I regard the Bishops as less of an embarrassment than many of those other appointees to the Lords. But I've said it before and I'll say it again. The bigger problem for the Monarchy going forward is not that it's an anachronism in a democracy but the religious doctrine underpinning it. The coronation of Charles III was borderline farcical. Anyway if we're discussing arcane institutions that need to go I'd start with:
1) The City of London Corporation 2) The City of London Police - what possible reason do they need their own police force - are they doing lots of counter fraud/money laundering work we don't hear about? 3) Faith schools
Removing the religious element of monarchical ceremony strikes me as a mistake, despite being an atheist monarchist. Most ceremonies, even in republics, are inherently a bit silly, but they have to take themselves relatively seriously, and the religious element gave it all an air of stuffy, old fashioned faux-grandure, and we lack the kind of non-cynical civic passion to replace it with almost as silly but modern ceremony.
The coronation of Chaz was an embarrassment. Boring and irrelevant to all but the most obsessive royal fanciers.
An embarrassment to the sort of person who thinks “history is bunk”, and anything published more than a decade ago requires a trigger warning.
I thought the service itself was not bad at all.
I think what needs to be scaled back a little is the often, overblown and anachronistic military pageantry at either side of Royal events, not necessarily the events themselves.
It’s modern crowns that I find a bit absurd. Medieval hollow crowns and circlets are a lot more elegant.
Yes, things you cannot even more about in are for portraits only.
I won't man the barricades to defend this but there's a better argument for bishops to be in the House of Lords than hereditary peers. Arguably it's part of the role, which you sign up for, and are assessed for, along with the other stuff when you apply for the job.
Personally, I think the House of Lords needs more religious figures, not fewer. But we also need to go beyond the Church of England. There are plenty of Catholics in the UK, shouldn't they get someone? Ditto Jews and Muslims. And - obviously - there need to be representatives from both the agnostic and atheistic communities. Fwiw, I suspect there aren't enough satanists to justify a spot.
Arthur Pendragon has stood for parliament several times, he could be made a Peer as a nod to some of the neo-druidic groups, if they apparently did not fight like cats in a sack.
I won't man the barricades to defend this but there's a better argument for bishops to be in the House of Lords than hereditary peers. Arguably it's part of the role, which you sign up for, and are assessed for, along with the other stuff when you apply for the job.
Far more than 2% go to C of E services at Christmas or Easter or weddings, baptisms and funerals in the C of E's churches as well.
The Roman Catholic church normally requires those who get married in its churches to regularly attend its services and be baptised Catholic, if disestablished the C of E would similarly end automatic right of parishioners to marry or get buried in its churches. They would often have to show evidence of regular service attendance and baptism first. More well funded and well attended C of E evangelical churches in particular would block automatic marriages and baptisms and funerals in their churches as they have less need of the income they get from them and would restrict them only to those who are regular members of their congregations and their immediate family
Never grasped why anyone would want to marry in a church unless they were religious in any case. The idea is faintly absurd. And hotels are more fun.
Plenty still think of themselves as Christian even if not regular church attenders and being married in a beautiful medieval or 17th century local parish church by right is rather more attractive than being married in some 2 star hotel off the A1. Plus rather cheaper than having to fork out the huge fees 5* hotels require for wedding ceremonies
Our daughter 1998 and son 2020 were both married in St Trillos Parish Church in Rhos on Sea, which my late father, mother and sister worshipped at and are buried in the graveyard
Neither my daughter or son were worshippers there
HYUFD is committing the Roger fallacy of comparing the best thing from one set with the worst from another. I've been to dozens of weddings bith religious and secular, and its certainly not the case that one is obviously nice than the other. Personally, we went secular; I don't believe, and don't enjoy the insincerity of going through the motions in front of a God I don't believe in, nor public singing while sober. But if my wife had been religious I would have happily acceded. And there is something lovely, as Big G alludes, to marrying somewhere, and in the same way, that generations and generations before have done. There's not many occasions in your life when you get to carry on a tradition, and I can think of few more appropriate reasons to do so.
*Happy sigh* My wedding day was the best day of my life by a country mile.
My two were too. But will be surpassed by the Harris landslide.
Personally, I think the House of Lords needs more religious figures, not fewer. But we also need to go beyond the Church of England. There are plenty of Catholics in the UK, shouldn't they get someone? Ditto Jews and Muslims. And - obviously - there need to be representatives from both the agnostic and atheistic communities. Fwiw, I suspect there aren't enough satanists to justify a spot.
Arthur Pendragon has stood for parliament several times, he could be made a Peer as a nod to some of the neo-druidic groups, if they apparently did not fight like cats in a sack.
Druids, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Catholics, Orthodox Christians, and Proteatants should arguably all be represented.
I won't man the barricades to defend this but there's a better argument for bishops to be in the House of Lords than hereditary peers. Arguably it's part of the role, which you sign up for, and are assessed for, along with the other stuff when you apply for the job.
Yes they're kind of there on merit by comparison.
Many would argue they are there on merit, for earning enough money to buy a peerage.
Thesedays they probably just buy an expensive watch and leave it at that, but a few still want the title I suppose, niche market.
I regard the Bishops as less of an embarrassment than many of those other appointees to the Lords. But I've said it before and I'll say it again. The bigger problem for the Monarchy going forward is not that it's an anachronism in a democracy but the religious doctrine underpinning it. The coronation of Charles III was borderline farcical. Anyway if we're discussing arcane institutions that need to go I'd start with:
1) The City of London Corporation 2) The City of London Police - what possible reason do they need their own police force - are they doing lots of counter fraud/money laundering work we don't hear about? 3) Faith schools
Removing the religious element of monarchical ceremony strikes me as a mistake, despite being an atheist monarchist. Most ceremonies, even in republics, are inherently a bit silly, but they have to take themselves relatively seriously, and the religious element gave it all an air of stuffy, old fashioned faux-grandure, and we lack the kind of non-cynical civic passion to replace it with almost as silly but modern ceremony.
The coronation of Chaz was an embarrassment. Boring and irrelevant to all but the most obsessive royal fanciers.
An embarrassment to the sort of person who thinks “history is bunk”, and anything published more than a decade ago requires a trigger warning.
If you want history you can read it. But the King isn't there as some kind of historic relic, he is supposed to have a role. At the inauguration of a US President he swears an oath of office to defend the constitution. What was Charles doing? Something about his personal relationship with God. Who cares? I wanted to know that he would defend our laws and sovereign parliament from any Prime minister hellbent on being another Cromwell. Not least after the prorogation shambles.
Personally, I think the House of Lords needs more religious figures, not fewer. But we also need to go beyond the Church of England. There are plenty of Catholics in the UK, shouldn't they get someone? Ditto Jews and Muslims. And - obviously - there need to be representatives from both the agnostic and atheistic communities. Fwiw, I suspect there aren't enough satanists to justify a spot.
Personally, I think the House of Lords needs more religious figures, not fewer. But we also need to go beyond the Church of England. There are plenty of Catholics in the UK, shouldn't they get someone? Ditto Jews and Muslims. And - obviously - there need to be representatives from both the agnostic and atheistic communities. Fwiw, I suspect there aren't enough satanists to justify a spot.
Arthur Pendragon has stood for parliament several times, he could be made a Peer as a nod to some of the neo-druidic groups, if they apparently did not fight like cats in a sack.
Druids, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Catholics, Orthodox Christians, and Proteatants should arguably all be represented.
Some faiths lend themselves to being formally represented more easily of course. For others someone prominent of that faith might be chosen (for a number of reasons besides position in a hierarchy), which might be taken as that representation.
Indarjit Singh for example took part in the coronation, I guess potentially as a prominent Sikh in the Lords? I don't know how Sikhism is organised, but apparently he's active in various interfaith activities, but was that the reason for his elevation? No idea.
Far more than 2% go to C of E services at Christmas or Easter or weddings, baptisms and funerals in the C of E's churches as well.
The Roman Catholic church normally requires those who get married in its churches to regularly attend its services and be baptised Catholic, if disestablished the C of E would similarly end automatic right of parishioners to marry or get buried in its churches. They would often have to show evidence of regular service attendance and baptism first. More well funded and well attended C of E evangelical churches in particular would block automatic marriages and baptisms and funerals in their churches as they have less need of the income they get from them and would restrict them only to those who are regular members of their congregations and their immediate family
Never grasped why anyone would want to marry in a church unless they were religious in any case. The idea is faintly absurd. And hotels are more fun.
Plenty still think of themselves as Christian even if not regular church attenders and being married in a beautiful medieval or 17th century local parish church by right is rather more attractive than being married in some 2 star hotel off the A1. Plus rather cheaper than having to fork out the huge fees 5* hotels require for wedding ceremonies
Our daughter 1998 and son 2020 were both married in St Trillos Parish Church in Rhos on Sea, which my late father, mother and sister worshipped at and are buried in the graveyard
Neither my daughter or son were worshippers there
If it had been a conservative evangelical Anglican Welsh church rather than a liberal Catholic one they would have been refused marriage there
Far more than 2% go to C of E services at Christmas or Easter or weddings, baptisms and funerals in the C of E's churches as well.
The Roman Catholic church normally requires those who get married in its churches to regularly attend its services and be baptised Catholic, if disestablished the C of E would similarly end automatic right of parishioners to marry or get buried in its churches. They would often have to show evidence of regular service attendance and baptism first. More well funded and well attended C of E evangelical churches in particular would block automatic marriages and baptisms and funerals in their churches as they have less need of the income they get from them and would restrict them only to those who are regular members of their congregations and their immediate family
Never grasped why anyone would want to marry in a church unless they were religious in any case. The idea is faintly absurd. And hotels are more fun.
Plenty still think of themselves as Christian even if not regular church attenders and being married in a beautiful medieval or 17th century local parish church by right is rather more attractive than being married in some 2 star hotel off the A1. Plus rather cheaper than having to fork out the huge fees 5* hotels require for wedding ceremonies
Our daughter 1998 and son 2020 were both married in St Trillos Parish Church in Rhos on Sea, which my late father, mother and sister worshipped at and are buried in the graveyard
Neither my daughter or son were worshippers there
If it had been a conservative evangelical Anglican Welsh church rather than a liberal Catholic one they would have been refused marriage there
It is an Anglican Church in Wales so what is your point ?
I regard the Bishops as less of an embarrassment than many of those other appointees to the Lords. But I've said it before and I'll say it again. The bigger problem for the Monarchy going forward is not that it's an anachronism in a democracy but the religious doctrine underpinning it. The coronation of Charles III was borderline farcical. Anyway if we're discussing arcane institutions that need to go I'd start with:
1) The City of London Corporation 2) The City of London Police - what possible reason do they need their own police force - are they doing lots of counter fraud/money laundering work we don't hear about? 3) Faith schools
Removing the religious element of monarchical ceremony strikes me as a mistake, despite being an atheist monarchist. Most ceremonies, even in republics, are inherently a bit silly, but they have to take themselves relatively seriously, and the religious element gave it all an air of stuffy, old fashioned faux-grandure, and we lack the kind of non-cynical civic passion to replace it with almost as silly but modern ceremony.
