular Lord.
As for the next part, the answer to "how much influence do they have" could easily be "too much if they've got any at all", but let's give it a bit more grounding.
The 26 Lords Spiritual make up 4% of the House of Lords as it currently stands.
Based on the 2011 Census, only 33.8% of people in this country claim to be Anglican, and not all of those will be Church of England. Set against that, however, only 11% of the population actually go to a religious service even once a month, so it's fair to assume that not many of those 33.8% are religious beyond ticking that box on the census.
On the other hand, 78% of the population believed that religion should be a private matter which has no place in politics. Even if the Lords Spiritual only represent 4% of the Lords, that's still 4% too much when there is such a massive majority view against them being there.
ClaphamGT3 said:
In fairness, the stance of the CofE is that it does not recognise the concept of marriage other than between a man and a woman and that it will not endorse such marriages to take place on its premises. Whether you agree with this or not, it is their right to take this stance and is, by no means, 'beyond their remit'
I suggest you look at the statements made by the church with regards to gay marriage, and it's potential allowance as a civil, (which is nothing whatsoever to do with the church), ceremony. Both the Catholic Church in the UK, and the CoE have made statements condemning allowing gay marriage. 2/3rds of all marriages take place in a civil situation, without religion, and for the church to butt in without remit is not on. Having these voices in the House of Lords is again, not on.So please do not tell me that these people are not interfering in people's lives outside their congregation.
http://solicitors.contactlaw.co.uk/family-law/coul...
http://www.christianconcern.com/our-concerns/socia...
Edited by TheHeretic on Wednesday 10th October 17:08
Kermit power said:
I'm not sure how you make the jump from a view that nobody should be in the Lords purely on the basis of their religion to "we're living in a virtual theocracy", but that's up to you, I suppose.
It would be nice if you could get your facts straight first though. First off, there are 26 Lords Spiritual, and they are all Church of England bishops or archbishops. Whilst there are current reform proposals, even if they do all go through it will take well over a decade to reduce the numbers down to 12. It's another positive step on a very long road started after the dissolution of the monasteries (before which there were more Lords Spiritual than Temporal), but it will take a while yet before they're all removed.
The chief Rabbi is there as a Lord Temporal, and whilst he probably wouldn't have that position were he not chief Rabbi, he is not entitled to it by right, and on Sackman's death, it is possible (although not probable, maybe), that he could be replaced by a purely secular Lord.
As for the next part, the answer to "how much influence do they have" could easily be "too much if they've got any at all", but let's give it a bit more grounding.
The 26 Lords Spiritual make up 4% of the House of Lords as it currently stands.
Based on the 2011 Census, only 33.8% of people in this country claim to be Anglican, and not all of those will be Church of England. Set against that, however, only 11% of the population actually go to a religious service even once a month, so it's fair to assume that not many of those 33.8% are religious beyond ticking that box on the census.
On the other hand, 78% of the population believed that religion should be a private matter which has no place in politics. Even if the Lords Spiritual only represent 4% of the Lords, that's still 4% too much when there is such a massive majority view against them being there.
A rather sixth-form post suggesting rather too much reliance on Wikipedia and rather too little on any grasp of history or politics.It would be nice if you could get your facts straight first though. First off, there are 26 Lords Spiritual, and they are all Church of England bishops or archbishops. Whilst there are current reform proposals, even if they do all go through it will take well over a decade to reduce the numbers down to 12. It's another positive step on a very long road started after the dissolution of the monasteries (before which there were more Lords Spiritual than Temporal), but it will take a while yet before they're all removed.
The chief Rabbi is there as a Lord Temporal, and whilst he probably wouldn't have that position were he not chief Rabbi, he is not entitled to it by right, and on Sackman's death, it is possible (although not probable, maybe), that he could be replaced by a purely secular Lord.
As for the next part, the answer to "how much influence do they have" could easily be "too much if they've got any at all", but let's give it a bit more grounding.
The 26 Lords Spiritual make up 4% of the House of Lords as it currently stands.
Based on the 2011 Census, only 33.8% of people in this country claim to be Anglican, and not all of those will be Church of England. Set against that, however, only 11% of the population actually go to a religious service even once a month, so it's fair to assume that not many of those 33.8% are religious beyond ticking that box on the census.
On the other hand, 78% of the population believed that religion should be a private matter which has no place in politics. Even if the Lords Spiritual only represent 4% of the Lords, that's still 4% too much when there is such a massive majority view against them being there.
