|
|
| Re: nonsense about Religion in England (241689) | |||
 |
|||
| Home > OTChat | |||
|
[ Read Responses | Post a New Response | Return to the Index ] |
|
||
|
Re: nonsense about Religion in England |
|
|
Posted by Rail Blue on Mon Aug 27 19:50:32 2007, in response to Re: nonsense about Religion in England, posted by soton si on Mon Aug 27 13:56:26 2007. I am disestablishmentarianist, because the state corrupts the church, and that the majority of people aren't part of the church, the church shouldn't be officially part of the state. I won't go whole hog and kick bishops out of the Lords, though, preferring to have a range of officially recognised religions' leaders sitting in there. I'm sure most British people would agree, even if it was just to get brilliant comments like "the Archbishop of Canterbury is unprincipled as he and two bishops voted against a new law allowing super casinos, which he has been outspoken against" in the press. It's always funny to see journalists not having a clue what they are saying! Then again, the Lords will become mostly elected with the new constitution (making only Israel and Iceland the only states not to have one written down) - there won't be much room for religious leaders (including Dawkins, though he'd hate to be counted as a religious leader) with all the David Beckhams and so on filling up the upper house.Well, if we have to have religious leaders, Dawkins would be great at it, however much he'd hate it. I'd also like to see Richard Chartres (the Bish of London), David Hope (the ex-Archbish of York), and Maurice Couve de Murville (the ex-Archbish (RC) of Brum) in there. I'm no fan of elected/appointed peers. I wish we could simply go back to hereditary principle. Failing that, I'd like to see them indirectly elected to protect our cities. |
|
(There are no responses to this message.)
|
|