................

[JesusCappuccino]

...................

[SeanMacGabhann]

he has always done God hasn't he? I wouldn't say it was a surprise...

[annaj]

Yes, he's always done God. He's always said he was Catholic and there was a sort of small scale fuss when he came to power, but he said lots of reassuring things about being objective and serving the people and the fuss went away.

The question of religion in politics is complicated and not something I have time to do justice to now (a large number of plastic resuscitation dummies are awaiting my life-saving attention) but I'll be interested to hear all the views.

[Keef]

Didn't he convert to Catholicism?

[Peckhamgatecrasher]

Annaj, it's not nice to talk about the cookwank customers like that.

[SeanMacGabhann]

This could end up being a resurrection of the Enemies of Reason thread

Say what you will about the CoE but at least they have tried hard to take religion out of things and reduce it to mumbling in cold buildings

I grew up in a country where the church had a massive part in government policy and even as a wee lad already indoctrinated into becoming an altar boy I could see that was a Bad Thing. I shudder at the memory.

People should be free from religious persecution - just as we don't go around attacking people for still believing in Santa Claus. But should religion have input into government policies? In a word.. no

[mockney piers]

Yeah he paid lip service to the CofE for years and converted jolly quickly on leaving power revealing the worst kept secret in politics.

How can he do catholicism, isn't all to do with saying sorry? Not something he'd know too much about.

[david_carnell]

As an aside it was Alistair Campbell who is attributable for the (in)famous "we don't do God" remark. It was used to defer from answering questions on religion and Blair.

It wasn't exactly a secret though was it. I mean, wow, political leader has religious views - what next, revelations that some cabinet members once took drugs?

I'm no fan of Blair but I'll eat my hat when a party leader comes out as a devout atheist.

[blinder999]

david_carnell Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I'm no fan of Blair but I'll eat my hat when a

> party leader comes out as a devout atheist.

chow down David:

Nick Clegg says: 'I don't believe in God'

[david_carnell]

Hmmm...whilst that trilby is looking mighty tasty his "devout-ness" doesn't really spread very far does it:

  Quote

He later issued a statement saying that, while he is ?not an active believer?, his Spanish wife Miriam is a Roman Catholic and their two young sons will be brought up in the Catholic faith.

His statement said: ?I have enormous respect for people who have religious faith. I?m married to a Catholic and am committed to bringing my children up as Catholics.

?However, I myself am not an active believer, but the last thing I would do when talking or thinking about religion is approach it with a closed heart or a closed mind.?

Still, best of the also-rans I suppose.

[blinder999]

indeed, shame about the retraction, but the initial exchange surely means you need to break out the knife and fork!

"Do you believe in God?"

"No"

All that guff after the event is disappointing, as is his decision to allow his wife to indoctrinate their kids.

[david_carnell]

:) Perhaps I should have clarified my initial, rather exciteable, promise.

I'll eat my hat if any major party leader comes out as a devout atheist.

Back to JesusCappucino's original question though:

There is no place for religion in our government. Agreed?

I don't think I do, no. I support people's right to practise religion freely and if they are elected by democratic mandate to govern then I would consider them hypocrites if they didn't allow their religion to influence some of their policy decisions. Whether I'd support them is, of course, another matter entirely.

[mockney piers]

The words delusion and hubris and of course irony for some reason have just popped into my head.

The Tony Blair Faith Foundation. Not quite as frightening as Middle East Peace Envoy, but still.

If I had right royally screwed up quite as much as he had I'd be looking forward to keeping my head down while my wife earnt a fortune boring people to tears on the lecture circuit...but no such luck.

[Jeremy]

david_carnell Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I support people's right

> to practise religion freely and if they are

> elected by democratic mandate to govern then I

> would consider them hypocrites if they didn't

> allow their religion to influence some of their

> policy decisions.

I'd like to think that politicians could be objective, and act in the interest of the people - rather than taking guidance from morally dubious mythology.

[david_carnell]

Would you say the same if they were buddhists or is it just certain religions that leave you with a bad taste in your mouth?

I would hope they could be objective most of the time. I doubt whether religion has much to say on most issues of government but I'd rather some politicians had a moral code I disagree with than none at all. Not to say atheists aren't moral, you understand.

If there are issues that their faith affects I would hope they have enough conviction to follow it, thats all.