Since getting facts right is important to you, you won't mind me pointing out that the Chief Rabbi is Jonathan Saks, not Sackman and that all Anglicans are, de facto, members of the Church of England.
If you'd read my post properly - or, more importantly - understood it, you'd have seen that I said that Saks and others like him are life peers.
The point is that the Upper House exists to provide a chamber comprising those who represent all aspects of the constitutional composition - judiciary, legislature and church. It also contains, through the life peers, a wide cross section of society beyond this.
The Bishops, like the judges and the cross-benchers, give a non party-political perspective on legislation passing through the upper house, which can only be a good thing.
ClaphamGT3 said:
A rather sixth-form post suggesting rather too much reliance on Wikipedia and rather too little on any grasp of history or politics.
Since getting facts right is important to you, you won't mind me pointing out that the Chief Rabbi is Jonathan Saks, not Sackman and that all Anglicans are, de facto, members of the Church of England.
If you'd read my post properly - or, more importantly - understood it, you'd have seen that I said that Saks and others like him are life peers.
The point is that the Upper House exists to provide a chamber comprising those who represent all aspects of the constitutional composition - judiciary, legislature and church. It also contains, through the life peers, a wide cross section of society beyond this.
The Bishops, like the judges and the cross-benchers, give a non party-political perspective on legislation passing through the upper house, which can only be a good thing.
Oh look. You can do insults and pomposity wrapped up into one. Well done you. Since getting facts right is important to you, you won't mind me pointing out that the Chief Rabbi is Jonathan Saks, not Sackman and that all Anglicans are, de facto, members of the Church of England.
If you'd read my post properly - or, more importantly - understood it, you'd have seen that I said that Saks and others like him are life peers.
The point is that the Upper House exists to provide a chamber comprising those who represent all aspects of the constitutional composition - judiciary, legislature and church. It also contains, through the life peers, a wide cross section of society beyond this.
The Bishops, like the judges and the cross-benchers, give a non party-political perspective on legislation passing through the upper house, which can only be a good thing.
This doesn't make your statement any less absurd, and it is frankly an insult to judges and cross-benchers.
Having independent oversight of the Commons is indeed an excellent thing. Having bishops in the house of Lords does no such thing. All that does is help to prolong the death throes of a repugnant organisation built on the exploitation of the weak, the poor and the gullible over the centuries.
The sooner the last Bishop is removed from the Lords and the Church of England is left with the power it actually deserves, the sooner we can get on with creating a more meritocracy, less self - serving alternative in it's place.
Fortunately, more people tend towards my position than they do yours, so it should hopefully just be a matter of time until your beloved Lords Spiritual go the way of slavery, the death penalty, absolute monarchy, the lack of universal suffrage and other anachronisms that have no place in a civilized society.
Kermit power said:
Oh look. You can do insults and pomposity wrapped up into one. Well done you.
This doesn't make your statement any less absurd, and it is frankly an insult to judges and cross-benchers.
Having independent oversight of the Commons is indeed an excellent thing. Having bishops in the house of Lords does no such thing. All that does is help to prolong the death throes of a repugnant organisation built on the exploitation of the weak, the poor and the gullible over the centuries.
The sooner the last Bishop is removed from the Lords and the Church of England is left with the power it actually deserves, the sooner we can get on with creating a more meritocracy, less self - serving alternative in it's place.
Fortunately, more people tend towards my position than they do yours, so it should hopefully just be a matter of time until your beloved Lords Spiritual go the way of slavery, the death penalty, absolute monarchy, the lack of universal suffrage and other anachronisms that have no place in a civilized society.
You might like to read up on and understand our constitution; then you'd realise just how ill-informed your post actually is.This doesn't make your statement any less absurd, and it is frankly an insult to judges and cross-benchers.
Having independent oversight of the Commons is indeed an excellent thing. Having bishops in the house of Lords does no such thing. All that does is help to prolong the death throes of a repugnant organisation built on the exploitation of the weak, the poor and the gullible over the centuries.
The sooner the last Bishop is removed from the Lords and the Church of England is left with the power it actually deserves, the sooner we can get on with creating a more meritocracy, less self - serving alternative in it's place.
Fortunately, more people tend towards my position than they do yours, so it should hopefully just be a matter of time until your beloved Lords Spiritual go the way of slavery, the death penalty, absolute monarchy, the lack of universal suffrage and other anachronisms that have no place in a civilized society.
On the basis that all Episcopal appointments are subject to vetting and ratification by the Prime Minister, the Bishops are by far the most democratically legitimate members of the upper house.
Gassing Station | The Lounge | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff