You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
Again Molgrips I suggest if you want to learn something, you should read the link I posted. A typical quote being
The Bishops are interesting because—like the Crossbenchers—they do not take
a party whip, but also because their continued presence in the chamber is
controversial. The Bishops‘ impact, however, is limited by the fact that they are a
small group, and that like the Crossbenchers they vote relatively little, and do not
vote as a cohesive block. On most occasions there is one Bishop ‗on duty‘ in the
House (they have a formal rota) and the average turnout from the group in
government-whipped divisions is only 3.2 percent (ie, less than one person). On
only 10 occasions over this period did more than five Bishops participate in
whipped divisions, and indeed on only 66 occasions did more than two Bishops
take part. The largest turnouts were eleven votes on the balloting of grammar
schools in 2000 (when nine Bishops supported the government and two
opposed), on the Civil Partnerships Bill in 2004 (eight supporting, two opposed),
and on the Learning and Skills Bill in 2000 with respect to sex education
guidelines to replace Section 28. In the last of these cases the compromise
amendment agreed with the government was moved by a Bishop, and nine
supported this with one voting against.
I know I have stated this before, but it is entirely possible for a religious person to believe in the separation of Church and State, and still contribute positively to a broader social debate.
In this respect, I have referred in the past to the late Canadian Prime Minister, Pierre Trudeau, who:
a) brought in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
b) decriminalised homosexuality
c) decriminalised pron
d) declared "The State has no business in the bedrooms of the Nation"
He did these things because he was a genuine liberal and believed in human freedom, as well as the unassailable dignity of the individual.
After he died in 2000, it became known that he was a devout Roman Catholic, who spent many years visiting a friend of his who was a monk, and taking counsel on political ideas he was wrestling with at various different times.
At no point did he suspend his faith in order to legislate. He simply saw the Church and State as two separate categories. This is not remotely odd, and has not been since at least the Reformation.
Having said that, even if a religious leader puts forward his/her opinion on a matter in the context of public discourse and that opinion was based directly on his/her religious understanding, should s/he not be allowed to state it? I agree 100% that the idea should not be afforded [I]more[/I] weight than other ideas, but should we suppress it entirely? And what if, like Trudeau, s/he is religious, but is deliberately making a case quite separate to his/her faith?
Eradicating the religious voice from the public square is a slippery slope. Affording it more of a platform than other voices would definitely be inappropriate, but shutting it out smacks of a sort of neo-totalitarianism.
we are discussing Bishops and archbishops not politicians with convictions. I do not believe anyone is saying people cannot state their religious<span style="font-size: 0.8rem;"> beliefs what we are objecting to is them being given a direct say in the democratic process simply by virtue of being high ranking within that faith. Can an equal number of atheists get such a position to counter them ?TBH I dont care what anyone religious says, thinks or believes as long as it does not affect me. Clearly active lords fail this test as they influence legislation and therefore my life. To have this say that no other minority gets is as unfair to others of faith as it is to those who have none.</span>
mefty - according to that link from the curch times 14 turned out to vote against gay marriage - 9 voting against, 5 abstaining.
What right do they have to sit in our legislature when they vote and act in a discriminatory way?
It is completely bogus to state that they might have been forced to offer gay marriage in their churches. There was no chance of that. It was purely civil ceremonies that the bill was talking about
the real reason as I am sure you realise is that the african churches in the anglian communion are mainly very strongly predjudiced against homosexuals and the bishops do not want to antagonise them.
Saxonrider - I have no problem with religious voices being heard. It is abhorrent to me that they have power no matter how small in our legislature. this is compounded when they actively seek to discriminate against people. Anglican churches do get more say than any other religious group and those of no religion.
I know I have stated this before, but it is entirely possible for a religious person to believe in the separation of Church and State
he was voted in, the bishops in the house of lords have 26 seats just because they are bishops in the church of England. Think of it another way, up until recently you had 26 seats in the house of lords reserved for white men.
Again Molgrips I suggest if you want to learn something, you should read the link I posted. A typical quote being
Mefty I don't think anyone objects to people in public office having religious beliefs, that would be foolish to try and legislate for. Speaking personally I don't have a particular issue if someone is a member of the house of lords and a bishop or arch bishop. What I and others do object to is a member of the house of lords because they are a bishop or arch bishop. To think anyone in such a position will do other than vote along with their particular religious doctrine is foolish at best.