Skip to main content

Time for bishops to leave the House of Lords

Britain is second only to Iran in giving established religion so much power in the constitution. Twenty-six male Anglican bishops sit in the House of Lords (the second chamber) as a matter of right and vote on legislation. This gives a particular religious voice power as a matter of right rather than merit. This is clearly unacceptable, and most people in the country, and indeed most Christians in this country think so.

I'm a supporter of Power2010, that has gathered five clear ideas (gathered from the grassroots) to reform British politics. One of these is to replace the House of Lords with an elected second chamber. The time for this is clearly overdue. I'd encourage you to write the Anglican bishops to ask them to support this democratic move. 50,000 people already have. It would be wonderful if the bishops could stand up for democracy and voluntarily give up their power for the sake of democracy - what a wonderfully powerful Christian witness that would be.

Comments

uni-talian said…
I agree with the bishops, BUT I am sceptical of democratic reform - ironically I fear it could lead to a democratic deficit - and feel quite strongly it should retain its title, The House of Lords!

Tradition - cultural identity - is important, it gives people a sense of belonging, and I don't like the way institutions regularly come under attack in the name of "modernity" - a kind of iconoclasm that alienates people.

I don't want a "senate" full of more political place men and women on the public purse, voting along party lines. We already have that with Europe.

Over the past 40 years or so, there has been a process which has surely and steadily distanced the people from the democratic process - politics has become a career, not a vocation, and the independent voice is rapidly becoming a thing of the past. Boring politics suits the powerful - a public disinterested and disengaged is a malleable one. We should therefore think carefully before overhauling a system that has served us reasonably well for almost a thousand years.
Andrew Bethune said…
Members of the House of Lords should be elected by the people. Being placed there by favour of a monarch or Prime Minister or because your ancestor was so favoured is not acceptable in a modern democracy.

Having official reprentatives of the main church of only one part of the UK is not acceptable either.

I have to ask, why are there no church representatives from Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland in the Lords.

If bishops want to stand as candidates, well and good, but they shouldn't be in the Lords by reason of their office.
Yewtree said…
I was one of the 50,000 who wrote to the bishops.

I think the House of Lords should have rotating membership, selected on the same basis as the jury system, with members serving for 3 years.

Popular posts from this blog

Swords into Ploughshares

  "They shall beat their swords into ploughshares, and their spears into pruning hooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more." Isaiah 2:4 Palestine Action are doing just this: beating swords into ploughshares i.e. putting weapons out of use. In doing so they are fulfilling this biblical mandate. They are expressing God's peace as expressed in the Jewish tradition and the Christian tradition. God desires that our swords shall be beaten into ploughshares, that we should unlearn war. That the government wants to make this action illegal has to be confronted in the strongest terms. To rush to condemn attacks on weapons but not attacks on children is perverse. To call attacks on weapons terrorism but not attacks on children is perverse. When government comes to such an extreme position - legislating that peace is war, that weapons need more protection than children - then they have fundamentally gone wrong. This is the definitio...

Art Lester

  I've just heard the extremely sad and shocking news of the death of Unitarian Minister Art Lester. It shocked me even more as I was emailing him a few days ago as he spontaneously emailed me thanking me for my book and offering to send me a copy of his latest one (pictured above).  I already feel like I've missed the opportunity to get to know him better, as he's the kind of person I would really have liked to have been a mentor as he always seemed wise and spiritually rooted, in a mischievous, not-taking-himself-too-seriously way (which is a good sign of spiritual maturity I think).  He ended his email with, "I attach a portion of a sermon I’ll be giving at the Paris Fellowship next month.  It’s my 29th service over the past 27 years and possibly my last.  I wouldn’t normally bore a colleague with my scribbles, but I think you might like this one."  I do. I do like this one. And as he now won't deliver this at Paris Fellowship I thought it was worth shar...

Is humanism theologically tolerant?

OK, well this might be controversial, but I feel the need to say it. Is humanist tolerant? Please note I'm not asking about humanism within society. Clearly humanism certainly believes in tolerance within society and I'm forever glad they are often the only people in the media calling for a separation of church and state. No, what I'm talking about is descriptions of Unitarianism like this and adverts like this , discussed at Peacebang here , which say that humanism is one option, Christianity is another, God is one option among many. The trouble is, humanism, by definition is theologically opposed to theism. This is very different from the relationship between Christianity and Buddhism. These two traditions may be vastly different, but Buddhism, by definition , is not opposed to Christianity, and Christianity, by definition , is not opposed to Buddhism. But humanism is consciously defined in opposition to Christianity and theism. So to say that humanism and theism can bot...