Print
Tony Blair: Mention God and you're a 'nutter'
by Telegraph
Reposted from:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=INRTTT5I1400ZQFIQMFCFF4AVCBQYIV0?xml=/news/2007/11/25/nblair125.xml
Tony blair has sparked controversy by claiming that people who speak about their religious faith can be viewed by society as "nutters".
- Your view: Can politics and religion mix?
- Cardinal urged Blair not to reveal conversion at Vatican
The former prime minister's comments came as he admitted for the first time that his faith was "hugely important" in influencing his decisions during his decade in power at Number 10, including going to war with Iraq in 2003.
Mr Blair complained that he had been unable to follow the example of US politicians, such as President George W. Bush, in being open about his faith because people in Britain regarded religion with suspicion.
"It's difficult if you talk about religious faith in our political system," Mr Blair said. "If you are in the American political system or others then you can talk about religious faith and people say 'yes, that's fair enough' and it is something they respond to quite naturally.
"You talk about it in our system and, frankly, people do think you're a nutter. I mean you may go off and sit in the corner and commune with the man upstairs and then come back and say 'right, I've been told the answer and that's it'."
Even Alastair Campbell - his former communications director who once said, "We don't do God" - has conceded that Mr Blair's Christian faith played a central role in shaping "what he felt was important".
Peter Mandelson, one of Mr Blair's confidants, claimed that the former premier "takes a Bible with him wherever he goes" and habitually reads it last thing at night.
His comments, which will be broadcast next Sunday in a BBC1 television documentary, The Blair Years, have been welcomed by leading Church figures, who fear that the rise of secularism is pushing religion to the margins of society.
The Archbishop of York, the Most Rev John Sentamu, said: "Mr Blair's comments highlight the need for greater recognition to be given to the role faith has played in shaping our country. Those secularists who would dismiss faith as nothing more than a private affair are profoundly mistaken in their understanding of faith."
However, Mr Blair, who is now a Middle East peace envoy, has been attacked by commentators who say that religion should be separated from politics and by those who feel that many of his decisions betrayed the Christian community.
In the interview, Mr Blair, who was highly reluctant ever to discuss his faith during his time in office, admitted: "If I am honest about it, of course it was hugely important. You know you can't have a religious faith and it be an insignificant aspect because it's profound about you and about you as a human being.
"There is no point in me denying it. I happen to have religious conviction. I don't actually think there is anything wrong in having religious conviction - on the contrary, I think it is a strength for people."
Mr Blair is a regular churchgoer who was confirmed as an Anglican while at Oxford University, but has since attended Mass with his Roman Catholic wife, Cherie, and is expected to convert within the next few months.
He continued: "To do the prime minister's job properly you need to be able to separate yourself from the magnitude of the consequences of the decisions you are taking the whole time. Which doesn't mean to say that you're insensitive to the magnitude of those consequences or that you don't feel them deeply.
"If you don't have that strength it's difficult to do the job, which is why the job is as much about character and temperament as it is about anything else. But for me having faith was an important part of being able to do that Ultimately I think you've got to do what you think is right."
Mr Blair's opponents say his religious zeal blinded him to the consequences of his actions, and point to his belief that his decision to go to war would be judged by God.
The Rt Rev Kieran Conry, the Roman Catholic Bishop of Arundel and Brighton, said last night that Mr Blair's comments echoed the feelings of religious leaders.
Mr Campbell, in the same TV programme as Mr Blair, said the British public were "a bit wary of politicians who go on about God".
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=INRTTT5I1400ZQFIQMFCFF4AVCBQYIV0?xml=/news/2007/11/25/nblair125.xml
Tony blair has sparked controversy by claiming that people who speak about their religious faith can be viewed by society as "nutters".
- Your view: Can politics and religion mix?
- Cardinal urged Blair not to reveal conversion at Vatican
The former prime minister's comments came as he admitted for the first time that his faith was "hugely important" in influencing his decisions during his decade in power at Number 10, including going to war with Iraq in 2003.
Mr Blair complained that he had been unable to follow the example of US politicians, such as President George W. Bush, in being open about his faith because people in Britain regarded religion with suspicion."It's difficult if you talk about religious faith in our political system," Mr Blair said. "If you are in the American political system or others then you can talk about religious faith and people say 'yes, that's fair enough' and it is something they respond to quite naturally.
"You talk about it in our system and, frankly, people do think you're a nutter. I mean you may go off and sit in the corner and commune with the man upstairs and then come back and say 'right, I've been told the answer and that's it'."
Even Alastair Campbell - his former communications director who once said, "We don't do God" - has conceded that Mr Blair's Christian faith played a central role in shaping "what he felt was important".
Peter Mandelson, one of Mr Blair's confidants, claimed that the former premier "takes a Bible with him wherever he goes" and habitually reads it last thing at night.
His comments, which will be broadcast next Sunday in a BBC1 television documentary, The Blair Years, have been welcomed by leading Church figures, who fear that the rise of secularism is pushing religion to the margins of society.
