You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
You’d be surprised how many people (including millions who do not go to church)
From what I can work out, just over 200,000 deaths in hospitals in England last recorded year. It seems that less than 10% of the general population attend church regularly. (With a peak of around 10% at Xmas, including absolute unbelievers who just like the music.) So we, the general public, provide funding for almost 1000 hospital chaplains to attend to around 20 of their dying flock per year per chaplain. And hold hands, and reassure the needy and administer calming words because the patient hasn’t seen a nurse in 12 hours.
Of course, the death rate doesn’t include those who don’t make it to hospital because of lack of funding.
If a preacher comes to my room uninvited I’ll be using my dying breath to tell them to **** off
I'd probably say "no thanks," but I share your sentiment.
So we, the general public, provide funding for almost 1000 hospital chaplains to attend to around 20 of their dying flock per year per chaplain.
And if your figures and the ones on the previous page are correct, that's £1250 per blessing.
I'm pretty sure the NHS is underfunded. I wonder how the assets and liabilities of the Church of England stack up.
If attendance at church is so low could they not just have the nearest priest, vicar etc just pop to the hospital. It’d save a fortune and keep them busy too. We all know what idle hands are after all.
<div class="bbp-reply-content">
"And why can the church not fund this themselves?"
</div>
No doubt they can, but does that really matter? £25 million doesn't buy you a huge amount of non-medical aftercare. Like I say, it could represent good value- supporting family, helping patients, this all supports the NHS. And it's not just for the religious, let alone just for their own particular faith.
We have a chaplain at the uni, he's a good lad, and he doesn't just do stuff for his own faith group- in fact most people who make use of the chaplaincy aren't any flavour of christian. And in doing so he takes work off the shoulders of other professional services- less strain on counsellors, on the student's union advice team, on the NHS practice on campus. Obviously that's not exactly the same situation but I think it's comparable in effect.
As for spending it on something else, £25m is an absolute drop in the bucket and robbing peter to pay paul is pretty much the exact same race to the bottom that the current government would like us all to play, and all makes the country that bit colder and starker. If we want better services in the NHS we get it by spending more money not by meanspirited cuts to services that we personally don't think are essential. Who knows when something you value will be next in line?
If a preacher comes to my room uninvited I’ll be using my dying breath to tell them to **** off
I’d probably say “no thanks,” but I share your sentiment.
Yeah we might all say that but if you're weak, lonely afraid etc then you might might be happy just to have someone close. This kind hints at a problem which doesn't really tie neatly into this thread but it's that the christian churches do the big life events very well. As the church becomes increasingly anachronistic and more people become atheists we need something to span the gap.
I'm not religious. I don't honestly think I could say I'm spiritual but I think a lot of people benefit from some kind of spirituality to help them cope with tragedy or profound events and it needn't be based on faith.
I know a hospital chaplain fairly well. They don't just turn up to give the last rites, they are often at the bedsides of people who are lonely/afraid, with no one to visit them.
I'm more than happy for there to be hospital chaplains and I'm happy that they are funded via the NHS. I can't think of anything more traumatic than a lonely person having no one to talk to and comfort them whilst they are dying. The church has limited funds and its better that the chaplaincy is centrally organised and funded, across denominations.
Yup.
My mum, a devout Catholic, spent some weeks in Crumpsall Hospital with terminal cancer.
The chaplaincy were amazing, all of them, regardless of denomination.
They work hard and even though they tell you it's a privilege to help, it must take it's toll.
I don't begrudge the cost, even though I'm a non-believer.
£25m is an absolute drop in the bucket
It is, but it all adds up. What else is the NHS spending money on which could be funded from elsewhere? I'm not denying the value of having priests in hospitals for reasons as discussed, but it seems odd to me that it's funded by the NHS rather than the Church.
What happens with other faiths? Presumably if there's a Muslim on their death bed they get a visit from the local Imam or some such, rather than have a Christian chaplain intervening? I guess that's supported by their local mosque?
