http://www.pledgebank.com/LordInTheLords Comments on 'donate one pound to the International Red Cross for each of the 26 Anglican bishops sitting in the House of Lords who completes the Sober Survey' en-gb team@pledgebank.com 1901-01-01T00:00+00:00 2 hourly http://www.pledgebank.com/LordInTheLords#comment_2993399 Sober Survey I concur strongly with the remarks of H.F and Kev and others. I would subscribe to this campaign if the questions were more carefully framed and especially more appropriate for the times we live in when Christianity is no longer the dominant faith. So we have to define “faith” and whose “faith”. We also have to ask if there can there be such a thing as acceptable faith and un-acceptable faith. And who decides; and on what basis. Do we exclude the kind of faith that persuades people to go out into the streets carrying banners “Death to the unbeliever”, “Behead those who defame Islam”, “To hell with Democracy”? If so, on what grounds? Faith is faith. Even on their own terms the questions suggested will present little trouble to House of Lords incumbents. For example; most mainstream Christians will find it easy to accept Darwin and agree that we do indeed share ancestors with the apes. I am not the person to design the questionnaire; we need someone of the calibre of Richard Dawkins. But whatever we do let’s not go off half cock. http://www.pledgebank.com/LordInTheLords#comment_2993317 I think the pledge is an excellent idea - and I completely agree with David Milne's comments. We could all think of questions that we'd prefer, but I think this set is an excellent start - freethinkers need to pull together from time to time! Here are my answers: 1. yes 2. yes 3. yes - of course 4. only if someone (human) can hear them and really likes you 5. evolution 6. absolutely 7. it saved the life of a close relative, so absolutely 8. (a) no one (the beauty) (b) Homo sapiens 9. I will make insects and fungus very happy 10. I hope not - I don't want to be scrutinized by an uninvited peeping tom http://www.pledgebank.com/LordInTheLords#comment_2993313 This pledge is a brilliant idea. It is high time that bishops in the House of Lords were made to feel accountable to the public for their personal beliefs. So many of us nowadays consider them nonsensical that it is quite proper that we should put the bishops 'on the spot'. http://www.pledgebank.com/LordInTheLords#comment_2993303 I agree there are a thousand more devastating questions that could be asked. But doing so would only guarantee that they would not respond and it would also reinforce the image of the strident, taunting atheist. The only practical method to reveal the nakedness of these emperors is to strip them of their metaphorical intellectual rationalizations by forcing them to declare literal beliefs. Bravo-Zulu to the pledge author - Good Job! http://www.pledgebank.com/LordInTheLords#comment_2993292 I agree that the questions are a little weak. How about do you actually believe it is possible for a man to be dead for three days and come back to life ? http://www.pledgebank.com/LordInTheLords#comment_2993291 I'm sure that many of us reading this pledge will be able to come up with better and/or more searching questions for the bishops, but I think the point about this pledge is that it makes a start by putting them on the spot - ie getting the bishops used to the idea that they are going to be questioned and challenged about precisely what it is they believe. For example, I wonder if they would respond individually or jointly, and if the latter, would it promote argument between the bishops themselves? For too long, they have had enormous privledges bestowed upon simply for being bishops. It's time they faced some serious questioning. I do agree that the questions could have been better thought out - perhaps the pledge is the work of just one person, and it would have benefited significantly by being workshopped by a group (or even canvassing Pharyngula or Richard Dawkins.net for suggestions for questions). However, despite the limitations of the questions asked, let's get on with signing this pledge and begin the process (long overdue) of putting the bishops under public scrutiny. We can evolve better and more searching questions as the process gathers momentum.....David Milne. http://www.pledgebank.com/LordInTheLords#comment_2993276 I think you missed a couple of important questions with regard to gay people in the church and whether they can be clergy-people. Also you should have asked whether you can establish morals in the absence of a religious upbringing. http://www.pledgebank.com/LordInTheLords#comment_2993274 I like the idea of this pledge, but it's a shame that the questions in the survey are so poor. For example, there are three separate questions that could all be answered by simply asking "do you accept as true the theory of evolution by natural selection?". And I think we already know what every clergyman's view is on questions 8 and 9 - I don't see what's to be gained by asking this again. Also, since the potential respondents are sitting members of the house of lords, would it not be more appropriate to question them about the role of the church in government and disestablishmentarianism? For example: "Do you think that a religious order should have a voice in deciding laws for a secular society?" and "Should all rules laid out in the bible be implemented in law? If not, should any? If so, on what basis do you discriminate which rules are to be taken literally and which are not?" I just pulled those off the top of my head, but I think given time I could come up with a better list of ten questions quite easily.