Charles Flynn Posted January 7, 2006 Share Posted January 7, 2006 Tynwald should be wholly elected although I would make an exception for the Bishop who I believe brings clarity of thought to many thorny issues. I certainly would not want to see him removed from the proceedings preferably retaining his vote at least for the time being. However in the last resort it is the people in a democracy who must decided. Isn't the Bishop a non-voting member? If he isn't then he certainly should be. A fully-elected Tynwald is the only possibility for a democratic government. The same applies with the UK parliament. No he is a voting member. As I say I would give him my vote because he is an intelligent articulate man and I am a member of the Church of England - so you would expect me to. It is not a secret club which I have not declared. It doesn't mean I would take the party line and vote the same way as he does. Neither would he expect me to. It is up to each person to make their own minds up. If you want to know the Bishop's views on something there is nothing to stop you. I do have reservations about the democratic issue and the position of the Bishop could be under threat. Some want him to be able to take part in debate without a vote. Looking at the present set up where apparently if you belong to an organisation with influence or know the right people you can go into the Legislative Council without bothering being elected by the people the position of the Bishop is not out of place. At least you know what line he is likely to take on certain issues and he does have support from the faith community on quite a lot of the debates. It is part of the heritage of the Isle of Man which many would not wish to lose. There have been many debates on the position of the Bishop and so far at least it has come down tothe retention of his seat with voting rights. The others - either rejected or about to be rejected MHK's and those who have not taken part in an election should be out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cheesemonster2005 Posted January 7, 2006 Share Posted January 7, 2006 No he is a voting member. As I say I would give him my vote because he is an intelligent articulate man and I am a member of the Church of England - so you would expect me to. It is not a secret club which I have not declared. It doesn't mean I would take the party line and vote the same way as he does. Neither would he expect me to. It is up to each person to make their own minds up. If you want to know the Bishop's views on something there is nothing to stop you. I have no problems with But you're right, I'd trust a bishop over the rest of our politicians anyday!there being a bishop in the council but he should have to be elected like every other member. Only a very small percentage of the island's population are practising protestants and this should be reflected by not having an automatic place for a bishop in parliament. Or on the other hand, how about having a representative from the catholic church and a chief-mormon too? But you're right, I'd trust a bishop over the rest of our politicians anyday! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charles Flynn Posted January 7, 2006 Share Posted January 7, 2006 No he is a voting member. As I say I would give him my vote because he is an intelligent articulate man and I am a member of the Church of England - so you would expect me to. It is not a secret club which I have not declared. It doesn't mean I would take the party line and vote the same way as he does. Neither would he expect me to. It is up to each person to make their own minds up. If you want to know the Bishop's views on something there is nothing to stop you. I have no problems with But you're right, I'd trust a bishop over the rest of our politicians anyday!there being a bishop in the council but he should have to be elected like every other member. Only a very small percentage of the island's population are practising protestants and this should be reflected by not having an automatic place for a bishop in parliament. Or on the other hand, how about having a representative from the catholic church and a chief-mormon too? But you're right, I'd trust a bishop over the rest of our politicians anyday! Charles Flynn writes: "No problem with having a member of any faith community. The Keys may well have to decide the fate of the Bishop's vote in the next Parliament. I have known many of the recent Bishops of Sodor & Man and have found that they have a diverse range of views which you may not necessarily expect. Many of them support radical policies and certainly not always the establishment line. The future of Sodor & Man probably depends on them retaining this independence and supporting through their conscience the will of the people. I believe if there was a vote for election in some form or other the Bishop would have no problem being elected." