If a High Court Judge were asked to sit on a case in which he had a clear vested interest it is most unlikely this would remain undisclosed, much more likely he/she would simply decline to sit on it: natural justice innit.
The HoL is debating Assisted Dying.
How different might the outcome be if all of those members with strong religious affiliations were required to sit it out.
Let them spout their zealous nonsense, but how can it possibly be right that they can influence the outcome when the opinion they hold is something they cannot even debate with themselves, so beholden are they to their implacable religious beliefs.
0
0
no they shouldn’t
religion is belief, not a vested interest
0
0
Does the OP understand how debate works?
0
0
So exclude those from the debate who are incapable of being swayed or convinced. If they're starting from a position of unassailable irrationality, what's the point in them being there.
1
1
religion is belief, not a vested interest
Hmm, tell that to the Bishops in that chamber.
0
1
Cockpit there is no true debate if you are debating with someone who would never shift their position because of their irrational beliefs.
A good friend of mine grew up an ultra orthodox Jew: Yeshiva, black hat and coat, implacable beliefs about every facet of his life. He saw the light and rejected it all - still enjoys the cultural side of his religion but when we go out for a meal insists on it being ultra non Kosher. He loves pork belly now.. .
3
0
Seems pretty absurd to exclude people from a debate because they have strong views about it
1
0
Wot Sir Humph said.
0
0
There is a world of difference between strong views and immoveable views
0
0
Prodigal, your friend sounds v interesting! I’m always fascinated by people who reject their lives in that way, especially in Judaism, which I’ve always been really interested in!
0
0
Ps what made him decide to reject it?
0
0
I advise all my clients interested in bellies to buy at sixty-four. Mr. Valentine has set the price.
1
0
what sir humphrey said
0
0
What PS said at 12.17.
3
1
“There is a world of difference between strong views and immoveable views”
There quite literally is not, the difference simply being one of increment or degree.
1
0
Wot Laz said
0
0
What Jelly said. This is easy!
1
0
Whether their views are immovable or not, I can't see why that should have any a bearing on their right to seek to pursuade others to agree with them?
1
0
Their place in the HoL is literally provided to them on the basis of their beliefs
It would be like giving the NHS seats in the commons and allowing them to vote on health care cuts
1
0
Re the OP, why is the deification of a belief system more problematic to you than someone with just a strongly held belief that all life holds value (irrespective of a religious outlook)? Are we to make everyone complete a questionnaire with their strongly held moral outlooks and then make them sit out debates accordingly?
0
0
Re the OP, why is the deification of a belief system more problematic to you than someone with just a strongly held belief that all life holds value (irrespective of a religious outlook)? Are we to make everyone complete a questionnaire with their strongly held moral outlooks and then make them sit out debates accordingly?
I think someone with a strongly held view will still listen to reasoned arguments and may come round in time to a fresh viewpoint. Who ever envisaged Martin McGuiness meeting the Queen, Egypt and Israel signing a peace treaty, Arafat and Rabin shaking hands. I am not simply targeting the Catholic block in my anger at this. All religious extremes are just as much to blame. Orthodox Judaism will never shift in its precepts, and these are the groups who will shout loudest when their sacred tenets are questioned. People with strong views eg those I cite above, do come around to different ways of thinking.
0
0
There’s no obligation to listen to reasoned argument.
It’s often quite a dull and annoying thing to do, in fact.
I’d rather play Football Manager, myself.
0
0
''Prodigal, your friend sounds v interesting! I’m always fascinated by people who reject their lives in that way, especially in Judaism, which I’ve always been really interested in! ''
He was a free enough thinker to work out for himself that it was all a load of loblox: a way of thinking imposed on him through parenthood. He is one of the most fascinating people I know not to mention hugely intelligent
0
0
no, I don't think anybody should be required to sit out any debate in HOL based on their religious belief or affiliation.
I do think assisted dying should be legal. especially since in practice it already has been for years - in a discreet way
1
0
LOL at the OP suggesting an equivalence between the role of a HC judge sitting alone on a case and the role of a member of a legislature debating legislative change and voting as part of a large number of members.
