h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

In an interview, Tony Blair has revealed he has a strong religious belief but he concealed this from the electorate for fear of being labelled "a nutter".

Is religious belief incompatible with public office in the 21st Century? Would the electorate really have looked upon him unfavourably?

Or is this just more Blair maneuverings? After all, to be President of Europe I suspect support from the Pope would be helpful.



http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7111620.stm

Some of our politicians, Prime Ministers included, have taken heat for their Catholicism. Particularly from churches when it comes to laws reguarding abortion and the like. And yet, despite their usual weaselly ways, they've stood firm on their positions ... and gone with the direction the voting public wanted.

Didn't please the assorted bishops and the like. Ex-communication was threatened, but so far as I know, hasn't happened.

So long as the person, a politition or any one in a position of power to influence laws/governences that apply to other people, should, at the very least, be able to disentangle their religion from any descision making process they have to do, E.G., they shoudln't be letting their religious dogma influence a descision on E.G., laws regarding abortion, where it shoudl just be the facts and scientific evidence they consider in comeing to a descision on such an issue.... Weather or not that is a possible thing I don't know, if not then they should be forced to declaire any religious beliefs they have prior to election etc.... In the same way they have to disclose vested interests for other things (E.G., having a sizable amount of shares in a company who make weapons/military equipment etc).

Faith in a creator-deity who set down moral edicts thousands of years ago, filtered through any number of interpretations thereafter is by their nature inviting Church to sit at the table of State, or they're only pretending.

The tragedy is people who want to lead countries are people of intense personal dogma by default. The only answer to which is a machine that processes the will of the electorate by referendum, supervised by atheists on tranquilisers.

<>


I am glad you said the bit about tranquilisers, else it might seem that you were saying that atheism is a neutral, default position...

However...

Vicky

Religion and politics is a difficult one. I am pleased that it is considered embarrassing for politician's to discuss their faith too much, particularly regarding particular policies. But I wouldn't want people to be prevented from taking a political job or hounded out on the basis of their religion (or indeed lack thereof). I think the balance here is about right at the moment.

There is a clash here that's bigger than religion. Everyone is going to have their individual ideas about how people should behave, and so there is a difficulty for any politician over how far they should look to what they personally think is right, compared to what the general populace think is right.

>>In an interview, Tony Blair has revealed he has a strong religious belief but he concealed this from the electorate for fear of being labelled "a nutter".<<

I remember hearing this item on the new yesterday. He said he specifically in Britain he might be viewed as a nutter. This is most encouraging because I still think the vast majority of ordinary of people here would be healthily suspicious of any type of religious person being PM, if they made any sort of fuss about it. Gordie is also apparently a fair bit of a godsquadder, but a pressie. Tony is about to convert to the cathies.

What most amuses me is that they have clearly hated each others guts for years. What better advert could there be for the chrissies.

<<"What most amuses me is that they have clearly hated each others guts for years.">>

Have they? Are you sure? Its something I've heard repeated a lot in the press, granted, but does that mean anything?

>>Have they? Are you sure? Its something I've heard repeated a lot in the press, granted, but does that mean anything?<<

Yes you're right. I can't be sure, because I don't know them personally. I was just going on what's been repeated ad nauseam by reliable and trusted commentators, and correspondents at the BBC, and MPs like Dianne Abbot and others have been saying on 'This Week', and Question Time for years. And I've heard it suggested that successful, powerful politicians with massive egos, often hate each other's guts; particularly when both want the same job. So I kind of thought that there's a certain meaningful probability it's true. But you're right it might just be a lot of old beaulocks.

Maybe Maggie and Ted Heath were really bezzy mates?

Maybe Princess Di and the Queen mum were bosom pals?

Maybe Dianna was murdered at the behest of Phil the Greek?

Maybe Israeli spooks organised 9/11?

I can't be sure that they didn't fake the moon landing. I can't even be sure that Elvis is dead. Or that Tony Blair isn't the anti christ.

