Baroness Mary Warnock, Secular Morality & Sawing Off One’s Own Branch
Baroness Mary Warnock
In the podcast episode of Microphilosophy, British philosopher Julian Baggini has a charmingly post-Christendom British chat with member of the British peerage and House of Lords, Baroness Mary Warnock about how annoying it is to have pesky, opinionated Christian bishops in the House of Lords, putting forth their vexing form of Christian morality and anthropology.
Apparently it gets in the way of a jolly good chance to legislate in a manner that keeps up the current business of freeing Britain from the shackles of Christian ecclesiatical influence, into the warm, bosomy embrace of Scientism, itself suckled by their uniquely British take on philosophical naturalism.
Baroness Warnock’s book, the basis of this discussion, is Dishonest to God: On Keeping Religion Out of Politics.
Listen to the discussion here.
My similar but personalised responses sent to Julian Baggini and Baroness Warnock:
Dear Julian,
I get it. Baroness Warnock wants those pesky Christian bishops out of the House of Lords, so that she and all the other more intelligent and rational materialists can get on with transforming the UK into a country ruled by Scientism. And you seem to agree. Forget diversity of opinion. Just stack the House with mates who all agree with philosophical naturalism and things will go so much more smoothly.
Ironically, Warnock is on thin ice when she suggests picking and choosing who has a voice in the House of Lords. My (possibly tainted Aussie) understanding is that the House of Lords is composed entirely of unelected members of the British peerage whose only claim to power, and only qualification to rule, is family inheritance enabled and protected by the same “received tradition” that she rails against when discussing British ecclesiastical authority. Oh dear. Talk about sawing off the branch on which one is perched!
It seems to me that your little pow-wow with Baronmess Warnock was another back-slapping episode of “ABC” – “Anything But Christianity”.
Cheerio,
Roger.
Dear Baroness Warnock,
I refer to your interview with philosopher Julian Baggini on his Microphilosophy Podcast.
I understand what you are getting at. You want those pesky, annoying and opinionated Christian bishops out of the House of Lords, so that you and all the other more intelligent and rational materialists can get on with the business of transforming the United Kingdom into a country ruled by Scientism, suckled by your particular view of philosophical naturalism. And Baggini seems to heartily agree. Forget diversity of opinion. Just stack the House with mates who all subscribe to your brand of philosophical naturalism and unquestioning commitment to scientism – and things will go so much more smoothly.
Ironically, you are on very thin ice when you suggest picking and choosing who has a voice in the House of Lords. My (possibly tainted and seditious) Aussie understanding is that the House of Lords is composed entirely of unelected members of the British peerage whose only claim to power, and only qualification to rule, is familial inheritance enabled and protected by the same “received tradition” that you so rail against when discussing British ecclesiastical authority. Oh dear. Talk about sawing off the branch on which one is perched!
It seems to me that your little pow-wow with Mr Baggini was just another back-slapping episode of “ABC” – “Anything But Christianity”.
Kindest regards and hearty cheerios,
Roger
Joe Fogey
on February 15th, 2012
Your understanding of the composition of the House of Lords is about 100 years out of date. It is composed partly of hereditary peers, and partly of “life peers” – people who, like Baroness Warnock, have distinguished themselves in various ways and who have been elevated to the peerage by the queen, on the recommendation of the prime minister. Some members are politicians who have retired from electoral politics, others are businessmen, community leaders, and so on. The current chief rabbi is a member of the House of Lords though not because of his position.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baroness_Warnock
rogermorris
on February 15th, 2012
Thank you Joe,
After discussion with both Julian Baggini and Baroness Warnock, I agree and stand corrected on that finer point of how Lords are selected. I have made myself aware of the concept of life peerage, of which Mary Warnock is an example. Not quite 100 years out of date, but certainly out of date since 1958. It is a finer point which doesn’t detract from the fact that members or the House of Lords are still unelected officials of government.
I too, despite being a Christian theist, agree that no opinion should be accepted as uncritically by virtue of being received tradition, without rational justification. No opinion, ecclesiastical or otherwise should receive a “free lunch” in debates.
My concern is that, in its impatient hurry to be post-Christian and to shake off the shackles of perceived past ecclesiastical overlordship, Western nations may over-compensate and suppress valid opinions just because they have whiff of Christianity about them. This would be a great shame as many Christian theologians, and laity for that matter, have good academic grounding in moral philosophy, ethics and anthropology. It would be shame to silence such voices in a discriminatory fashion, purely because they are tainted by the perceived odour of political and social supremacy past.