The coronation of Chaz was an embarrassment. Boring and irrelevant to all but the most obsessive royal fanciers.
An embarrassment to the sort of person who thinks “history is bunk”, and anything published more than a decade ago requires a trigger warning.
If you want history you can read it. But the King isn't there as some kind of historic relic, he is supposed to have a role. At the inauguration of a US President he swears an oath of office to defend the constitution. What was Charles doing? Something about his personal relationship with God. Who cares? I wanted to know that he would defend our laws and sovereign parliament from any Prime minister hellbent on being another Cromwell. Not least after the prorogation shambles.
I want him to deliver a powerful advert for the British tourist industry and a boost to the fortunes of BBC America.
The monarchy is like Harry Potter and Game of Thrones. It’s something we’re good at.
Personally, I think the House of Lords needs more religious figures, not fewer. But we also need to go beyond the Church of England. There are plenty of Catholics in the UK, shouldn't they get someone? Ditto Jews and Muslims. And - obviously - there need to be representatives from both the agnostic and atheistic communities. Fwiw, I suspect there aren't enough satanists to justify a spot.
But maybe enough Jedis?
Or, Sith?
For the nth time, there are only two Sith. One is the leader of the Conservative Party, and the other is Sir Jacob Rees Mogg. 😃
Personally, I think the House of Lords needs more religious figures, not fewer. But we also need to go beyond the Church of England. There are plenty of Catholics in the UK, shouldn't they get someone? Ditto Jews and Muslims. And - obviously - there need to be representatives from both the agnostic and atheistic communities. Fwiw, I suspect there aren't enough satanists to justify a spot.
Arthur Pendragon has stood for parliament several times, he could be made a Peer as a nod to some of the neo-druidic groups, if they apparently did not fight like cats in a sack.
Druids, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Catholics, Orthodox Christians, and Proteatants should arguably all be represented.
Proteatants arguably sounds like some sort of religious ant-eater, but the problems with posting from a mobile with no edit function continue.
The modern Church of England is generally quite herbivorous and moderate, compared to previous eras.
Far more than 2% go to C of E services at Christmas or Easter or weddings, baptisms and funerals in the C of E's churches as well.
The Roman Catholic church normally requires those who get married in its churches to regularly attend its services and be baptised Catholic, if disestablished the C of E would similarly end automatic right of parishioners to marry or get buried in its churches. They would often have to show evidence of regular service attendance and baptism first. More well funded and well attended C of E evangelical churches in particular would block automatic marriages and baptisms and funerals in their churches as they have less need of the income they get from them and would restrict them only to those who are regular members of their congregations and their immediate family
My sister wasn’t, and still isn’t, a Roman Catholic, but her late husband was and he insisted they married in an RC church, much to our father’s disgust.
He was much happier when we got into the reception and the drinking.
In 1880s Netherlands apparently Catholics and Protestants couldn't be buried in the same graveyard. Photo of husband and wife clasping hands across the dividing wall
Far more than 2% go to C of E services at Christmas or Easter or weddings, baptisms and funerals in the C of E's churches as well.
The Roman Catholic church normally requires those who get married in its churches to regularly attend its services and be baptised Catholic, if disestablished the C of E would similarly end automatic right of parishioners to marry or get buried in its churches. They would often have to show evidence of regular service attendance and baptism first. More well funded and well attended C of E evangelical churches in particular would block automatic marriages and baptisms and funerals in their churches as they have less need of the income they get from them and would restrict them only to those who are regular members of their congregations and their immediate family
My sister wasn’t, and still isn’t, a Roman Catholic, but her late husband was and he insisted they married in an RC church, much to our father’s disgust.
He was much happier when we got into the reception and the drinking.
In 1880s Netherlands apparently Catholics and Protestants couldn't be buried in the same graveyard. Photo of husband and wife clasping hands across the dividing wall
Far more than 2% go to C of E services at Christmas or Easter or weddings, baptisms and funerals in the C of E's churches as well.
The Roman Catholic church normally requires those who get married in its churches to regularly attend its services and be baptised Catholic, if disestablished the C of E would similarly end automatic right of parishioners to marry or get buried in its churches. They would often have to show evidence of regular service attendance and baptism first. More well funded and well attended C of E evangelical churches in particular would block automatic marriages and baptisms and funerals in their churches as they have less need of the income they get from them and would restrict them only to those who are regular members of their congregations and their immediate family
Never grasped why anyone would want to marry in a church unless they were religious in any case. The idea is faintly absurd. And hotels are more fun.
Plenty still think of themselves as Christian even if not regular church attenders and being married in a beautiful medieval or 17th century local parish church by right is rather more attractive than being married in some 2 star hotel off the A1. Plus rather cheaper than having to fork out the huge fees 5* hotels require for wedding ceremonies
Our daughter 1998 and son 2020 were both married in St Trillos Parish Church in Rhos on Sea, which my late father, mother and sister worshipped at and are buried in the graveyard
Neither my daughter or son were worshippers there
If it had been a conservative evangelical Anglican Welsh church rather than a liberal Catholic one they would have been refused marriage there
Far more than 2% go to C of E services at Christmas or Easter or weddings, baptisms and funerals in the C of E's churches as well.
The Roman Catholic church normally requires those who get married in its churches to regularly attend its services and be baptised Catholic, if disestablished the C of E would similarly end automatic right of parishioners to marry or get buried in its churches. They would often have to show evidence of regular service attendance and baptism first. More well funded and well attended C of E evangelical churches in particular would block automatic marriages and baptisms and funerals in their churches as they have less need of the income they get from them and would restrict them only to those who are regular members of their congregations and their immediate family
Never grasped why anyone would want to marry in a church unless they were religious in any case. The idea is faintly absurd. And hotels are more fun.
Plenty still think of themselves as Christian even if not regular church attenders and being married in a beautiful medieval or 17th century local parish church by right is rather more attractive than being married in some 2 star hotel off the A1. Plus rather cheaper than having to fork out the huge fees 5* hotels require for wedding ceremonies
Our daughter 1998 and son 2020 were both married in St Trillos Parish Church in Rhos on Sea, which my late father, mother and sister worshipped at and are buried in the graveyard
Neither my daughter or son were worshippers there
If it had been a conservative evangelical Anglican Welsh church rather than a liberal Catholic one they would have been refused marriage there
It is an Anglican Church in Wales so what is your point ?
It was not a conservative evangelical church, they only marry non conservative evangelicals in English C of E churches as they have to as it is the established church
I regard the Bishops as less of an embarrassment than many of those other appointees to the Lords. But I've said it before and I'll say it again. The bigger problem for the Monarchy going forward is not that it's an anachronism in a democracy but the religious doctrine underpinning it. The coronation of Charles III was borderline farcical. Anyway if we're discussing arcane institutions that need to go I'd start with:
1) The City of London Corporation 2) The City of London Police - what possible reason do they need their own police force - are they doing lots of counter fraud/money laundering work we don't hear about? 3) Faith schools
Removing the religious element of monarchical ceremony strikes me as a mistake, despite being an atheist monarchist. Most ceremonies, even in republics, are inherently a bit silly, but they have to take themselves relatively seriously, and the religious element gave it all an air of stuffy, old fashioned faux-grandure, and we lack the kind of non-cynical civic passion to replace it with almost as silly but modern ceremony.
The coronation of Chaz was an embarrassment. Boring and irrelevant to all but the most obsessive royal fanciers.
An embarrassment to the sort of person who thinks “history is bunk”, and anything published more than a decade ago requires a trigger warning.
If you want history you can read it. But the King isn't there as some kind of historic relic, he is supposed to have a role. At the inauguration of a US President he swears an oath of office to defend the constitution. What was Charles doing? Something about his personal relationship with God. Who cares? I wanted to know that he would defend our laws and sovereign parliament from any Prime minister hellbent on being another Cromwell. Not least after the prorogation shambles.
I want him to deliver a powerful advert for the British tourist industry and a boost to the fortunes of BBC America.
The monarchy is like Harry Potter and Game of Thrones. It’s something we’re good at.
What, milked beyond all reason until it becomes a parody of itself? (ducks 🤣)
Far more than 2% go to C of E services at Christmas or Easter or weddings, baptisms and funerals in the C of E's churches as well.
The Roman Catholic church normally requires those who get married in its churches to regularly attend its services and be baptised Catholic, if disestablished the C of E would similarly end automatic right of parishioners to marry or get buried in its churches. They would often have to show evidence of regular service attendance and baptism first. More well funded and well attended C of E evangelical churches in particular would block automatic marriages and baptisms and funerals in their churches as they have less need of the income they get from them and would restrict them only to those who are regular members of their congregations and their immediate family
Never grasped why anyone would want to marry in a church unless they were religious in any case. The idea is faintly absurd. And hotels are more fun.
Plenty still think of themselves as Christian even if not regular church attenders and being married in a beautiful medieval or 17th century local parish church by right is rather more attractive than being married in some 2 star hotel off the A1. Plus rather cheaper than having to fork out the huge fees 5* hotels require for wedding ceremonies
Our daughter 1998 and son 2020 were both married in St Trillos Parish Church in Rhos on Sea, which my late father, mother and sister worshipped at and are buried in the graveyard
Neither my daughter or son were worshippers there
If it had been a conservative evangelical Anglican Welsh church rather than a liberal Catholic one they would have been refused marriage there
Far more than 2% go to C of E services at Christmas or Easter or weddings, baptisms and funerals in the C of E's churches as well.
The Roman Catholic church normally requires those who get married in its churches to regularly attend its services and be baptised Catholic, if disestablished the C of E would similarly end automatic right of parishioners to marry or get buried in its churches. They would often have to show evidence of regular service attendance and baptism first. More well funded and well attended C of E evangelical churches in particular would block automatic marriages and baptisms and funerals in their churches as they have less need of the income they get from them and would restrict them only to those who are regular members of their congregations and their immediate family
Never grasped why anyone would want to marry in a church unless they were religious in any case. The idea is faintly absurd. And hotels are more fun.
Plenty still think of themselves as Christian even if not regular church attenders and being married in a beautiful medieval or 17th century local parish church by right is rather more attractive than being married in some 2 star hotel off the A1. Plus rather cheaper than having to fork out the huge fees 5* hotels require for wedding ceremonies
Our daughter 1998 and son 2020 were both married in St Trillos Parish Church in Rhos on Sea, which my late father, mother and sister worshipped at and are buried in the graveyard
Neither my daughter or son were worshippers there
If it had been a conservative evangelical Anglican Welsh church rather than a liberal Catholic one they would have been refused marriage there
It is an Anglican Church in Wales so what is your point ?
It was not a conservative evangelical church, they only marry non conservative evangelicals in English C of E churches as they have to as it is the established church
Far more than 2% go to C of E services at Christmas or Easter or weddings, baptisms and funerals in the C of E's churches as well.
The Roman Catholic church normally requires those who get married in its churches to regularly attend its services and be baptised Catholic, if disestablished the C of E would similarly end automatic right of parishioners to marry or get buried in its churches. They would often have to show evidence of regular service attendance and baptism first. More well funded and well attended C of E evangelical churches in particular would block automatic marriages and baptisms and funerals in their churches as they have less need of the income they get from them and would restrict them only to those who are regular members of their congregations and their immediate family
My sister wasn’t, and still isn’t, a Roman Catholic, but her late husband was and he insisted they married in an RC church, much to our father’s disgust.
