Posted on 11/24/2007 8:28:41 PM PST by PotatoHeadMick
Tony blair has sparked controversy by claiming that people who speak about their religious faith can be viewed by society as "nutters".
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".
[?] Save the Queen!
Multi-faith coronation for Charles (09/2006)
“Canon John Hall, the Dean-elect of Westminster Abbey, said that the traditional Church of England coronation service must be revised to reflect society’s changes since the Queen’s coronation in 1953. As dean, he will be on the committee responsible for drawing up the service.
“The coronation service needs to find the right way of including people of other faiths,” Canon Hall told The Sunday Telegraph. “It must be different in some ways because of the nature of society and how things have changed.”
Alison Ruoff, a member of the General Synod, the church’s parliament, voiced concern about the plans.
“We should not pander to political correctness,” she said. “There is no way that other faiths should be involved in the service. This is a Christian country and so the coronation service must remain exclusively Christian and we should not apologise for that.”
Seems to depend on which god you stake your life on.
Pretty much the truth here at FR as well. Mention God or the Biblical record of creation in a thread about cosmic, terrestrial, and life origins and you are instantly classified as a nut job, and open yourself to further ridicule. DU has nothing on some of the folks here.
Amen!
Happens here, too, even on FR. Quite frequently.
Sad, considering the fact that the entire American concept of liberty is based on the fact that our rights to life and liberty come from our Creator, not from any man, and that the protection of those rights is the very reason for even having human government in the first place.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men..."
Secularists will not win it.
Mr. Campbell, like many leftists, is an intolerant anti-religious bigot. God bless Mr. Blair upon his entrance into full communion with the Church of Christ.
Does that make Muslims nutters, too?
No, sorry, brits these days call them, “Master”...
mmmmmm a nutter butter peanut butter sandwich cookie
Yep they are populated by holier than thou secularists (some of whom claim to be Christians) that have bought the atheistic talking points hook, line and sinker.
Also, an amen!
To HELL with the Anti-Christians. However, Christians must start planning for success in the “New World”! This means “take care of your own”!
Mention God or the Biblical record of creation in a thread about cosmic, terrestrial, and life origins and you are instantly classified as a nut job,
But, not by all of us!
If you’re referring to the New Word Order, then there are no plans for Christians to have a part in that.
In fact, they are being written out of the plan.
Oh, I know that, there are a few folks who are civil.
but this is supposed to be a conservative website...
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
The majority on here are not conservative, unfortunately.
I wouldn’t call them nutters. The word I like to use is psychos. Of course scum, murderers, and a whole host of words that could get me banned from FR would be more appropriate.
At the risk of flamage, objectively, radical Muslim extremists HAVE partially harmed the credibility of Christians and other deists. The Old-Testament Christian God was not a compassionate God. In one instance He commanded a father to kill his own son for no apparent reason (Abraham & Isaac).
A God which does not command rationally & compassionately (such as Allah & the Old Testament God) cannot carry weight among modern Evangelicals.
ah so it’s back to the Jews. yup yeah we just love to go around and blow people up.
???
There was a greater lesson in God telling Abraham to sacrifice Isaac. It was not for the pleasure of seeing him do it, it was to assure Abraham of his own faith. It is clear from scripture that God never intended him to go through with it, otherwise he would not have stopped him.
it’s irrational
I thought God in the OT is the same God as in the NT?
there are many other ways to assure of faith besides calling one to commit a sinful act.
you are equating Judaism with Islam.
drawing parallels and showing similarities does not equal 'equating'.
To the unbeliever yes. It is not possible the finite mind to understand the infinite without it having been revealed to them.
You are in no position to dictate ethics to God.
I’m amazed that Blair was able to tolerate his time in Labour. I would think that a great many of its members would be hostile to religion in general and Christianity in particular.
Better to keep it quiet and be spineless. Where is Churchill when you need him?
The Heavenly Father of the OLD is the same of the NEW... after all it was HIS only begotten Son that was sacrificed for the redemption of sin and key to everlasting life.
It can also be seen as an analogy of God sending his only begotton son to the world to die for our sins. God spared Issac cause Jesus would take his place and ours.
Where have all the REAL men gone?
you can show similarities with a grilled sandwich. Maybe if you look closely you’ll see your own reflection in the grease.
Certainly. Many scriptures have multiple applications.
In Europe that's no doubt true.
I've heard a very believable explanation of the story...Abraham might have thought that Isaac was God's chosen son, or Jesus.
As an objectivist one has to look at the facts as presented before one...maybe that's where I went wrong.
I'm willing to cut God the benefit of the doubt.
Said the clay to the potter
The Old Testament God and the New Testament God are exactly the same. You can't be a biblical Evangelical Christian and believe anything else.
"Allah" is nothing more that an ancient false god, an idol, created to deceive, destroy and enslave men.
I challenge you to look more carefully at the passage. I think you will find it does not contain the irrationality you seem to think it does.
Briefly consider this - God had absolutely no intention of allowing Abraham to sacrifice Isaac. He had an angel waiting to stop him and a sacrificial ram ready. It was a test of Abraham’s faith.
And consider further, from a Christian perspective - Abraham was called the friend of God. God, by allowing Abraham to experience the dread of bringing his own son to sacrifice, was allowing Abraham to share a bit of the suffering God the Father would experience when He sacrificed His only son Jesus for our sins. God allowed his “friend” Abraham to feel what He would one day feel. This is possibly the deepest form of intimacy between God and man seen in the entire Old Testament.
Furthermore, the Old Testament is replete with many wonderful types of compassion the ancient world had never dreamed about. Many of which we still benefit from today. Consider this one - the rule of law versus the rule of despots.
I don’t know where you heard that one. I suggest you read the story, before you give your opinion on it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.