[mockney piers]

"Not to say atheists aren't moral"

Judging by Tony's latest words he disagrees with you. Without faith the world will go to pot apparently (laugh or cry?).

For a man inspired by his faith to go to war more than any other British leader in living memory, that's quite a statement.

[atila the gooner]

Politics and religion, two things you shouldn't talk about at parties or in social gatherings, nor should the twain meet in the political arena, but regretably they do in various guises across the globe.

[Brendan]

I agree with Sean re. the whole church/power thing. Unfortunately the Catholic Church and government/power are historically synonymous concepts going back to the time of Constantine. The Catholic Church has been built on the concept of ruling through faith (it is not unique in this).

The CofE on the other hand was a bold political move which gave the state control of the church rather than the other way around.

Personally I don?t think either system is ideal. But then I suppose if the majority of people in a country want to be governed under a religious code then who am I to say they shouldn?t? So thinking along those lines does that mean that if the majority of people in a country choose to be governed by an autocratic dictator who am I to say any different?

So then who am I to go rushing in and feeding them all when the whole lot goes tits up or they have run their country into the ground? - Or do I have some kind of responsibility?

Anyway?. :-S

For me there is also a great pity in the fact that a lot of worthwhile thought on spirituality and the general human condition has been done over the centuries in the name of organised religion but it mostly comes with the proviso of having to buy into what is essentially a system of non-democratic government.

[capt_birdseye]

mockney piers Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> "Not to say atheists aren't moral"

> Judging by Tony's latest words he disagrees with

> you. Without faith the world will go to pot

> apparently (laugh or cry?).

To paraphrase Mr Dawkins, the world will go to pot without Police, without faith it will do just fine!

[tinagwee]

david_carnell Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> >

> If there are issues that their faith affects I

> would hope they have enough conviction to follow

> it, thats all.

I kind of disagree with you on that one. I expect political leaders to keep their own personal faith away from politics and shouldnt let their religious beliefs effect political judgements. I would expect eg a catholic politician to themselves disagree with abortion and therefore never have one but I definetly dont want them to vote in that manner, they need to vote for issues in a modern and logical manner, in a way that doesnt look to force personal views on others. I for one wouldnt have an abortion but I totally think every woman should be free to choose for themselves and I certainly wouldnt want some politician with religious views to vote to make them illegal again.

[bignumber5]

Coming from a background of professional detatchment/objectivity myself, I think it's wholey possible to believe something in your personal life and not let it affect your professional life. to agree with David_C, to say that there is no place for religion in politics is, in a strange turn of evens, removing freedom of speech from those in public office. Surely those with strong feelings/faith will gravitate towards a political stance that has similar views - Catholics to a pro-life stance and so on. Martin Luther King and Ghandi both had strong faith, and it didn't make them fanatics, did it? Yet their impact on political issues made history, they opposed the norm and now that norm would be considered extremist.

To look back on the 10yrs of Blairdom, I do not find myself (even now this issue is being emphasised) thinking "now that administration was so... well... Catholic" so i'd say he did a good job in professionally detaching faith from business, most of the time.

Whilst I do not think the invasion of Iraq was justifiable, I also don't think that a PM who stayed out only because he's catholic and they're Muslim and that wont look good, in some dreadfully misguided act of positive discrimination to safeguard against being labelled as a fanatic himself, would be any better than a religious crusade. Answer: remove faith from the equation. Whatever reasons he had for making that call (and I'd truely love to know what they really were) I genuinely believe that faith was NOT one of them.

[SeanMacGabhann]

  Quote

really bignumber5?

Tony Blair, faith and Iraq?

[giggirl]

I'm so glad Tony believes in hell because that's surely where he's going. Sing along Tony....

Beelzebub has a devil put aside for me,for me,for me .....

[mockney piers]

http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/03/10/opinion/edpabst.php

[bignumber5]

SeanMacGabhann Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> >

> really bignumber5?

Really.

I truely believe that there's a difference between accepting judgement on one of your actions after the fact and pre-emting that judgement by acting in a certain way, but I am willing to entertain the possibility that I am being naive. The alternative makes me sad.

I've acted against my personal preferences in professional scenarios before, and in decidedly grey-area situations, and have been willing to accept the judgement of that by colleagues who personally don't agree because as similar people it offends their personal sensibilities, but I know that I acted appropriately for my role as a professional in that scenario.

I think that is what Blair is saying in your link, seanmac, but then I guess it's all down to interpretation.