He was much happier when we got into the reception and the drinking.
In 1880s Netherlands apparently Catholics and Protestants couldn't be buried in the same graveyard. Photo of husband and wife clasping hands across the dividing wall
Disestablishment is a three sided triangle. The church has bishops in the HoL, the King is the head of the church, and the PM appoints archbishops. Either all three should stop at the same time, or all three should continue until we're ready to stop all three.
Pedant alert!! are their any non 3 sided triangles?
I regard the Bishops as less of an embarrassment than many of those other appointees to the Lords. But I've said it before and I'll say it again. The bigger problem for the Monarchy going forward is not that it's an anachronism in a democracy but the religious doctrine underpinning it. The coronation of Charles III was borderline farcical. Anyway if we're discussing arcane institutions that need to go I'd start with:
1) The City of London Corporation 2) The City of London Police - what possible reason do they need their own police force - are they doing lots of counter fraud/money laundering work we don't hear about? 3) Faith schools
Removing the religious element of monarchical ceremony strikes me as a mistake, despite being an atheist monarchist. Most ceremonies, even in republics, are inherently a bit silly, but they have to take themselves relatively seriously, and the religious element gave it all an air of stuffy, old fashioned faux-grandure, and we lack the kind of non-cynical civic passion to replace it with almost as silly but modern ceremony.
The coronation of Chaz was an embarrassment. Boring and irrelevant to all but the most obsessive royal fanciers.
An embarrassment to the sort of person who thinks “history is bunk”, and anything published more than a decade ago requires a trigger warning.
If you want history you can read it. But the King isn't there as some kind of historic relic, he is supposed to have a role. At the inauguration of a US President he swears an oath of office to defend the constitution. What was Charles doing? Something about his personal relationship with God. Who cares? I wanted to know that he would defend our laws and sovereign parliament from any Prime minister hellbent on being another Cromwell. Not least after the prorogation shambles.
I want him to deliver a powerful advert for the British tourist industry and a boost to the fortunes of BBC America.
The monarchy is like Harry Potter and Game of Thrones. It’s something we’re good at.
What, milked beyond all reason until it becomes a parody of itself? (ducks 🤣)
Personally, I think the House of Lords needs more religious figures, not fewer. But we also need to go beyond the Church of England. There are plenty of Catholics in the UK, shouldn't they get someone? Ditto Jews and Muslims. And - obviously - there need to be representatives from both the agnostic and atheistic communities. Fwiw, I suspect there aren't enough satanists to justify a spot.
I suspect there are more than a few Satanists in parliament already and PM Starmer is an atheist.
However yes I agree other faith leaders should be represented, the Vatican forbids RC Cardinals from being in the Lords though as it undermines Papal authority hence Cardinal Nichols had to decline a peerage as did Cardinal Murphy O'Connor. They still believe the Roman Catholic church should be English national church again, of course before the Reformation the Bishops in the Lords were all Roman Catholic and joined by Abbotts from Monasteries Henry VIII dissolved
I regard the Bishops as less of an embarrassment than many of those other appointees to the Lords. But I've said it before and I'll say it again. The bigger problem for the Monarchy going forward is not that it's an anachronism in a democracy but the religious doctrine underpinning it. The coronation of Charles III was borderline farcical. Anyway if we're discussing arcane institutions that need to go I'd start with:
1) The City of London Corporation 2) The City of London Police - what possible reason do they need their own police force - are they doing lots of counter fraud/money laundering work we don't hear about? 3) Faith schools
Removing the religious element of monarchical ceremony strikes me as a mistake, despite being an atheist monarchist. Most ceremonies, even in republics, are inherently a bit silly, but they have to take themselves relatively seriously, and the religious element gave it all an air of stuffy, old fashioned faux-grandure, and we lack the kind of non-cynical civic passion to replace it with almost as silly but modern ceremony.
The coronation of Chaz was an embarrassment. Boring and irrelevant to all but the most obsessive royal fanciers.
An embarrassment to the sort of person who thinks “history is bunk”, and anything published more than a decade ago requires a trigger warning.
If you want history you can read it. But the King isn't there as some kind of historic relic, he is supposed to have a role. At the inauguration of a US President he swears an oath of office to defend the constitution. What was Charles doing? Something about his personal relationship with God. Who cares? I wanted to know that he would defend our laws and sovereign parliament from any Prime minister hellbent on being another Cromwell. Not least after the prorogation shambles.
The SC did that but we have an unwritten constitution based on crown in parliament so there is nothing to defend beyond the King signing whatever laws Parliament approves
Far more than 2% go to C of E services at Christmas or Easter or weddings, baptisms and funerals in the C of E's churches as well.
The Roman Catholic church normally requires those who get married in its churches to regularly attend its services and be baptised Catholic, if disestablished the C of E would similarly end automatic right of parishioners to marry or get buried in its churches. They would often have to show evidence of regular service attendance and baptism first. More well funded and well attended C of E evangelical churches in particular would block automatic marriages and baptisms and funerals in their churches as they have less need of the income they get from them and would restrict them only to those who are regular members of their congregations and their immediate family
My sister wasn’t, and still isn’t, a Roman Catholic, but her late husband was and he insisted they married in an RC church, much to our father’s disgust.
He was much happier when we got into the reception and the drinking.
In 1880s Netherlands apparently Catholics and Protestants couldn't be buried in the same graveyard. Photo of husband and wife clasping hands across the dividing wall
Far more than 2% go to C of E services at Christmas or Easter or weddings, baptisms and funerals in the C of E's churches as well.
The Roman Catholic church normally requires those who get married in its churches to regularly attend its services and be baptised Catholic, if disestablished the C of E would similarly end automatic right of parishioners to marry or get buried in its churches. They would often have to show evidence of regular service attendance and baptism first. More well funded and well attended C of E evangelical churches in particular would block automatic marriages and baptisms and funerals in their churches as they have less need of the income they get from them and would restrict them only to those who are regular members of their congregations and their immediate family
Never grasped why anyone would want to marry in a church unless they were religious in any case. The idea is faintly absurd. And hotels are more fun.
Plenty still think of themselves as Christian even if not regular church attenders and being married in a beautiful medieval or 17th century local parish church by right is rather more attractive than being married in some 2 star hotel off the A1. Plus rather cheaper than having to fork out the huge fees 5* hotels require for wedding ceremonies
Our daughter 1998 and son 2020 were both married in St Trillos Parish Church in Rhos on Sea, which my late father, mother and sister worshipped at and are buried in the graveyard
Neither my daughter or son were worshippers there
If it had been a conservative evangelical Anglican Welsh church rather than a liberal Catholic one they would have been refused marriage there
Far more than 2% go to C of E services at Christmas or Easter or weddings, baptisms and funerals in the C of E's churches as well.
The Roman Catholic church normally requires those who get married in its churches to regularly attend its services and be baptised Catholic, if disestablished the C of E would similarly end automatic right of parishioners to marry or get buried in its churches. They would often have to show evidence of regular service attendance and baptism first. More well funded and well attended C of E evangelical churches in particular would block automatic marriages and baptisms and funerals in their churches as they have less need of the income they get from them and would restrict them only to those who are regular members of their congregations and their immediate family
Never grasped why anyone would want to marry in a church unless they were religious in any case. The idea is faintly absurd. And hotels are more fun.
Plenty still think of themselves as Christian even if not regular church attenders and being married in a beautiful medieval or 17th century local parish church by right is rather more attractive than being married in some 2 star hotel off the A1. Plus rather cheaper than having to fork out the huge fees 5* hotels require for wedding ceremonies
Our daughter 1998 and son 2020 were both married in St Trillos Parish Church in Rhos on Sea, which my late father, mother and sister worshipped at and are buried in the graveyard
Neither my daughter or son were worshippers there
If it had been a conservative evangelical Anglican Welsh church rather than a liberal Catholic one they would have been refused marriage there
It is an Anglican Church in Wales so what is your point ?
It was not a conservative evangelical church, they only marry non conservative evangelicals in English C of E churches as they have to as it is the established church
Thank goodness then
Christ did not preach intolerance
Maybe a lesson for you there
The established church is open to anyone, non established evangelical churches however are often 'everyone else burns!'
Far more than 2% go to C of E services at Christmas or Easter or weddings, baptisms and funerals in the C of E's churches as well.
The Roman Catholic church normally requires those who get married in its churches to regularly attend its services and be baptised Catholic, if disestablished the C of E would similarly end automatic right of parishioners to marry or get buried in its churches. They would often have to show evidence of regular service attendance and baptism first. More well funded and well attended C of E evangelical churches in particular would block automatic marriages and baptisms and funerals in their churches as they have less need of the income they get from them and would restrict them only to those who are regular members of their congregations and their immediate family
My sister wasn’t, and still isn’t, a Roman Catholic, but her late husband was and he insisted they married in an RC church, much to our father’s disgust.
He was much happier when we got into the reception and the drinking.
In 1880s Netherlands apparently Catholics and Protestants couldn't be buried in the same graveyard. Photo of husband and wife clasping hands across the dividing wall
Far more than 2% go to C of E services at Christmas or Easter or weddings, baptisms and funerals in the C of E's churches as well.
The Roman Catholic church normally requires those who get married in its churches to regularly attend its services and be baptised Catholic, if disestablished the C of E would similarly end automatic right of parishioners to marry or get buried in its churches. They would often have to show evidence of regular service attendance and baptism first. More well funded and well attended C of E evangelical churches in particular would block automatic marriages and baptisms and funerals in their churches as they have less need of the income they get from them and would restrict them only to those who are regular members of their congregations and their immediate family
My sister wasn’t, and still isn’t, a Roman Catholic, but her late husband was and he insisted they married in an RC church, much to our father’s disgust.
He was much happier when we got into the reception and the drinking.
In 1880s Netherlands apparently Catholics and Protestants couldn't be buried in the same graveyard. Photo of husband and wife clasping hands across the dividing wall
Surprised they were permitted to be married in that case.
Totally not an expert but a Google search tells me all marriages in the Netherlands were required to be civil ceremonies from 1795. You could also have a church ceremony but that had no legal status.
Personally, I think the House of Lords needs more religious figures, not fewer. But we also need to go beyond the Church of England. There are plenty of Catholics in the UK, shouldn't they get someone? Ditto Jews and Muslims. And - obviously - there need to be representatives from both the agnostic and atheistic communities. Fwiw, I suspect there aren't enough satanists to justify a spot.
I suspect there are more than a few Satanists in parliament already and PM Starmer is an atheist.
However yes I agree other faith leaders should be represented, the Vatican forbids RC Cardinals from being in the Lords though as it undermines Papal authority hence Cardinal Nichols had to decline a peerage as did Cardinal Murphy O'Connor. They still believe the Roman Catholic church should be English national church again, of course before the Reformation the Bishops in the Lords were all Roman Catholic and joined by Abbotts from Monasteries Henry VIII dissolved
Plenty of political and business leaders (and even some bishops), are disciples of the Lord of the Flies.
