Talk:State religion
"Some senior clergy actually have the right, by virtue of their job, to sit in the upper house of the legislature" - well it beats having that right due to their great-great-great-grandfather's job. Not that further improvements couldn't be made, of course. Totnesmartin 11:42, 3 August 2007 (CDT)
So effin' true Keepgerbils(in a cage)! 11:50, 3 August 2007 (CDT)
It's not that bad. A whie ago a law was made that banned hereditary positions in the house of lords, and now you have to be awarded the position. The house of lords is also less powerful than the house of commons, as the house of lords can only decide to stop a bill that passed in the house of commons twice. Therefore, if the house of commons votes something through parliament 3 times, it will pass automatically on the third time without interference from the house of lords, though the reigning monarch can veto anything, but that power is rarely used (the Queen has never used this). Also, the number of bishops in the house of Lords is very small compared to the total number of members, so they have relatively little impact when voting on something based on religious position alone.— Unsigned, by: . 62.254.216.181 / talk / contribs
- And about time. Blair chickened out of electing the "upper" house & I don't think I'll see it but there's always hope. Susanpurrrrr 12:09, 13 March 2008 (EDT)
Video Games? Really? Does that bit have a purpose? REFreeman 9:24 20 September 2009
- Makes sense to me - it is an attempt to analyze how the state's attitude toward religion affect the state's success, and thus very interesting. And, at least since "Populous", I am not a gamer at all. If it makes sense to me, in this case, it's probably quite sensible - rational, even. It's also amusing, which is a factor we strive for here. ħuman
01:40, 21 September 2009 (UTC)