Historically, membership in the House of Lords was tied to land ownership. Hence "Lords".<quoted text>
Except the fact that it demonstrates the church of England does nothing more than ceremonially rubber stamp the elections of the people.
Why, Barefoot, would the church of England appoint Muslims into Westminster if they are so concerned about Christianity?
Well, yes, because secular democratic governments do not discriminate against people based on their religious beliefs or lack of.
What is demonstrates is that for all your song and dance about the UK being a state religion, it is nothing more than hot air considering we act just as any democratic country does.
Why, Barefoot, do we see no Muslim members of Congress in the United States considering you see your country as the champion of secular democracy?
We are certainly more open minded on religious belief contrary to the United States, which again renders your whole spiel about legalities meaningless considering our actions contradict our laws.
Why? Because our religious laws are relics. Artefacts. Shells. Until you can get your head round this, you are going to be stuck in an intellectual rut.
The Church, of course, owned more land than anyone except the Crown, hence the bishops.