Tony Blair wasn't famous for his brutal honesty and quelle surprise - he's now owning up to what he didn't tell us when he was in power. Apparently (and I think we had mostly guessed) he's deeply religious, but had feared that if he publically announced his beliefs, people would think he was a "nutter".
Well sorry but I think the great British public is entitled to know what our politicians stand for and entitled to make up their own minds on what that says about them. And if the consensus view of the public is that there isn't a big guy in white robes who's sat up there on a cloud making careful notes every time we swear or go to work on a Sunday ready to burn us for eternity if we don't say sorry afterwards, then good for them. And if the consensus view of the public is that they'd rather have someone in charge who doesn't subscribe to that sort of nonsense either, then even better.
Now of course the church has been asked to contribute to the debate and said "It would have led to more constructive social policy at home and principled policies abroad" which is atrocious bandwagon-jumping. If he'd listened to his religion we wouldn't have gone to war or screwed the country over. Really?
What sort of example does the Bible set for going to war? Well the Bible's full of war, every five minutes God smites another nation down or sends a bunch of plagues or tells people they're the chosen people and they have the right to go killing everyone else.
And what sort of social policy at home was the church looking to advocate? Women forced to stay in the home, gay people excluded from society and abortionists burnt at the stake?
I don't want a religiously-motivated defense (read "attack") and social welfare policy.
And as it would appear - nor does the rest of the country!