Blair shares Bush's hotline to God

[Marker]

Tony Blair has now "come out" as a fully fledged woowoo with his latest statements on his belief.

The kindest interpretation I can put on this is that this is a cynical attempt to garner support from the Christian community in the UK. The alternative - that Blair believes he is taking orders from a supernatural being - is too frightening to contemplate.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/04/international/europe/04blair.html

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/article349125.ece

Here is a more lighthearted version:

http://www.thespoof.com/news/spoof.cfm?headline=s1i10469

[Rolfe]

While I haven't followed this is detail, the reporting here, and the screened excerpts I've seen, had Blair as saying that in the end his decisions would be judged by God. He specifically didn't say that he was taking orders from God. Subtle but important difference. Even for a confirmed Blair-phobe like me.

Rolfe.

[chillzero]

While I haven't followed this is detail, the reporting here, and the screened excerpts I've seen, had Blair as saying that in the end his decisions would be judged by God. He specifically didn't say that he was taking orders from God. Subtle but important difference. Even for a confirmed Blair-phobe like me.

Rolfe.

He said that if you believe in God, then your decisions are also God's decisions, that your decisions are guided by God.

My feeling is that his decision should be guided by education, and by the concerns and wishes of the poulation he was voted in to work for.

[Azrael 5]

He's on Parky tonight,so we can hear what he said exactly.Don't think he said God told him to go to war.

[vbloke]

He claimed that religion helped shape his decisions in going to war and he also implied that he regarded the judgement of god over the judgement of the electorate.

Also telling was the ambiguity in his statement of what he said to Mr Booth when he asked if it was OK to light up a joint in his house.
The question: "Do you mind if I light a joint?"
The answer Blair gave: "No"
which could be taken to mean "No, don't light that thing in here"
or "No, I don't mind"

[Pauliesonne]

He does believe in a sociopathic, genocidal, child-murdering, albeit fictional god so I'm not suprised in the least.

- PS -

[Hazen]

Evidently the 'thou shalt not kill' bit doesn't apply to him.

[Bob Klase]

Evidently the 'thou shalt not kill' bit doesn't apply to him.

Perhaps he's smart enough that he doesn't buy the mistranslation of what originally said "thou shalt not murder".

[Hazen]

Perhaps he's smart enough that he doesn't buy the mistranslation of what originally said "thou shalt not murder".

Elaborate please

[sat556]

The man's gotta go. Ffs, why did I have to land on planet woo?

[kaisersean]

I personally don't believe that God caused Blair to make his decision, mostly because I don't believe in God. Actually, pretty much wholly because of that.

So the problem here seems to be that Blair believes in God. This is apparently prima facie evidence of poor decision-making.

Therefore, I propose a simple test for all elected officials. If you believe in God, you're out.

(Of course, I'm joking. I don't really believe in a religious test, because to me it seems like religion is primarily used as a justification for someone's already-held beliefs. Beliefs which are rarely rational even when not explicitly based on religion).

[luchog]

Elaborate please
The Hebrew word translated "kill" in the KJV and similar translations (and pardon if i'm inexact, I don't have my reference materials available) does not correspond well to that particular word in modern English. The actual meaning of the Hebrew is more like "kill unlawfully" or "kill unrightly", the "law" and "right" are God's, with man's version approximating to various degrees. "Lawful" killing would include defense, in various contexts; and punishment for certain, specific infractions, when decided by the appropriate authority.

So "murder" would be a better single-word translation, in modern English. The original was not necessarily a mistranslation at the time (though probably sub-optimal), taking linguistic drift into account; but certainly would be today, since it lacks corresponding denotive and connotive meanings.

[vbloke]

It is well known that God has a very big foot. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1725799,00.html)

[drfrank]

To be fair, I think this has been blown out of proportion - from vbloke's grauniad link:
"If you have faith about these things," he said, "then you realise that judgment is made by other people. If you believe in God, it's made by God as well."
He does explicitly mention the judgement of people before God. Conversely, the general way I've seen this spun (in newspapers, not just here) is that he basically said "screw what the people think, only God's judgement matters".