Personally, I think the House of Lords needs more religious figures, not fewer. But we also need to go beyond the Church of England. There are plenty of Catholics in the UK, shouldn't they get someone? Ditto Jews and Muslims. And - obviously - there need to be representatives from both the agnostic and atheistic communities. Fwiw, I suspect there aren't enough satanists to justify a spot.
I suspect there are more than a few Satanists in parliament already and PM Starmer is an atheist.
However yes I agree other faith leaders should be represented, the Vatican forbids RC Cardinals from being in the Lords though as it undermines Papal authority hence Cardinal Nichols had to decline a peerage as did Cardinal Murphy O'Connor. They still believe the Roman Catholic church should be English national church again, of course before the Reformation the Bishops in the Lords were all Roman Catholic and joined by Abbotts from Monasteries Henry VIII dissolved
Plenty of political and business leaders (and even some bishops), are disciples of the Lord of the Flies.
Definitely not George Osborne and Lord Mandelson amongst their number I am sure
Personally, I think the House of Lords needs more religious figures, not fewer. But we also need to go beyond the Church of England. There are plenty of Catholics in the UK, shouldn't they get someone? Ditto Jews and Muslims. And - obviously - there need to be representatives from both the agnostic and atheistic communities. Fwiw, I suspect there aren't enough satanists to justify a spot.
I suspect there are more than a few Satanists in parliament already and PM Starmer is an atheist.
However yes I agree other faith leaders should be represented, the Vatican forbids RC Cardinals from being in the Lords though as it undermines Papal authority hence Cardinal Nichols had to decline a peerage as did Cardinal Murphy O'Connor. They still believe the Roman Catholic church should be English national church again, of course before the Reformation the Bishops in the Lords were all Roman Catholic and joined by Abbotts from Monasteries Henry VIII dissolved
Plenty of political and business leaders (and even some bishops), are disciples of the Lord of the Flies.
And some of them should be more disciplined with their flies.
Personally, I think the House of Lords needs more religious figures, not fewer. But we also need to go beyond the Church of England. There are plenty of Catholics in the UK, shouldn't they get someone? Ditto Jews and Muslims. And - obviously - there need to be representatives from both the agnostic and atheistic communities. Fwiw, I suspect there aren't enough satanists to justify a spot.
I suspect there are more than a few Satanists in parliament already and PM Starmer is an atheist.
However yes I agree other faith leaders should be represented, the Vatican forbids RC Cardinals from being in the Lords though as it undermines Papal authority hence Cardinal Nichols had to decline a peerage as did Cardinal Murphy O'Connor. They still believe the Roman Catholic church should be English national church again, of course before the Reformation the Bishops in the Lords were all Roman Catholic and joined by Abbotts from Monasteries Henry VIII dissolved
There was also Orthodox England, before that, too, ofcourse.
There's some funny grouo of monks, somewhere in East Anglia as I recall it, acting as if England was still an Orthodox country. One of the first Archbishops of Cantetbury was actually a Greek, Theodore of Tarsus.
Personally, I think the House of Lords needs more religious figures, not fewer. But we also need to go beyond the Church of England. There are plenty of Catholics in the UK, shouldn't they get someone? Ditto Jews and Muslims. And - obviously - there need to be representatives from both the agnostic and atheistic communities. Fwiw, I suspect there aren't enough satanists to justify a spot.
I suspect there are more than a few Satanists in parliament already and PM Starmer is an atheist.
However yes I agree other faith leaders should be represented, the Vatican forbids RC Cardinals from being in the Lords though as it undermines Papal authority hence Cardinal Nichols had to decline a peerage as did Cardinal Murphy O'Connor. They still believe the Roman Catholic church should be English national church again, of course before the Reformation the Bishops in the Lords were all Roman Catholic and joined by Abbotts from Monasteries Henry VIII dissolved
There was also Orthodox England, before that, too, ofcourse.
There's some funny grouo of monks, somewhere in East Anglia as I recall it, acting as if England was still an Orthodox country. One of the first Archbishops of Cantetbury was actually a Greek, Theodore of Tarsus.
All hereditaries must go - there is simply no excuse for it - but I'm out of whack in that I do not want to see an elected upper chamber. We have more than enough voting as it is. Voting is essential to democracy but it is not the same as democracy. You need some voting (obviously) but it's facile and mistaken to assume that the more voting there is the more democratic a society you have.
I support an appointed upper chamber. Routes into it to be many and varied and designed such as to get a good micro facsimile of the population as a whole. Young, old, male, female, arts, crafts, scientists, business, tech, finance, white collar, blue collar, all in there if they are willing and sufficiently able. Part time only, modestly remunerated, serve one fixed term of two years then replaced with somebody else. No parties (political or otherwise).
We could have a randomly selected 'House of People' to go with the elected 'House of Politicians'.
Didn't the Greeks try that?
I seem to remember it was a load of balls.
Wasn't it black and white pebbles for the Romans and broken potsherds for the Greeks ?
Psephology is from the Greek psephos, 'pebble', because the Greeks used pebble to vote.
A pedant notes that using one pebble to vote is not very democratic.
Vetanari always believed in 1 man 1 vote. He was the man and he had the vote.
Personally, I think the House of Lords needs more religious figures, not fewer. But we also need to go beyond the Church of England. There are plenty of Catholics in the UK, shouldn't they get someone? Ditto Jews and Muslims. And - obviously - there need to be representatives from both the agnostic and atheistic communities. Fwiw, I suspect there aren't enough satanists to justify a spot.
The only problem with that is that the CoE is famously liberal, almost comically so, and most of the other religions/denoninations are far less so, so you'd probably be increasing the level of old-style conservatism in the HoL.
Far more than 2% go to C of E services at Christmas or Easter or weddings, baptisms and funerals in the C of E's churches as well.
The Roman Catholic church normally requires those who get married in its churches to regularly attend its services and be baptised Catholic, if disestablished the C of E would similarly end automatic right of parishioners to marry or get buried in its churches. They would often have to show evidence of regular service attendance and baptism first. More well funded and well attended C of E evangelical churches in particular would block automatic marriages and baptisms and funerals in their churches as they have less need of the income they get from them and would restrict them only to those who are regular members of their congregations and their immediate family
Never grasped why anyone would want to marry in a church unless they were religious in any case. The idea is faintly absurd. And hotels are more fun.
Plenty still think of themselves as Christian even if not regular church attenders and being married in a beautiful medieval or 17th century local parish church by right is rather more attractive than being married in some 2 star hotel off the A1. Plus rather cheaper than having to fork out the huge fees 5* hotels require for wedding ceremonies
GOD IS SINGLE! MARRIAGE IS BLASPHEMY!
Jesus is God
Rather tangential - but are you dropping the punctuation a-la Leon, or just having a lazy Friday?
Far more than 2% go to C of E services at Christmas or Easter or weddings, baptisms and funerals in the C of E's churches as well.
The Roman Catholic church normally requires those who get married in its churches to regularly attend its services and be baptised Catholic, if disestablished the C of E would similarly end automatic right of parishioners to marry or get buried in its churches. They would often have to show evidence of regular service attendance and baptism first. More well funded and well attended C of E evangelical churches in particular would block automatic marriages and baptisms and funerals in their churches as they have less need of the income they get from them and would restrict them only to those who are regular members of their congregations and their immediate family
Never grasped why anyone would want to marry in a church unless they were religious in any case. The idea is faintly absurd. And hotels are more fun.
Plenty still think of themselves as Christian even if not regular church attenders and being married in a beautiful medieval or 17th century local parish church by right is rather more attractive than being married in some 2 star hotel off the A1. Plus rather cheaper than having to fork out the huge fees 5* hotels require for wedding ceremonies
GOD IS SINGLE! MARRIAGE IS BLASPHEMY!
Jesus is God
Rather tangential - but are you dropping the punctuation a-la Leon, or just having a lazy Friday?
The Trinity - Father, Son and Holy Ghost are all as one
Personally, I think the House of Lords needs more religious figures, not fewer. But we also need to go beyond the Church of England. There are plenty of Catholics in the UK, shouldn't they get someone? Ditto Jews and Muslims. And - obviously - there need to be representatives from both the agnostic and atheistic communities. Fwiw, I suspect there aren't enough satanists to justify a spot.
I suspect there are more than a few Satanists in parliament already and PM Starmer is an atheist.
However yes I agree other faith leaders should be represented, the Vatican forbids RC Cardinals from being in the Lords though as it undermines Papal authority hence Cardinal Nichols had to decline a peerage as did Cardinal Murphy O'Connor. They still believe the Roman Catholic church should be English national church again, of course before the Reformation the Bishops in the Lords were all Roman Catholic and joined by Abbotts from Monasteries Henry VIII dissolved
Plenty of political and business leaders (and even some bishops), are disciples of the Lord of the Flies.
All hereditaries must go - there is simply no excuse for it - but I'm out of whack in that I do not want to see an elected upper chamber. We have more than enough voting as it is. Voting is essential to democracy but it is not the same as democracy. You need some voting (obviously) but it's facile and mistaken to assume that the more voting there is the more democratic a society you have.
I support an appointed upper chamber. Routes into it to be many and varied and designed such as to get a good micro facsimile of the population as a whole. Young, old, male, female, arts, crafts, scientists, business, tech, finance, white collar, blue collar, all in there if they are willing and sufficiently able. Part time only, modestly remunerated, serve one fixed term of two years then replaced with somebody else. No parties (political or otherwise).
We could have a randomly selected 'House of People' to go with the elected 'House of Politicians'.
Didn't the Greeks try that?
I seem to remember it was a load of balls.
Wasn't it black and white pebbles for the Romans and broken potsherds for the Greeks ?
Psephology is from the Greek psephos, 'pebble', because the Greeks used pebble to vote.
A pedant notes that using one pebble to vote is not very democratic.
Vetanari always believed in 1 man 1 vote. He was the man and he had the vote.
Very sensible.
People would think of plotting against him, but realised he governed so effectively that, what was the point?
Far more than 2% go to C of E services at Christmas or Easter or weddings, baptisms and funerals in the C of E's churches as well.
The Roman Catholic church normally requires those who get married in its churches to regularly attend its services and be baptised Catholic, if disestablished the C of E would similarly end automatic right of parishioners to marry or get buried in its churches. They would often have to show evidence of regular service attendance and baptism first. More well funded and well attended C of E evangelical churches in particular would block automatic marriages and baptisms and funerals in their churches as they have less need of the income they get from them and would restrict them only to those who are regular members of their congregations and their immediate family
My sister wasn’t, and still isn’t, a Roman Catholic, but her late husband was and he insisted they married in an RC church, much to our father’s disgust.
He was much happier when we got into the reception and the drinking.
In 1880s Netherlands apparently Catholics and Protestants couldn't be buried in the same graveyard. Photo of husband and wife clasping hands across the dividing wall
This thread has got both illuminating anf weird. I don't think I knew anyone, save for my very unobtrusively Christian Scientist grandmother, who sincerely BELIEVED until I was in my 20s. I knew people who believed there was 'something' - but out and out Christianity, rather than just a crappy primary school going through the motions, was utterly alien, and very strange when I encountered it.
Far more than 2% go to C of E services at Christmas or Easter or weddings, baptisms and funerals in the C of E's churches as well.
