Why not? Our government sees fit to afford that respect on the basis that they are an ordained minister of a recognised religion, surely the respect and the assumption of sound judgment by you too is automatic then? Regardless of whether the religion is Christianity or Raelism?
You're conflating two points. One is that they are accorded automatic respect as a figure of importance in their community, and I wanted you to fail to feel that to illustrate how I fail to feel that for vicars, and secondly that their judgement is automatically considered sound and trustworthy, but that guy thinks that eating dried ground up lion penis will make you more fertile and that stamping his feet on the ground scares away the evil spirits that would otherwise torment his community. Do you consider those beliefs automatically respect worthy, by virtue of that fact that he has them and his community allow him to, and would you think his judgement is sound and trustworthy? Or, would you consider that he's severely deluded and perhaps it would be better to automatically assume his judgement flawed and not trustworthy?

If the list included 'witch doctor', you'd simply accept that and go find one to sign your form?

I'm asking why they are automatically afforded respect and automatically assumed to have trustworthy, sound judgement, you haven't yet given me a reason that supports either of those behaviours.

No, this is a red herring. It's irrelevant what the judgement is, only that they are automatically considered to have sound and trustworthy judgement. Why?

Because they have a job which required a qualification, I suspect.

I don't think I'm happy assuming of anyone that their judgement is sound and I don't think that's what presence on that list means. I'd generally defer to a position of respecting people till they give me a chance to think otherwise but again that's not occupation dependent.

If I was in that guys community and he was telling me not to eat a particular food or poke a particular animal with a stick I'd trust his judgement. If I was to ask him if he knew a particular member of his community I'd expect him to answer truthfully.

presence on that list as mentioned seems a pretty low bar given what is actually expected of the signatory, that they know the person, I don't understand your objection.

They are being asked only to judge if they know who someone is.

If the passport office actually went to the minister and, without further checks, said "Should we give this guy a passport?" then you might have some point.

But they don't.

It's a very small and almost irrelevant part of the form in which you get someone who could (but probably rarely is) be checked out to say "I can reasonably believe that this guy is who he says he is".

It's not an exhaustive list above, as I said before. I think for my provisional driver's licence I got a family friend who owns a small local building firm to sign it.

It's not a statement by the government that builders are some sparkling pillar of the community with outstanding judgement. It's just that the guy has some level of legitimacy, could be checked out himself, and is willing to say "I know Bladesman, I have no reason to doubt his identity".

Ministers make the list because it's a recognised profession and if I name a minister at a local Church then it can be easily checked that said minister exists and is a person of reasonable standing.

Seriously, I thought I'd given you an out in this thread with the whole clergy representatives in Parliament thing, but you managed to change it to an utterly ridiculous idea like this.

It's even less than getting witnesses when you sign a wedding contract or a will or similar.

It's not like you're saying "this witness is qualified to judge in cases of contract law". You're just getting someone else to say "Yeah, as far as I know this guy signed this contract".

Today I have learned that I'm able to sign passports

I think that the point, weakened though it is, still stands. Why are Ministers afforded any level of 'legitimacy' when we wouldn't give that to a Witch Doctor or a Minister from the Raelian UFO religion? What is it about the position that implies the legitimacy? The level of study required to attain it? The legal status of the religion?

Why are religions generally (which was my original issue) automatically (and IMO arbitrarily) afforded respect and, since bladesman brought it up, 'legitimacy'?

Is this just some legacy of past times when religions dominated our cultures and demanded, through sheer intimidation, our respect?

I'm not sure that this can be it, after all, what is the qualification of 'Minister' actually an indication of? Who is qualified to judge whether or not someone truly and accurately represents a deity? Should we accept their word?

