|
| Welcome to NoE Version 2. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. << Furthermore, adverts like these are removed as you sign up! Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| The Lords Spiritual and the role of religion in the state | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Jul 20 2010, 09:28 AM (211 Views) | |
| DMHowe | Jul 20 2010, 09:28 AM Post #1 |
|
Do not try and eat the cake, only try and realise the truth.
|
So amongst many people I know there's a disdain for the idea that religious leaders or movements should be given a voice in the running of governments. With the seperation of church and state (though, granted in this country we haven't actually made said seperation), should come a movement to lower the religious voice in the debates over legislation and moral issues. So, anyone's stance on this? The Lords Spiritual is a good example of what some would call a "fly in the face" of progressive intellectualism, with 26 Bishops given seats in the lords and therefore able to change the way a bill may go, using a basis some would feel is not wholly logical. |
 |
 
|
| Cieran | Jul 20 2010, 11:18 AM Post #2 |
Celebrate with cake!
|
I'm not sure on this one. I mean, sure the 26 bishops are given seats in the Lords, but it's hardly like everyone else is elected and therefore a beacon of democracy :p . Many people in the nation DO draw their morals from religion, and I think in ethical debates it's important to hear the side of the majority church in the country, as the principal authority on matters of religion. But then there's no reason why they have to have positions to do it, that's why we have committees and stuff... |
|
|
|
| DMHowe | Jul 20 2010, 03:11 PM Post #3 |
|
Do not try and eat the cake, only try and realise the truth.
|
I personally, as possibly mentioned elsewhere, advocate a third way in dealing with the upper chamber - being that it isn't elected, but various elements that pay a key role in people's lives are given a number of seats. Trade union heads, religious leaders, scientists and so forth. So in this case, I would personally argue for all "major" religions (I guess you could base this on census data) to be given spiritual seats, as it were. Whilst many feel we're a secular state, I'm lead to believe it's found people still identify themselves as Christians, for the mostpart. |
|
|
|
| Dino Dan the Dinosaur Man | Jul 20 2010, 03:23 PM Post #4 |
What is a man?
|
It's a biased and unfair judgment I admit, but I can't help feeling that religion should be completely removed from the running of the state, purely because I can't get my head around why people actually believe what their religion teaches. It seems like nonsense to me, so I don't see why it should affect people's lives who aren't religious. Having said that, I'm not so clued up about politics - does the fact that the Lords has priests in its membership actually make a significant difference to the outcome of bills? Also, anyone in these positions will surely push their own political and social beliefs anyway, so would we just be replacing one agenda with another? Its should probably be decided by people more knowledgeable than myself. Edited by Dino Dan the Dinosaur Man, Jul 20 2010, 03:27 PM.
|
|
|
|
| picollo no. | Jul 20 2010, 03:29 PM Post #5 |
Screw the rules I'm Yuri Lowell
|
Well I'm not sure about religion and state and that is not the angry atheist picollo of old talking either. I don't have a problem with religious people in the government and parliament having a voice as that is fair enough and many religious leaders do have a lot of wisdom and knowledge which shouldn't be ignored and this is a benefit of the House of Lords. However I don't think any religion should have a majority hold of the state as that could put minorities at a real disadvantage. Obviously I'm not saying religious people shouldn't be let near the legislative power but decisions should be made from as neutral a point of view as possible. @Dan The Lords don't really have much power in terms of forcing a bill through they are really just there to check it and give it the ok and if they find something funny they can send it away and tell the government to think again about it. The fact priests have seats in the Lords is more to do with their expertise in their field which they can use to enlighten debate and help provide a more rounded view which is why there are also businessmen, artist etc. Edited by picollo no., Jul 20 2010, 03:34 PM.
|
|
|
|
| DMHowe | Jul 20 2010, 07:49 PM Post #6 |
|
Do not try and eat the cake, only try and realise the truth.
|
The Lords Spiritual rarely vote on legislation, but just add to debate, for anyone who wants dem de factos. Anyway, my mind blowing stance on why whether we agree with a God or not (and how anyone as cool as me takes this stance), is irrelevent is this. We, as a society, hold Christian values. Monogamy, for example. We can justify it from an atheistic perspective if we want, but that doesn't change that from an atheistic perspective, polygamy has no reason to not exist either. At least, there isn't an argument I have heard of thus far. As such, the idea that religion "has no voice" in the ruling of state seems somewhat like poppycock to me. It does by default thanks to the values of our society. As such, there is no way of taking religion out of the equation when it comes to decisions made. Especially when it still is enough of a value to people's lives.