So is the difference here one of church membership perhaps? Your average Muslim is likely to be a regular attendee, your average self-proclaimed Christian perhaps not so much. So for the devout who take it seriously, of whatever faith, they have a local place of worship who can take care of their flock; for the great unwashed who only attend church for weddings and funerals it's arguably a bit late for a last-minute conversion.
If we want better services in the NHS we get it by spending more money not by meanspirited cuts to services that we personally don’t think are essential.
I totally agree. But there's two ways of having more money - being given more, and wasting less. I don't know much about the NHS but I'm led to believe that it's not particularly smart in how it spends its funding (and I don't particularly mean that this particular expense isn't "smart," but rather things like paying over the odds for stuff they could get more cheaply).
Yeah we might all say that but if you’re weak, lonely afraid etc then you might might be happy just to have someone close.
That's a good point actually, and one I hadn't considered. Just having someone - anyone - to talk to could be a comfort.
Are there any charities providing this sort of service?
As I understand it the teams can consist of many faiths including none, and the point of having them as paid staff is that they are just that - staff who are a proper resource doing an accountable job at times that work for the NHS. Not just another add-on to patch things up. They are expected to be able to work with other faiths and they are also supported by a team of volunteers as there is more work than you would imagine
for example: http://www.leicestershospitals.nhs.uk/patients/patient-and-visitor-services/faith-and-chaplaincy/
Their range of staff is "The Chaplaincy team includes Christian, Hindu, Muslim and Sikh Chaplains as well as a non-religious Pastoral Carer. The wider team of volunteers also includes Baha'i, Buddhist, Jewish and Jain representatives."
Whether or not you think this sort of service is valuable might depend on whether you think pastoral care of any sort has value
On chaplaincy - now usually called spiritual care. Many of you here have no idea of their role and usefulness.
It an essential part of the NHS. By having these people directly employed we can be sure of their levels of training, commitment and skills. they do not just mumble a few religious words. Certainly in our area they are trained counsellors, family mediators as well and also are on call 24/7. A parish priest, Rabbi, Iman could not perform their role Not just for patients but for staff as well. Not just for the religious of a denomination but for all religious of any type and also non religious who need their support.
I have referred people to the service a fair amount over the years and consider them an essential part of holistic care. I have seen them give great comfort and provide peace. Without them a part of the service I am a part of would be missing.
Holistic care. They are an essential part of it
Jesus is a sausage roll - it’s true I saw it in an advert!
The lack of understanding of the function of hospital chaplains illustrates very well the complete misunderstanding of what most CofE priests do - their job isn't just to take a couple of midweek services and a few on Sunday, it is to provide a six day a week service to their local communities, they will be visting the homebound, community centres, care homes, schools etc etc in their parish throughout the week offering someone to talk to some members of their flock, other believers and any non-believers who want to take them up in their offer. Indeed I would argue that they probably have a bigger window on our society than any other members. This is the main reason why I personally think the Lords Spiritual still provide a valuable function as they are informed by a wide network of priests on our society (and indeed other societies in the world as each diocese supports an Anglican church elsewhere in the world so their networks extend abroad)
I quite like the idea of unelected people providing a different viewpoint on legislation. They aren't whoring themselves to the electorate for votes. And I think the idea of spiritual leaders being involved in such a role is not a bad one either. But it absolutely definitely should involve all major faiths, not just Christianity.
If I had my way the house of Lords would include representatives from a variety of professions and occupations, all across society. Religions included, but also scientists health professionals, teachers and many more.
That is partly the role of cross bench peers which include other faith leaders and other former leaders as well as other eminent people from their fields. The big difference between the Lords Spiritual and other Lords, they automatically leave when they retire as a Bishop (unless exceptionally they are granted a Life Peerage) so there is constant renewal, whereas everyone else is there for life unless they decide to give it up.
There is no place at all for religious figures in our legislature. anachronistic, undemocratic, reactionary.