The Archbishop of York, the Most Rev John Sentamu, said: "Mr Blair's comments highlight the need for greater recognition to be given to the role faith has played in shaping our country. Those secularists who would dismiss faith as nothing more than a private affair are profoundly mistaken in their understanding of faith."
However, Mr Blair, who is now a Middle East peace envoy, has been attacked by commentators who say that religion should be separated from politics and by those who feel that many of his decisions betrayed the Christian community.
In the interview, Mr Blair, who was highly reluctant ever to discuss his faith during his time in office, admitted: "If I am honest about it, of course it was hugely important. You know you can't have a religious faith and it be an insignificant aspect because it's profound about you and about you as a human being.
"There is no point in me denying it. I happen to have religious conviction. I don't actually think there is anything wrong in having religious conviction - on the contrary, I think it is a strength for people."
Mr Blair is a regular churchgoer who was confirmed as an Anglican while at Oxford University, but has since attended Mass with his Roman Catholic wife, Cherie, and is expected to convert within the next few months.
He continued: "To do the prime minister's job properly you need to be able to separate yourself from the magnitude of the consequences of the decisions you are taking the whole time. Which doesn't mean to say that you're insensitive to the magnitude of those consequences or that you don't feel them deeply.
"If you don't have that strength it's difficult to do the job, which is why the job is as much about character and temperament as it is about anything else. But for me having faith was an important part of being able to do that Ultimately I think you've got to do what you think is right."
Mr Blair's opponents say his religious zeal blinded him to the consequences of his actions, and point to his belief that his decision to go to war would be judged by God.
The Rt Rev Kieran Conry, the Roman Catholic Bishop of Arundel and Brighton, said last night that Mr Blair's comments echoed the feelings of religious leaders.
Mr Campbell, in the same TV programme as Mr Blair, said the British public were "a bit wary of politicians who go on about God".
Add to del.icio.us
Posted: Sunday, November 25, 2007 | PermalinkComments 1 - 50 of 69 |
Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers2. Comment #90378 by Shane McKee on November 25, 2007 at 12:11 am
Indeed. When will people learn that "faith" is a purely narcissistic *vice*, rather than a virtue?Is Tony really that much different from George, whose pixie instructed him to invade Iraq? Sam is right. Faith is a *bad* thing.
Other Comments by Shane McKee
3. Comment #90380 by Conrad on November 25, 2007 at 12:31 am
"To do the prime minister's job properly you need to be able to separate yourself from the magnitude of the consequences of the decisions you are taking the whole time...But for me having faith was an important part of being able to do that"Those two statements are why faith should be viewed with such distain in politics. If you're making decisions that effect entire countries and the world, then you do indeed need to separate yourself from the weight of it all and simply make the most logical, rational decision based on the evidence given. Faith of the other hand is belief based on non existent proof.
So to say that your ability to make rational, evidence based decisions is aided by your ability to irrationally believe without evidence, is simply nuts. To then complain that it's unfair when people point this out is even more nutty.
Other Comments by Conrad
4. Comment #90381 by Gibsnag on November 25, 2007 at 12:59 am
Hrm, grown adult taking orders from his invisible friend.I think the "nutter" label would be justified.
Other Comments by Gibsnag
5. Comment #90382 by infidel_michael on November 25, 2007 at 1:03 am
Mention God and you're a 'nutter'Yes, mention that your political decisions come from unverifiable sources and you're a nutter. 'God' is a cheap trick for persuading the masses when you cannot find rational arguments for your decisions, but it ceases to work, apparently ..
Other Comments by infidel_michael
6. Comment #90384 by Flagellant on November 25, 2007 at 1:18 am
Did god really tell Tony Blair to invade Iraq? If so, the nasty little invisible friend's judgement is as poor as his creature's.Religion - an activity for consenting adults in private.
Other Comments by Flagellant
7. Comment #90386 by Duff on November 25, 2007 at 1:30 am
If Iraq is the result of the prayers of our elected officials, it is clear evidence that god either does not exist, or, god and his elected officials are all nutters.Other Comments by Duff
8. Comment #90400 by Northern Bright on November 25, 2007 at 2:45 am
This article presents us with a challenge. Tony Blair is quite right: in the UK it would be considered unseemly for a politician to bang on about his or her faith. However, as this article makes abundantly clear, this in no way prevents our politicians from basing their decisions on their faith anyway. There is something hugely anti-democratic in this: a potential Prime Minister who campaigned on the basis that they would legislate according to their religious beliefs could almost certainly not get elected; but once elected, there is nothing to stop them doing just that.
So it strikes me that the challenge really isn't JUST to achieve the separation of church and State that we still don't have in the UK (though that would be a good start); but to continue to persuade individuals everywhere (potential politicians included!) that religion is irrational and not something that grown-ups should be basing their lives on. Until INDIVIDUALS wake up to this fact, there will always be individuals in positions of power who use their religion when making decisions that affect the rest of us, whether they declare this fact publicly or not.
For once, I agree wholeheartedly with the Archbishop of York:
The Archbishop of York, the Most Rev John Sentamu, said: "Mr Blair's comments highlight the need for greater recognition to be given to the role faith has played in shaping our country. Those secularists who would dismiss faith as nothing more than a private affair are profoundly mistaken in their understanding of faith."