Mind you I can be absolutely sure what SWL's view is on the last point.

Personally I would be happier if politicians had some sort of faith, rather than faith in their own infallability. Generally a view tempered with some sort of conscience or consideration for others is preferred.

I would go further.

Most of the ill's of society in the UK today are a direct result of the fact that we have lost our faiths and now worship celebrity and purchasing things we dont need .

We have a significant percentage of children leaving junior schools unable to read. We have a minority of highly disruptive teenagers who in certain areas make folks lives a misery. We have had a number of stabbings of youngster this year, and only last week the sentencing of three youths who kicked a man to death.

I could go on , but I would sound like SWL

The point I try to make is that the last 20 years ( maybe longer ) have seen governments too liberal, and too weak to stamp on corruptive behaviour. That's why I conclude that a little more 'faith' on behalf of our politicians ( and ourselves ) and a lot less greed we might all have been better off.

>>Most of the ill's of society in the UK today are a direct result of the fact that we have lost our faiths and now worship celebrity and purchasing things we dont need .

We have a significant percentage of children leaving junior schools unable to read. We have a minority of highly disruptive teenagers who in certain areas make folks lives a misery. We have had a number of stabbings of youngster this year, and only last week the sentencing of three youths who kicked a man to death.<<

What a lot of twaddle Novo. Talking once more of personal anecdotal experience that I can be most certain of being true, but fairly meaningless because of the small sample size to be technically correct. Some of the most caring and intelligent people I know are atheist humanists. Where as some of the most vicious and judgemental people I've come across are strong Christian believers in a fairy story. They have a kind of biblical attitude of 'Spare the rod, spoil the child' attitude. Yes so lets bring back birching and nasty borstal institutions run by religious people to sort things out.

I happen to think it's a lot more complex than the way you present things. And seeing as we have had an established state religion for hundreds of years. The head of state, being the head of the church of England. It being enshrined in law that a faith assembly has to be conducted in all state schools everyday. The last 2 PMs clearly being believers, and yet the last one took us to war in Iraq, I don't think your argument really stacks up.

The cult of capitalsim flourished in the soil of christian belief. Things are way more complex, otherwise we wouldn't be having these problems. Politicians would have sorted things out.

Life and society are incredibly complex. Unless you advocate some sort of religious administration like in Iran, a theocracy. Are you really suggesting that? But I imagine you're advocating a christian theocracy?

<> novo

Whether the UK is actually a worse place to live now than 20 years ago is something that would be very difficult to prove. I'd agree with Novo, though, that the fact we've turned into a consumer society par excellence means that more and more of the values that people grow up with are determined by advertisers and marketing people (who I'd happily garotte for the most part).

What this has to do with religious faith I don't know. I'm not sure Novo means we should all believe in god, either, maybe more that moral standards shouldn't come from McDonalds, Vodafone and MTV.

<>

Illiberal govts like Thatcher's pushed consumerism as much as any liberal ones, so I utterly disagree with this. Novo, I'd recommend the book 'The Costs of Economic Growth', by EJ Mishan. He was a grumpy old so-and-so too, but he does make many salient points about the costs of increased affluence.

"Most of the ill's of society in the UK today are a direct result of the fact that we have lost our faiths and now worship celebrity and purchasing things we dont need .

Well Im not going to get angry about this as Im starting to accept your hyperbole for ill informed rambling's rather than firmly formed opinion.

Id say there are more people buying loads of tacky, disposable items that they dont really need today that would have cost a months wages when I was a kid. However we are 30 years on from 1977 when £100 was a *lot* of money now its a meal for two and a modest night out, not even approaching the upstairs window sill, let alone "on the tiles".

People didnt buy plasma screen TVs and mobiles phones because there werent any to buy. Likewise people didnt mug you for your credit cards or run off with your stuff from your house because you had no credit cards to take and not many people can run while carrying a mangle.

"The past is another country" we live in the present and its a very different place you have to be very precise when comparing them.