I could be a minister if I were prepared to spend $100 online. In fact, I might apply to be an Anamistic Druid since they have a very diverse range of beliefs and practice tolerance to a degree that I could probably tell people that I can turn into a hare and talk to other animals. This would of course, be in no way an indication of an unstable psychological state and I would be trustworthy and of sound judgment. Most importantly, I can expect respect to automatically afforded to me. Damn, why didn't I do this earlier?

I'm not sure how you're not getting this.

They aren't being granted some form of authority.

They're just being grouped amongst a huge list of almost everyone.

I'm not sure you're seeing my perspective.

I didn't say that they were.

Not quite 'everyone' and my issue is that they're included at all. Frankly, I would more willingly assume the local builder to be of sound judgement and worthy of inclusion on the list because they don't publicly exhibit behaviour of a type that would seriously call into question their sanity were they proved to be incorrect in what they believe.

In some cases we don't even need proof, unless anyone here thinks that Scientologists and Raelians have a belief system as equally valid and worthy of respect as Christianity apparently is?

"Countersignatories must work in (or be retired from) a recognised profession or be ‘a person of good standing in their community’, eg:"

So they don't even need to currently work. They could be retired.

The term "recognised profession" is really loose.

And they don't really need that much. They just need to be of good standing in the community.

You're acting like the standard here isn't pretty low.

Minister is a recognised profession. Ministers can be in good community standing.

Therefore, ministers are included.

So if we don't prove them to be wrong their sanity isn't in question but if we do then it is? Don't you see that this is pretty poor thinking. Surely their sanity comes into question if they maintain those beliefs after it has been demonstrated that continuing with them isn't compatible with sanity.

fwiw, given that most ministers of a recognized religion these days go through at least a 3-4 year period of university (or university-like) training, I wonder what odds the forum consensus would lay for a hypothetical <religious minister> - MB debate match if the question of debate was something unrelated to faith...

To respond to the edit:

The builder is openly Catholic. Now should he be barred from counter-signing?

Your Raelian or Scientologist could most probably be used as a counter-signatory.

It's got nothing to do with 'accurately representing a deity'. It has to do with being an employed college graduate.

I really think you're just being obtuse at this point.

It's basically seeking to eliminate Crackhead Dave who lives in the doorway of the local off-license.

No. I'm questioning how it's trustworthy and sound of judgment and deserving of respect to believe that you represent a deity and do it's work on earth. That you are a 'shepherd' and have a flock of people who look to you for guidance. To name just a few of the attributes of a Vicar.

Would you trust the judgement of someone who believes that the real religious truth has already been delivered to us by the driver of a UFO? Or would you suspect that the believer might have very questionable judgement, possibly even be deluded or somewhat unbalanced (which is how I view vicars and priests - since we're focusing on Christianity here). In which case, would you include them on the list?

How does being a representative of a religion afford automatic respect?

Well... Dave the crack head might be addicted to a drug (as plenty of people who aren't looked down on like 'crackheads' are, I'm thinking of alcohol here) but he's still not displaying the type of seriously questionable behaviour that the person who believes that they're doing the work of a deity on earth does. I would want to know more about Dave before I decided either way but with a Minister, I'm straight away wondering how firm a grip on reality they have.

This is almost unbelievable, but if RGT has taught me anything, it's to believe in the unbelievable.

You've been told repeatedly both that this is not why they are on the list and that the list is not some mark of supreme respect. You are indeed simply being obtuse.

Crackhead > sober college graduate.

Nah, it's just MB arguing himself in a corner, realizing there's no easy way out and instead of tucking his tail in, going in full tilt mode.

MB, you've acknowledged many times that apparently I'm both a theist and not as deranged as you perhaps wished me to be to keep your preconceptions in a tidy box. This applies to the vast majority of theists, and in particular to those who are employed college graduates. So time to stop the sillyness. Your point is ******ed. Just let it go.

I'm out.

While MB's point is obviously grasping for grip, I find the concept of a list of "trustworthy" people (because, let's face it... that is what it is) based on profession very strange.

That seems like a very antiquated ideal.