Religion DOES play a larger role in shaping our country than many of us realise, and faith IS clearly more than a private affair. This is why faith, even when held privately, must be challenged at every opportunity.
Other Comments by Northern Bright
9. Comment #90402 by alexmzk on November 25, 2007 at 3:17 am
his belief that his decision to go to war would be judged by God
this basically implies that for Blair, the War was a wholly personal affair, that it was something that he would be judged on after his own death. this is not how politics works.
Other Comments by alexmzk
10. Comment #90403 by PaulJ on November 25, 2007 at 3:18 am
Comment #90400 by Northern Bright:For once, I agree wholeheartedly with the Archbishop of York:Agreed. I've never understood the 'moderate' view that religion is only for private consumption. How can it be, since if it's held with any degree of conviction it must surely affect everything a person thinks and does?The Archbishop of York, the Most Rev John Sentamu, said: "Mr Blair's comments highlight the need for greater recognition to be given to the role faith has played in shaping our country. Those secularists who would dismiss faith as nothing more than a private affair are profoundly mistaken in their understanding of faith."Religion DOES play a larger role in shaping our country than many of us realise, and faith IS clearly more than a private affair. This is why faith, even when held privately, must be challenged at every opportunity.
Other Comments by PaulJ
11. Comment #90409 by Rtambree on November 25, 2007 at 3:59 am
Mention that there's no God in the USA, and you're a nutter.Just goes to show how cultural belief is, rather than something innately wired into us.
What I find interesting is why countries elect leaders that are MORE religious than the average of the population. Blair is a classic example, but it happens in Australia, north America and western Europe. Do religious people have more energy to enable them to get them to the top? Or do atheists not mind voting for nutters? Quite a few poeple on this forum have admitted voting for Democrat theists like Kerry and Gore.
Other Comments by Rtambree
12. Comment #90410 by IanG on November 25, 2007 at 4:05 am
Many of the leading speakers on atheism depend to a greater or lesser extent upon the argument that all religious people are somehow prisoners to every detail of the dogma written in their various "books", regardless of any protestations that they may make to the contrary. This tends to lump all people of faith together and undoubtedly it sometimes loses us as many potential ears as it gains, which probably isn't ideal given that we are in a political struggle for hearts and minds.Let's take heart from the fact that the necessity for many of our opponents to be pragmatic leads them into an open hypocrisy that should give us hope. Faced with the choice between declaring unquestioning loyalty to the tenets of their faith, and grappling with the practical realities of a diverse society, they unswervingly choose the latter, (at least in the UK and Europe). This affords the rest of us the chance not only to admire them for having the flexibility of contortionists, but also to have a good giggle at the postures in which they sometimes get stuck.
Tony Blair has made it clear for ages that he intends to become a Roman Catholic. The Roman Catholic Church has made it equally clear that he will be welcomed in.
Interesting, given that he has publicly spoken in favour of, and voted in favour of, abortion, which is a mortal sin requiring excommunication if admitted to.
Brings to mind one Blairism in particular, "Y'know, I'm a pretty straight sort of guy."
They deserve one another.
Reminds me of the Catholic priest, who said when told that one of his flock had converted to Protestantism on his deathbed, "Ah, well. It's better that one of them goes rather than one of us!"
Other Comments by IanG
13. Comment #90411 by drive1 on November 25, 2007 at 4:07 am
Methinks the ex-PM doth protest too much. I strongly suspect these recent expressions of religious conviction are all about 'confirming his legacy' and to support his future application to become President of the EU. The continual 'leaking' of his intended conversion from one brand of delusion to another is probably designed to show the main players in the Middle East that he is (a) a man of god and (b) not settled on any particular version .. ie he's open to persuasion. It's a political ruse to get his foot in the door with as wide a range of religious leaders in the area as possible.Whilst I don't doubt he is fervently religious, his 10 years as PM were all about stage-managed smoke and mirrors. From being photographed with sleeves rolled up and a mug of tea, to slipping into a fake 'estuary twang' when interviewed on daytime tv, and from 'spontaneous' walkabouts (to wild adulation from party juniors pretending to be a crowd of ordinary folk), to perfecting the art of lying by omission .. TB is the prince of spin. It's not something he can 'unlearn'.
Other Comments by drive1
14. Comment #90413 by Northern Bright on November 25, 2007 at 4:09 am
Rtambree:What I find interesting is why countries elect leaders that are MORE religious than the average of the population. Blair is a classic example, but it happens in Australia, north America and western Europe. Do religious people have more energy to enable them to get them to the top? Or do atheists not mind voting for nutters? Quite a few poeple on this forum have admitted voting for Democrat theists like Kerry and Gore.The whole point here is that we didn't KNOW how much of a nutter Blair was! By the implication of his own admission, we wouldn't have elected him if we had.
Interesting question as to whether the highly religious are more inclined to stand for office, though. Maybe their belief that God is on their side makes them more confident of their political convictions?
