egafd.com

I wonder what Jesus would think of all this expenses claiming? Wasn't it the CofE who had a pop at the MPs during their expenses scandal?

Anyway, the expenses doesn't bother me as much as having them being allowed a say on how I live my life, unelected. The good news is their numbers maybe reduced to 12. The bad news is they're looking into guaranteed places for 'other faiths'. That's right, we're looking at a future where Christians, Muslims, Hindus and Jews all debate over what we can and cannot do. Not to worry, it's not like they've a history of fighting or anything.

We also have our next King, Prince Charles, wanting to be known as 'defender of faith', not 'the' faith.

Isn't it about time we became officially secular?

"Anyway, the expenses doesn't bother me as much as having them being allowed a say on how I live my life,"

Don't worry, they are very tolerant toward homosexuality these days, well, apart from the Muslims and Hindus.

Since when do religious people think about anything else but money?

Isn't it about time you officially changed the bloody record, Sam?

And by the way, nobody's elected to the house of lords, they're appointed.

Exactly.

You still think the Earth's flat, Ken?

No. I'm just not sucking Richard Dawkins' dick like you are, Sam.

And besides, what's the shape of the Earth got to do your proposed constitutional changes?

And I'll ask again, why bother to point out that the bishops are unelected, when nobody's elected to the house of lords anyway?

Because the other 'unelected' are there on merit, now (once all the hereditary peers are gone) and not because they happen to believe in some magic man in the sky or not.

And I've no idea why you brought up Richard Dawkins in my rant about Bishops (and soon to be Imams and Rabbis) being in our HoL. You seem obsessed with the man.

For the record I don't like the idea of unelected atheists, deists, polytheists or agnostics either. But let's start with the religious ones first cos they're organised, engrained and have an attitude of entitlement.

They're also fleecing the taxpayer with their expenses!

You're saying that merit doesn't at all come into their appointment? Or even
that they represent the sections of the population that believe the same as
them? I'm not even defending the bishops in question. I don't know them, so I'm
not disputing that the bishops in question aren't perhaps greedy. The COE and RC
church does seem to care a lot about money. For what it's worth I'm not even a
fan of the clergy. All I'm saying is that's it's a bit a leap from pointing to
their greed, and to saying 'Hey let's throw the baby (religion) out with the
bath water and go secular!'

In your 'Flat Earth' comment, you criticised my more philosophical outlook on
life. So I thought that I'd criticise your apparent adulation of Darwinism. I
brought up Richard Dawkins (I could've just as easily said Richard Hawking,
Charles Darwin, etc - or even this woman) because he tends to be presented on TV as the
face of modern Darwinism. (And I'm not alone in my dislike of him either: EXAMPLE)

And if you don't like un-elected officials, then you're not going to like the
rest of the House of Lords anyway. They're not elected - That's the point. It's
not the House of Commons, I think the intention is to create a cross-section of
society.

Speaking of the un-elected, I like the idea of the Monarchy (which has very
little constitutional power) and the House of Lords standing in the Government's
way of complete-and-utter control. If it's not broke, don't fix it. Don't
forget, even Hitler was democratically elected. If only Germany had had
something to stop him from taking complete control of the country.

Hang on, I must be doing something wrong with my links. Anyway, here they are again to copy and paste:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madalyn_Murray_O'Hair

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yx7oVGdv-SI