The Roman Catholic church normally requires those who get married in its churches to regularly attend its services and be baptised Catholic, if disestablished the C of E would similarly end automatic right of parishioners to marry or get buried in its churches. They would often have to show evidence of regular service attendance and baptism first. More well funded and well attended C of E evangelical churches in particular would block automatic marriages and baptisms and funerals in their churches as they have less need of the income they get from them and would restrict them only to those who are regular members of their congregations and their immediate family
My sister wasn’t, and still isn’t, a Roman Catholic, but her late husband was and he insisted they married in an RC church, much to our father’s disgust.
He was much happier when we got into the reception and the drinking.
In 1880s Netherlands apparently Catholics and Protestants couldn't be buried in the same graveyard. Photo of husband and wife clasping hands across the dividing wall
Far more than 2% go to C of E services at Christmas or Easter or weddings, baptisms and funerals in the C of E's churches as well.
The Roman Catholic church normally requires those who get married in its churches to regularly attend its services and be baptised Catholic, if disestablished the C of E would similarly end automatic right of parishioners to marry or get buried in its churches. They would often have to show evidence of regular service attendance and baptism first. More well funded and well attended C of E evangelical churches in particular would block automatic marriages and baptisms and funerals in their churches as they have less need of the income they get from them and would restrict them only to those who are regular members of their congregations and their immediate family
Never grasped why anyone would want to marry in a church unless they were religious in any case. The idea is faintly absurd. And hotels are more fun.
Plenty still think of themselves as Christian even if not regular church attenders and being married in a beautiful medieval or 17th century local parish church by right is rather more attractive than being married in some 2 star hotel off the A1. Plus rather cheaper than having to fork out the huge fees 5* hotels require for wedding ceremonies
GOD IS SINGLE! MARRIAGE IS BLASPHEMY!
Jesus is God
Rather tangential - but are you dropping the punctuation a-la Leon, or just having a lazy Friday?
The Trinity - Father, Son and Holy Ghost are all as one
I am no theologian but the problem with that is that God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son to save us.
If God and Jesus are the same person what does that mean? And why did Jesus cry out that his Lord had forsaken him on the cross?
Or sorry I didn’t know which gate to look at when they announced tonight’s flight to Geneva was diverting to Lyon. I haven’t seen a good riot in a while.
Although my flight is nearly an hour late now as well.
Far more than 2% go to C of E services at Christmas or Easter or weddings, baptisms and funerals in the C of E's churches as well.
The Roman Catholic church normally requires those who get married in its churches to regularly attend its services and be baptised Catholic, if disestablished the C of E would similarly end automatic right of parishioners to marry or get buried in its churches. They would often have to show evidence of regular service attendance and baptism first. More well funded and well attended C of E evangelical churches in particular would block automatic marriages and baptisms and funerals in their churches as they have less need of the income they get from them and would restrict them only to those who are regular members of their congregations and their immediate family
Never grasped why anyone would want to marry in a church unless they were religious in any case. The idea is faintly absurd. And hotels are more fun.
Plenty still think of themselves as Christian even if not regular church attenders and being married in a beautiful medieval or 17th century local parish church by right is rather more attractive than being married in some 2 star hotel off the A1. Plus rather cheaper than having to fork out the huge fees 5* hotels require for wedding ceremonies
GOD IS SINGLE! MARRIAGE IS BLASPHEMY!
Jesus is God
Rather tangential - but are you dropping the punctuation a-la Leon, or just having a lazy Friday?
The Trinity - Father, Son and Holy Ghost are all as one
I am no theologian but the problem with that is that God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son to save us.
If God and Jesus are the same person what does that mean? And why did Jesus cry out that his Lord had forsaken him on the cross?
Also.
If we're all God's children then what's so special about Jesus?
Don't give me that nonsense about Jesus died for our sins, yes Jesus died but he didn't stay dead did he?
Far more than 2% go to C of E services at Christmas or Easter or weddings, baptisms and funerals in the C of E's churches as well.
The Roman Catholic church normally requires those who get married in its churches to regularly attend its services and be baptised Catholic, if disestablished the C of E would similarly end automatic right of parishioners to marry or get buried in its churches. They would often have to show evidence of regular service attendance and baptism first. More well funded and well attended C of E evangelical churches in particular would block automatic marriages and baptisms and funerals in their churches as they have less need of the income they get from them and would restrict them only to those who are regular members of their congregations and their immediate family
My sister wasn’t, and still isn’t, a Roman Catholic, but her late husband was and he insisted they married in an RC church, much to our father’s disgust.
He was much happier when we got into the reception and the drinking.
In 1880s Netherlands apparently Catholics and Protestants couldn't be buried in the same graveyard. Photo of husband and wife clasping hands across the dividing wall
This thread has got both illuminating anf weird. I don't think I knew anyone, save for my very unobtrusively Christian Scientist grandmother, who sincerely BELIEVED until I was in my 20s. I knew people who believed there was 'something' - but out and out Christianity, rather than just a crappy primary school going through the motions, was utterly alien, and very strange when I encountered it.
Several members of my family are regular churchgoers who send their children to bible camp and conduct bible classes in their home. Their faith is more demonstrative than mine but it's not what I'd call unusual, at least for their generation: I don't know if their kids will maintain the tradition.
Far more than 2% go to C of E services at Christmas or Easter or weddings, baptisms and funerals in the C of E's churches as well.
The Roman Catholic church normally requires those who get married in its churches to regularly attend its services and be baptised Catholic, if disestablished the C of E would similarly end automatic right of parishioners to marry or get buried in its churches. They would often have to show evidence of regular service attendance and baptism first. More well funded and well attended C of E evangelical churches in particular would block automatic marriages and baptisms and funerals in their churches as they have less need of the income they get from them and would restrict them only to those who are regular members of their congregations and their immediate family
Never grasped why anyone would want to marry in a church unless they were religious in any case. The idea is faintly absurd. And hotels are more fun.
Plenty still think of themselves as Christian even if not regular church attenders and being married in a beautiful medieval or 17th century local parish church by right is rather more attractive than being married in some 2 star hotel off the A1. Plus rather cheaper than having to fork out the huge fees 5* hotels require for wedding ceremonies
GOD IS SINGLE! MARRIAGE IS BLASPHEMY!
Jesus is God
Rather tangential - but are you dropping the punctuation a-la Leon, or just having a lazy Friday?
The Trinity - Father, Son and Holy Ghost are all as one
I am no theologian but the problem with that is that God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son to save us.
If God and Jesus are the same person what does that mean? And why did Jesus cry out that his Lord had forsaken him on the cross?
Personally, I think the House of Lords needs more religious figures, not fewer. But we also need to go beyond the Church of England. There are plenty of Catholics in the UK, shouldn't they get someone? Ditto Jews and Muslims. And - obviously - there need to be representatives from both the agnostic and atheistic communities. Fwiw, I suspect there aren't enough satanists to justify a spot.
I suspect there are more than a few Satanists in parliament already and PM Starmer is an atheist.
However yes I agree other faith leaders should be represented, the Vatican forbids RC Cardinals from being in the Lords though as it undermines Papal authority hence Cardinal Nichols had to decline a peerage as did Cardinal Murphy O'Connor. They still believe the Roman Catholic church should be English national church again, of course before the Reformation the Bishops in the Lords were all Roman Catholic and joined by Abbotts from Monasteries Henry VIII dissolved
Plenty of political and business leaders (and even some bishops), are disciples of the Lord of the Flies.
Go on...?
You would not get to be head of a major investment bank (like David Benioff’s father), a high roller in the public or private sectors, or Archbishop of Canterbury without being in league with Satan.
Personally, I think the House of Lords needs more religious figures, not fewer. But we also need to go beyond the Church of England. There are plenty of Catholics in the UK, shouldn't they get someone? Ditto Jews and Muslims. And - obviously - there need to be representatives from both the agnostic and atheistic communities. Fwiw, I suspect there aren't enough satanists to justify a spot.
I suspect there are more than a few Satanists in parliament already and PM Starmer is an atheist.
However yes I agree other faith leaders should be represented, the Vatican forbids RC Cardinals from being in the Lords though as it undermines Papal authority hence Cardinal Nichols had to decline a peerage as did Cardinal Murphy O'Connor. They still believe the Roman Catholic church should be English national church again, of course before the Reformation the Bishops in the Lords were all Roman Catholic and joined by Abbotts from Monasteries Henry VIII dissolved
Plenty of political and business leaders (and even some bishops), are disciples of the Lord of the Flies.
Go on...?
You would not get to be head of a major investment bank (like David Benioff’s father), a high roller in the public or private sectors, or Archbishop of Canterbury without being in league with Satan.
I find it hard to believe Rowan Williams and Robert Runcie were ever in league with Satan, they were basically sandle wearing LDs
Or sorry I didn’t know which gate to look at when they announced tonight’s flight to Geneva was diverting to Lyon. I haven’t seen a good riot in a while.
Although my flight is nearly an hour late now as well.
You’re just reminding me why I have avoided both planes and airports since before Covid.
Yet another service industry that has completely lost the concept of service.
Far more than 2% go to C of E services at Christmas or Easter or weddings, baptisms and funerals in the C of E's churches as well.
The Roman Catholic church normally requires those who get married in its churches to regularly attend its services and be baptised Catholic, if disestablished the C of E would similarly end automatic right of parishioners to marry or get buried in its churches. They would often have to show evidence of regular service attendance and baptism first. More well funded and well attended C of E evangelical churches in particular would block automatic marriages and baptisms and funerals in their churches as they have less need of the income they get from them and would restrict them only to those who are regular members of their congregations and their immediate family
Never grasped why anyone would want to marry in a church unless they were religious in any case. The idea is faintly absurd. And hotels are more fun.
Plenty still think of themselves as Christian even if not regular church attenders and being married in a beautiful medieval or 17th century local parish church by right is rather more attractive than being married in some 2 star hotel off the A1. Plus rather cheaper than having to fork out the huge fees 5* hotels require for wedding ceremonies
GOD IS SINGLE! MARRIAGE IS BLASPHEMY!
Jesus is God
Rather tangential - but are you dropping the punctuation a-la Leon, or just having a lazy Friday?
The Trinity - Father, Son and Holy Ghost are all as one
I am no theologian but the problem with that is that God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son to save us.
If God and Jesus are the same person what does that mean? And why did Jesus cry out that his Lord had forsaken him on the cross?
It's why it took several hundred years to come up with a few general consensuses about what it even meant to be Christian and the nature of Christ. And even then not everyone is signed up.
Personally, I think the House of Lords needs more religious figures, not fewer. But we also need to go beyond the Church of England. There are plenty of Catholics in the UK, shouldn't they get someone? Ditto Jews and Muslims. And - obviously - there need to be representatives from both the agnostic and atheistic communities. Fwiw, I suspect there aren't enough satanists to justify a spot.
I suspect there are more than a few Satanists in parliament already and PM Starmer is an atheist.