Indeed I would argue that they probably have a bigger window on our society than any other members
Utter utter nonsense. This just shows how little you know. How can someone how world view is filtered thru dogma and superstition have any understanding of the issues facing the wider world. Compare them to social workers, policemen, healthcare workers etc - these people have a real understanding of the world. Priests / ministers Iman etc cannot because of their belief and faith.
It is completely abhorrent to me that these people are given positions of power in the secular world
.
And TJ is one person I'd definitely not have in my House of Lords!
Out of interest, TJ, do you know any priests or similar?
I find it fascinating that the same person made these two posts.
On chaplaincy – now usually called spiritual care. Many of you here have no idea of their role and usefulness.
...
It an essential part of the NHS.
and
There is no place at all for religious figures in our legislature. anachronistic, undemocratic, reactionary.
That's food for thought IMHO.
Yet you see the value of equivalent people in your own line of work, odd.
That’s food for thought IMHO.
Not really, another example of an equivalent instance is studies of public opinion on MPs, as an amorphous group the public don't think much of them, but they generally have a considerably higher opinion of their local MP.
Simple to understand the difference. NHS chaplains are providing support for those that want it. The bishops in the lords are a part of the mechanism that creates laws that effect everyone.
The first for the individual is voluntary, the second is compulsory for all of the population
Its about choice. I can chose whether or not to have an NHS chaplain influence my life, I cannot chose to not have a COE bishop who sits in the lords have influence over my life
In a secular country why should the religious hold any power over the non religious?
It an essential part of the NHS. By having these people directly employed we can be sure of their levels of training, commitment and skills. they do not just mumble a few religious words. Certainly in our area they are trained counsellors, family mediators as well and also are on call 24/7. A parish priest, Rabbi, Iman could not perform their role Not just for patients but for staff as well. Not just for the religious of a denomination but for all religious of any type and also non religious who need their support.
I an see the need and the benefit. What I can't see is why the person you describe (counsellor, mediator, staff moral support etc,.) needs to be religious.
I'd rather that people in a position of power (politicians), influence (councellors, mediators,teachers etc.) and control (judges, police, solicitors etc) did not believe in fairy tales, invisible friends and supernatural intervention.
Kerley - because for some people religion is important to them and their needs should be catered for in a service provided for all - holistic medicine
Bodgy - its fine if they keep their beliefs private. Its not acceptable if they seek to use their power to make the secular behave in accordence with their beliefs
I an see the need and the benefit. What I can’t see is why the person you describe (counsellor, mediator, staff moral support etc,.) needs to be religious.
I agree entirely with this sentiment, but the beauty of calling it ‘religious’ is that it provides justification and protection for the role. It is difficult in these austere times to justify spending money on anything that does not provide a quantifiable fiscal benefit to the organisation, and pastoral care is very vulnerable to this. Couch the pastoral care as religious and it has an extra layer of protection from the bean counters.
And I speak as a card carrying, dyed in the wool secular atheist.
Bodgy – its fine if they keep their beliefs private. Its not acceptable if they seek to use their power to make the secular behave in accordence with their beliefs
Do the Lord's Spiritual actually do this? Do they push a Christian agenda? Are their examples of them rejecting legislation because it's insufficiently Christian?
If there are, what's the difference between that and a religious MP voting a certain way based on personal conviction that aligns with that of their faith? Very hard to separate the two things often.
If there are, what’s the difference between that and a religious MP voting a certain way based on personal conviction that aligns with that of their faith?
Theres one small difference between the unelected and the elected houses...
As I understand it the teams can consist of many faiths including none
An internet search for my local hospital’s pastoral care team brings up a page showing details of the team. All white, all Christian, including photos of the team (both the core and lay teams) standing in front of a cross. It’s called the ABMU Chaplaincy and Spiritual Care Service. ABMU covers a population of around 500,000 of all denominations, faiths and cultures including a large proportion of Muslims.
While I agree that the unit will provide comfort and support for non-Christians it doesn’t look as if they are going out of their way to be all-encompassing, or even to down-play the more Jesussy aspects.