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gladys Posted January 8, 2006 Share Posted January 8, 2006 Sorry Charles, but I am a bit confused by your concern for the future of Sodor & Man, is that a real place or the remnants of a diocese which long ago ceased? Is Sodor a real place or is it the place where Rev Awdry allowed his very good engines to chug along? And what relevance does it have for the IOM? I have great respect for the Bishop, as were his predecessors, he is intelligent, articlate and well-educated. But I do wonder how long conventional religion should be allowed to have a hand in politics. I would rather he was appointed because he is Jimminy Cricket, rather than a defender of the faith. After all, most religions do have the same basic moral codes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charles Flynn Posted January 8, 2006 Share Posted January 8, 2006 Sorry Charles, but I am a bit confused by your concern for the future of Sodor & Man, is that a real place or the remnants of a diocese which long ago ceased? Is Sodor a real place or is it the place where Rev Awdry allowed his very good engines to chug along? And what relevance does it have for the IOM? I have great respect for the Bishop, as were his predecessors, he is intelligent, articlate and well-educated. But I do wonder how long conventional religion should be allowed to have a hand in politics. I would rather he was appointed because he is Jimminy Cricket, rather than a defender of the faith. After all, most religions do have the same basic moral codes. I understand your point of view and I know I am likely to get lots of stick over this but I wouldn't want anyone to think I am simply judging what you would like me to say rather than what I really support. It is something which goes back a long time and in some people's view it has had its day. You are of course correct in saying Sodor & Man is not the Diocese it once was but some of us don't want to see it completely gone. There are people who find it appealing as it is part of the Manx heritage which I support and they don't want to see the Bishopric lost or another strand of tradition disappear and the Manx Church become part of the Diocese of Carlisle - who incidentally have a very good Bishop presently. Many heritage people would want matters to stay as they are even though they are not Anglicans. A lot depends of course whether the particular Bishop is voting in Tynwald in the way you want but probably he is no different than many of the others who we do elect.How do we know what they stand for? Religious leaders are members of the House of Lords and although I wouldn't want anyone to take any comfort from it they are leaders in Iran and elsewhere! Anyhow I am simply stating where I stand on this issue so it is clear. If I was a non-believer or a member of another faith such as a Methodist like Mr Kneale I might take another stance - possibly yours!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gladys Posted January 8, 2006 Share Posted January 8, 2006 Thank you Charles, I am all for preserving the Manx heritage and, in a way, my question was mischeivous. The point being that perhaps it is now an anachronism to have unelected religious involvement in Government. Just because he is what he is does not make his views right, acceptable or beyond examination! (And that is no comment on the man, rather the concept.) There are good (and by that I mean would stand up to scrutiny by anyone of any faith or persusion), and there are bad, men of the cloth. But because they are what they are, they hold positions of influence in our society. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lisner Posted January 8, 2006 Share Posted January 8, 2006 The Bishop provides some stability in Tynwald. In general his position is based on long founded and well respected morals. Many people on this Island are thankful that he is a voting member of Tynwald. The meek and the mild are a very powerful force when it comes to elections. Far more poweful than those who shout loudly but can't be bothered or are far, far too busy to go along to the voting station. It is a foolish politician who stands to remove the vote from the Bishop. The electorate seem to remember such stances. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charles Flynn Posted January 8, 2006 Share Posted January 8, 2006 Thank you Charles, I am all for preserving the Manx heritage and, in a way, my question was mischeivous. The point being that perhaps it is now an anachronism to have unelected religious involvement in Government. Just because he is what he is does not make his views right, acceptable or beyond examination! (And that is no comment on the man, rather the concept.) There are good (and by that I mean would stand up to scrutiny by anyone of any faith or persusion), and there are bad, men of the cloth. But because they are what they are, they hold positions of influence in our society. The Isle of Man I believe has been served in the main by good men of the cloth of all faiths. We have been very fortunate. This is not entirely surprising because the selection procedure is very tough and those who are likely to upset the people to whom they minister are rejected. I would suggest most of the people on this Island like Lisner says do not want the Bishop's vote to be removed as they believe he will stand up for what is right for the people and take a wider perspective on issues than most local politicians. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Declan Posted January 8, 2006 Author Share Posted January 8, 2006 The Bishop's vote and position in the house should go. If he wishes to espouse his views he should put himself up for election. We cannot have someone who is a placee of a discredited off-Island political institution (the CofE) in a postion where he can continue to abuse the legislative procedure for his own agenda. We are supposed to be a democracy. Another possible question for candidates is "Do you practice a religion?" Whilst a positive answer to this question would not neccessarily stop me voting for them, it would be something to keep in mind when making a decision. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cheesemonster2005 Posted January 8, 2006 Share Posted January 8, 2006 The Bishop's vote and position in the house should go. If he wishes to espouse his views he should put himself up for election. We cannot have someone who is a placee of a discredited off-Island political institution (the CofE) in a postion where he can continue to abuse the legislative procedure for his own agenda. We are supposed to be a democracy. Another possible question for candidates is "Do you practice a religion?" Whilst a positive answer to this question would not neccessarily stop me voting for them, it would be something to keep in mind when making a decision. Declan, since you have been overthrown from Mod power your posts have become better and more daring. How's life not being a Mod - must be devastatingly boring now Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lisner Posted January 8, 2006 Share Posted January 8, 2006 The Bishop's vote and position in the house should go. If he wishes to espouse his views he should put himself up for election. We cannot have someone who is a placee of a discredited off-Island political institution (the CofE) in a postion where he can continue to abuse the legislative procedure for his own agenda. We are supposed to be a democracy. I would agree with this entirely - but only in a world that is just a little nearer to ideal. There are some well dodgy people get elected to Tynwald, Isle of Man. And the Governmental is far from democratic anyway. It is under our current system run by cronyism, back-scratchers and 'nodding donkeys' (a phrase heard on Hango Hill - thanks Bill Henderson!) that we have to be thankful there is a Bishop there. But yes, if we can first manage democracy then the Bishop's vote would need to be re-considered. There's plenty more for the chop before him though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Declan Posted January 8, 2006 Author Share Posted January 8, 2006 Declan, since you have been overthrown from Mod power your posts have become better and more daring. How's life not being a Mod - must be devastatingly boring now Erm... well I wasn't "overthrown" - I quit. One of the reasons for this was I felt I hadn't made much contribution to the forum as an ordinary poster in the previous year, in part because a sizable portion of my forum time was spent arguing with the other mods. I don't think my posts are any more daring than during my time as a mod, though, now I have the time to consider them more. Life not being a mod is fine (I do miss the skeet though!). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lisner Posted January 8, 2006 Share Posted January 8, 2006 Go on, tell us what the mods used to say and who about and all that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charles Flynn Posted January 8, 2006 Share Posted January 8, 2006 The Bishop's vote and position in the house should go. If he wishes to espouse his views he should put himself up for election. We cannot have someone who is a placee of a discredited off-Island political institution (the CofE) in a postion where he can continue to abuse the legislative procedure for his own agenda. We are supposed to be a democracy. Another possible question for candidates is "Do you practice a religion?" Whilst a positive answer to this question would not neccessarily stop me voting for them, it would be something to keep in mind when making a decision. Many people don't practice a religion but they think they do. They say for instance I belong to such and such religious organisation but they only turn up at the beginning, sometime in the middle and when they are departing this earth. At least if they truly are committed you have a fair chance that they believe in something apart from just being in it for themselves. All things being equal I would vote for someone who practises and is seen to be doing good works - they may be Christian, Muslim, Buddhists or Freethinkers who are non religious. Let us have men and women of principle such as the Bishop in our Parliament. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheTool Posted January 8, 2006 Share Posted January 8, 2006 Great post there charles your feelings are mirrored by myself also. The trouble is most seats seem to be sealed up due to the OAP's voting for people who are in it as a career and not as a service. I think the islands government is a lost cause myself. Lets just hope some lose their £40.000 a year hand out and realise who hard it is at the minute. I guess this will be a hot topic till november. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.