I'm not a fan of Tony, but I think this particular story is more political axe-grinding than anything else.

[Darat]

...snip..

My feeling is that his decision should be guided by education, and by the concerns and wishes of the poulation he was voted in to work for.

Why should that minority dictate how the majority is ruled? ;)

[Lothian]

He does explicitly mention the judgement of people before God. Conversely, the general way I've seen this spun (in newspapers, not just here) is that he basically said "screw what the people think, only God's judgement matters".The key issue is not whether he puts the opinions of his imaginary friend before the electorate or the opinions of the electorate before his imaginary friend. It is having an imaginary friend that worries me.

[drfrank]

The key issue is not whether he puts the opinions of his imaginary friend before the electorate or the opinions of the electorate before his imaginary friend. It is having an imaginary friend that worries me.
It seems unlikely that we'll see a PM without such a friend for quite some time: it's far from an unusual flaw, unfortunately.

I certainly agree with it being worrying, but the whole world worries me mightily on that score anyway ;)

[Darat]

From a speech by the Prime Minister:


...snip...

Perhaps it would be best, Moderator, if I began by speaking personally as a Christian, as well as a politician, about the way I see things. Reading recently, I came across the starkly simple phrase:
"Christianity is about spiritual redemption, not social reform".

Sometimes the debate on these matters has become too polarised and given the impression that the two are quite separate. But most Christians would regard it as their personal Christian duty to help their fellow men and women. They would regard the lives of children as a precious trust. These duties come not from any secular legislation passed by Parliament, but from being a Christian.

But there are a number of people who are not Christians who would also accept those responsibilities. What then are the distinctive marks of Christianity?

They stem not from the social but from the spiritual side of our lives, and personally, I would identify three beliefs in particular:

First, that from the beginning man has been endowed by God with the fundamental right to choose between good and evil. And second, that we were made in God's own image and, therefore, we are expected to use all our own power of thought and judgement in exercising that choice; and further, that if we open our hearts to God, He has promised to work within us. And third, that Our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, when faced with His terrible choice and lonely vigil chose to lay down His life that our sins may be forgiven. I remember very well a sermon on an Armistice Sunday when our Preacher said, "No one took away the life of Jesus , He chose to lay it down".

I think back to many discussions in my early life when we all agreed that if you try to take the fruits of Christianity without its roots, the fruits will wither. And they will not come again unless you nurture the roots.

But we must not profess the Christian faith and go to Church simply because we want social reforms and benefits or a better standard of behaviour;but because we accept the sanctity of life, the responsibility that comes with freedom and the supreme sacrifice of Christ expressed so well in the hymn:

"When I survey the wondrous Cross, On which the Prince of glory died, My richest gain I count but loss, And pour contempt on all my pride."

May I also say a few words about my personal belief in the relevance of Christianity to public policy—to the things that are Caesar's?

The Old Testament lays down in Exodus the Ten Commandments as given to Moses , the injunction in Leviticus to love our neighbour as ourselves and generally the importance of observing a strict code of law. The New Testament is a record of the Incarnation, the teachings of Christ and the establishment of the Kingdom of God. Again we have the emphasis on loving our neighbour as ourselves and to "Do-as-you-would-be-done-by".

I believe that by taking together these key elements from the Old and New Testaments, we gain: a view of the universe, a proper attitude to work, and principles to shape economic and social life.
...snip...

[drfrank]

From a speech by the Prime Minister:
True, but I believe that Prime Minister was Margaret Thatcher (http://www.margaretthatcher.org/speeches/displaydocument.asp?docid=107246) ;)

[Darat]

True, but I believe that Prime Minister was Margaret Thatcher (http://www.margaretthatcher.org/speeches/displaydocument.asp?docid=107246) ;)


Oh did I forget to say which PM? :detongue:

But it does show that your comment "It seems unlikely that we'll see a PM without such a friend for quite some time: it's far from an unusual flaw, unfortunately." is unfortunately very true.