>Its about choice. I can chose whether or not to have an NHS chaplain influence my life, I cannot chose to not have a COE bishop who sits in the lords have influence over my life
+1
Well argued TJ.
I quite like the idea of unelected people providing a different viewpoint on legislation.
This is is how I would have it to. I’d ban people that were mp’s or political party members being part of it to as they have specific agendas. You would have to have a mix of professional and lay people. It would be time limited as well say 5 years.
Do the Lord’s Spiritual actually do this? Do they push a Christian agenda? Are their examples of them rejecting legislation because it’s insufficiently Christian?
Yes. Research on embryos was one. they have done their very best to stop medical research not for scientific reasons but for religious
Its about choice. I can chose whether or not to have an NHS chaplain influence my life, I cannot chose to not have a COE bishop who sits in the lords have influence over my life
Although, when I was in hospital in November I could choose to not speak to an NHS chaplain, but I couldn't choose to speak to a qualified psychologist, which actually I would have been up for, and I believe could have been beneficial. Now maybe I could have enquired and cajoled until I could, but the offer wasn't there as standard.
If there is to be serious "holistic" care, make it through properly qualified psychologists, backed up with multi faith chaplains for those that want it. When the access point to counselling services is chaplains, that deters many, especially in a largely atheist society.
Personally I see no need at all for a second chamber.
I've not read the whole thread, but just caught a few comments about NHS chaplains. I briefly worked as a hospital chaplain before becoming an army chaplain. Just a few highlights from my 3 months in a hospital:
Spoon feeding a terminally ill Buddhist patient because the nurses were too busy.
Spending an hour talking to a suicidal woman and then supporting her for the rest of her stay.
Supporting a woman with anorexia who I was told would die within the week, but ended up eating and being discharged.
Numerous times being present with families at the death of loved ones, some wanted prayers, some just wanted an individual present.
Supporting medical staff who were at their wits tend.
I could go on. A very challenging yet rewarding role.
MSP - a psychologist is not the same set of skills at all. I am not sure why you wanted to speak to one. Counselling is available from other sources than "spiritual care" but to use a psychologist for counselling would be like using a fork to peel a potato in may cases
I thought I'd posted this yesterday but can't find it. You absolutely can make an argument for their being representatives of faith groups in the house of lords. But what's totally indefensible is that they're all Church of England.
Proportionally, of the 26 Lords Spiritual, Anglicanism should have 10. Other christian groups should share about 7, though I imagine the argument for exactly who gets what will go on for at least another 500 years among protestants alone. Catholicism about 4, Islam 2 (though again the division between sects is going to be a laugh), Hinduism and Sikhism 1 each, and 1 to represent Others, which is going to be a brilliant job, representing Jews, jains, zoroastrians, baha'is, wikkans, and of course jedis. That leaves one from the rounding, which privately I think you probably have to give to judaism if only to stop Jambalaya from catching fire. Oh, and it'll want assessing constantly because Anglican membership continues to crash, I'm sure they'll enjoy handing over their 10th Lord to the sunnis
Although, when I was in hospital in November I could choose to not speak to an NHS chaplain, but I couldn’t choose to speak to a qualified psychologist, which actually I would have been up for"
I can't even guess what the cost of having full time psychological coverage in every hospital to the extent that they're available on call would be. Not £25 million.
Just realised my post above might mean this one from kja78 might be missed. this is why I support hospital chaplains
I’ve not read the whole thread, but just caught a few comments about NHS chaplains. I briefly worked as a hospital chaplain before becoming an army chaplain. Just a few highlights from my 3 months in a hospital:
Spoon feeding a terminally ill Buddhist patient because the nurses were too busy.
Spending an hour talking to a suicidal woman and then supporting her for the rest of her stay.
Supporting a woman with anorexia who I was told would die within the week, but ended up eating and being discharged.
Numerous times being present with families at the death of loved ones, some wanted prayers, some just wanted an individual present.
Supporting medical staff who were at their wits tend.
