Why we should remove Bishops from House of Lords

Now, you might not expect me to say this (though more regular readers may not be surprised). But I do think that we should remove our Bishops from the house of Lords as by right. My reasons are varied. One of them is that I think that we ought to have an elected house -though elected from non-geographical issue groups should as charities. Under this proposal, all churches, potentially and other religious groups would have representation in a scrutinising chamber of government.
Even if that doesn't happen (which looks unlikely now), then I think that the issue, mentioned in the article, of disestablishment by degrees makes it a good idea. And since I think that clergy ought to be able to stand for election to parliament and, I think, the main constitutional reason is the presence of bishops in the Lords, then it would help on that front too (why shouldn't a MP be a SSM priest? why should political representation be the only legitimate lawful job an SSM would be barred from?).

That's not to say I don't think various bishops down the centuries have not done a good job; some, perhaps many, clearly have; but it's not an argument of principle to say that some do a good job therefore we should allow the system of appointment, that on other grounds would not be put forward, to continue. Same as with the monarchy itself, really.
Bishops could be banned from House of Lords - politics.co.uk: "One of the possibilities being discussed would see a shift to an all-elected House of Lords in which no seats would be automatically reserved for church members.

Because of the Church of England's role as the established church, 26 bishops referred to as Lords Spiritual currently hold a life peerage."