However yes I agree other faith leaders should be represented, the Vatican forbids RC Cardinals from being in the Lords though as it undermines Papal authority hence Cardinal Nichols had to decline a peerage as did Cardinal Murphy O'Connor. They still believe the Roman Catholic church should be English national church again, of course before the Reformation the Bishops in the Lords were all Roman Catholic and joined by Abbotts from Monasteries Henry VIII dissolved
Plenty of political and business leaders (and even some bishops), are disciples of the Lord of the Flies.
Go on...?
You would not get to be head of a major investment bank (like David Benioff’s father), a high roller in the public or private sectors, or Archbishop of Canterbury without being in league with Satan.
I find it hard to believe Rowan Williams and Robert Runcie were ever in league with Satan, they were basically sandle wearing LDs
This thread has got both illuminating anf weird. I don't think I knew anyone, save for my very unobtrusively Christian Scientist grandmother, who sincerely BELIEVED until I was in my 20s. I knew people who believed there was 'something' - but out and out Christianity, rather than just a crappy primary school going through the motions, was utterly alien, and very strange when I encountered it.
The West is the outlier, both currently, and historically.
To most people worldwide, Christ and His Saints, Ganesh, Allah, Lord Buddah, are as real as members of their own families, as they were through history.
A big error, when studying history, is to think that people did not take their stated beliefs seriously.
Far more than 2% go to C of E services at Christmas or Easter or weddings, baptisms and funerals in the C of E's churches as well.
The Roman Catholic church normally requires those who get married in its churches to regularly attend its services and be baptised Catholic, if disestablished the C of E would similarly end automatic right of parishioners to marry or get buried in its churches. They would often have to show evidence of regular service attendance and baptism first. More well funded and well attended C of E evangelical churches in particular would block automatic marriages and baptisms and funerals in their churches as they have less need of the income they get from them and would restrict them only to those who are regular members of their congregations and their immediate family
Never grasped why anyone would want to marry in a church unless they were religious in any case. The idea is faintly absurd. And hotels are more fun.
Plenty still think of themselves as Christian even if not regular church attenders and being married in a beautiful medieval or 17th century local parish church by right is rather more attractive than being married in some 2 star hotel off the A1. Plus rather cheaper than having to fork out the huge fees 5* hotels require for wedding ceremonies
GOD IS SINGLE! MARRIAGE IS BLASPHEMY!
Jesus is God
Rather tangential - but are you dropping the punctuation a-la Leon, or just having a lazy Friday?
The Trinity - Father, Son and Holy Ghost are all as one
I am no theologian but the problem with that is that God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son to save us.
If God and Jesus are the same person what does that mean? And why did Jesus cry out that his Lord had forsaken him on the cross?
This thread has got both illuminating anf weird. I don't think I knew anyone, save for my very unobtrusively Christian Scientist grandmother, who sincerely BELIEVED until I was in my 20s. I knew people who believed there was 'something' - but out and out Christianity, rather than just a crappy primary school going through the motions, was utterly alien, and very strange when I encountered it.
The West is the outlier, both currently, and historically.
To most people worldwide, Christ and His Saints, Ganesh, Allah, Lord Buddah, are as real as members of their own families.
I would say Northern Europe and North America are the outliers.
The above also still applies across large rural areas of both South America and Southern Europe.
Far more than 2% go to C of E services at Christmas or Easter or weddings, baptisms and funerals in the C of E's churches as well.
The Roman Catholic church normally requires those who get married in its churches to regularly attend its services and be baptised Catholic, if disestablished the C of E would similarly end automatic right of parishioners to marry or get buried in its churches. They would often have to show evidence of regular service attendance and baptism first. More well funded and well attended C of E evangelical churches in particular would block automatic marriages and baptisms and funerals in their churches as they have less need of the income they get from them and would restrict them only to those who are regular members of their congregations and their immediate family
Never grasped why anyone would want to marry in a church unless they were religious in any case. The idea is faintly absurd. And hotels are more fun.
Plenty still think of themselves as Christian even if not regular church attenders and being married in a beautiful medieval or 17th century local parish church by right is rather more attractive than being married in some 2 star hotel off the A1. Plus rather cheaper than having to fork out the huge fees 5* hotels require for wedding ceremonies
GOD IS SINGLE! MARRIAGE IS BLASPHEMY!
Jesus is God
Rather tangential - but are you dropping the punctuation a-la Leon, or just having a lazy Friday?
The Trinity - Father, Son and Holy Ghost are all as one
Would they be entitled to three seats in the House of Lords?
This thread has got both illuminating anf weird. I don't think I knew anyone, save for my very unobtrusively Christian Scientist grandmother, who sincerely BELIEVED until I was in my 20s. I knew people who believed there was 'something' - but out and out Christianity, rather than just a crappy primary school going through the motions, was utterly alien, and very strange when I encountered it.
The West is the outlier, both currently, and historically.
To most people worldwide, Christ and His Saints, Ganesh, Allah, Lord Buddah, are as real as members of their own families.
I would say Northern Europe and North America are the outliers.
The above also still applies across large rural areas of both South America and Southern Europe.
Yes, I agree. I've just returned from Naples. Everywhere, you see little shrines, where people burn candles and lay flowers.
This thread has got both illuminating anf weird. I don't think I knew anyone, save for my very unobtrusively Christian Scientist grandmother, who sincerely BELIEVED until I was in my 20s. I knew people who believed there was 'something' - but out and out Christianity, rather than just a crappy primary school going through the motions, was utterly alien, and very strange when I encountered it.
The West is the outlier, both currently, and historically.
To most people worldwide, Christ and His Saints, Ganesh, Allah, Lord Buddah, are as real as members of their own families.
I would say Northern Europe and North America are the outliers.
The above also still applies across large rural areas of both South America and Southern Europe.
This thread has got both illuminating anf weird. I don't think I knew anyone, save for my very unobtrusively Christian Scientist grandmother, who sincerely BELIEVED until I was in my 20s. I knew people who believed there was 'something' - but out and out Christianity, rather than just a crappy primary school going through the motions, was utterly alien, and very strange when I encountered it.
The West is the outlier, both currently, and historically.
To most people worldwide, Christ and His Saints, Ganesh, Allah, Lord Buddah, are as real as members of their own families.
I would say Northern Europe and North America are the outliers.
The above also still applies across large rural areas of both South America and Southern Europe.
Plus the Bible Belt in the USA
I find that more of a manufactured religiosity. Similar to the way in 1950's Scotland or Northern Ireland, people would go to work on Christmas Day, to show that they were not pagans.
Far more than 2% go to C of E services at Christmas or Easter or weddings, baptisms and funerals in the C of E's churches as well.
The Roman Catholic church normally requires those who get married in its churches to regularly attend its services and be baptised Catholic, if disestablished the C of E would similarly end automatic right of parishioners to marry or get buried in its churches. They would often have to show evidence of regular service attendance and baptism first. More well funded and well attended C of E evangelical churches in particular would block automatic marriages and baptisms and funerals in their churches as they have less need of the income they get from them and would restrict them only to those who are regular members of their congregations and their immediate family
Never grasped why anyone would want to marry in a church unless they were religious in any case. The idea is faintly absurd. And hotels are more fun.
Plenty still think of themselves as Christian even if not regular church attenders and being married in a beautiful medieval or 17th century local parish church by right is rather more attractive than being married in some 2 star hotel off the A1. Plus rather cheaper than having to fork out the huge fees 5* hotels require for wedding ceremonies
GOD IS SINGLE! MARRIAGE IS BLASPHEMY!
Jesus is God
Rather tangential - but are you dropping the punctuation a-la Leon, or just having a lazy Friday?
The Trinity - Father, Son and Holy Ghost are all as one
Would they be entitled to three seats in the House of Lords?
Might depend on whether those feet did indeed walk our hills in ancient times. Otherwise they would almost certainly not qualify.
Far more than 2% go to C of E services at Christmas or Easter or weddings, baptisms and funerals in the C of E's churches as well.
The Roman Catholic church normally requires those who get married in its churches to regularly attend its services and be baptised Catholic, if disestablished the C of E would similarly end automatic right of parishioners to marry or get buried in its churches. They would often have to show evidence of regular service attendance and baptism first. More well funded and well attended C of E evangelical churches in particular would block automatic marriages and baptisms and funerals in their churches as they have less need of the income they get from them and would restrict them only to those who are regular members of their congregations and their immediate family
Never grasped why anyone would want to marry in a church unless they were religious in any case. The idea is faintly absurd. And hotels are more fun.
Plenty still think of themselves as Christian even if not regular church attenders and being married in a beautiful medieval or 17th century local parish church by right is rather more attractive than being married in some 2 star hotel off the A1. Plus rather cheaper than having to fork out the huge fees 5* hotels require for wedding ceremonies
GOD IS SINGLE! MARRIAGE IS BLASPHEMY!
Jesus is God
Rather tangential - but are you dropping the punctuation a-la Leon, or just having a lazy Friday?
The Trinity - Father, Son and Holy Ghost are all as one
I am no theologian but the problem with that is that God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son to save us.
If God and Jesus are the same person what does that mean? And why did Jesus cry out that his Lord had forsaken him on the cross?
Far more than 2% go to C of E services at Christmas or Easter or weddings, baptisms and funerals in the C of E's churches as well.
The Roman Catholic church normally requires those who get married in its churches to regularly attend its services and be baptised Catholic, if disestablished the C of E would similarly end automatic right of parishioners to marry or get buried in its churches. They would often have to show evidence of regular service attendance and baptism first. More well funded and well attended C of E evangelical churches in particular would block automatic marriages and baptisms and funerals in their churches as they have less need of the income they get from them and would restrict them only to those who are regular members of their congregations and their immediate family
Never grasped why anyone would want to marry in a church unless they were religious in any case. The idea is faintly absurd. And hotels are more fun.
Plenty still think of themselves as Christian even if not regular church attenders and being married in a beautiful medieval or 17th century local parish church by right is rather more attractive than being married in some 2 star hotel off the A1. Plus rather cheaper than having to fork out the huge fees 5* hotels require for wedding ceremonies
GOD IS SINGLE! MARRIAGE IS BLASPHEMY!
Jesus is God
Rather tangential - but are you dropping the punctuation a-la Leon, or just having a lazy Friday?
The Trinity - Father, Son and Holy Ghost are all as one
This thread has got both illuminating anf weird. I don't think I knew anyone, save for my very unobtrusively Christian Scientist grandmother, who sincerely BELIEVED until I was in my 20s. I knew people who believed there was 'something' - but out and out Christianity, rather than just a crappy primary school going through the motions, was utterly alien, and very strange when I encountered it.
The West is the outlier, both currently, and historically.
To most people worldwide, Christ and His Saints, Ganesh, Allah, Lord Buddah, are as real as members of their own families, as they were through history.
A big error, when studying history, is to think that people did not take their stated beliefs seriously.
It's one reason I enjoy historical fiction, because it's not that dissimilar from fantasy/sci-fi in the emphasis on world building, and, in the good examples, people's attitudes and beliefs being a world away from modern western society (it need not be actually accurate, it is fiction, so long as it feels different).
Far more than 2% go to C of E services at Christmas or Easter or weddings, baptisms and funerals in the C of E's churches as well.