Other Comments by Northern Bright
15. Comment #90414 by Flagellant on November 25, 2007 at 4:16 am
The just-elected Prime Minister of Australia is a committed Christian, like his predecessor. (Congrats, Aussies btw, in having made the better choice.) I look forward to hearing about the influence of Kevin Rudd's faith on his politics...
Religion - an activity for consenting adults in private: especially not to be encouraged in politicians.
Other Comments by Flagellant
16. Comment #90418 by windweaver on November 25, 2007 at 4:29 am
"Ultimately it was stifling because it sought to embrace in its philosophy every facet of existence." [Tony Blair speaking about Marxism]I would have thought you could make exactly the same criticism of religion.
Other Comments by windweaver
17. Comment #90419 by windweaver on November 25, 2007 at 4:35 am
I look forward to hearing about the influence of Kevin Rudd's faith on his politics...
Here's your answer:
http://www.abc.net.au/compass/s1362997.htm
Other Comments by windweaver
18. Comment #90420 by mrjonno on November 25, 2007 at 4:37 am
Believing in god is a character flaw however all human beings have these whether theist or atheist.Yes I think any politican who believes in god is wrong however if the political opposition is even more wrong they may be the least worse choice.
I don't think I could vote for anyone who was openly trying to convert people to his favourite sky fairy however if he kept it to himself and his other flaws well less than his rivals I might vote for him
Other Comments by mrjonno
19. Comment #90421 by epeeist on November 25, 2007 at 4:43 am
Comment #90413 by Northern Bright
The whole point here is that we didn't KNOW how much of a nutter Blair was! By the implication of his own admission, we wouldn't have elected him if we had.
I think we let him off too lightly if we don't also look at the people who could directly influence him, i.e. his wife and Carole Chaplin. And the equally religious indirect influences like Ruth Kelly.
Other Comments by epeeist
20. Comment #90422 by Rtambree on November 25, 2007 at 4:50 am
>I think we let him off too lightly if we don't also look at the people who could directly influence himAren't Brown and Cameron also theists?
Just like Rudd and Howard (and Costello and Abbott) in Australian politics?
Two irreligious countries, and yet all mainstream party leaders are religious.
Other Comments by Rtambree
21. Comment #90424 by epeeist on November 25, 2007 at 5:20 am
Comment #90422 by Rtambree
Aren't Brown and Cameron also theists?
Brown is a "son of the manse". but doesn't seem to openly "do god". His influence on Blair I suspect wasn't great ;-)
Cameron claims to want to go to church more than "Christmas and Easter", but doesn't appear to do so. He is, I think, rather more influenced by Blair rather than the other way around.
Other Comments by epeeist
22. Comment #90425 by IanG on November 25, 2007 at 5:29 am
The whole point here is that we didn't KNOW how much of a nutter Blair was! By the implication of his own admission, we wouldn't have elected him if we had.
Northern Bright, I would love to agree with you. But I can't. I think we are responsible for the decisions we make, including at the ballot box. And Blair didn't know what he would be faced with when he was elected, so we can't even say he wholly and intentionally misled us. As Macmillan said, realpolitik is all down to "events".
Isn't liberal western democracy our best effort to date at establishing social power processes that have aspects of Darwinian experimental testing and modification, in a similar but messier way than the scientific process?
So we need to have distinctly different choices on offer, for who should rule for a limited period, after which we choose again, in the light of the results of the preceding experiment.
To say that we wouldn't have voted for Blair if we had known what he was going to be like, is a bit like saying that we wouldn't have carried out the experiment if we'd known what the result was going to be.
Ultimately, Blair got voted in because the existing power group was unable to maintain its dominance against competition in the prevailing environment.
I think Blair might well have been voted in regardless of how obvious his quirks were.
On the issue of religious belief specifically, I suspect that we make our minds up in ways that we don't fully understand and then post-rationalise. I think that an atheist Blair would probably have made the same decisions but presented somewhat different justifications.
Other Comments by IanG
23. Comment #90426 by steve99 on November 25, 2007 at 5:30 am
Whilst I don't doubt he is fervently religious, his 10 years as PM were all about stage-managed smoke and mirrors.
And scottish and welsh independence (sorry - devolution). And major new rights for mothers and new fathers. And banning hunting. And the incorporation of human rights into UK law. And maintaining low unemployment. And equality of age of consent for homosexuals. And civil partnerships.
Blair was far from perfect, but to claim he was nothing but a spinner is to ignore major achievements of the past 10 years.
Other Comments by steve99
24. Comment #90429 by Matt7895 on November 25, 2007 at 5:47 am
You forgot to mention a booming economy and low inflation which has made us the 5th largest economy in the world.Also, you surely mean Scottish and Welsh DEVOLUTION. They are still part of the UK, and they've got a damn sight more national autonomy than England has.
