Tony Blair Says Religion Was "hugely important"

[FSTargetDrone]

Story here:

Blair admits importance of faith in his life

Updated Sun. Nov. 25 2007 8:41 AM ET

The Associated Press

Tony Blair says religious faith was "hugely important'' during his 10-year tenure as Britain's prime minister.

But he says he was reluctant to talk about it while in office for fear that voters in Britain, where open discussion of religious conviction is not commonplace, would see him as a -- quote -- "nutter.''

In an interview broadcast today on BBC television, Blair said British voters tend to think that religious politicians "go off and sit in the corner, commune with the man upstairs and then come back and say `Right, I've been told the answer and that's it.''

Blair, who is now a Mideast peace envoy, says religion allowed him to cope with the pressures of making tough decisions -- including committing British troops to the unpopular war in Iraq.

Blair's former communications director, Alistair Campbell, says Blair carried a Bible when he travelled and routinely asked aides to find Sunday church services.

I guess this means Bush can have a buddy at Bible camp when he leaves office. It's a shame, really. Blair's idea of being a "nutter" is what we here in the US would see as being a glowing example of Faith In Action. He's a man of faith, right with the Lord.

[DavidEC]

But he says he was reluctant to talk about it while in office for fear that voters in Britain, where open discussion of religious conviction is not commonplace, would see him as a -- quote -- "nutter.''

Cry me a river - that's how it should be. Religious victim-playing, never gets old, eh.

[Dartzap]

It's certainly something of an odd phenomena - the majority of politicians in the UK are religious, whilst a majority of the population are not. Friends in high places and all that and all that.

It doesn't stop them pushing through laws that annoy their fellow chuch goers, though (E.G. making it illegal for adoption agencies, be they church ran or not, to not provide gay couples the chance to adopt)

We even had an Opus Dei member in the Cabinet, IIRC.

[Admiral Valdemar]

But he says he was reluctant to talk about it while in office for fear that voters in Britain, where open discussion of religious conviction is not commonplace, would see him as a -- quote -- "wanker.''

Yeah, that sounds about right.

[Zac Naloen]

Only hugely important in the sense he could go to church and have his sins "forgiven" to make him feel better about himself.

[FSTargetDrone]

Only hugely important in the sense he could go to church and have his sins "forgiven" to make him feel better about himself.

Dontcha know, his faith "influenced (his) decision about war in Iraq."

And now:

ENGLAND: Rochester bishop attacks Blair statement, mention God and you're a 'nutter'

November 26, 2007

[Ecumenical News International] Former British Prime Minister Tony Blair's statement that he was reluctant to speak about his religious faith while he was in office as he felt people in Britain might regard him as a "nutter" has stirred vigorous debate.

Anglican Bishop Michael Nazir-Ali of Rochester said, "I am sorry that Tony Blair feels he could not talk about his faith in case people thought he was a nutter." The bishop was quoted by the BBC as saying, "A Christian vision underlies all that is important about Britain: its laws, institutions and values."

Nazir-Ali added, "If Blair had been able to relate this vision to his policies, we would have had more constructive social policy at home and principled policies abroad."

That last bit is rather interesting. I assume it's a shot across the bow from the good bishop in regards to Blair having Britain participating in the Iraq Fiasco, but I know nothing of Nazir-Ali's position in the matter.

[Balrog]

But he says he was reluctant to talk about it while in office for fear that voters in Britain, where open discussion of religious conviction is not commonplace, would see him as a -- quote -- "nutter.''

Cry me a river - that's how it should be. Religious victim-playing, never gets old, eh.

So what, politicians should be prejudiced on purpose because they believe in a higher power? There's a difference between simply having religious convictions, and wishing to force them upon others. And I don't recall Blair admitting to the latter.

[DavidEC]

So what, politicians should be prejudiced on purpose because they believe in a higher power? There's a difference between simply having religious convictions, and wishing to force them upon others.

Yes, there is. One deserves the title of 'nutter', the other a harsher title.

It's the old problem of comfortable untruth versus uncomfortable truth.

If someone says "I believe in an afterlife where genuinely good people get their wild fantasies fulfilled and bad people get corrected," then that's a pretty appealling vision, but still deluded.

If someone says, "I don't believe in the afterlife. Good and bad people do not necessarily get what's coming to them" then it might sound mean but he's not a nutter.

If, as you say, someone forces these silly beliefs then they are both mean and a nutter.

Regardless, I don't want a PM who's a nutter full stop.

And I don't recall Blair admitting to the latter.

Thankfully not.

[Androsphinx]

Dontcha know, his faith "influenced (his) decision about war in Iraq."

Cambell writes in his diaries that after a certain amount of debate on the matter, Blair would say "trust me, I know I'm right" - so often that everyone in the inner circle got thoroughly sick of it. I wonder why?