The Roman Catholic church normally requires those who get married in its churches to regularly attend its services and be baptised Catholic, if disestablished the C of E would similarly end automatic right of parishioners to marry or get buried in its churches. They would often have to show evidence of regular service attendance and baptism first. More well funded and well attended C of E evangelical churches in particular would block automatic marriages and baptisms and funerals in their churches as they have less need of the income they get from them and would restrict them only to those who are regular members of their congregations and their immediate family
Never grasped why anyone would want to marry in a church unless they were religious in any case. The idea is faintly absurd. And hotels are more fun.
Plenty still think of themselves as Christian even if not regular church attenders and being married in a beautiful medieval or 17th century local parish church by right is rather more attractive than being married in some 2 star hotel off the A1. Plus rather cheaper than having to fork out the huge fees 5* hotels require for wedding ceremonies
GOD IS SINGLE! MARRIAGE IS BLASPHEMY!
Jesus is God
Rather tangential - but are you dropping the punctuation a-la Leon, or just having a lazy Friday?
The Trinity - Father, Son and Holy Ghost are all as one
Who is the Holy Ghost? You don't hear much about him. Sounds spooky.
Far more than 2% go to C of E services at Christmas or Easter or weddings, baptisms and funerals in the C of E's churches as well.
The Roman Catholic church normally requires those who get married in its churches to regularly attend its services and be baptised Catholic, if disestablished the C of E would similarly end automatic right of parishioners to marry or get buried in its churches. They would often have to show evidence of regular service attendance and baptism first. More well funded and well attended C of E evangelical churches in particular would block automatic marriages and baptisms and funerals in their churches as they have less need of the income they get from them and would restrict them only to those who are regular members of their congregations and their immediate family
Never grasped why anyone would want to marry in a church unless they were religious in any case. The idea is faintly absurd. And hotels are more fun.
The idea of marriage itself is weird. A contract we enter into that's kinda legally binding but also not, best case scenario you live happily ever after together (in which case you can do that without the bit of paper), worst case scenario you end up hating each other and then it's a costly and difficult process to disentangle yourself.
As gamblers we should all appreciate that the concept of marriage is largely EV-, with very little financial upside (except tax breaks?) but a whole raft of problems if we lose. And you can live happily ever after together without actually marrying. So why bother?
Apologies again for chewing you out yesterday, by the way, I thought you were having a go at Viewcode, who I'm rather fond of (not least in part because they get all my nerdy sci fi references...)
I got married because I kinda needed to for visa reasons, otherwise my wife who I'd met here on a tourist visa would have had to fuck off (well she still did actually, due to the way the application works - the application can't be done in country - but it wasn't for that long). Taking a gambler view on it I figured that if it didn't work out then a divorce after a year (I have a tenuous claim to being Scottish which halves the time limit) wouldn't be that big a deal). This sort of eloping is also extremely handy as it makes the wedding etc miles cheaper as you do it at a registry office on the Isle of Man (only way to legally manage it in British Isles in our situation) and spend fuck all.
After a few years and it getting to stage kids were sensible, it has a lot of advantages for them if we were to split up, although yes, admittedly not so much for me. But it would be artificial to ignore them and concentrate only on me in my calculus.
Anyway it's going great so far after six or seven years, but no proper gambler would assume the past guarantees the future!
Incidentally as any married man will confirm you get treated better by civilised people with a wedding ring / wife. Significantly better in many cases. In all sorts of ways. Something that surprised me as, not being a civilised person, I didn't really know how they behaved.
On that basis though he should have won in 2020 and lost in 2016
HY - credit to you. you have been right, right from the start, to be sceptical about the Joe-Kam swap out being game changer. It’s been growing increasingly obvious all month that Trump has won this.
Actually Trump has done his best to lose this, the cost of living crisis and immigration and border failure over the last 4 years, off his watch, is giving him another four years as President. Yeah yeah, for sure Trump wouldn’t have handled those issues any better, but that sadly isn’t how democratic electoral politics works. Biden was way behind and certain for defeat for much more than having age caught up with him.
It might teeny possibility have turned out different, if Kamala had come across as presidential and appeared ready for the presidency. She’s half okay, and half immature lightweight.
All hereditaries must go - there is simply no excuse for it - but I'm out of whack in that I do not want to see an elected upper chamber. We have more than enough voting as it is. Voting is essential to democracy but it is not the same as democracy. You need some voting (obviously) but it's facile and mistaken to assume that the more voting there is the more democratic a society you have.
I support an appointed upper chamber. Routes into it to be many and varied and designed such as to get a good micro facsimile of the population as a whole. Young, old, male, female, arts, crafts, scientists, business, tech, finance, white collar, blue collar, all in there if they are willing and sufficiently able. Part time only, modestly remunerated, serve one fixed term of two years then replaced with somebody else. No parties (political or otherwise).
We could have a randomly selected 'House of People' to go with the elected 'House of Politicians'.
I don't know if you're joking but I actually would see a place for an element of randomness in the selection. The key is that it's a diverse and diffuse process. What you don't want is some single centralised body running the recruitment. If you have that there's a serious risk of corruption and groupthink.
I think randomly selecting from all those with an honour (excluding those nominated by PMs) every 3 years might work I think. You'd skew a bit older because those people have presumably achieved something but I think that collection of people would add a lot. Plus hard for anyone to stack it because there's thousands of people to choose from historically.
Absolutely no way in hell. The majority of people who get honours are civil servants....the last people we want to give any extra say to.
This thread has got both illuminating anf weird. I don't think I knew anyone, save for my very unobtrusively Christian Scientist grandmother, who sincerely BELIEVED until I was in my 20s. I knew people who believed there was 'something' - but out and out Christianity, rather than just a crappy primary school going through the motions, was utterly alien, and very strange when I encountered it.
The West is the outlier, both currently, and historically.
To most people worldwide, Christ and His Saints, Ganesh, Allah, Lord Buddah, are as real as members of their own families.
I would say Northern Europe and North America are the outliers.
The above also still applies across large rural areas of both South America and Southern Europe.
Yes, I agree. I've just returned from Naples. Everywhere, you see little shrines, where people burn candles and lay flowers.
My mother-in-law went on a cruise. It was staffed - as these things are - by Indonesians. In a friendly conversation, they asked her what religion she was - she replied she was an atheist. "But who do you pray to?" They were not bothered that she might pray to a different God, but deeply troubled, and incomprehending, that she might not have one at all.
Personally, I think the House of Lords needs more religious figures, not fewer. But we also need to go beyond the Church of England. There are plenty of Catholics in the UK, shouldn't they get someone? Ditto Jews and Muslims. And - obviously - there need to be representatives from both the agnostic and atheistic communities. Fwiw, I suspect there aren't enough satanists to justify a spot.
I suspect there are more than a few Satanists in parliament already and PM Starmer is an atheist.
However yes I agree other faith leaders should be represented, the Vatican forbids RC Cardinals from being in the Lords though as it undermines Papal authority hence Cardinal Nichols had to decline a peerage as did Cardinal Murphy O'Connor. They still believe the Roman Catholic church should be English national church again, of course before the Reformation the Bishops in the Lords were all Roman Catholic and joined by Abbotts from Monasteries Henry VIII dissolved
Plenty of political and business leaders (and even some bishops), are disciples of the Lord of the Flies.
Go on...?
You would not get to be head of a major investment bank (like David Benioff’s father), a high roller in the public or private sectors, or Archbishop of Canterbury without being in league with Satan.
Normally I'd think you were joking but this thread has got so strange I'm not totally sure...
I don't believe there are any genuine satanists. Christianity grew because of the promise of eternal life (in a good way). Why would someone who genuinely believed sign up for eternal torment? I do believe there are a lot of edgelords, but I'm pretty sure that almost by definition they don't sincerely believe. The human population being what it is, naturally, there are some genuinely mad people right at the left hand end of the bell curve, of course.
Personally, I think the House of Lords needs more religious figures, not fewer. But we also need to go beyond the Church of England. There are plenty of Catholics in the UK, shouldn't they get someone? Ditto Jews and Muslims. And - obviously - there need to be representatives from both the agnostic and atheistic communities. Fwiw, I suspect there aren't enough satanists to justify a spot.
I suspect there are more than a few Satanists in parliament already and PM Starmer is an atheist.
However yes I agree other faith leaders should be represented, the Vatican forbids RC Cardinals from being in the Lords though as it undermines Papal authority hence Cardinal Nichols had to decline a peerage as did Cardinal Murphy O'Connor. They still believe the Roman Catholic church should be English national church again, of course before the Reformation the Bishops in the Lords were all Roman Catholic and joined by Abbotts from Monasteries Henry VIII dissolved
Plenty of political and business leaders (and even some bishops), are disciples of the Lord of the Flies.
Go on...?
You would not get to be head of a major investment bank (like David Benioff’s father), a high roller in the public or private sectors, or Archbishop of Canterbury without being in league with Satan.
Personally, I think the House of Lords needs more religious figures, not fewer. But we also need to go beyond the Church of England. There are plenty of Catholics in the UK, shouldn't they get someone? Ditto Jews and Muslims. And - obviously - there need to be representatives from both the agnostic and atheistic communities. Fwiw, I suspect there aren't enough satanists to justify a spot.
I suspect there are more than a few Satanists in parliament already and PM Starmer is an atheist.
However yes I agree other faith leaders should be represented, the Vatican forbids RC Cardinals from being in the Lords though as it undermines Papal authority hence Cardinal Nichols had to decline a peerage as did Cardinal Murphy O'Connor. They still believe the Roman Catholic church should be English national church again, of course before the Reformation the Bishops in the Lords were all Roman Catholic and joined by Abbotts from Monasteries Henry VIII dissolved
Plenty of political and business leaders (and even some bishops), are disciples of the Lord of the Flies.
Go on...?
You would not get to be head of a major investment bank (like David Benioff’s father), a high roller in the public or private sectors, or Archbishop of Canterbury without being in league with Satan.
Normally I'd think you were joking but this thread has got so strange I'm not totally sure...
I don't believe there are any genuine satanists. Christianity grew because of the promise of eternal life (in a good way). Why would someone who genuinely believed sign up for eternal torment? I do believe there are a lot of edgelords, but I'm pretty sure that almost by definition they don't sincerely believe. The human population being what it is, naturally, there are some genuinely mad people right at the left hand end of the bell curve, of course.
Not a christian so not an expert, I suspect that those on the side of satan merely feel that god had a better pr department. Examining the bible god does seem to have killed off quite a lot of people and done plenty of what would be called evil acts such as slaughter of the first born. Not so much in there about satan's evil acts apart from a little tempting
There are no circumstances under which Sir Gavin 'Huawei' Williamson speaks for anyone but himself and his chums.
He's right on this.
No he isn't. We had the argument about the nature of the HoL a decade ago and the answer is clear: it shouldn't be a democratically elected body, but instead a collection of experts and interest groups to advise, amend, and delay.
Actually, we had the argument 114 years ago and the 1911 Parliament Act includes the following by way of introduction:
"it is intended to substitute for the House of Lords as it at present exists a Second Chamber constituted on a popular instead of hereditary basis"
The Commons has far too much power already - or, more accurately, a prime minister with a comfortable majority has far too much unchecked power. A Senate, elected from the regions by STV, would be a useful check on that power. Not necessarily co-equal but certainly more in that direction than as present.
