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

Drop the Free Christian!

Let me preface what I'm going to say by first saying this: I am a Christian. It's taken me a long time to be able to say that, and to know what I mean by that, and I'm very lucky that in the Unitarian church I have been given the space to come to that decision in my own time, on my own terms. But I am a Christian, I'm more Christian now than I have been for years. Now: I want us to drop this "Free Christian" from our title. It's a silly phrase that we need to get rid of. Why? "The General Assembly of Unitarian and Free Christian Churches" is a long and unwieldy title. It would be much better if we traded under something like "Unitarians in Britain." It gives the impression that there are two separate and distinct groups: "Unitarians" and "Free Christians," this is not the case. It's not that there are Unitarians (who are not Christians) and "Free Christians" who are not Unitarians. There are not two dif...

Clergy-wear during protests

OK, I'm wandering into the territory of Beauty Tips for Ministers here, but a couple of recent conversations have brought up the issue of what clergy should wear for protests. I know a number of Ministers who only wear clerical collars for protests. The logic is that it's important to identify as a Minister when you're supporting something society doesn't expect clergy to. So Ministers will wear a collar at gay prides or pro-choice rallies to make this point. Now I could understand this if it you wore a collar going about your general business, and also did during a protest, but I'm quite uncomfortable with the idea of wearing clerical wear ONLY for protests. The seems to be something worth exploring. I have said before that I'm not in favour of special titles or clothing for religious leadership, mainly because Jesus explicitly said this was a lot of nonsense. Religious leaders should not need these articial crutches. I have no problem with certain liturgical c...

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...