Post Christian

BoroMart said:
Lets be honest though, christianity has also been used by the conservative right, by fascism, by religious persecutors, by royal oppression and a whole host of other negative and damaging uses.
Click to expand...
Its a blunt instrument, like all religion, to hit people with.
A psychological baton, similar to the ones used by the police.
Thatcher state.jpeg
 
Lefty said:
That is the trick. Political Parties when it comes to appointing the politicians, but when it comes to medical experts then the BMA, to represent workers, the TUC, etc etc.
Click to expand...
That's just a recipe for political infiltration and politicalisation of those bodies, unfortunately
 
r00fie1 said:
Hello BoroMart.
I personally believe religion to be a psycho / social crutch and an inhibitor of "free" thought.
The Church is an organ which is embedded in the State apparatus and a theological cudgel which perpetuates inequality and support for the status quo.
An example is Bishops blessing soldiers who were sent to certain death in the First World War, and commemorating the bravery and "sacrifice" of bodies returning [draped in Union Flags] from Iraq and Afghanistan.
I am not a Christian or an anything. I dont need a label or a dusty book which tells me right from wrong and whats "normal" and what is not.(y)
Click to expand...
I absolutely align with that (y)
 
BoroMart said:
That's just a recipe for political infiltration and politicalisation of those bodies, unfortunately
Click to expand...

Perhaps. Which ever system a country has, it's people find a way to manipulate it eventually.

On the other hand, direct representation might counteract the lobby system and having people in the system that are trusted more than 'lying' politicians is not a bad thing, surely.

What we are currently seeing is a HOL that has been working better than the HOC and performing it's role of scrutinising legislation, debating it maturely and holding the government to account on behalf of the people and a government response to that of appointing more peers specifically to achieve specific policy aims or, even worse, as a reward for voting a certain way on a key issue, rather than for their broad experience. For instance, the Speaker was not appointed to the Lords, but a whole load of Brexiters were. This is the opposite of a check on power, it means those in power are grabbing more.
 
Lefty said:
If you don’t appoint people, you are left with democracy only, which means two things.

1. You think the short termism of HOC democracy is working to deliver good legislation now. It’s not.

2. There are people appointed to the HOL now who bring some real expertise to an issue. Do you think it wise to lose say Melvyn Braggs input on the arts and broadcasting, or Robert Winston’s on biology, or Hesletine’s on politics?

Ideology is all well and good, but it shouldn’t be at the expense of what works.
Click to expand...
There is no need to appoint 'experts' as our literal overlords to gain access to their expertise.
 
JackG said:
There is no need to appoint 'experts' as our literal overlords to gain access to their expertise.
Click to expand...

Can you expand?

Do you think experts add no value to a debate on legislation proposed by a House of Commons full of career politicians?
 
Lefty said:
Can you expand?

Do you think experts add no value to a debate on legislation proposed by a House of Commons full of career politicians?
Click to expand...
No - I think experts can add plenty of value. I don't think it's necessary to appoint them as unelected legislators, however. They can advise, a la SAGE. They can appear before select committees, join advisory bodies etc. I see no reason why I should be ruled over by Melvyn Bragg.
 
JackG said:
No - I think experts can add plenty of value. I don't think it's necessary to appoint them as unelected legislators, however. They can advise, a la SAGE. They can appear before select committees, join advisory bodies etc. I see no reason why I should be ruled over by Melvyn Bragg.
Click to expand...

Do you think the Lords does a decent job at the moment of revising bad legislation?
 
JackG said:
No - I think experts can add plenty of value. I don't think it's necessary to appoint them as unelected legislators, however. They can advise, a la SAGE. They can appear before select committees, join advisory bodies etc. I see no reason why I should be ruled over by Melvyn Bragg.
Click to expand...
True the CEOs of a company aren't experts in all the tools and processes of that company. They are experts at strategy definition, governance (direct, evaluate and validate). It should be the same with government.
 