I could go on. A very challenging yet rewarding role.
Counselling may have been available from other sources, but I didn't know that and I doubt many do, so all we get is religious do gooders (trained or not), which is a barrier to many people.
The access point should be counselling, if some want to speak to a chaplain service then I have no problem with that being available as an option afterwards.
but to use a psychologist for counselling would be like using a fork to peel a potato in may cases
No, it really wouldn't, your analogy might work if I wanted to speak to a London cabbie but I didn't, it would have been good however to speak to a qualified professional.
I thought I’d posted this yesterday but can’t find it. You absolutely can make an argument for their being representatives of faith groups in the house of lords. But what’s totally indefensible is that they’re all Church of England.
Proportionally, of the 26 Lords Spiritual, Anglicanism should have 10. Other christian groups should share about 7, though I imagine the argument for exactly who gets what will go on for at least another 500 years among protestants alone. Catholicism about 4, Islam 2 (though again the division between sects is going to be a laugh), Hinduism and Sikhism 1 each, and 1 to represent Others, which is going to be a brilliant job, representing Jews, jains, zoroastrians, baha’is, wikkans, and of course jedis. That leaves one from the rounding, which privately I think you probably have to give to judaism if only to stop Jambalaya from catching fire. Oh, and it’ll want assessing constantly because Anglican membership continues to crash, I’m sure they’ll enjoy handing over their 10th Lord to the sunnis
How many do the Atheists get...
Why do you think the poster required counselling ? the role of a psychologistcan be quite diverse so it not unreasonable to think they can speak to patients and help - certainly to the skill level a chaplain can
https://www.healthcareers.nhs.uk/explore-roles/psychological-therapies/roles/health-psychologist
Do the Lord’s Spiritual actually do this? Do they push a Christian agenda?
Is this a serious questions ? Yes Molly the highest ranking and longest serving Bishops and archbishops in the C of E do indeed push and subscrive to a christain agenda - WTF have you asked this for and WTF do you expect them to do? Ignore the Bible and promote secularism?
Junkyard - clumsily put from me. Not knowing what the poster wanted to speak to a psychologist makes it hard to be sure but psychologists are in very sort supply and there is a referral process to go thru to make sure their skills are not used inappropriately. Whether this would be inappropriate or not in this case I cannot know
where as the church is rich so they pay for the Chaplain ?
Gonefishin: "How many do the Atheists get…"
None. As you know.
MSP wrote,
"No, it really wouldn’t, your analogy might work if I wanted to speak to a London cabbie but I didn’t, it would have been good however to speak to a qualified professional."
I think you're misunderstanding- psychologists and counselors aren't exactly the same thing.
You absolutely can make an argument for their being representatives of faith groups in the house of lords
no you can't - as it was said above, those that believe in fairies, superstition and deny science have no place in making laws for society.
tjagain
<div class="bbp-author-role">
<div>Member</div>
</div>
<div class="bbp-reply-content">Personally I see no need at all for a second chamber.
</div>
you need oversight - remember they blocked the government making major cuts to benefits.
poah - thats because our first chamber is not fit for purpose either when on a minority of the vote you can get a majority of seats. A first chamber fit for purpose would not need a second chamber. But thats whole different can of worms
Yes Molly the highest ranking and longest serving Bishops and archbishops in the C of E do indeed push and subscrive to a christain agenda – WTF have you asked this for
Because I don't pay enough attention to know. It was a genuine question. Can you cite examples?
Human fertilisation and embryology act 2008 was fought against by faith groups.
Here is one of them - doesn't vote much but makes sure he does everything he can to block this bill scroll down to 2008 also consistently voting against any moves towards dignity in death.
http://www.publicwhip.org.uk/mp.php?id=uk.org.publicwhip/member/100900&showall=yes#divisions
And another
http://www.publicwhip.org.uk/mp.php?id=uk.org.publicwhip/member/100829&showall=yes#divisions
Are you trolling? you want examples of say the archbishop of Canterbury, the head of the C of E and leader of the worldwide Anglican movement has a christian ethos. No one is so dense they require this. I am genuinely laughing that you are asking this. its extremely silly.