LOL even more at the idea that religious people's views on things are less considered than those of non-religious.
Not so LOL at the fact that the OP openly admits that he is targeting the Catholics and the Jews (how typical). Newsflash: Not that many Catholics and Jews in the House of Lords. Certainly not enough to carry a debate on their own.
Maybe the OP wants to take us back to pre-1858 days (when Jews could not sit in Parliament) or pre-1829 days (when Catholics could not sit in Parliament). The largest number of religious members of the HoL by some distance are the Anglicans, including 26 Anglican bishops and another half-dozen retired bishops, but oddly the OP's "anger" did not extend to mentioning them.
The worse bigots are the stupid ones.
0
1
Rob Cannon: let's extend the logic of the judge, and to meet your point, suppose that it's the CoA, or The Supreme Court sitting with a deck of 7.
I'm happy to include any other religious groups that hold entirely entrenched views. I referred to IMPLACABLE religious beliefs as my yardstick.
As as for being your supposed bigot, I am a Jew but dont particularly affiliate myself with those of my brethren who are convinced the earth was formed about 5700 years ago and would not hear otherwise. I would prefer neither they or anyone else believing that, be deciding on the sanctity of life and whose decision it is to end it, when the strict letter of their religion divests them of an independent opinion.
Bigotry? Really?
Do you perchance have a hand to declare?
Thankfully be they Anglican, Jewish, Catholic or of other denominations, just the like the vast majority of the people they represent, I believe that most of our Lords and Commoners are open minded and capable of thinking for themselves.
When the votes are cast I would be fascinated to see what the count would have been if those of implacable religious views were discounted.
And as for the definition of a bigot, this from Oxford Languages
a person who is obstinately or unreasonably attached to a belief, opinion, or faction, especially one who is prejudiced against or antagonistic towards a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular group.
I simply have a problem with people unreasonably attached to beliefs and opinions. I dont care to which group they belong.
0
1
Jews aren't a "denomination".
0
0
Bump
1
0
The question just exposes yet again why the House of Lords should not exist. Nobody (even remotely sensible) would suggest an elected representative should be forced to recuse themselves because of their religious belief because the check/balance on their bias is already there in there democratic system.
1
0
It is also crucial, if a change on something like this is ever to be accepted by the public as legitimate, that the views of people of faith are heard and considered.
0
0
"Jews aren't a "denomination".
True.
0
0
Sorry I misread the OP, on the subject of disclosure, any requirement for anyone to disclose their religious affiliation in any context is very unbritish (in the modern era). We have suffered enough in the past to understand the risks of that I think.
0
0
Does anone agree with the OP, as a matter of inearest?
0
0
Donny/LP I re-located this thread (and tried to find one on the Isle of Man legislation, given the personal trigger I am currently encountering). FWIW I will not take any offence at contrary views, and I wouldn't want or expect anyone to hold back if they disagree with me.
From memory what irritated me was strong religious lobbying and pressure of Peers.
I think most Peer's religious affiliations are probably well known, but I had and continue to have real misgivings about the impact of religious views on this subject.
The Bible is awash with bigotry on sexuality and we have got past that with same sex laws. Time for dying to be treated with the same respect imho.
0
0
They should be involved, despite being delusional. They may have something useful to say. As soon as they start with , "my god would be cross", "x dogma prohibits this" etc, they can be invited to sit down , Stfu and listen to the grown ups.
0
0
To be clear I am absolutely in favour of euthanasia being available in the absolutely awful ‘final days’ sort of scenario you describe on your other thread. My heart goes out to you for that. I had to watch my grandfather (whom I was very close to) go through similar things in the last months of his life and his repeated line that ‘if I was a dog they’d say it was cruel not to have put me down by now’ sticks with me 20 odd years later. Mercifully he had only a few months of that. I know others sometimes get years.
I am not religious and have little time for arguments purely from a position of faith but still, for all that, a requirement to disclose your religious affiliation/belief is a bridge too far for me.
Join the discussion