Other Comments by Matt7895
25. Comment #90433 by notsobad on November 25, 2007 at 6:09 am
So the whole "Thou shalt not kill" was negotiable again and Blair figured God wouldn't object this time?"Mr Blair is a regular churchgoer who was confirmed as an Anglican while at Oxford University, but has since attended Mass with his Roman Catholic wife, Cherie, and is expected to convert within the next few months."
speaks volumes about how ridiculous religions are
Other Comments by notsobad
26. Comment #90434 by Vinelectric on November 25, 2007 at 6:13 am
I have no problem with voting for a religious president. Remember we are a secular country (sepearte church from state) not an exclusively atheistic one. What really matters is the man's political agenda. As steve pointed out civil partnerships for homosexuals were sanctioned under Labour. Is there any evidence that Blair's personal convictions corrupted his political decisions? Not apparently.
Hitchens supported the invasion of Iraq. Again there is no indication that Blair's religiosity had anything to do with it. There was still a case to be made in support of that decsision irrespective of religion.
Other Comments by Vinelectric
27. Comment #90436 by Scott McMeekin on November 25, 2007 at 6:22 am
It's the "God will judge me" line that always makes me sick to my stomach. One could argue that since "God" never actually appears to strike evil people down with lightning bolts as the result of their evil deeds, that this in fact gives believers a free-pass to do whatever they like. As long as they can convince themselves that they are right in any given situation then they can do whatever they like.Hubris anyone?
Sickening.
Scott.
Other Comments by Scott McMeekin
28. Comment #90443 by Northern Bright on November 25, 2007 at 7:05 am
I do agree with those who have pointed out that Blair and his government brought in some very welcome legislation during his 10 years in office - as well as some extraordinarily draconian legislation that has led to our being arguably the most spied-on populace in the free world. However, the specific policies are not the issue for me. All political leaders end up doing things that we hadn't anticipated and that we quite possibly wouldn't have supported if we had. To me what matters is the principle. When the chips are down and there's a really tough decision to be made, how is that leader going to deal with it? Is s/he going to think it through long and hard and rationally, is s/he going to consult with the best brains available, is s/he going to weigh up option A vs option B, is s/he going to think laterally and come up with an option C ... or is s/he going to light a candle, close his/her eyes, fold his/her hands and ask God to reveal the right path?
Regardless of the specifics of the issue, and regardless whether "God" gets the right answer in my view or not, I don't want to be governed by someone who believes fervently in something, when fervent belief in that Something requires the suspension of all critical faculties and rational thinking.
Rtambree: Yes, both Brown and Cameron are theists so far as I know, and I don't believe there was an opposition leader throughout Blair's 10 years in power who wasn't. So you might argue that we're going to get landed with a religious "nutter" (Blair's own term, I hasten to add!) anyway. But I think we need to draw a distinction here: there is a certain level of espousal of Christianity which is considered polite, decent and desirable in British public life. This bears no resemblance to the fervent religious faith that Blair is now admitting to. Even in British society I think there would be some discomfort about having an avowedly atheist PM, which no doubt accounts for many politicians' apparent mild religiosity. By the way, I see this as pretty hypocritical, so please don't think I'm endorsing it as a political stance. But Blair has been hypocritical too - deliberately concealing a religious fervour that would have diminished him in the electorate's eyes.
So, given the choice between one hypocrite who'll make big decisions based on reason and rationality, and another who'll make big decisions based on what God tells him, I'll go with the one who's rational any day.
Other Comments by Northern Bright
29. Comment #90447 by BaronOchs on November 25, 2007 at 7:15 am
steve99 I agree that all those things are good apart from the hunting ban. Not that I've any desire to hunt myself but the ban crippled livelihoods and besides foxes are still being killed. Farmers would love foxes to go extinct. The Countryside Alliance on the other hand did at least some work to preserve fox habitats. In order that those foxes could be hunted. People who think that is ridiculous have far too cosy a view of the world IMO Other Comments by BaronOchs
30. Comment #90452 by steve99 on November 25, 2007 at 7:20 am
Not that I've any desire to hunt myself but the ban crippled livelihoods and besides foxes are still being killed. Farmers would love foxes to go extinct. The Countryside Alliance on the other hand did at least some work to preserve fox habitats. In order that those foxes could be hunted. People who think that is ridiculous have far too cosy a view of the world IMO
Well, I am afraid I just don't take what the Countryside Alliance says very seriously. There has been little evidence I have seen of crippled livelihoods and mass slaughter of hounds that was implied would be the result of the ban.
There have always been perfectly acceptable alternatives to fox hunting that can keep the riding and use of hounds going, such as drag hunting.
Elimination of pests is one thing. Dressing it up as a sport and taking pleasure in it is, in my view, attempting to dignify sadism.
Other Comments by steve99
31. Comment #90455 by Rtambree on November 25, 2007 at 7:35 am
>Even in British society I think there would be some discomfort about having an avowedly atheist PM, which no doubt accounts for many politicians' apparent mild religiosityYou're probably right, Northern Bright. Belief in belief, even among atheists. The latest figures show that there are only about 1 million regular C of E church goers in a country of 60 million. It's strange why there should be acceptance of, or insistence upon, religiosity in our leaders. What would be so politically damaging upon a leader that openly declared his or her policies would be evidence-based?
Even Aragorn sang a prayer during his coronation, and all the Hobbits, Men, Elves and Dwarves present weren't offended. :)
Ironically, New Zealand, where Middle Earth was filmed, has an openly agnostic leader, Helen Clark, so there are exceptions (although they are rare).