WTF do you think he does preaches paganism and has no regard for christian values and voted for equal rights for gays and is well keen on abortions?
What do i need to do next prove the Pope is a catholic?
Also against gay marriage
FOURTEEN diocesan bishops were present at the vote on a wrecking amendment to the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill in the House of Lords on Tuesday night, the most to attend a vote in recent times.
Of the 14, nine voted for Lord Dear's amendment to deny the Bill a Second Reading. Five abstained. The nine were: the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Bishops of Bristol, Birmingham, Chester, Coventry, Exeter, Hereford, London, and Winchester. The Bishops of Derby, Guildford, Leicester, Norwich, and St Edmundsbury & Ipswich abstained.
( google found the link! )
reactionary, predjudicial, no place in modern society
Personally I see no need at all for a second chamber.
I guess there's an argument for having a parliament not made up entirely from career politicians. A bit like jury service - would you want a jury comprised of people who have actively applied to be there?
IIRC Douglas Adams once said something like, "anyone who wants to be president of the galaxy should automatically be excluded from being so."
"Poah:
no you can’t – as it was said above, those that believe in fairies, superstition and deny science have no place in making laws for society."
Saying it doesn't make it true. Religious people are a part of our society, are there any other minorities you don't want to have a say in making its laws? Irish, or dogs?
I agree that you can make a good argument against it too, though- but a good place to start would be to at least make it representative and proportional.
Or to look at it the other way, most defendants of special privilege for the anglicans won't want to give the same special privilege to other faiths and so it becomes a good divide-and-rule argument against the whole thing.
Or to look at it the other way, most defendants of special privilege for the anglicans won’t want to give the same special privilege to other faiths and so it becomes a good divide-and-rule argument against the whole thing.
Not sure that is the case, an interesting parliamentary briefing here. The main reason that the Bishops argue they need a few is that they have busy day jobs and split attendance by rota so generally only one is present at each sitting.
Are you trolling? you want examples of say the archbishop of Canterbury, the head of the C of E and leader of the worldwide Anglican movement has a christian ethos. No one is so dense they require this.
Exactly, so maybe you've misunderstood the question...?
What I meant was, give me examples of specific votes where they've pushed an Anglican position that's counter to the majority point of view and/or against the secular viewpoint. Like TJ's examples.
However:
reactionary, predjudicial, no place in modern society
Is it because they are Christian leaders? Or simply because they are reactionary and prejudicial? Did other peers vote the same way?
Unpicking these things is a little complicated. If you are Christian and have an opinion, is that opinion held because you are a Christian? Or are you Christian because you hold that opinion?
Recommend you read that paper I linked but the essential conclusion is no they dont. TJ's example isnt very good, there were wide spread moral concerns, which no doubt included some bishops but as noted few are ever in attendance - again see paper.
Apart from where they made the big push to be there to vote down gay marriage 14 of them.
completely at odds with your suggestion Mefty that they would be more in step with the general population. Or where they voted against dignity in death - again massively out of step with the general population.
They are at odds with society and should not be allowed to have any influence on our legislature because of their faith - that is clear or why does only one or two turn up for most things but 14 for a vote against gay marriage. Its disgraceful and the UK is the ONLY democracy that hs religious people in their legislature simply because of the position they hold in their faith.
Keep your religion private. do not attempt to impose your reactionary and discriminatory views on me.
Keep your religion private. do not attempt to impose your reactionary and discriminatory views on me.
Yes but you haven't answered my question. Lords (and MPs) impose their views on us all the time. How do we know if a view is held religiously or not?
Molgrips - nothing good will come of this discussion
MPs we can theoretically vote out. I do not want a second chamber at all let alone an unelected one. Bishops in the lords consistently vote against public opinion because of their allegiance to their creed as in the two examples I gave which is why there is no place for them in our legislature as adherence to their creed allows them to claim the moral high ground while also being discriminatory.
