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

Radical?

When I started this blog nearly 4 years and nearly 300 posts ago one of the labels I used for it/me was "radical." Perhaps I used it a little unreflectively. Recently I've been pondering what radical means. A couple of things have made me think of this. Firstly this blog series from my friend Jeremy, which explores a distinction between "radical progressives" and "rational progressives." There is also this definition of radical, liberal and conservative from Terry Eagleton quoted at Young Anabaptist Radicals : “Radicals are those who believe that things are extremely bad with us, but they could feasibly be much improved. Conservatives believe that things are pretty bad, but that’s just the way the human animal is. And liberals believe that there’s a little bit of good and bad in all of us.” What interests me is finding a way to express the tension I feel sometimes between myself and the wider Unitarian movement. One way to express this is to say I tend

What does it mean to be non-creedal?

Steve Caldwell says "The problem here isn't humanism vs. theism for theist Unitarian Universalists -- it's the non-creedal nature of Unitarian Universalism" This is a good point. We need to think much more deeply about what it means to be a non-creedal religion. The first thing I want to say is that there is more than one possible understanding of non-creedalism. The Disciples of Christ are a non-creedal church, they say here : " Freedom of belief. Disciples are called together around one essential of faith: belief in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. Persons are free to follow their consciences guided by the Bible, the Holy Spirit study and prayer, and are expected to extend that freedom to others." Quakers are also non-creedal and say here : Quakers have no set creed or dogma - that means we do not have any declared statements which you have to believe to be a Quaker. There are, however, some commonly held views which unite us. One accepted view is that th

What is Radical Christianity?

Radical Christianity is about encountering the God of love . It is first and foremost rooted in the discovery of a universal and unconditional source of love at the heart of reality and within each person. God is the name we give to this source of love. It is possible to have a direct and real personal encounter with this God through spiritual practice. We encounter God, and are nourished by God, through the regular practice of prayer, or contemplation.  Radical Christianity is about following a man called Jesus . It is rooted in the teaching of Jesus of Nazareth, a Jewish prophet living under occupation of the Roman Empire two thousand years ago. It understands that's Jesus' message was the message of liberation. His message was that when we truly encounter God, and let God's love flow through us, we begin to be liberated from the powers of empire and violence and encounter the  "realm of God" - an alternative spiritual and social reality rooted in love rather th