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

I'll play Devil's Advocate here for the sake of discussion.

Yes, religious leaders should influence legislation as they are the only organised, respected group who put morality and spirituality first. To leave legislation entirely in the hands of politicians merely interested in securing their next vote would be short-sighted.

They also have more members than any political party and can therefore claim to represent more people.

as far as i was aware its the act of homosexuality that the bible seaks against.

its not up to a christian to judge its Gods duty.

as a christian i find it a difficult subject as my best friend is gay. alot of my friends agree with my view of love the person hate the act.
it doesnt stop you helping them.

when it comes to adoption groups giving children to gay couples then i agree they sholdnt. that is just agreeing with he act

If you mean the section in leviticus 18... that was given to the Jewish poeple only as his chosen people and my understanding is that this law applies only to those professing to be his followers at that time and not to anyone outside the professed faith, those who broke the commandments and most relate to hetrosexual relationships were to be dealt with by God directly. It would appear that he actually can handle things on His own From a Christians perspective the same still holds true today I believe... however not everybodies idea of what constitutes a Christian will coincide I suspect

It seems to me that there are two seperate questions here:

1) Should religious groups be able to lobby for the country to be run as they see fit?

Can't see why not, everybody else can. They have their views and they are entitled to express the, same as everyone else.

2) Should religious groups be represented in the House of Lords?

Are there Still bishops in the lords? Have to say I can't see why.

Personally I would not want a government founded on relativism, whose values and realities will be chosen and by whom and why and how long will they last for. Much prefer to have a foundation that has been unchanged for millennium... least ways you know where you stand, does that mean I like everyone’s interpretation of that law no but maybe it would be better to start with dialogue and work from there.

there will always be some christian influence in the government while ever this is a christian country.

heres an idea for you, lets get all religion out of government and get rid of all the christian holidays out of our diaries and make it a secular country. is anybody up for losing a day off work for christmas? lose extra pay for working sundays?

That doesn't especially present me with a problem Nicky, I think we can easily make a case for protecting sundays and various bank holidays without the need for religious justification. So, yes, let's get religion out of the Government, I don't think having a vast number of representatives of the christian church in the house of lords is a fair representation of the country is it?

it is when there is a larger percentage of the country who describe themselves as christian.

non christians never want a christian influence int he country but are happy to celebrate our festivals because they get a day off.

a) What percentage of he population describes themselves as Christian?

b) What percentage of the country regularly goes to church?

"non christians never want a christian influence int he country but are happy to celebrate our festivals because they get a day off"

Sorry, which festivals?

Are you referring to the winter solstice festival that has just been celebrated? You know, the one most of recognise as meaning we have to erect a decorated conifer in our homes? You're telling me that that is a CHRISTIAN festival now? Celebrating what? Someone's birth? A birth documented as being attended by shepherds, who could not possibly have been tending their flocks if the event happened in midwinter. Get rid of the idea that Christmas is YOUR festival - it's not, and never has been. People in these islands have been celebrating the winter solstice since before Jesus was a twinkle in Joseph's eye.

Or do you mean the equinox festivals? See above.

Get rid of ALL religious influence on legislation, ban all religious bank holidays. I think most people really would welcome that, because there's an irritating lack of bank holidays between August and year end. Spread them out more evenly through the year, I say.

SoRB

Ooh, can I trot my favourite statistic out for what must be the hundredth time on here?

The protest this evening will include representative from all three "major" imaginary-friend groups - Muslims, Christians, and Jews.

Jews. A "major" religion, apparently. Even though, in the UK, according to 2001 census figures, they are outnumbered three to two... by Jedi. And we don't get our on slot on Thought for the Day!

SoRB

I think hootoo is one place that does respect the rights of gay and lesbians over any religiose group out there n i'd rather go to Avebury than any church in the country . Does that make me queer or what?

Not yet. Do you fancy a go?

I've been spending quite a lot of time on the Richard Dawkins forum and something that's struck me is the amount of time people spend trying to define, describe and justify atheism.

Why? None of us feel the need to justify our lack of belief in the little turnip that eats the curtains, and that non existent turnip doesn't have people trying to pass judgement on other human beings.

Mind you, we don't have a book written by people on behalf of the turnip, and we don't have several million people believing in the turnip.

curtain eating turnips this is a species I am unfamiliar with translation please

Claire Rayner revealed on the Personality Test on R4 recently she once did a stint on Thought For The Day, appreciated and respected for its warmth and candour; though no-one thought to ask, or they'd have found out she was an atheist.

Benjamin, yes, there are still bishops in the House of Lords. A limit of 26 in the House are Anglican bishops or archbishops. Of course, there are 750 in the house, so they shouldn't be able to adversely effect equality for gays unless there is a hefty number of secular bigots, too.

Should being a bishop automatically allow them to be part of the legislatory process? No. But then neither should owning lots of land (which was the main way to get there), or by having an I-scratch-your-back relationship with the PM.

Myself, I'm more worried about folks like Dawkins influencing popular opinion. Because a world run solely by atheist fundamentalists is a terrifying prospect.
That, and the fact that he thinks I should be banned from the sciences, the education system, the government...

I can't remember the exact quote or where I heard it, but Richard Dawkins said something along the lines of (vague enough for you yet?)
"Even the most devout religious followers are athiests of some sort or another."
Meaning that they are quite happy to not believe in other people's gods but grow incensed when people suggest their imaginary friend might be made-up too. I think it indicative of an arrogant church to assume an athiest refuses to believe exclusively in the Judeo/Christian/Muslim god.

"Because a world run solely by atheist fundamentalists is a terrifying prospect."

I believe the suicide/air force bombing body count for the atheist fundamentalist party currently stands at zero. I'd vote for 'em any day, seeing as they are responsible for a great deal less slaughter than the 'love thy neighbour/though shalt not kill' types.

And that reminds me of a quote (and I can't remember who it's by... a politician or civil servant, I think ) about when he visited Northern Ireland at the height of the troubles. He was challanged as to which religious faction he was a member of. Replying that he was an atheist, a voluble Irish woman stood up and demanded, quite seriously, to know: "Yes, but is it the god of the Catholics or the Protestants that you don't believe in?"