Right, but what about other people who consistently vote against public opinion? You're on the verge of condemning people simply because they don't share your opinion.
maybe you’ve misunderstood the question…?
Maybe you are still taking pish ?Is there a way to make this more obvious to you?yes the christian leaders have a christian ethos-its supremely moronic to ask this and then require proof of this.
What next are the leaders of the KKK a bit racist
give me examples of specific votes where they’ve pushed an Anglican position that’s counter to the majority point of view
Why does it need to be against the majority view ?>why have you moved the goalposts?Secondly did you see that bit where I gave you gay marriage and abortion? Respectfully <span style="font-size: 0.8rem;">you are the densest wise person I have ever met and your questions are just odd, Of course the church leaders push a religous view point - its what they dedicated their life to. I dont think you will find anyone to argue otherwise so why are you STILL asking?</span>
No I am not molgrips - as I said we can vote out MPs. We cannot vote out bishops nor can politicians appoint or remove them
I find it abhorrent that we have bishops in our legislature that feel they can vote in a discriminatory way because they have a faith that believes in discrimination. would you think it right we have reserved seats for racists in our legislature? We have reserved seats for people whos whole life is based on following a bigoted religion - look at the vote on gay marriage. Remember this was not going to be forcing churches to accept gay marriage - only civil gay marriage. church of Scotland actually performs gay marriage in its churches as do IIRC quakers and Methodists.
If I had my way the house of Lords would include representatives from a variety of professions and occupations, all across society. Religions included, but also scientists health professionals, teachers and many more
This all sounds good to me!
Maybe you are still taking pish ?Is there a way to make this more obvious to you?yes the christian leaders have a christian ethos-its supremely moronic to ask this and then require proof of this.
Uh.. let me try and put it another way.
It is possible for people to differentiate between the personal and the public.
For example, you might be a religious person yourself, but you might not be in favour of religious involvement in schools or government. Or, maybe you like driving fast cars, but be in favour of their taxation on environmental grounds, for the greater good. You could be pro choice but not want an abortion for yourself.
So whilst the Bishops might be Christian themselves, some of them might not vote along Christian lines because they realise that we are a fairly secular society, and are acting for the benefit of society as a whole. Or they might not.
Do you see what I mean?
find it abhorrent that we have bishops in our legislature that feel they can vote in a discriminatory way because they have a faith that believes in discrimination.
Or maybe that's just their opinion anyway? Are you going to ban everyone who votes in any other way you disagree with?
I feel you do not get my point. I also feel you never will.
Molgrips - I understand your point. If people want to elect a religious figure then thats fine - its a choice freely entered into.
I think Tories are wrong and cause great harm. But if people want to elect them then thats the price of a democracy
the bishops in the house of lords act in a discriminatory way and cannot be removed. That is wrong. If an MP behaves in a discriminatory way they can be removed by their party, by parliament or by their consitituents. No one can remove the bishops.
The bishops hold these discriminatory views because of their faith.
It is possible for people to differentiate between the personal and the public.
it is not for bishops - thats the point. they must vote with their religious faith to be true to themselves and to their faith. Yes it is possible ( but very rarely seen - I can think of no examples) for someone to hold a religious faith but vote against that faith. Nick Clegg was unable to do so the best he could do was vote with his faith in early votes and abstain on final votes . Widdicombe was unable to do so. Blair on gay rights?
got any examples of this.
I would , will and have defended the rights of people to hold their faith and to be accommodated. I will never accept them using their faith to deny me my rights.
So whilst the Bishops might be Christian themselves, some of them might not vote along Christian lines because they realise that we are a fairly secular society, and are acting for the benefit of society as a whole. Or they might not.
Do you see what I mean?
I see what you mean, but I think you're being optimistic at best. For many religious people, religion trumps everything - that's kind of it's raison d'etre - and I'd hazard that most bishops aren't your "go to church for weddings, funerals and Christmas" brand of pseudo-Christians that the UK seems to specialise in. I'm happy to be proved wrong but I can't readily see any bishops voting for / against something which is in direct conflict with their faith.