Wilf said:
"Requiesce in Pace"

so many of you who have posted on this thread about your views on religion and your own self declared non- religious status - on an almost daily basis type up this phrase. (R.I.P.)

i take it that its a genuine heartfelt comment.

i have absolutely no problem what-so-ever with those who have little or no faith, but dont you think your not being totally honest with yourself? - it cant be ignorance, cos as you explain, its all well understood and thought out what your true thoughts and feelings are on the matter.



my thought on the 2021 census is that it will be one of the most misleading census' on record.
Click to expand...
No I’m being totally honest with myself. I believe their is no need, in this day and age, to be live in sky fairies and random omniscient beings. It seems silly
 
SmallTown said:
No I’m being totally honest with myself. I believe their is no need, in this day and age, to be live in sky fairies and random omniscient beings. It seems silly
Click to expand...
Are the Holymen, who state belief in an omnipotent entity, being a tad dishonest in asking us to take time to reflect on our losses during Covid 19 whilst not mentioning who ( according to their belief) is behind it all???? ( i.e the omnipotent one)
 
Wilf said:
"Requiesce in Pace"

so many of you who have posted on this thread about your views on religion and your own self declared non- religious status - on an almost daily basis type up this phrase. (R.I.P.)

i take it that its a genuine heartfelt comment.
Click to expand...
This is the same argument as "you atheists shouldn't have christmas presents". Sorry it's bunk. RIP is simply a sentiment used to express grief, sorrow, loss and sympathy in modern society. It isn't an expression of an afterlife, theism, or other witchcraftery and I'll eat my christmas dinner because it's an opportunity to spend time with my family and give gifts to them, to let my kids feel special, not in deference to the birth of a jewish intergalactic zombie, who probably wasn't a real person and certainly wasn't a celestial being. Cheers
 
Osboro said:
Are the Holymen, who state belief in an omnipotent entity, being a tad dishonest in asking us to take time to reflect on our losses during Covid 19 whilst not mentioning who ( according to their belief) is behind it all???? ( i.e the omnipotent one)
Click to expand...
covid is clearly gods ploy to take our mind away from his evil policy of childhood cancers
 
Lefty said:
2. There are people appointed to the HOL now who bring some real expertise to an issue. Do you think it wise to lose say Melvyn Braggs input on the arts and broadcasting, or Robert Winston’s on biology, or Hesletine’s on politics?
Click to expand...
Appointment just doesn't work, it's the same old white families that gain control of the House of Lords, cronyism, corruption and elitism...
IMG_3611.JPG
 
BoroMart said:
Appointment just doesn't work, it's the same old white families that gain control of the House of Lords, cronyism, corruption and elitism...
View attachment 15912
Click to expand...

If the nation has a conversation and we decide, as a nation, that the Lords should have 500 members. Of these 500, 250 are elected under a different system than the HOC and for a longer term, so less susceptible to the whims and whip of the government of the day, less prone to populist agenda's and more likely to make decisions for the long term good of the country rather than short term political benefit to themselves.

The remaining 250 are appointed, but not, for the most part, by the government of the day.

As a nation, we decide that every sector of society is represented in the HOL, so doctors, lawyers, politicians, civil servants, farmers, athletes, bishops, imams, scientists, bankers, housewives, trade unions, hauliers, fishermen, broadcasters, journalists, publishers, authors etc.

The country might decide it is fair to have 1 rabbi, 2 imams, 4 Anglican Bishops and 2 Catholic Bishops. The government don't appoint the Bishops, the Church do. The government don't appoint the scientists, the Royal Society does. Teachers appointed by teachers, farmers by farmers.

What you get are people who are a broad, representative cross section of society who can speak in debates from a perspective with authority on some legislation. It is also always useful to have experts on Select committee's.
 
How many train-spotters, nudists or wind-surfers would you choose? Would you suggest about the same as imams and bishops seems fair to me and the mouse who lives in orbit in a teapot and talks to me everyday.
What about the unemployed, criminals, drug users , mastrubaters and jigsaw puzzle solvers??
Seriously, Other than the theologians, medieval autocrats and fairy tale spinners I agree with your basic idea.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top