[General Zod]

So what, politicians should be prejudiced on purpose because they believe in a higher power? There's a difference between simply having religious convictions, and wishing to force them upon others. And I don't recall Blair admitting to the latter.

The only real difference is one is more vocal about wishing to force their religion on others.

[Alyrium Denryle]

But he says he was reluctant to talk about it while in office for fear that voters in Britain, where open discussion of religious conviction is not commonplace, would see him as a -- quote -- "nutter.''

Cry me a river - that's how it should be. Religious victim-playing, never gets old, eh.

So what, politicians should be prejudiced on purpose because they believe in a higher power? There's a difference between simply having religious convictions, and wishing to force them upon others. And I don't recall Blair admitting to the latter.

Just britain's children though the promotion of faith schools.

[TheDarkling]

Just britain's children though the promotion of faith schools.

Muslims went to my Catholic Secondary School and go to what was my Primary School (in fact there is a Catholic School in Scotland which is majority Muslim).

They can't do that great a job of forcing the religion on people if people from other faiths feel comfortable sending their children there.

Apart for four or so masses a year(which people can sit out), maybe a prayer in assembly and compulsory RE (which spends as much time on other religions as Christianity) religion hardly came up and being an active church go-er was frowned upon by the student body.

Meanwhile the state gets the church to shell out funds for education.

The solution would seem to be to make sure the faith schools adhere to strict guidelines, beyond that there isn't much of a problem with the idea of faith schools and there is actually an upside until the government gets a limitless education budget.

[FSTargetDrone]

"Faith schools," is that really what they call them? How... unnerving.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Just britain's children though the promotion of faith schools.

Muslims went to my Catholic Secondary School and go to what was my Primary School (in fact there is a Catholic School in Scotland which is majority Muslim).

They can't do that great a job of forcing the religion on people if people from other faiths feel comfortable sending their children there.

Apart for four or so masses a year(which people can sit out), maybe a prayer in assembly and compulsory RE (which spends as much time on other religions as Christianity) religion hardly came up and being an active church go-er was frowned upon by the student body.

Meanwhile the state gets the church to shell out funds for education.

The solution would seem to be to make sure the faith schools adhere to strict guidelines, beyond that there isn't much of a problem with the idea of faith schools and there is actually an upside until the government gets a limitless education budget.

Apples to oranges. Many of the faith schools cropping up are run by protestants. A far different animal than a bunch of Jesuits.

[Balrog]

It's the old problem of comfortable untruth versus uncomfortable truth.

If someone says "I believe in an afterlife where genuinely good people get their wild fantasies fulfilled and bad people get corrected," then that's a pretty appealling vision, but still deluded.

We must be using different versions of the word deluded then.

The only real difference is one is more vocal about wishing to force their religion on others.

[General Zod]

The only real difference is one is more vocal about wishing to force their religion on others.

If there's some kind of difference I'm missing that makes mine inaccurate feel free to enlighten everyone. Otherwise all you're doing is blowing hot air by bleating that it's different without showing how.

[ArmorPierce]

Just britain's children though the promotion of faith schools.

Muslims went to my Catholic Secondary School and go to what was my Primary School (in fact there is a Catholic School in Scotland which is majority Muslim).

They can't do that great a job of forcing the religion on people if people from other faiths feel comfortable sending their children there.

Apart for four or so masses a year(which people can sit out), maybe a prayer in assembly and compulsory RE (which spends as much time on other religions as Christianity) religion hardly came up and being an active church go-er was frowned upon by the student body.

Meanwhile the state gets the church to shell out funds for education.

The solution would seem to be to make sure the faith schools adhere to strict guidelines, beyond that there isn't much of a problem with the idea of faith schools and there is actually an upside until the government gets a limitless education budget.

Depending on which country they are from, Muslims parents don't mind sending their children to catholic school or their kids even being Christian. In their countries, whether your Muslims or Christian or whatever matters little, as long as your religious (no damn Atheists!).

[B5B7]

The really real nutter in relation to Blair's staement is this Daily Mail "journalist":Melanie Phillips
She has really written a load of old cobblers.

[TheDarkling]

Apples to oranges. Many of the faith schools cropping up are run by protestants. A far different animal than a bunch of Jesuits.

How many are Protestants, by which I assume we mean Evangelicals since the Anglicans already run the bulk of faith schools(expect in Scotland where they are almost uniformly catholic)?

To my understanding the Evangelical schools are mostly independent and thus aren't be encouraged by the government to exist, if they actually came in from the cold as the government suggest then they would have to adhere to guidelines on what they teach.

At the end of the day 1/3 of all UK schools are faith schools yet we are a rather secular country so the charge that faith schools exist to force religion on children doesn't hold up.

State funded faith schools aren't a big concern compared to the independent schools who are given far more leeway to do what they want and those schools make up a tiny minority (in 2005 5,000 attended evangelical independent schools and 15,000 Muslim independent schools compared to 1.7 million at state faith schools).

