Ah, the old chestnuts of Religion and Politics. Don’t ever bring them up in the pub, so the saying goes. The reason is you’re probably going to upset, annoy or become enemies-for-life with your former friends and drinking buddies, and that’s no way to behave. In a pub of all places.
Personally, I’m all for a bit more discussion about politics - there’s just not enough talking about the subject, and lets face it football and rugby do get a bit boring after a while. We’re also becoming too reliant on newspapers for our opinions. For me, argumentative atheist that I am (or at least like to think I am), there’s just not enough talking about religion. That old chestnut of ‘proof’ and ‘no self-referential arguments’ is a simple request on my part, but I’m yet to get much more than that that when religion comes up in conversation. I fear, however, that many friends are well versed with my view point and have developed subtle tactics to change the subject (”Isn’t Vista great”, or “I’m thinking of getting an iMac”, or “look at my new phone), or at least haven’t visited this website and/or we’ve not seen each other in ages, so we have plenty of other stuff to go on about…
But I digress. If ‘religion’ and ‘politics’ are considered inappropriate for pub conversation, how come religion and politics are considered appropriate for mixing in our second, revising, chamber of parliament? Our beloved government has today unveiled their proposals for the reform of the House of Lords. In itself a good thing, but the glaring horrendous exemption is that bishops from the Church of England are to keep their seats.
So much for this country being secular in it’s central establishments.
So much for this country being fully democratic in it’s central establishments.
Just so it’s clear, I’ve no problem with men or women running around on Sunday morning wearing silly outfits and even sillier hats, muttering to themselves and a few others about imaginary friends. What folk do in their own time is their business. I just get upset when they start trying to get special treatment, seek exemption from laws and to (try and) push their strange views of the world on others, in particular me, or the vulnerable, or trusting. Like children, in schools, with state money.
But when it comes to the religious professional getting involved in politics, I get rather concerned. So much so in fact, I start coming up with very very simple requests: That if you espouse to speak on behalf of people in our democratic establishments, you demonstrate that by seeking election. Some bright spark many years ago realised that quite a few people seek to speak on behalf of many other people, and that a great way of filtering out the genuine was to ask everybody to say who they wanted to speak on their behalf. Voila! Democracy.
So, by that simple argument and - dare I suggest - egalitarian approach - we get a representative democracy in which views can be expressed fairly. So on that note it’s fair to say I want a fully elected second house. The religious should feel free to apply, and I’d welcome their voice in parliamentary debates if they had such a mandate. Anything less - especially of one particular religion getting preferential treatment over others - is really asking for trouble, either to charges of illegitimacy, corruption, protected interests, or favouritism. As it is, with the Bishops and their silly hats and ermine gowns ensconced in our democracy every other religion will demand equal treatment, and then I fear we’d have no room left for anybody who actually has a democratic mandate!
It’s simple: They all get equal treatment, and - if you actually do “represent” a large enough body of people - you really shouldn’t have trouble getting in. Right?
