Can anyone make a case for the Lords Spiritual?
Discussion
Reading in the news this morning that Cameron's welfare bill has been held up in the Lords by the tabling by the Lords Spiritual of an amendment to remove child benefit from the £26k benefit cap.
In the modern world, can anyone, whether religious or not, actually make a case for them even being there, let alone influencing government legislation, purely on the basis of a pointy hat and a professed belief in an invisible being?
If people choose to believe, that's up to them, but there's no place for it in our legislative bodies.
In the modern world, can anyone, whether religious or not, actually make a case for them even being there, let alone influencing government legislation, purely on the basis of a pointy hat and a professed belief in an invisible being?
If people choose to believe, that's up to them, but there's no place for it in our legislative bodies.
The only reason they are there is historical, Henry VIII rejecting the shackles of the Holy Roman Empire. The church in this country is part of the state, unlike for instance the USA. The odd thing is that in America cristianity dominates and in this it is of minor consideration.
The bishops supposedly only vote on those matters whichare part of their remit, this being taken to inlcude welfare.
The HoL is largely irrelevant and only has powers of persuation and all they are able to do is delay Acts. At the most it is bad publicity for the government.
A second chamber has advantages. Our one is largely discredited though. We have people who have been made lords able to continue to be so despite being shown as thieves and otherwise unpricipled. It needs modification.
Their lordships blew it when trying to limit the votes for men and women around the end of Viccy's reign. Since then they've struggled with their function.
The HoL needs reform, the most importatnt one being lords having a say I suppose.
Part of the function of the HoL is to even out the excesses of the commons and they way they can do this is to take the long view without the necessity of being voted in every 5 years.
What to replace the HoL with is difficult to say. However, I think removing the bishops is a pretty good start. However, I think having the Head of State being the head of the church is pretty good given the state of the church of England. It is of no account so let's keep the Queen or her replacement as its boss.
Henry VIII had the right idea I reckon.
The bishops supposedly only vote on those matters whichare part of their remit, this being taken to inlcude welfare.
The HoL is largely irrelevant and only has powers of persuation and all they are able to do is delay Acts. At the most it is bad publicity for the government.
A second chamber has advantages. Our one is largely discredited though. We have people who have been made lords able to continue to be so despite being shown as thieves and otherwise unpricipled. It needs modification.
Their lordships blew it when trying to limit the votes for men and women around the end of Viccy's reign. Since then they've struggled with their function.
The HoL needs reform, the most importatnt one being lords having a say I suppose.
Part of the function of the HoL is to even out the excesses of the commons and they way they can do this is to take the long view without the necessity of being voted in every 5 years.
What to replace the HoL with is difficult to say. However, I think removing the bishops is a pretty good start. However, I think having the Head of State being the head of the church is pretty good given the state of the church of England. It is of no account so let's keep the Queen or her replacement as its boss.
Henry VIII had the right idea I reckon.
Rude-boy said:
Derek Smith said:
The odd thing is that in America cristianity dominates and in this it is of minor consideration.
Not really.A lot of the early settlers were the religious extremists of their day...
The state and the church are separate in the USA under their constitution and over the last century at least there have been many battles trying to change this by various Christian sects.
In this country, despite it being the state religion, we have many, possibly the majority of, MPs who are non-believers or of a different religion. You could not, for instance, have an atheist as president in American despite the constitution allowing it. One of the arguments against Blair was the fact that he was a religious nut. Indeed, he kept his fanaticism secret for much of his tenure and delayed his 'conversion' to his wife's sect, western catholicism, until after the last time he went to the country.
I always wondered what pope felt about blair saying that he wanted to convert but only when it suited him.
Many of the founding fathers left this country not to escape persecution, the rumour spread by the USA, but because of the fact that this country was not that fussed what you believed in. They wanted to restrict what people could believe in. Nasty people all round.
Not that it matters now of course. Autre temps.
When the HoL were purely real Lords, one had at least specialists in various trades and industries who could speak cogently on many subjects without any biased political views being dictated by other "lower" politicians. Whether or not it was a democratic system remains to be decided. In my opinion in 2012 it wasn't, but much better than the bunch of idiots we have there now.
Since Labour changed the system to "promote" unwanted and incompetent politicians away from HoC (Fatty 2 Jags, Gorbals Mick, just 2 obvious examples) it has now got to be ridiculous.
IMHO we should have a wholy elected HoL of only 200 members, none of which may come from politics and certainly none from any religious body, and we should also have a wholy elected HoC with only 200-250 members and NONE promoted by Unions or other unelected and undemocratic bodies.
"Professional" politicians are the bane of the world with no knowledge (apart from throwaway nonsense degrees) and no common sense, just greed and dubious morals (bLIAR and Broon being the best examples, the Minigland Bros being others)
Since Labour changed the system to "promote" unwanted and incompetent politicians away from HoC (Fatty 2 Jags, Gorbals Mick, just 2 obvious examples) it has now got to be ridiculous.