Of course, you'd hope that "Christian values" would fall broadly in line with what's good for our society generally, so day to day it should be a non-issue. However, then we get thorny issues like same-sex marriage and the wheels come off.
it is not for bishops – thats the point. they must vote with their religious faith to be true to themselves and to their faith.
Hmm. I'd be interested in learning more about this concept - if a religious person is compelled in this way. I can't imagine our resident theologist is still reading though!
I see what you mean, but I think you’re being optimistic at best.
No I'm being hypothetical. The Bishops may well be ignorant conservative old farts for all I know. No idea.
For many religious people, religion trumps everything – that’s kind of it’s raison d’etre
Hmmmmmmmm... Well there are plenty of instances in history of societies respecting each others' faiths whilst they differ - having different rules for different faiths. If what you say is true, then this would not be possible would it? Those rulers who ruled those societies did in fact act one way privately and another publicly.
Religion is part of our history but it shouldn’t be part of our future. You wouldn’t you want an insane, stupid or ignorant person debating law would you?
poah, what you have said here is poor form on a number of levels. I strongly believe that you are free to not believe in a god or have any religious sympathies; I do not think, however, that you have any call to equate ‘religious’ with ‘insane, stupid or ignorant’. It’s not even just that it’s insulting; it’s very bad logic.
If what you say is true, then this would not be possible would it?
I didn't mean it was impossible. I meant that (in my opinion) I thought it unlikely.
Uh.. let me try and put it another way.
So whilst the Bishops might be Christian themselves, some of them might not vote along Christian lines because they realise that we are a fairly secular society, and are acting for the benefit of society as a whole. Or they might not.
Do you see what I mean?
Nope not a clue as you took ages to make a point then added or they might not. ;like you i am deeply confused on what you mean.
the notion the head of the church wont vote in accordance with the church but will vote in accordance with sinners is something so fanciful i cannot believe an educated adult wishes to discuss it.
I’m being hypothetical
Farcical more like- Yes the pope might ignore his role as the head of the church, the leader of catholics everywhere, and his personal heartfelt believe and his faith in god as ineffable, immutable and vote for free contraception and abortion because its a popular view in secular society. Is this what you are really wanting to discuss? You dont need a theologian for this great quandary
there are plenty of instances in history of societies respecting each others’ faiths whilst they differ
Only where this tolerance* is in accordance with their teaching, Name one where they did it at complete odds with their relgion teachings.
* You can pay a tax to be a non muslim for exampe - but its in the Koran and the Hadith jizya
I do not think, however, that you have any call to equate ‘religious’ with ‘insane, stupid or ignorant’. It’s not even just that it’s insulting; it’s very bad logic.
ignorant - just don't know
stupid - can't understand
insane - in a state of mind which prevents normal perception, behaviour or social interaction
while 2000 years or more ago we didn't know any better we do now. If you believe in a god(s) you fall into one of those categories with the likelihood of it being ignorance.
the notion the head of the church wont vote in accordance with the church but will vote in accordance with sinners is something so fanciful i cannot believe an educated adult wishes to discuss it.
You trying to belittle me?
It's like Poah's a plant, operating on behalf of the religious.
However, then we get thorny issues like same-sex marriage and the wheels come off.
Again this assumes that there is only one viewpoint within the CofE which is clearly wrong, whilst there is almost unanimity among Bishops, the House of Clergy voted against the status quo last year and there was only a small majority in the House of Laity for it.
Much of the concern at the time of the debate was how the government had "solved" the CofE's problems and the consequent risk of a successful legal challenge to the CofE's wish not to be obliged to marry same sex couples . The issue arises as the CofE is the established church, Church Law is entwined with the laws of the country, for instance, all changes in Church Law have to be approved by the Houses of Parliament. Likewise all senior CofE appointments are made by the Queen on advice from the Prime Minister