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=3554978
From memory, Bob Hawke, Australia's PM from 1983 to 1991, was also an agnostic.
Other Comments by Rtambree
32. Comment #90457 by radagast7 on November 25, 2007 at 7:39 am
I AM a nutter. I suffer from schizophrenia. I am interested in how religious people think, since some have an ability of which I am extremely envious. They can believe stuff for which there is no evidence, and yet remain rational in other areas. If I could learn to compartmentalize my mind like that, the next time I became mentally ill, I would be able to remain sane at the same time!A double minded man is unstable in all his ways-James 1:8
Other Comments by radagast7
33. Comment #90458 by BaronOchs on November 25, 2007 at 7:43 am
steve that's cool it's not an agenda for me I just agree to differ.[Edit: also lets not forget surestart, they gave us surestart! :-)]
Other Comments by BaronOchs
34. Comment #90463 by Peacebeuponme on November 25, 2007 at 8:17 am
Matt7895Also, you surely mean Scottish and Welsh DEVOLUTION. They are still part of the UK, and they've got a damn sight more national autonomy than England has.And long may we all remain United. I was against devolution and regard "Welsh" "English" and "Scottish" labels a cultural and sporting matter, rather than having any political consequence. At least that's the way I'd like it to be.
However, the sentiment of your comment above seems to suggest that Welsh people somehow have it better, which I don't really think is the case. Welsh devolution didn't really transfer much power and seemed to me a patronising way of keeping certain elements quiet. The UK parliament (which has all the power) is situated in England, staffed by mostly English people and enacts English Laws that apply in Wales.
I'd much rather have one UK parliament which enacted UK laws for UK people. English, Welsh and Scottish nationalist feeling does not do us any good.
Steve99
And scottish and welsh independence (sorry - devolution). And major new rights for mothers and new fathers. And banning hunting. And the incorporation of human rights into UK law. And maintaining low unemployment. And equality of age of consent for homosexuals. And civil partnerships.And Northern Ireland. And the minimum wage. If we didn't have him we'd have had William Hague, Ian Duncan Smith or Michael Howard, which would have been terrible.
Other Comments by Peacebeuponme
35. Comment #90466 by Rtambree on November 25, 2007 at 8:26 am
>If we didn't have him we'd have had William Hague, Ian Duncan Smith or Michael Howard, which would have been terribleBut perhaps not the slaughter in Iraq of tens of thousands, if not, hundreds of thousands, dead.
Other Comments by Rtambree
36. Comment #90468 by Peacebeuponme on November 25, 2007 at 8:34 am
But perhaps not the slaughter in Iraq of tens of thousands, if not, hundreds of thousands, dead.No, I'm sure Saddam would have bought them all their own house and given each Shia family their own Sunni butler.
Other Comments by Peacebeuponme
37. Comment #90469 by gunnarjb on November 25, 2007 at 8:38 am
The situation is more imbalanced in the US than in the UK.
In the UK, you can admit that you are religious and still be prime minister. In the US, admit that you are an atheist and you are highly unlikely to be elected for anything. This prejudice is apparent in the famous George Bush Sr. quote: "No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God." (http://www.positiveatheism.org/writ/ghwbush.htm)
Other Comments by gunnarjb
38. Comment #90486 by Rtambree on November 25, 2007 at 9:51 am
36. Comment #90468 by Peacebeuponme>No, I'm sure Saddam would have bought them all their own house and given each Shia family their own Sunni butler.
So, what are you saying? The west picked up where Saddam left off?
Not really - there was a big gap between the peak of Saddam's atrocities in the late 1980s (with the approval of western powers) and the invasion. How much slaughter was there while Iraq was crawling with weapons inspectors - late 2002 - early 2003? Had the international weapons inspectors remained, there would have been no slaughter by Saddam or by the west.
All this could've have been avoided in the first gulf war if the west had supported the uprising and not allowed Saddam to crush his own people. A bottom-up overthrow is much more democratic than a top-down external overthrow.
When polled, most Iraqis now think they are worse off than before 2003 and they want an immediate withdrawal or a timetable for withdrawal, something Blair resisted. So much for his championing of democracy.
Other Comments by Rtambree
39. Comment #90492 by Dax on November 25, 2007 at 10:26 am
I feel sorry for my dear British friends: they were stuck with this w**ker for so many years!Mr Blair, there's a reason why people think you're totally nuts if you bring religion into politics. Sparkling example of someone who brings religion into politics: Ahmadinejad. What is the difference between your faith and his? Nothing but the name. It's both irrational.
Other Comments by Dax
40. Comment #90501 by AdrianB on November 25, 2007 at 11:04 am
They discussed this on the Rachel Burden programme on Radio 5 this morning:http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio/aod/networks/fivelive/aod.shtml?fivelive/burden
Click to 10 mins into the programm and you will be able to hear Cllr Alan Craig, a founder member of the Christian People's Alliance, call Richard Dawkins a "nutter."