For most of parliament's history, the Lords *was* more-or-less equal with the Commons; Britain didn't do too badly from the arrangement. And most other democracies have second chambers with substantially more power than the Lords does, and get by well enough.
A "Senate" isn't British and STV even less so. We're not a Roman Republic.
The reason HoL Reform has never happened is due to the shit ideas for its alternatives.
STV was invented by an Englishman. It was first used within the British Empire (Tasmania) in 1896. It was first used for UK elections for some Commons seats in 1918 and was retained there until 1950. There was then a gap, before it returned for elections in Northern Ireland in 1973. It has remained in use in the UK since then, extending to Scotland in 2007. That means it has been in use in the UK for over three quarters of the last century.
And that's just government elections. It is widely used in UK bodies, such as trades unions, the Oxford Union, and the General Synod of the Church of England.
STV is literally nicknamed the British proportional representation system. It is exceedingly British. It has never been used for Italian or Roman elections.
This thread has got both illuminating anf weird. I don't think I knew anyone, save for my very unobtrusively Christian Scientist grandmother, who sincerely BELIEVED until I was in my 20s. I knew people who believed there was 'something' - but out and out Christianity, rather than just a crappy primary school going through the motions, was utterly alien, and very strange when I encountered it.
The West is the outlier, both currently, and historically.
To most people worldwide, Christ and His Saints, Ganesh, Allah, Lord Buddah, are as real as members of their own families.
I would say Northern Europe and North America are the outliers.
The above also still applies across large rural areas of both South America and Southern Europe.
Yes, I agree. I've just returned from Naples. Everywhere, you see little shrines, where people burn candles and lay flowers.
My mother-in-law went on a cruise. It was staffed - as these things are - by Indonesians. In a friendly conversation, they asked her what religion she was - she replied she was an atheist. "But who do you pray to?" They were not bothered that she might pray to a different God, but deeply troubled, and incomprehending, that she might not have one at all.
Atheism and agnosticism is more common that @Sean_F suggests.
The majority (probably close to 70%) of people in both China and Japan identify as secular, atheist or agnostic. Shinto and Buddhism are increasingly cultural identification - like me celebrating Christmas - than firm religious belief. And South Korea is not far behind those two.
South American has also seen a big uptick in atheism/agnosticism. For example, in Uruguay, around 40% of the population is either atheist, agnostic, or non-religious. Chile has also seen a rise in irreligion, with about 36% of the population identifying as non-religious in 2022.
Now, sure, there are still some deeply religious countries out there (in Africa or Asia). But then again, Spain, Portugal, Italy and Ireland used to be highly religious, and they certainly aren't anymore.
This thread has got both illuminating anf weird. I don't think I knew anyone, save for my very unobtrusively Christian Scientist grandmother, who sincerely BELIEVED until I was in my 20s. I knew people who believed there was 'something' - but out and out Christianity, rather than just a crappy primary school going through the motions, was utterly alien, and very strange when I encountered it.
The West is the outlier, both currently, and historically.
To most people worldwide, Christ and His Saints, Ganesh, Allah, Lord Buddah, are as real as members of their own families.
I would say Northern Europe and North America are the outliers.
The above also still applies across large rural areas of both South America and Southern Europe.
Yes, I agree. I've just returned from Naples. Everywhere, you see little shrines, where people burn candles and lay flowers.
My mother-in-law went on a cruise. It was staffed - as these things are - by Indonesians. In a friendly conversation, they asked her what religion she was - she replied she was an atheist. "But who do you pray to?" They were not bothered that she might pray to a different God, but deeply troubled, and incomprehending, that she might not have one at all.
I've had the opposite experience.
When I was about to marry my wife, an Irish Catholic, in Galway Cathedral, I was asked by the priest whether I was a Catholic. I replied "I'm sorry father but I'm afraid I'm an atheist". "Thank God" he exclaimed. "I though you might be a Protestant." This was in the sixties.
Personally, I think the House of Lords needs more religious figures, not fewer. But we also need to go beyond the Church of England. There are plenty of Catholics in the UK, shouldn't they get someone? Ditto Jews and Muslims. And - obviously - there need to be representatives from both the agnostic and atheistic communities. Fwiw, I suspect there aren't enough satanists to justify a spot.
I suspect there are more than a few Satanists in parliament already and PM Starmer is an atheist.
However yes I agree other faith leaders should be represented, the Vatican forbids RC Cardinals from being in the Lords though as it undermines Papal authority hence Cardinal Nichols had to decline a peerage as did Cardinal Murphy O'Connor. They still believe the Roman Catholic church should be English national church again, of course before the Reformation the Bishops in the Lords were all Roman Catholic and joined by Abbotts from Monasteries Henry VIII dissolved
Plenty of political and business leaders (and even some bishops), are disciples of the Lord of the Flies.
Go on...?
You would not get to be head of a major investment bank (like David Benioff’s father), a high roller in the public or private sectors, or Archbishop of Canterbury without being in league with Satan.
Normally I'd think you were joking but this thread has got so strange I'm not totally sure...
I don't believe there are any genuine satanists. Christianity grew because of the promise of eternal life (in a good way). Why would someone who genuinely believed sign up for eternal torment? I do believe there are a lot of edgelords, but I'm pretty sure that almost by definition they don't sincerely believe. The human population being what it is, naturally, there are some genuinely mad people right at the left hand end of the bell curve, of course.
Not a christian so not an expert, I suspect that those on the side of satan merely feel that god had a better pr department. Examining the bible god does seem to have killed off quite a lot of people and done plenty of what would be called evil acts such as slaughter of the first born. Not so much in there about satan's evil acts apart from a little tempting
Yes, God might have been too proactive in taking him down before he did much of anything. Eru Iluvatar did a better job letting Melkor show his true colours, and was a lot more humble, to the point his name was barely even mentioned by others.
Comments
Thesedays they probably just buy an expensive watch and leave it at that, but a few still want the title I suppose, niche market.
Or, Sith?
Indarjit Singh for example took part in the coronation, I guess potentially as a prominent Sikh in the Lords? I don't know how Sikhism is organised, but apparently he's active in various interfaith activities, but was that the reason for his elevation? No idea.
The monarchy is like Harry Potter and Game of Thrones. It’s something we’re good at.
The modern Church of England is generally quite herbivorous and moderate, compared to previous eras.
https://bsky.app/profile/drlindseyfitz.bsky.social/post/3l6sifvndvn27
Christ did not preach intolerance
Maybe a lesson for you there
We might well have been raised as Catholics, but my mum had no intention of signing a pledge.
However yes I agree other faith leaders should be represented, the Vatican forbids RC Cardinals from being in the Lords though as it undermines Papal authority hence Cardinal Nichols had to decline a peerage as did Cardinal Murphy O'Connor. They still believe the Roman Catholic church should be English national church again, of course before the Reformation the Bishops in the Lords were all Roman Catholic and joined by Abbotts from Monasteries Henry VIII dissolved
https://nitter.poast.org/doctor_oxford/status/1846798999673593870#m
There's some funny grouo of monks, somewhere in East Anglia as I recall it, acting as if England was still an Orthodox country. One of the first Archbishops of Cantetbury was actually a Greek, Theodore of Tarsus.
http://www.orthodoxcolchester.org.uk/hm/
https://holytransfigurationwalsingham.simdif.com/
People would think of plotting against him, but realised he governed so effectively that, what was the point?
I don't think I knew anyone, save for my very unobtrusively Christian Scientist grandmother, who sincerely BELIEVED until I was in my 20s. I knew people who believed there was 'something' - but out and out Christianity, rather than just a crappy primary school going through the motions, was utterly alien, and very strange when I encountered it.
(I am so evul 😎 )
If God and Jesus are the same person what does that mean? And why did Jesus cry out that his Lord had forsaken him on the cross?
Glad I’m going to Portugal not Geneva.
Or sorry I didn’t know which gate to look at when they announced tonight’s flight to Geneva was diverting to Lyon. I haven’t seen a good riot in a while.
Although my flight is nearly an hour late now as well.
If we're all God's children then what's so special about Jesus?
Don't give me that nonsense about Jesus died for our sins, yes Jesus died but he didn't stay dead did he?
Jesus gave up a weekend, that's all.
Yet another service industry that has completely lost the concept of service.
No, O’Reilly.
To most people worldwide, Christ and His Saints, Ganesh, Allah, Lord Buddah, are as real as members of their own families, as they were through history.
A big error, when studying history, is to think that people did not take their stated beliefs seriously.
The above also still applies across large rural areas of both South America and Southern Europe.
Fuck.
After a few years and it getting to stage kids were sensible, it has a lot of advantages for them if we were to split up, although yes, admittedly not so much for me. But it would be artificial to ignore them and concentrate only on me in my calculus.
Anyway it's going great so far after six or seven years, but no proper gambler would assume the past guarantees the future!
Incidentally as any married man will confirm you get treated better by civilised people with a wedding ring / wife. Significantly better in many cases. In all sorts of ways. Something that surprised me as, not being a civilised person, I didn't really know how they behaved.
Actually Trump has done his best to lose this, the cost of living crisis and immigration and border failure over the last 4 years, off his watch, is giving him another four years as President. Yeah yeah, for sure Trump wouldn’t have handled those issues any better, but that sadly isn’t how democratic electoral politics works. Biden was way behind and certain for defeat for much more than having age caught up with him.
It might teeny possibility have turned out different, if Kamala had come across as presidential and appeared ready for the presidency. She’s half okay, and half immature lightweight.
I don't believe there are any genuine satanists. Christianity grew because of the promise of eternal life (in a good way). Why would someone who genuinely believed sign up for eternal torment?
I do believe there are a lot of edgelords, but I'm pretty sure that almost by definition they don't sincerely believe.
The human population being what it is, naturally, there are some genuinely mad people right at the left hand end of the bell curve, of course.
A DNA sequence exists.
Maybe they can be even more efficiently reared than chickens, yum yum.
And that's just government elections. It is widely used in UK bodies, such as trades unions, the Oxford Union, and the General Synod of the Church of England.
STV is literally nicknamed the British proportional representation system. It is exceedingly British. It has never been used for Italian or Roman elections.
The majority (probably close to 70%) of people in both China and Japan identify as secular, atheist or agnostic. Shinto and Buddhism are increasingly cultural identification - like me celebrating Christmas - than firm religious belief. And South Korea is not far behind those two.
South American has also seen a big uptick in atheism/agnosticism. For example, in Uruguay, around 40% of the population is either atheist, agnostic, or non-religious. Chile has also seen a rise in irreligion, with about 36% of the population identifying as non-religious in 2022.
Now, sure, there are still some deeply religious countries out there (in Africa or Asia). But then again, Spain, Portugal, Italy and Ireland used to be highly religious, and they certainly aren't anymore.
I believe a Woolly Mammoth sequence exists too.
When I was about to marry my wife, an Irish Catholic, in Galway Cathedral, I was asked by the priest whether I was a Catholic. I replied "I'm sorry father but I'm afraid I'm an atheist". "Thank God" he exclaimed. "I though you might be a Protestant." This was in the sixties.
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2019/12/permafrozen-dinner/604069/