[brianeyci]

The only real difference is one is more vocal about wishing to force their religion on others.

If there's some kind of difference I'm missing that makes mine inaccurate feel free to enlighten everyone. Otherwise all you're doing is blowing hot air by bleating that it's different without showing how.

There is a difference. You can personally believe in something without forcing it on others, and you can wish other people to have the freedom to do what they want without believing in it yourself. For example, you can be pro-choice and still be anti-abortion for yourself personally, and that isn't forcing shit on anybody.

I don't think it applies in this case though. He let religion influence public policy. He grudgingly let it happen, rather than proudly loving separation of church and state. JFK saying it would mean, he's proud it happened but Blair saying it means, he wish it didn't have to happen.

[K. A. Pital]

I only wish to live to the day when religious whackaloons will be banned from politics alltogether:

Tony Blair says religious faith was "hugely important'' during his 10-year tenure as Britain's prime minister.

What, did God tell him to attack Iraq just like he apparently told it to Bush, who is "loved by the Angels"?

[Hillary]

Just britain's children though the promotion of faith schools.

Muslims went to my Catholic Secondary School and go to what was my Primary School (in fact there is a Catholic School in Scotland which is majority Muslim).

They can't do that great a job of forcing the religion on people if people from other faiths feel comfortable sending their children there.

Apart for four or so masses a year(which people can sit out), maybe a prayer in assembly and compulsory RE (which spends as much time on other religions as Christianity) religion hardly came up and being an active church go-er was frowned upon by the student body.

Meanwhile the state gets the church to shell out funds for education.

The solution would seem to be to make sure the faith schools adhere to strict guidelines, beyond that there isn't much of a problem with the idea of faith schools and there is actually an upside until the government gets a limitless education budget.

So why does the Catholic Church (and the CoE and various other religious bodies) put all this money into schools, if it isn't for indoctrination purposes? If it is entirely alturistic, why do the schools need to be called "St Mary's Catholic School"? Why do they need to have so many clerics on the board of governors?

The bottom line is that churches put money into schools so that children of that faith can be taught in a certain way. The fact that you may be able to pick out a few exceptions where this is not (explicitly) the case does not alter the fact that the overwhelming majority of them do.

You only have to look at Northern Ireland to see how divisive and destructive single-faith schools can be.

[Hillary]

The really real nutter in relation to Blair's staement is this Daily Mail "journalist":Melanie Phillips
She has really written a load of old cobblers.

A Daily Mail journalist a nutter? Let me show you a bear that shits in the woods.

[Zac Naloen]

The really real nutter in relation to Blair's staement is this Daily Mail "journalist":Melanie Phillips
She has really written a load of old cobblers.

A Daily Mail journalist a nutter? Let me show you a bear that shits in the woods.

That articles hilarious.

She actually believes a supernatural creator makes more sense than fairies at the bottom of the garden.

[TheDarkling]

So why does the Catholic Church (and the CoE and various other religious bodies) put all this money into schools, if it isn't for indoctrination purposes? If it is entirely alturistic, why do the schools need to be called "St Mary's Catholic School"? Why do they need to have so many clerics on the board of governors?

The counter question would be, why allow Muslims in and have to set aside teachers to look after them whilst he other children are in mass?

Another might point would be that given 1/3rd of English schools are faith schools (most being primary, about 1/5th of the Secondary schools are faith schools) why don't we see this many 16 year olds being regular church going automatons.

The reason to continue with the schools is that parishioners want them (even those who don't have children) and tradition.

No doubt they also like everybody wearing uniforms, going to church 3 or 4 times a year and having a prayer at assembly.

This however isn't going to indoctrinate anybody.

The bottom line is that churches put money into schools so that children of that faith can be taught in a certain way. The fact that you may be able to pick out a few exceptions where this is not (explicitly) the case does not alter the fact that the overwhelming majority of them do.

Obviously they want them taught in a certain way but that doesn't equate to indoctrination.

They may what stricter discipline, uniforms etc but getting education in a certain manner isn't automatically indicative of turning a school into an indoctrination camp.

You only have to look at Northern Ireland to see how divisive and destructive single-faith schools can be.

Segregation is quite apart from indoctrination (unless you are blaming Northern Ireland's problem on relgious indoctrination picked up in school rather than regular bigotry picked up everywhere).

That is Northern Ireland, hardly a useful indicator of the rest of the UK which isn't riven into two groupings which rally around seperate religions(of variants of a particular religion).

They couldn't behave themselves in handing out council homes, electoral boundary adjustment or first past the post voting but it doesn't more sensible areas should be forced to change or abolish those systems.

Whatever downside may come from religious segregation is probably corrected by the increased ethnic diversification of those same schools (21% of the make-up versus 17% in regularly schools) particualrly given that in great Britain race tends to be a more divisive element than religion (whcih frankly doesn't warrant much of a mention in everyday life),