Other Comments by AdrianB
41. Comment #90504 by Peacebeuponme on November 25, 2007 at 11:09 am
So, what are you saying? The west picked up where Saddam left off?No, of course not. I just don't think its as black and white as your post made it out to be. Its impossible to compare the number of dead now and the political situation now with what it would have been if the war hadn't happened.
Personally, I'm glad a tyrant has been removed, sad with the way things have turned out and also deeply dubious of the government's real intentions for going in.
Its complex and I don't feel like I have enough info be be strongly pro or anti, and I think comments like the one you made above are overly-simplistic.
Other Comments by Peacebeuponme
42. Comment #90512 by Matt7895 on November 25, 2007 at 11:46 am
I completely agree with Peaceuponme.It just irritates me when people call Bush and Blair war criminals over Iraq, that they should somehow be put on trial in The Hague. It's really quite naive. They both had the backings of their democratic systems, in Bush's case it is was congress, in Blair's it was parliament. In fact Blair did something quite unprecedented when he put the case before Parliament like that; he was quite in his rights to just declare war without consulting any MPs; other PMs have done it in the past, but Blair chose not to do so. Also, their goal with Iraq was not to massacre as many people as possible, or impose a dictatorial government; it was to remove a brutal dictator who refused to comply with common decency and sanctions. If Bush was to suddenly invade a nice, peaceful, democratic country like Norway and initiate a new genocide along the lines of Pol Pot, Stalin and Hitler, THEN he could rightly be called a war criminal. There's a heck of amount of difference between doing that and what happened in Iraq though, and as Peaceuponme says, it really doesn't help to simplify things like that.
Other Comments by Matt7895
43. Comment #90513 by _J_ on November 25, 2007 at 11:53 am
I happen to have religious conviction.
That's a telling line.
People happen to have ginger hair or no sense of smell. But you don't happen to be a politician, or a pro-life lobbyist, or charity worker. Convictions - political, existential, religious - don't arbitrarily inflict themselves on docile human beings. You play a fairly major role in forming your beliefs.
This mode of thought might make it easier for Blair to do his new job fostering peace in the Middle East, though. Since we're all just innocent carriers of whatever convictions befall us, he'll be able to accept people who 'happen to think all Jews should be killed', or who 'happen regard America as The Great Satan' or who 'happen to have shot quite a lot of people' without a crack in his trademark smile.
I think it's time people in all walks of life took some responsibility for their convictions. 'I'm a Catholic' is a perfectly decent thing to admit, but you shouldn't be able to shirk the question 'Why?'.
Other Comments by _J_
44. Comment #90516 by Rtambree on November 25, 2007 at 12:02 pm
>They both had the backings of their democratic systems, in Bush's case it is was congress, in Blair's it was parliament.Most polls before the invasion were against the invasion. And in any case, just because Congress or Parliament votes for an invasion, doesn't automatically mean legal under international law or right morally.
>it was to remove a brutal dictator who refused to comply with common decency and sanctions.
Really? That's a bit of selective revision. All that talk about disarming Saddam from his WMDs was just a lie then?
This has been debated ad naseum on this forum on a hundred different topics. I'll waste no time on it any longer. If you want to join the apologetics for whatever atrocities your government happens to commit, that's your choice.
Other Comments by Rtambree
45. Comment #90532 by Matt7895 on November 25, 2007 at 12:36 pm
No, I'm not an apologetic, I just can't stand people calling Blair and Bush war criminals when there are far more ghastly people in the world (Mugabe, Kim Jong Il, Ahmadinejad are just a few) Other Comments by Matt7895
46. Comment #90536 by Goldy on November 25, 2007 at 12:46 pm
"It's difficult if you talk about religious faith in our political system," Mr Blair said. "If you are in the American political system or others then you can talk about religious faith and people say 'yes, that's fair enough' and it is something they respond to quite naturally.
"You talk about it in our system and, frankly, people do think you're a nutter. I mean you may go off and sit in the corner and commune with the man upstairs and then come back and say 'right, I've been told the answer and that's it'."
This part reminded me of a vidoe someone posted to me ;-)
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=yKS0yISz6xQ
And Matt78895, I agree with you when you say No,
I'm not an apologetic, I just can't stand people calling Blair and Bush war criminals when there are far more ghastly people in the world (Mugabe, Kim Jong Il, Ahmadinejad are just a few)but other than a few words, readily dismissed by the rest of the world, how is Ahmedinejad worse? Just interested...
Other Comments by Goldy
47. Comment #90538 by Peacebeuponme on November 25, 2007 at 1:03 pm
This has been debated ad naseum on this forum on a hundred different topics. I'll waste no time on it any longer.Hear hear on that. There's too many ill informed comments about Iraq on a site thats supposed to be about reason and science. It seems to be the one issue that really divides those here and causes long running, pointless battles.
If you want to join the apologetics for whatever atrocities your government happens to commit, that's your choice.Matt7895 wrote a considered post making some reasonable points and you call him an "apologetic". I think that's a little unfair. You would be better off arguing specifics if you want to discuss the issue - if you don't agree with what Matt7895 thinks were the governments aims, then fine. Just saying "apologetic" is a little juvenile.
