The other half of the idea is something like functional consituencies, which is used in Hong Kong. Related to corpativism too.

Not sure anyone has ever seriously looked at putting the two things together, tried to work out what the consequences would be in practise.

MatBG – ‘religious bodies’ – oh – I suppose the Jedi group will have to be included then – ( check out the Census 2001 for how many Jedis were registered – 0.7 per cent of the population of England and Wales – not bad results for that exercise eh?

So that is really where the hoo ha about who represents which religious group will really froth over. as sunny says, who’s gonna get a piece of the pie..

The Church of England has given itself legitimacy as as a religious institution a good many centuries ago ( and it wasn’t exactly easy then – the Roman Catholic Church wasn’t very pleased about the competition for social legitimacy was it?) so i daresay they’ve sorted out who counts as ‘religious authority’. But what about the Muslims? the MCB will say they should have a spot and then it will be interesting to see what happens. the whole communal leaders business will be in focus.

can’t wait.

Who knows what terrible abyss it would lead to when the new political elites learn how to work the system and appeal to some low common denominator. But hey, worth a try I reckon.

It is a brilliant idea. Your post at 60 cuts through so much. Let the Bishops fight it out with PETA, let PETA fight it out with the BNP. Oops, the BNP are a political party, allegedly.

So count them out.

I’d rather like to see the NGN versus the MCB.

El Cid: “Don, that’ll be coz the New Testament is almost 2 millennia old and we’ve moved on,”

No, it’ll be because St Paul was a fundamentalist who looked down on anyone who didn’t devote their life to the (then thought to be) imminent Second Coming. He was a bigot, pure and simple — a misogynist, too, as it happens.

And there’s no need for us to bait and tease Amir just cos we happen to disagree with him, innit ;o)

i think that’s great. although there would be times that the news bunny, jordan and russell brand would end up in the lords and then i think we’d need to be sure we could winkle them out again.

b’shalom

bananabrain

So someone could could vote, for the Lords:

IJV + Stop the War Coalition + Greenpeace + British Homeopathic Assocation + Liberty + Insitute for Strategic Studies + Lib Dems (4 votes)

Someone else might vote:

World Wildlife Fund + British Medical Assocation + Liberty + ISS + Unison + Labour(5).

That way, you would certainly get bishops and rabbis and imans in the Lords, but only in proportion to the degree people felt they reflected their identity.

If the House of Lords is to be ‘representative’ but non-democratic, whose to say what communities are to be represented? There are pressure groups for just about everything under the sun. And I am a paid up member to the idea that religious groups, in the public sphere at least, are no more valid than, say PETA or the Countryside Alliance.

If a groups support waxes or wanes, do their numbers get adjusted? If that had been the case the Lords Spiritual would be down to about half a Lord these days.

There is a need for a second chamber, I’m just not at all clear how you fill it.

I am clear that religion should have no privileged place in politics, ’cause contrary to the almost incessant deluge of posts about this being a Christian Country it most certainly is not. It would be anathema to move towards more God botherers, of whatever persuasion, when we should be looking towards a secular state which can hold the jackets.

Justforfun

Religion everywhere its seems.

El Cid – with you on the public schools – bastards rang me up the other day asking for money for a new indoor ski slope or some such facility. What cheek! I said I had other charities I gave my money to that were alittle bit more deserving. Happens every year , they never seem to have enough. I read the education thread from back in January – I wish I had commented.

William – you’ve spotted the elephant in the room! Climate change is a side show and cyclical – compared to global reasources being used up which is one way energy reaction – untill we have fusion and mini controllable suns and can make what ever element we want. This link is a worth listening to – it simple maths really.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2376190597731898896

I remember writing a post grad thesis on Consumerism in 87 – hoping that the west would cut down its use of reasources and use its asset bank of wealth and knowledge, but primarily its greatest economic asset, political stability – so as to provide a new cultural and economic model that could shown to work for the future where we will have 7-10 billion inhabitants on this world. This had to be done while in the time lag between the developement cycles of the first and third worlds existed – say 30 years- long enough for us e to change without tomuch pain and for, for the following 3rd world populations to use as an example.

Instead in the last 20 years the West has just put it foot to the floor as far as conspicious consumption and asset aggregating goes. We the people have allowed our greatest economic asset, which is our political stability, to be abused, exploited and liquidated into hard cash by the financial institutions. All other assets have already been exploited, pensions being the last one. The rest of the world has just gone religious and prays that the God will sort it all out. I suppose global collapse is one Act of God.

Can one become a Marxist as one gets older?

The alternative I’m afraid is rather ugly. It involves alot of brutal use of the military industrial complex to maintain stability for pockets of the world. The rest will just be forgotten.

Justforfun

Lords Militant: ex-generals
Lords Financial: 20 seats sold on the open market
Law Lords: ex-judges
Lords of Chaos: ex-convicts
Drug Lords: doctors
Lords of the Ether: bloggers
Lords Diversant: ethnic groups

Who wants more boring policians when you could have gay rights legislation reviewed by a Sex Lord?

I see you’re point but again if you don’t want generalisations laid at your feet it’d help your cause if you don’t hand out the same…

Don’t get me wrong. I like public-school educated people, in general. They are witty, funny, well-rounded and a pleasure to be with. But… don’t start messing with our kids’ education. We’re tryin to stay within the public sector under trying circumstances.

The idea that legitimising gay unions somehow threatens straight marriage is very tired and, as Ravi succinctly showed, based on a ludicrous perception of human relationships.

Does my prefence for a single malt undermine someone else’s for a cognac?

Now I’m not saying that you’re homophobic. But it looks like rationalisation of a visceral feeling to me. Sure you’re not a latent homophobe?

The problem isn’t the catholic church in itself, it is rather that the other religions (the new ones like Muslims, Hindus and Sikhs) want to jump on the bandwagon. Hence Anil Bhanot’s preference to keep the order as it is because it may end up suiting some Hindu priests who will want representation.

I think it’s important to that the state remains religion neutral – so it can treat them equally, so it can stop funding any religious activity, and so it can say no when any of the religious groups want to discriminate. Why should religious groups get special representation at any rate? They have to make a case for it surely.

But this is exactly what the sexual revolutionaries want to do with their campaigns for “Gay Equality” which actually undermine marriage and the family.

Amir what the hell are you blabbering about? the simple point is that the government should not enact any policy that discriminates on the basis of race/sex/religion/orientation, or values any higher than the other on the same basis.

This is about legislation. I don’t care what your personal preferences are with regards to sodomy. A government has to be equal to all citizens. That should be the basis of any civilised society. The only way that is achievable in my view is by divesting from religious groups. I havn’t heard good arguments against this yet.

The overruling of the Catholic Church over gay adoption was a big watershed I believe.

So the Archbishop of Canterbury will decide when the state becomes secular. Bonkers.

Agreed.

MatGB I like your idea too, although I’m what if the 1/3rd religious representation want to enact discriminatory legislation?

ElCid However, if you want to extend that to church schools, then you might find the big clunking fist of family culture and parental ambition knocking you out of the ring.

Well, yes. Church schools do pose a problem. But I’d rather move towards secularism than the other way.