h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

It's okay to give your own email address, but the email address in the title was causing confusion. In fact it was posted by Ben herself, so not a problem. But that was what was causing the hiccup, you're not allowed to post someone else's email address, only your own, for obvious reasons...

Okay all back and checked now. Sorry for the hiccup.

I'm replying to
"But surely following that line of argument, there isn't any effectiveseparation of business and state, or money and state, given that large donations to political parties have frequently resulted in the donor ending up in the House of Lords.
Given that only 2% of the membership is bishops, they're hardly a massive power block. I suspect the influence of religion in many officially 'separated' countries is much greater."

There is separation of Business & state; there is legal separation between the Bank of England (& the Scottish banks) & state.

It might only be a 2% block but it is an influential block, not to mention the Executive branch of government is also the head of the church.
Its not just church influence on the state, but state influence on the church, did you know the prime minister appoints the bishops.

"Executive branch of government is also the head of the church". Ummm... I take it by that you are defining the Queen as the Executive?

If we're talking influence, then surely it doesn't matter whether that influence is gained through legislation, lobbying, political parties specifically aligning themselves with some subset of national religion, overt political donations or wads of cash in brown envelopes. All that matters is the size of the influence.

Personally, I wouldn't have thought that very many Church of England members are particularly vexed by the Prime Minister notionally appointing bishops (I'd suspect it's essentially a matter of rubber-stamping whoever the church proposed)

Anyway, there's a limit to how much the House of Lords can actually do to stop a determined House of Commons getting legislation through.
(It's a bit like having the Queen giving Royal Assent to legislation, the main reason archaic methods survived is that they didn't really get in the way. If a monarch started refusing to sign legislation, they'd pretty quickly find that particular nominal power removed from their hands.)

(PS - I'm not C of E, and I really don't care at all *who* appoints their bishops)

The Crown & the Privy Council form the executive branch of UK government.

The upper house can do a lot to stop & slow things down.
1: stuff introduced in the commons has to be vetoed 3 times by the lords before the commons can pass it into law without there consent.

2: stuff introduced in the lords can NOT be passed into law without there consent.

The Lords can delay things, but they can't actually stop them.
Money related legislation doesn't require their approval, and non-money related measures only need to be passed by two consecutive sessions of the Commons to become law a year later.

What's the case in the US when Congress and the Senate have majorities from different parties - can things get deadlocked until the electorate changes the power balance?

No the lords can stop bills passing into law, approximately 50% of legislation is introduced in the lords, this legislation cannot pass into law without the consent of the lords.

But surely, if the government was really bothered about a particular piece of legislation, they'd just introduce it in the Commons. If they think it'll get through anyway, if they *want* it to be debated, (or if they hope it will get delayed by the Lords so they can blame someone other than themsleves for its failure), they can introduce it in the Lords.

The method for the Commons to get their own way does exist if they care to use it.

It's not so much what people *can* do that matters, but what they *do* do in practice.

Church and state
================
According to the Crown website.

The Queen is the United Kingdom's Head of State; the Queen's title includes the words 'Defender of the Faith'. The Church of England and the Church of Scotland are established Churches. This means that they are recognised by law as the official Churches of England and Scotland, respectively. (There are no established Churches in Northern Ireland nor in Wales - they were disestablished in 1869 in Northern Ireland and 1920 in Wales.)
The Preface to the 39 Articles of the Church of England describes the monarch as 'being by God's Ordinance, according to Our just Title, Defender of the Faith and ... Supreme Governor of the Church of England'. The monarch must be in communion with the Church of England (i.e. a full, confirmed member) and, in his or her coronation oath, the monarch promises to maintain the Church.
The Queen appoints archbishops and bishops on the advice of the Prime Minister, who considers the names selected by a Church Commission. They take an oath of allegiance to The Queen on appointment and may not resign without royal authority. The connection between Church and State is also symbolised by the fact that the 'Lords Spiritual' (consisting of the Archbishops of Canterbury and York and 24 diocesan bishops) sit in the House of Lords. Parish priests also take an oath of allegiance to The Queen.
Since 1919, the Synod (formerly called the Church Assembly) has had the power (delegated by Parliament) to pass Measures on any matter concerning the Church of England. Following acceptance of the Measures by both Houses of Parliament (which cannot amend them, nor - by convention - initiate or discuss ecclesiastical Measures, as many members of both Houses do not belong to the Church of England), the Measures are submitted for Royal Assent and become law. In addition to legislating for the Church by Measure, the General Synod has the power to legislate by Canon in its own domestic affairs such as worship and doctrine, but The Queen's assent is required for the promulgation of such Canons. Such assent is given on the Home Secretary's advice.

In Scotland, the monarch is required by the 1707 Treaty of Union to preserve the Church of Scotland, additionally there is a legal division between church & state in Scotland.

Portions of the above are ©crown

The commons can only get its ay if the bill was introucd in the commons & then only after three unsuccessful readings.

In the US Constitution, there is no recourse for a bill that has passed the House but failed in the Senate. The House can rewrite or reintroduce the bill, but the Senate can keep failing it.

However, the way that Congress is elected generally ensures that the majority party controls both houses. Partisan politics do not generally block legislation in Congress that originates from the majority party. It becomes an issue when the president is from a different party, something that happens more often than not lately. The president can veto the bill. Congress can override his veto, but it takes a 2/3 majority. A bill would have to enjoy more than partisan support in Congress in order to override a presidential veto.

Anyone know what would happn if the Queen refused to give royal assent to a bill ? (I think the last monarch to do this was Queen Anne).

Well, Ben, I am a Christian who believes in reincarnation, also universalism. Without that, I don't think Christianity really has adequate answers. With reincarnation/universalism, then the Gospel really *is* good news, because everybody is included. That's what matters to me - plus which, there is a need to (a) find God and (b) be saved, whatever 'saved' means to you and I interpret it as being 'saved' from being a less than ideal person as we all are, if we are honest - yelling at the kids, half-inching the odd bikky, telling lies - that's sin. (If you don't have kids, read 'yelling at the sister (or brother) or whatever.

No, he didn't!!!!!!!!!!! That's the OT, and a lot of it is very dubious to me. I have heard that the OT is all good because Jesus accepted it all, but I am not so sure about that, truly - the OT sometimes freaks me out. There was a guy Marcion, inb the 3rd century, who didn't accept the OT, just Luke and Acts, he was a Bishop or summat, and sometimes I go with him.

Della, you would have loved my Dad, and he would have loved you. He was a clergyman in the Church of England (among many other things), but had strong leanings towards buddhism. I get my belief in reincarnation from him.

"If Christianity is the answer - what is the question?" is probably a better way to phrase my original header. If you prefer to reply to me direct, my addy is [email protected].

Thanks

***B