Religion is only a handicap if it is seen as "extreme" and Id hazard a guess to say this is only true in a *few countries*. The case in most countries is that politicians positively go out of their way to promote their closeness to whichever bigG the majority of the elctorate choose to bow down to.

It is one of the things that I like about our country that we dont assume politicians are more honest because they wear a headscarf go to a drafty building regularly or mention god at the end of every sentence.

one love

>The cult of capitalsim flourished in the soil of christian belief.

No, it flourished despite Christian belief which is anti-materialist. Given that capitalism is linked to human nature, I'd say it was a classic example of instinct winning-out over a supposedly absolute moral code (with a lot of religious leaders "explaining" how there was no conflict because a lot of things which "appear" to be absolute doctrins are actually "open to interpretation" and before you know it a religion that used to be followed by the poor and downtrodden is being run by men in silk robes with solid-silver jewellery around their necks).

>Most of the ill's of society in the UK today are a direct result of the fact that we have lost our faiths and now worship celebrity and purchasing things we dont need.

No they're not. This society had more of its fair share of ills when people had a great deal more faith and a fat lot of good it did. I, myself, am a person without faith and I can quite happily state that it hasn't lead me towards shallow materialism or nihilism. Having said that, there are plenty of believers who exhibit both.

I disagree. I think the fact that 'man' is viewed as special, made in god's image, and the rest of nature is there for us to have dominion over, or use and abuse as we see fit as one could say under capitalism, is a big factor in its success. Capitalism really took off in the industrial revolution of the 19 C.

I also think there is a sense in which religion kept certain forces in check amongst the masses and so was effective in allowing lots of people to put up with living fairly miserable and poverty stricken lives because they believed in a better life that was to come.

All my grandparents were working class and believed in God. I always had the impression this was important for them to put up with things. This changed with my parents. Purely personal and anecdotal admittedly, but I find it hard to believe my experience is unusual.

My reply is to post 14

Slavery was a very important factor I think in early capitalism, before the industrial really took off. This concept of 'man' being superior and made to have dominion over nature was utilised in the way black people were viewed as 'animal' for a long time, 'beasts of burden'.

Yes I do think christianity meashed very well with the development of capitalism.

>Slavery was a very important factor I think in early capitalism, before the industrial really took off. This concept of 'man' being superior and made to have dominion over nature was utilised in the way black people were viewed as 'animal' for a long time, 'beasts of burden'.

Well, no. Black people were viewed as human beings with souls that needed to be saved. You can blame Christianity in part for slavery since the bible (being a book written thousands of years ago) condones it but then Christians had a large part to play in ending it. I don't think you can really argue that the bible encouraged Christians to see blacks as animals to be exploited.

The "have dominion over the earth" thing is a bit of a weak argument in trying to claim that Christianity promotes capitalism. You have to balance that against "all equal in the eyes of the lord" and the all-important "eye of a needle" speech which Christians have desperately tried to re-imagine in an attempt to justify their own wealth.

I'm not a Christian but my understanding of Christianity is that it's anti-materialist. And, not being a Christian, I don't have to pour through re-interpretive doctrine to justify any wealth of my own.

"I disagree. I think the fact that 'man' is viewed as special, made in god's image, and the rest of nature is there for us to have dominion over, or use and abuse as we see fit as one could say under capitalism, is a big factor in its success. Capitalism really took off in the industrial revolution of the 19 C."

I don't think the exploitationary nature of (in particular) 19th century European capitalism had anything to do with Christian doctrine. Laissez-faire was an economic ideology that made rich people powerful and they didn't pretend anything else. I don't think any of them were genuinely concerned about whether Jesus thought it was okay or not, despite what they may have claimed for the good of their social standing. Do you think King Leopold II was a believer who considered the good of his soul when his "Congo Free State" enterprise killed upwards of 2 million Africans? Do you think he started that enterprise because he thought it was a Christian thing to do or because it would make him rich?