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!
3 comments:
"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"."
Sadly, in the US it's the opposite. It would be almost impossible for an atheist to be elected president. Even liberal candidates like Jimmy Carter and (well, semi-liberal) Bill Clinton had to play up their religious backgrounds.
"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."
Somehow I don't think they would say that if a devout Muslim ran for PM.
"Women forced to stay in the home, gay people excluded from society and abortionists burnt at the stake?"
What ever happened to Christianity's social justice messages of helping the poor and non-violence? When did the key points of the religion become opposition to abortion and gay rights?
Yes in the US it's always religious people who get in to power. But even if you ignored Bush's religious beliefs, you'd still have to say he's a nutter...
Well Christianity's social justice message has always been more of a political front than a true pillar of the faith.
There are certainly some Christians who believe they should help the poor and do so. But then lots of atheists do good work too. And the do-gooders in the church have their good work diluted. For instance donations made in church count as charitable and most people feel they're "good cause" donations, but the majority of the money is spent paying vicars and funding the higher echelons of church hierarchy - the very people telling governments to ignore gay rights, maintaining their own buildings, their own publications. Even when outreach work is done, it often comes with a religious tie. So Christmas boxes given to third world children often include bibles or bible extracts. Mother Teresa, though of course a dedicated charitable worker all her life, built chapels in new locations before she built hospitals.
Plus of course if you go back to the old testament, God is forever telling people to kill each other, etc, and joining in Himself in the killing.
Haha... very well said. I heard not long ago that Tony Blair wanted The creation story to be taught as fact in primary schools. Unbelievable... that we're allowing a position of such power to be taken by a man so blatantly ignorant and narrow minded. 2007 and we atheists still have to put up with this shit...
Post a Comment