Allocate the 26 seats in the lords to ministers of different institutions that people look to for moral guidance in accordance with their membership: there should be bishops in the Lords, but there should also be imams, humanists and a rabbi.
I know we don’t have a separation of church and state but the idea of religion being involved at all in politics is abhorrent to me. Sure, maybe they could have some kind of group that is consulted by members when it comes to deciding on legislation but the idea of them having direct voting powers in what should be an entirely secular house seems very wrong.
The Lords should represent all views, including religious ones. Creating a secular society isn’t done by getting rid of bishops from parliament, because religious MPs and Lords will still be there. Secular society is only created when those in power agree not to let religious belief of one group restrict the behaviour of another.
But with that, there is nothing wrong with having bishops and imams in parliament. They bring an important perspective on ethical matters. I don’t agree with the position of the church on assisted dying, but many people do, and having that perspective reflected is good, even if I would rather it didn’t win out.
I still disagree that this requires a special privilige within a house. The people of the house can be of whatever religion. If we were to go down a road where the house was made up of people where we needed a particular makeup to represent different views then sure, like if we had to have a guaranteed population of gender, LGBT+, race and other protected characteristics but to just say religion needs special representation makes no sense.
Err, ok? Separating religion from politics is hardly a new concept though? I’m not saying religious wishes or groups should be ignored, I’m saying they shouldn’t have a special and separate right to everyone else to be present in a lawmaking house.
Do the bishops next
Allocate the 26 seats in the lords to ministers of different institutions that people look to for moral guidance in accordance with their membership: there should be bishops in the Lords, but there should also be imams, humanists and a rabbi.
I know we don’t have a separation of church and state but the idea of religion being involved at all in politics is abhorrent to me. Sure, maybe they could have some kind of group that is consulted by members when it comes to deciding on legislation but the idea of them having direct voting powers in what should be an entirely secular house seems very wrong.
The Lords should represent all views, including religious ones. Creating a secular society isn’t done by getting rid of bishops from parliament, because religious MPs and Lords will still be there. Secular society is only created when those in power agree not to let religious belief of one group restrict the behaviour of another.
But with that, there is nothing wrong with having bishops and imams in parliament. They bring an important perspective on ethical matters. I don’t agree with the position of the church on assisted dying, but many people do, and having that perspective reflected is good, even if I would rather it didn’t win out.
I still disagree that this requires a special privilige within a house. The people of the house can be of whatever religion. If we were to go down a road where the house was made up of people where we needed a particular makeup to represent different views then sure, like if we had to have a guaranteed population of gender, LGBT+, race and other protected characteristics but to just say religion needs special representation makes no sense.
There is more people in the count other than you.
Err, ok? Separating religion from politics is hardly a new concept though? I’m not saying religious wishes or groups should be ignored, I’m saying they shouldn’t have a special and separate right to everyone else to be present in a lawmaking house.