Much as I respect your stance, I offer a thought to you. I don't think the big bang theory is very plausible. That is to say, there was nothing, an explosion occured and from whence came everything. Furthermore, if there is only a certain amount of matter in the universe, then how can it expand without more matter being created? Unless said big bang is not done exploding and more matter is to be thrown outwards yet. I lost myself there. But the point is that scientists are aware they don't have the answer to everything. To an extent, we even have to use faith to believe in science. We base what we find on our own perceptions of reality. Mathematics, for all it has proven, may very well be flawed in a way we cannot know. On the basis, can we really rule out a "God" as an answer quite yet, when for all we know a God created the world to be as it is, with all the physics, chemistry and biology and such alike? The intelligent design argument plays with this - how can there be a world this complex by chance? But then again, I'm an ignosticist, so I don't even know what I'm referring to with "God" ;) |
|
|
|
| Dino Dan the Dinosaur Man | Jul 20 2010, 08:33 PM Post #7 |
|
What is a man?
|
Oh, I wasn't quite clear when I said that. I can indeed see that the universe is complex, that we don't understand how it came about, and that the Big Bang isn't a perfect theory. Thus, I do not rule out the idea of a conscious influence having created the universe. What I meant when I said I can't get my head around why they believe what their religion teaches was more the values. If the universe was created by a being (I'll call it 'Z' because of the connotations of the name 'God'), that being is cleary beyond human comprehension (and indeed this is admitted by the religions). Why then do people baselessly (as far as I see it) jump to ideas like Z being all-powerful, all-seeing, all-knowledgeabe, all-loving, etc? It's an even more ridiculous jump to start saying that Z wants people to worship it, hates gay people, considers certain things sins, etc, and will even judge your life when it ends, when we have no idea why it created the universe in the first place - it may not even have planned what life may develop and we are still an accident. The idea of life-after-death is also prominent in most religions I know of, and that idea seems a completely seperate concept to the idea of a creator. Why do they come packaged together? Have religions just taken a simple idea of creation and added in false hope, threat of 'Hell' for a bad life, and eternal life as a reward for leading an appropriate life in order to create a machine to control people? I don't see how we can comprehend what, if anything, this being Z wants from tiny individuals on an insignificant rock in this massive universe. And therefore I absolutely don't understand how people can push such standards on society. Edited by Dino Dan the Dinosaur Man, Jul 20 2010, 08:34 PM.
|
|
|
|
| picollo no. | Jul 20 2010, 10:16 PM Post #8 |
|
Screw the rules I'm Yuri Lowell
|
Don't forget Dan that we also often tend to anthropmorphise 'Z' in effect make someone who transcends everything else in the universe merely a 'super human' ^_^ But at the end of the day whether we agree or believe what others believe or not (that is what tolerance is about) religion plays a huge part and there are some genuinely intelligent religious people out there who should be able to share their intelligence with us and if they are suitable for helping to run the state then they should. Not just because they are religious but because they represent a community within our society and have an understanding we do not. |
|
|
|
| Tiptup | Aug 6 2010, 11:11 AM Post #9 |
Funk.
|
Wasn't it like 70% of people claimed they were Christian on the last census? Maybe not as much as 70 (it may have been 70% religious), but it was high. So I guess these people are being represented. I mean I'm not really religious, but one way you can look at it is that these Bishops actions should be grounded in christian morals, which is a good thing. They may be less likely to be corrupt, if they really do follow these ideals (which they probably do if they're bishops, or they've wasted their lives and they know it). Law in this country is based on christian morals, and at least the Anglican church is good for not being completely ridiculous and illogical. Its 26 peers, its not exactly the estates system of pre-revolutionary France, is it. Thank God. I mean thank society. |
|
|
|
| picollo no. | Aug 6 2010, 07:27 PM Post #10 |
|
Screw the rules I'm Yuri Lowell
|
Whilst I see where you're coming from Tippy I'm not sure Bishop= not corrupt necessarily follows ;) |
|
|
|
| Tiptup | Aug 7 2010, 08:53 AM Post #11 |
|
Funk.
|
Hah yeah true. I was only going on the basis that in theory they shouldn't be, but of course in practice they sometimes are. It takes like decades to become a Bishop so by then they're either obsessed with their job and good at it, or so pissed off they decided to be ordained in the first place that they'll misuse their power to make up for the lost years :/ |
|
|
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
 |
|
| « Previous Topic · News + Opinions · Next Topic » |