[drfrank]

Oh did I forget to say which PM? :detongue:

But it does show that your comment "It seems unlikely that we'll see a PM without such a friend for quite some time: it's far from an unusual flaw, unfortunately." is unfortunately very true.
It can't be healthy to feel this smug :cool:

[Lothian]

Oh did I forget to say which PM? :detongue:

Oh yes Maggie, how I wistfully look back on the days when we had a left wing government,.

[NeilC]

I don't think a belief in god makes someone a "woo".

I don't like what Blair said - given the religious nature of the islamic terrorist threat and it's links to Iraq, I think implying the UK's military involvement is inspired by Christianity is hardly sensible.

[Lothian]

I don't think a belief in god makes someone a "woo".

I think there is a range. If someone believes there is god who made the earth then wondered off to find something more interesting to do I would agree they are not too wooish.

If they believe the handicapped are punished by god for sins in a former life that is firmly standing in a bucket of woo.

That Blair worries about the judgement his god will put on him is bound to influence his decisions. His decisions no longer become based on sound logic but on a combination of logic and wooish beliefs.

[Beelzebubba]

I don't think the belief in God is the problem here either, although that makes just about anyone circumspect. The problem here is Blair has put himself above those who have elected him by taking away their power to judge him and putting it into the hands of this unprovable being. By saying that God will judge him in the afterlife, he is saying that the people of Britain do not have the power or the knowledge to judge him here and now for his actions. Which is codswallop and a complete slap in the face to his constituents. This is the same kind of BS we get here in America from our politicians all of the time. Pushing the blame and judgement for their actions onto "God" since who are we to judge God and his decisions? But, of course they can be judged here and now, just wait until election time.

[drfrank]

I don't think the belief in God is the problem here either, although that makes just about anyone circumspect. The problem here is Blair has put himself above those who have elected him by taking away their power to judge him and putting it into the hands of this unprovable being. By saying that God will judge him in the afterlife, he is saying that the people of Britain do not have the power or the knowledge to judge him here and now for his actions. Which is codswallop and a complete slap in the face to his constituents. This is the same kind of BS we get here in America from our politicians all of the time. Pushing the blame and judgement for their actions onto "God" since who are we to judge God and his decisions? But, of course they can be judged here and now, just wait until election time.
Well, my point was that this opinion seems to be more just the media spin put on his statements to sensationalise:

"If you have faith about these things," he said, "then you realise that judgment is made by other people. If you believe in God, it's made by God as well."
To me, that suggests that the opinions of people, quite rightfully, come first.

Also, for the record, I'm an atheist who's really annoyed at many things the government is doing (ID cards, GPS tracking in cars, erosion of ability to do damn near anything), but I have a particular dislike for the way the media spins relatively mundane statements by public figures to create controversy.

Another example of this is Prince Charles. Yes, he's pretty wacky and his public support for alternative medicine is doing no one any good. However, he did make some not completely stupid comments about nanotechnology which were then spun into the "Charles Terrified of Grey Goo" story.

[Lord Muck oGentry]

The same two sentences are quoted by several posters:
" If you have faith about these things, then you realise that judgment is made by other people" and
" If you believe in God, it's made by God as well".

Perhaps I'm missing something, but I find it hard to attach any meaning at all to them. Can he really be suggesting that if you are unaware of the opinion of others, you are lacking in faith? Or that if you are an unbeliever then the judgment of others does not exist? Or that if there's no such thing as God's judgment, you are an unbeliever? Or perhaps ...but why bother? Trying to make sense of Blair's mithering when he comes over all sincere is like trying to nail blancmange to the wall.