IMHO we should have a wholy elected HoL of only 200 members, none of which may come from politics and certainly none from any religious body, and we should also have a wholy elected HoC with only 200-250 members and NONE promoted by Unions or other unelected and undemocratic bodies.
"Professional" politicians are the bane of the world with no knowledge (apart from throwaway nonsense degrees) and no common sense, just greed and dubious morals (bLIAR and Broon being the best examples, the Minigland Bros being others)
JMGS4 said:
Since Labour changed the system to "promote" unwanted and incompetent politicians away from HoC (Fatty 2 Jags, Gorbals Mick, just 2 obvious examples) it has now got to be ridiculous.
I'm no apolgoist for Bair but he didn't change the system. it has always been a case of the plum reward for the good and fathful servant or the place where you dumped your idiots. Archer is a case in point. But you could go much further back than that dolt.Further, you could always buy your way in.
Another point is that it was always ridiculous. A house of parliament based on herdity peerages is a nonsense.
Derek Smith said:
Rude-boy said:
Derek Smith said:
The odd thing is that in America Christianity dominates and in this it is of minor consideration.
Not really.A lot of the early settlers were the religious extremists of their day...
Their legal constitution might allow the right to religious freedom but the reality is that the US is a very conformist society as a rule.
As you say
Derek Smith said:
Many of the founding fathers left this country not to escape persecution, the rumour spread by the USA, but because of the fact that this country was not that fussed what you believed in. They wanted to restrict what people could believe in. Nasty people all round.
However
Derek Smith said:
Not that it matters now of course. Autre temps.
I thought that you knew better than that 
Ignore history and the 'back story' and you will always be unprepared to deal with the here and now and the future.Edited by Rude-boy on Tuesday 24th January 10:14
Jasandjules said:
No-one should be permitted to make laws based upon what their imaginary friend thinks.
Agreed, although in a lot of cases their imaginary friend had some good ideas. Just because one law is espoused by a particular sect doesn't mean that it isn't a good one, just that we need to stop and think about its merit before we accept it at face value. Where a lot of religious law falls down is because it was set down so many years ago and the World as a whole has moved on such a pace. An example is the not eating pork thing. In hot countries without or with little refrigeration such as the Middle East 1,000 years ago pork would go off so quickly you were taking your life in your hands eating it if it was more than a few hours from slaughter. These days the Lord Smeg almighty has this covered but as the law was a religious one it can't be changed unless Momo or JC's brother or Dad pops down for a chat."Can anyone make a case for the Lords Spiritual?
Of course.
We are duty bound to be respectful to those who believe in a spiritual entity - it's in society's in-built and even unspoken code - so must let them have their voice (and their impact). Would be rude not to, naturally... disrespectful.
So, when are we going to form blocks for the Muslims et al? Seems a tad biased in the Christian's favour at the moment.
And what effect would that have on legislation and our lives?
Of course.
We are duty bound to be respectful to those who believe in a spiritual entity - it's in society's in-built and even unspoken code - so must let them have their voice (and their impact). Would be rude not to, naturally... disrespectful.
So, when are we going to form blocks for the Muslims et al? Seems a tad biased in the Christian's favour at the moment.
And what effect would that have on legislation and our lives?
I don't think anyone can make a solid case for them, but I can see the value of a group who's purpose is to pass a moral judgement.
I know that if you view their case from a position of pure logic, their existence is quite questionable, but we don't have waves of pro-Christian legislation being imposed on us. Of course, if the HoL was only created last week, there is no way that it would function as it does, but in reality it's quite an archaic establishment, but it functions reasonably well.
I think we would live in a very dull society if every aspect of our life followed pragmatism and logic fanatically. There would be no royalty, no pomp and ceremony, no pageantry, and instead we rely on public opinion, but is public opinion really that reliable? In my opinion, both have their flaws, and I'd rather that we used a variety of flawed methods than rely on just one. If you ask people who the most inhumane MPs have been, I'm sure that you'd get two answers: Thatcher & Blair, the two longest serving PMs in modern times. Public opinion isn't a panacea.
I would like to see a reduced HoC, but I think that 250 MPs would make us one of the most under-represented countries in the world per capita. We had 558 in 1707.
I know that if you view their case from a position of pure logic, their existence is quite questionable, but we don't have waves of pro-Christian legislation being imposed on us. Of course, if the HoL was only created last week, there is no way that it would function as it does, but in reality it's quite an archaic establishment, but it functions reasonably well.
I think we would live in a very dull society if every aspect of our life followed pragmatism and logic fanatically. There would be no royalty, no pomp and ceremony, no pageantry, and instead we rely on public opinion, but is public opinion really that reliable? In my opinion, both have their flaws, and I'd rather that we used a variety of flawed methods than rely on just one. If you ask people who the most inhumane MPs have been, I'm sure that you'd get two answers: Thatcher & Blair, the two longest serving PMs in modern times. Public opinion isn't a panacea.