Other Comments by Peacebeuponme
48. Comment #90546 by phil rimmer on November 25, 2007 at 1:35 pm
As a politician, to talk openly about one's religion, is to state for all to hear that one's moral's are as good as any person's could possibly be. There is no other reason to do so. It is not to engage in arcane discussions about theology. It is to say, morally speaking, I am one of the best.I have been repeatedly shocked by posts here from religious moderates about their feelings of moral superiority (though often not expressed in such immodest terms).
My good Roman Catholic friend is appalled by such bandying around of religiosity. He does not believe himself morally anyone's superior. He does not believe he has the right to express his views on matters of morality or personal conscience to others in any religious terms at all, as he can't imagine why they might accept that as conferring any merit on them, whatsoever.
Why can't religious politicians understand that it is hugely disrespectful to talk in religious terms to the GENERAL public?
Other Comments by phil rimmer
49. Comment #90548 by Goldy on November 25, 2007 at 1:41 pm
How odd - I can't seem to read the comments here anymore! How very annoying! Other threads works ok - what gives?Other Comments by Goldy
50. Comment #90549 by Corylus on November 25, 2007 at 1:42 pm
Interesting "It's difficult if you talk about religious faith in our political system," Mr Blair said. "If you are in the American political system or others then you can talk about religious faith ...it is something they respond to quite naturally...You talk about it in our system and, frankly, people do think you're a nutter."I really don't think that it is as clear cut as that though. I don't think the majority of Brits think that religious faith is 'nutty' per se. There are a couple of other factors at work here.
1)Without reducing to crude stereotypes, I have noticed that we appear to be a little more cynical in Britain and Europe as a whole. When someone brings God into a political speech, we do consider the possibility that they might be fibbing in order to get into power. [Gasps]
2)Also, there is the social convention that religious matters are private matters. In certain circles (especially in the middle and upper classes) you would no more discuss your religious convictions with all and sundry than you would regale a total stranger with tales of your recent haemorrhoid operation.
When people start talking about religion - against this sort of social conditioning the assumption is that the person concerned is under the grip of extreme emotions. Not a good character trait in a leader with a great deal of power.
So it is not the holding of religious opinions that is treated with suspicion it is the expression of them in public that is problematic
(N.B. I find myself wondering whether this might also account for Northern Bright's point that the public would not be comfortable with an openly atheist Prime Minister?? E.g. Don't ask: don't tell??)
In ignoring this distinction (which he is smart enough to understand) I find myself wondering whether Mr Blair is typing to paint himself as an 'oppressed' type in order to deal with the flak he gets from people who disagree with some of his policies and the aftermath of them.
Passive/aggressive self-justification is a great emotional coping strategy.
Maybe I am over-analysing here, but I have to say I have always found Blair a difficult person to get a handle on.
EDIT: radagast7
I have just noticed your post. So nice to have an honest nutter on here :) We have more than our share of dishonest ones I'm afraid.
Generally though, most people are a little nutty: it's the human condition. Although, I have met a few people who would be deemed completely sane and normal... dear me, they were boring.
Other Comments by Corylus
Upcoming Events:
About this site
Mailing List Signup: Enter your email
Go to The Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science
Richard Dawkins Articles | Comments | Tour Journal
Atheist Resources | Local Groups
Debate Points | Latest Responses
Links:
Quotes of Note:
"Religion is excellent stuff for keeping common people quiet."
Napoleon Bonaparte
"...it is a telling fact that, the world over, the vast majority of children follow the religion of their parents rather than any of the other available religions."
Richard Dawkins
"Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful."
Seneca the Younger
"For the first half of geological time our ancestors were bacteria. Most creatures still are bacteria, and each one of our trillions of cells is a colony of bacteria."
Richard Dawkins
"(Religion) With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion"
Steven Weinberg
Other Recommended Reading
Intelligent Thought
John Brockman (Editor)
Before the Dawn
Nicholas Wade
The Portable Atheist
Christopher Hitchens (editor)
The Moral Animal
Robert Wright
Parenting Beyond Belief
Dale McGowan (Editor)
More Books
Adjust font size: 
"If this book doesn't change the world -- we're all screwed."
-Penn (Penn & Teller)
The God Delusion
by Richard Dawkins
Over 1.5 million copies sold
DVDs
'Break the Science Barrier' DVD
'The Four Horsemen' DVD
'AAI 2007 Conference' DVD
'Root of All Evil? The Original Program' DVD
'Root of All Evil? The Uncut Interviews' DVD
'Growing Up in the Universe' DVD
Books by Richard Dawkins
The Oxford Book of Modern Science Writing
by Richard Dawkins
The Ancestor's Tale
by Richard Dawkins
The Selfish Gene
by Richard Dawkins
The Blind Watchmaker
by Richard Dawkins
Unweaving the Rainbow
by Richard Dawkins
1. Comment #90377 by jonjermey on November 25, 2007 at 12:10 am
So now we know: all three leaders of the Coalition of the Willing were being told what to do by their invisible friends. It would have been nice to know that when were being asked to vote for them...Other Comments by jonjermey