JMGS4 said:
IMHO we should have a wholy elected HoL of only 200 members, none of which may come from politics and certainly none from any religious body, and we should also have a wholy elected HoC with only 200-250 members and NONE promoted by Unions or other unelected and undemocratic bodies.
Why would you ignore the opinion of people who have a lifetime of political experience? They are exactly the people we should seek for opinion. When one of the older members is interviewed now, Heseltine, Lawson and the like, they seem to talk a whole lot more sense than our present MPs, and are far more eloquent.I would like to see a reduced HoC, but I think that 250 MPs would make us one of the most under-represented countries in the world per capita. We had 558 in 1707.
Rude-boy said:
However
Ignore history and the 'back story' and you will always be unprepared to deal with the here and now and the future.
My apologies. It would appear we are both guilty of using English casually. There is no greater sin for those wishing to communicate. What I meant to suggest was that the fact that the founders of the USA, or at least those who have been put forward for the honour, were quite nasty people does not mean that Americans are today. If they are then it is for other reasons.Derek Smith said:
Not that it matters now of course. Autre temps.
I thought that you knew better than that Ignore history and the 'back story' and you will always be unprepared to deal with the here and now and the future.Rude-boy said:
Jasandjules said:
No-one should be permitted to make laws based upon what their imaginary friend thinks.
Agreed, although in a lot of cases their imaginary friend had some good ideas. Just because one law is espoused by a particular sect doesn't mean that it isn't a good one, just that we need to stop and think about its merit before we accept it at face value. Where a lot of religious law falls down is because it was set down so many years ago and the World as a whole has moved on such a pace. An example is the not eating pork thing. In hot countries without or with little refrigeration such as the Middle East 1,000 years ago pork would go off so quickly you were taking your life in your hands eating it if it was more than a few hours from slaughter. These days the Lord Smeg almighty has this covered but as the law was a religious one it can't be changed unless Momo or JC's brother or Dad pops down for a chat.But pork was odd. There would often be various lumps and bumps in it, stuff that had to be cut out by hand. There was one rather old pig that I had to delouse (they were worm eggs) and I 'lost' about 20% of the meat. I brought it to the butcher's attention just to check and as he sifted through it he said something along the lines of: Sometimes I wish I was Jewish.
Pork is a very funny meat. I will only eat it if it has been well cooked or I have inspected it personally.
MX7 said:
Why would you ignore the opinion of people who have a lifetime of political experience? They are exactly the people we should seek for opinion. When one of the older members is interviewed now, Heseltine, Lawson and the like, they seem to talk a whole lot more sense than our present MPs, and are far more eloquent.
I think a good portion of that is that they are free of the need to garner votes/appease the whips.Lost_BMW said:
"Can anyone make a case for the Lords Spiritual?
Of course.
We are duty bound to be respectful to those who believe in a spiritual entity - it's in society's in-built and even unspoken code - so must let them have their voice (and their impact). Would be rude not to, naturally... disrespectful.
And what effect would that have on legislation and our lives?
I'm not duty bound to be respectful of anyone's views. I have to tolerate them, but respect is a different thing. I wouldn't respect someone who said they spend sunday mornings talking to faries at the bottom of their garden. And I don't respect someone who spends sunday morning talking to an invisible magic man in the sky. However, I would defend their right to do so.Of course.
We are duty bound to be respectful to those who believe in a spiritual entity - it's in society's in-built and even unspoken code - so must let them have their voice (and their impact). Would be rude not to, naturally... disrespectful.
And what effect would that have on legislation and our lives?
This http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/jan/24/welf... is what the HoL should be doing. The government set up the CSA to catch those who should be paying maintenance and then propose to charge the person receiving the money, i.e. the child, a fee for doing so.
It should be the person who has failed to pay in the past that should be penalised, at least according to Lord MacKay.
It should be the person who has failed to pay in the past that should be penalised, at least according to Lord MacKay.
Lost_BMW said:
We are duty bound to be respectful to those who believe in a spiritual entity
I think we are duty bound to ensure that those who have imaginary friends can have no impact upon anything meaningful in society when that decision is based upon the views of the imaginary friend. Where do you believe we are "duty" bound to be respectful of those who have imaginary friends? If a chap starts talking to himself in the street then he is mad, yet if he is talking to his imaginary friend...........
Is this now the 5th PH thread discussing whether to respect religious beliefs?
As far as the subject matter goes - as long as we have smart people in the HoL I don't care too much - but I wouldnt have anything against moving to a more open system though. But in a way that still allows for independence of soemsort.
As far as the subject matter goes - as long as we have smart people in the HoL I don't care too much - but I wouldnt have anything against moving to a more open system though. But in a way that still allows for independence of soemsort.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff