http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/the_blair_years/article2937089.ece
TONY BLAIR has admitted that his Christianity played a "hugely important" role during his premiership but he was forced to play down his religious conviction for fear of being seen by the public as "a nutter".
In his most frank television interview about his religious beliefs, Blair confesses he would have found it difficult to do the job of prime minister had he not been able to draw on his faith.
While here in the US, presidential campaigns fairly hinge on being perceived as just such a "nutter". It's interesting that Blair sees the expression of religion in the US political arena as a positive thing, mostly citing his feelings of repression.
You know, drawing on your faith to aid yourself emotionally and psychologically is one thing. Drawing on your faith to forge policy and political alliances is another matter all together.
!i!
Quote from: Ian AbsentiaWhile here in the US, presidential campaigns fairly hinge on being perceived as just such a "nutter". It's interesting that Blair sees the expression of religion in the US political arena as a positive thing, mostly citing his feelings of repression.
You know, drawing on your faith to aid yourself emotionally and psychologically is one thing. Drawing on your faith to forge policy and political alliances is another matter all together.
!i!
I struggle with this one. I see your point (and raise you a...oh nevermind...), but it's such a fine line. If a President is elected and is clear about his faith, I expect that a certain amount of his moral compass will come with that Faith. So it's difficult to see where the moral compass ends and the "instantiation of faith through government" begins.
On the other hand, if the Faith is too strong - then you start to wonder if any policy is being driven by that Faith directly, as opposed to indirectly through the moral compass.
If that makes any sense....
One reason Blair hid his faith is that, if all the rumours are correct, he is keen to be a Catholic which while the general population might not care IIRC does raise certain points of arcane British law with regards the relationship of the monarch as head of the church and her 'appointed' prime minister
Secondly I think the decision to make him conceal his faith was right because, IMO, for Blair its always been a get-out clause. 'I believed I was doing the right thing' is his mantra and I think his religious beliefs help re-inforce that - good intentions and all that. If he's been able to claim it fully - as he almost came to the point of, then he's be insufferable. I also suspect that Bush's clear expression of faith and belief is one of the things that probably impressed Blair into compliance.
Quote from: James J SkachOn the other hand, if the Faith is too strong - then you start to wonder if any policy is being driven by that Faith directly, as opposed to indirectly through the moral compass.
If that makes any sense....
Not to me. What do you mean by 'directly.' Are you worried that Catholic-Blair would take orders 'directly' from the Pope? Worried that he would get instructions piped into his head 'directly' from God? Worried that he would go 'directly' from point A to point Jesus without considering the feelings of others?
The rest of you feel free to answer too. (:catholic: and loving it)
In Britain religion and faith are seen as intensely private things. Talking publicly about them is akin to discussing your masturbation habits. Those people who go out trying to proselytise to the masses (hanging around in shopping centres and such) are seen as nutjobs and people shy away from them. It's a rare thing indeed that you see anyone stopping to either listen to them or engage them.
Furthermore, most of the civil strife in our past had religious parallels, we had sectarian violence whenever a king or queen came in with a different faith to the previous one. So people are instinctively wary about their "leaders" professing strong beliefs.
Britain is a nominally Christian but functionally agnostic nation. Long may it remain so.
Quote from: Malleus ArianorumNot to me. What do you mean by 'directly.' Are you worried that Catholic-Blair would take orders 'directly' from the Pope? Worried that he would get instructions piped into his head 'directly' from God? Worried that he would go 'directly' from point A to point Jesus without considering the feelings of others?
The rest of you feel free to answer too. (:catholic: and loving it)
If you'll note, I'm not against a person of any certain faith (like, say, Romney, this time around) being in office. I'm saying that to ban the influence of one's Faith, or to somehow measure it or hold it as directly responsible for this policy or that program is a
very difficult proposition.
I mean, there are ton's of people of faith on the left - maybe as many as on the right. Why is their Faith any less influential than those on the right? Why do people not hold the Clinton's responsible for decisions made that could be drawn from Faith? How about Carter? Why not Reagan? I was younger than, and not much into politics, but I honestly do not recall hearing as much about Reagan's or Carter's religion (except for the entire "sinned in my heart" business).
Once accusations of religious influence start creeping into the debate, it's difficult, to me, to draw that line - everybody will have their own tolerance level. That's what I guess I'm trying to say..as an American, of Catholic upbringing, no longer a church goer or member of any religion, but agnostic on the whole, who respects many people in my life who are of faith.
Quote from: KieroIn Britain religion and faith are seen as intensely private things.
What isn't? :haw:
It's a joke. I kid, people. Lighten up.
Quote from: KieroIn Britain religion and faith are seen as intensely private things.
If only it were that way in the US...
Quote from: Malleus ArianorumWhat do you mean by 'directly.' Are you worried that Catholic-Blair would take orders 'directly' from the Pope? Worried that he would get instructions piped into his head 'directly' from God? Worried that he would go 'directly' from point A to point Jesus without considering the feelings of others?
Were he a politician in the US, the concern would be that he would feel beholden to certain religious political blocs. So, that would be closest to the Pope-as-infallable-authority business. Being beholden to various and sundry religious lobbies differs significantly from being beholden to any other lobby in that we ostensibly hold dear a separation of Church and State, and the motives of particular religious lobbies are frequently at odds with the religious and civil freedoms of the people at large.
!i!
Quote from: James J SkachIf you'll note, I'm not against a person of any certain faith (like, say, Romney, this time around) being in office. I'm saying that to ban the influence of one's Faith, or to somehow measure it or hold it as directly responsible for this policy or that program is a very difficult proposition.
So noted. You're against all religions. (Must be an agnostic thing :) )
Sure it's difficult for someone's programs to be uninfluenced by their religious beliefs, but I'd extend that to non-religious beliefs too. What I'm wondering is, do you think there is some reason why religious beliefs are unfit, or is it simply the preference of non-religious folks? Is it any better than the Americans who say that atheists have no place in politics?
QuoteI mean, there are ton's of people of faith on the left - maybe as many as on the right. Why is their Faith any less influential than those on the right? Why do people not hold the Clinton's responsible for decisions made that could be drawn from Faith? How about Carter? Why not Reagan? I was younger than, and not much into politics, but I honestly do not recall hearing as much about Reagan's or Carter's religion (except for the entire "sinned in my heart" business).
Regan lost the Republican African American vote because his strategy was "screw em! we can win without em!" Democrats lost the religious vote through a similar process. Incidentaly, now both parties are scrambling to play nice with the blocks they rejected.
The Democrats started catering to religion voters after Bush was re-elected by so-called "values voters," but it was tricky since they couldn't alienate their base by promoting the issues. Hillary tried campaigning against violent video games, Obama by darring to suggest that faith can be professed in the public square (but promising not to act on his beliefs), and Howard Dean by mangling Christian phrases. (My personal favorite was when he suggested that we should act "like Jesus
will when he returns" instead of "like Jesus
did when he was here." The change of tense changed his meaning from "be like kind servants" to "be a like a wrathful God." :eek:
I disagree about Bill Clinton. He
was judged by his faith. He was well recieved as a Christan good ol boy, he went to church frequently, cited scripture intelligently and sung hymns from memory (a rare feat amongst Christians, but especialy amazing for someone who traveled from church to church each week.) It gave him an extra nudge at the poles, which is why alot of money and effort was put into discrediting that appeal, most famously in the Monicagate hype.
Regan was well loved by values voters but he got dinged for his wife's astrology. IIRC his family is currently using his good name to promote embreonic stem cell research -- a rare chance to get traction with the pro-life crowd. (Another development on this front is thinktanks devoted to pro-choice bible verses.)
QuoteOnce accusations of religious influence start creeping into the debate, it's difficult, to me, to draw that line - everybody will have their own tolerance level. That's what I guess I'm trying to say..as an American, of Catholic upbringing, no longer a church goer or member of any religion, but agnostic on the whole, who respects many people in my life who are of faith.
My tollerence level for jock-talk is very low so I'd be happy if politicians never mentioned sports again, still, I'm not justified in forbiding it catagorically.
!i![/QUOTE]
Ian,
I don't see how the differences you mentioned are significantly distinct.
(1) Seperation of church and state.
It's not a meaningful distinction unless you believe that religious politicians are trying to overturn the establishment clause. Otherwise why prohibit them from public service on this point?
(2) At odds with religious and civil freedoms.
How is the conflict posed by religion to religious freedoms significantly different from the conflicts posed by other lobbies for example? And anyway, isn't it kind of dishonest to protect religious freedoms by prohibiting them?
Quote from: Malleus ArianorumIs it any better than the Americans who say that atheists have no place in politics?
For the record, I've seen polls showing almost 80 per cent of Americans say they would never vote for an atheist. So running for office in the U.S. as an atheist is a much harder row to hoe than running as an overtly Christian candidate. Actually, I'd say it's pretty much impossible for an atheist to get elected to any position higher than dog catcher.
Quote from: HaffrungFor the record, I've seen polls showing almost 80 per cent of Americans say they would never vote for an atheist. So running for office in the U.S. as an atheist is a much harder row to hoe than running as an overtly Christian candidate. Actually, I'd say it's pretty much impossible for an atheist to get elected to any position higher than dog catcher.
Which is quite ironic when you consider how many of the founding fathers were fairly agnostic. Like, say, Thomas Jefferson.
Quote from: jgantsWhich is quite ironic when you consider how many of the founding fathers were fairly agnostic. Like, say, Thomas Jefferson.
He was a deist. Not the same.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Jefferson#Religious_views
Also, agnostic =/= athiest.
Quote from: WerekoalaHe was a deist. Not the same.
True, but Deism was also largely a contrivance to allow agnostic free-thinkers to operate within the confines of an almost exclusively Christian society. It allowed them the ability to acknowledge and adhere to the social customs and mores of the society in which they were raised and lived, while tabling a response to The Big Question (some might say "dodge" rather than "table", but why quibble over semantics?).
!i!
Oh yes, Blair was definitely a devout Christian. He engaged in a conspiracy to deceive Parliament and his country - "Iraq could be firing WMDs at Britain in 45 minutes!" - and engaged in a war of aggression in which tens of thousands of civilians were killed.
Bullshit.
He might have felt moved by faith, but even this Jew knows that real Christians don't do that - real Christians practice charity, faith, and love. And they don't conspire to lie to Parliament and their country.
Wearing a cross and feeling occasional bursts of warm fuzzy faith does not make you Christian any more than wearing gold lame hotpants and saying, "why, that Brad Pitt is quite good-looking" would make me gay. As they said in Batman Begins, "it's not who you are inside, but what you do that defines you." Until I am out there taking or giving one for the Rainbow Team, I'm not gay. Likewise, your Christian (or Moslem, or Jewish, etc) faith is shown by your actions.
Bullshit, Blair. This is just Old Statesman Syndrome. A year or two after they quit, a bit longer if they were chucked out, lots of them become great liberal humanists, sudenly concerned about all the poverty and conflict in the world. Humbug.
Quote from: Malleus Arianorum!I don't see how the differences you mentioned are significantly distinct.
(1) Seperation of church and state.
It's not a meaningful distinction unless you believe that religious politicians are trying to overturn the establishment clause. Otherwise why prohibit them from public service on this point?
There's no prohibition against public service, nor would I suggest that there should be. What is intended is a prohibition against religious mandate of state policy, and
vice versa to be quite clear. Those with clear and fervid personal religious beliefs (and those with a clear and fervid denial of personal religious beliefs) are welcome to serve the state, but not to mandate their agenda, particularly to the exclusion of someone else's freedom to practice their beliefs. It's a bit of a tightrope at times, as you can tell.
Quote(2) At odds with religious and civil freedoms.
How is the conflict posed by religion to religious freedoms significantly different from the conflicts posed by other lobbies for example? And anyway, isn't it kind of dishonest to protect religious freedoms by prohibiting them?
Again, there's been no mention of prohibition, nor the intent to suggest it. The conflict that arises from religious lobbies is that specific religous agendas, when influencing or enacted as law, limit the religious freedoms of those who don't share those beliefs.
It's an awkward situation. An unpopular tax may be voted in by a slim majority, applying to all citizens, but it's legal and (arguably) not a moral issue. But if a particular religious agenda were voted in, by even a clear majority, it would inhibit the religious freedoms of those who do not support it.
!i!
Quote from: Ian AbsentiaTrue, but Deism was also largely a contrivance to allow agnostic free-thinkers to operate within the confines of an almost exclusively Christian society. It allowed them the ability to acknowledge and adhere to the social customs and mores of the society in which they were raised and lived, while tabling a response to The Big Question (some might say "dodge" rather than "table", but why quibble over semantics?).
Really.
Quote from: WerekoalaReally.
Well, yes. Really.
!i!
Quote from: WerekoalaHe was a deist. Not the same.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Jefferson#Religious_views
Also, agnostic =/= athiest.
I see it like a scale of "religiousness". On one end, you have the guys who will kill themselves to do "God's will" or whatever. On the other end, you have true atheists.
Let's say Joe Blow off the street who believes in God, but is pretty non-denominational and might go to church or pray at Easter or Christmas, but rarely otherwise, is the mid point.
To one side, you start to get more religious. You get people who go to church regularly and pray regularly, which flows into the people who interpret the bible literally and the people who want to be missionaries until you get to the people who are willing to be martyrs.
On the other side, you get less religious. Unitarianism flows into Deism and Secular Humanism and Agnosticism, until you eventually reach Atheism.
Now, that's just my personal theological frame of reference which I'm sure all kinds of people would disagree with (and probably cause serious theologians to groan loudly).
All I was getting at was that a number of the original guys founding the country weren't all that religious (though certainly there were also plenty who were), and would never even come close to being electable today. I find that a bit ironic.
I can see that, but Words Mean Things. Calling one of the founders Agnostic is much closer to Athiest than Deist, even in your example you provided. So, rather than saying he was Agnostic, then call him a Deist.
Yes, I'm being a pedantic bastard today. I blame the weather.
Quote from: WerekoalaI can see that, but Words Mean Things. Calling one of the founders Agnostic is much closer to Athiest than Deist, even in your example you provided. So, rather than saying he was Agnostic, then call him a Deist.
Yes, I'm being a pedantic bastard today. I blame the weather.
Technically, I said they were "fairly Agnostic" not "Agnostic". There's a difference.
Being pedantic is fun. :D
Quote from: Ian AbsentiaIt's an awkward situation. An unpopular tax may be voted in by a slim majority, applying to all citizens, but it's legal and (arguably) not a moral issue. But if a particular religious agenda were voted in, by even a clear majority, it would inhibit the religious freedoms of those who do not support it.
Which is why they tend not to be voted into law in the first place; and when they do, someone comes along and (usually) successfully challenges it based on the establishment clause.
Which is why I get amused when Pundit brings it up in such hyperbolic terms. The chances that anything making, say, Christianity a state religion in the US, or putting rules in place that only allow Christians to hold office, are so silly as to be laughed off - even in a country that's overwhelmingly Christian.
Quote from: Malleus ArianorumSo noted. You're against all religions. (Must be an agnostic thing :) )
Sure it's difficult for someone's programs to be uninfluenced by their religious beliefs, but I'd extend that to non-religious beliefs too. What I'm wondering is, do you think there is some reason why religious beliefs are unfit, or is it simply the preference of non-religious folks? Is it any better than the Americans who say that atheists have no place in politics?
I don't think you get it, MA. I'm not saying what you think I am, I suspect.
I'm saying it is virtually impossible to somehow draw a direct line from someone's religious belief to policy. And even in the cases where policy is heavily - even directly - influenced by an elected official's religious belief it doesn't make it wrong on it's face.
The question is whether or not it violates a right as granted by the Constitution (in the US). It's why there had to be an Amendment process - to establish what those fundamental rights were and to build upon them as society better understood them. See search and seizure.
The arguments arise as different people "interpret" the Constitution differently, and, therefore, come to different conclusions as to what is a violation of protected rights.
Quote from: jgantsTechnically, I said they were "fairly Agnostic" not "Agnostic". There's a difference.
Being pedantic is fun. :D
You didn't capitalize "Agnostic" in your original post.
Your turn. :D
Quote from: James J SkachWhich is why [religious agendas] tend not to be voted into law in the first place; and when they do, someone comes along and (usually) successfully challenges it based on the establishment clause.
Correct and duly noted.
!i!
Quote from: Haffrung...Actually, I'd say it's pretty much impossible for an atheist to get elected to any position higher than dog catcher.
Pete "the Atheist*" Sark (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pete_Stark)
Wikipedia says: Stark is the first openly nontheistic member of Congress, as announced by the Secular Coalition for America. Stark acknowledged his nontheism in response to an SCA questionnaire sent to public officials in January 2007. In a statement, Stark said he is a "Unitarian who does not believe in a supreme being. I look forward to working with the Secular Coalition to stop the promotion of narrow religious beliefs in science, marriage contracts, the military and the provision of social service."
*The media said he was an "Atheist" (capital 'A,' Font 'ohnoes') but the wikipedia sounds more truthy.
Quote from: James J SkachI don't think you get it, MA. I'm not saying what you think I am, I suspect.
My fault then. I imagined you and Ian were saying something sinister. :)
Quote from: Malleus ArianorumWikipedia says: Stark is the first openly nontheistic member of Congress, as announced by the Secular Coalition for America.
The exception that proves the rule. The fact this guy is noteworthy as the only nontheistic member of congress shows just how marginal non-religious folks are in American politics.
...particularly when you look up Unitarian on the "Jungian God-Atheism-Nihilism tendency spectrum."
jGants:
martyrs < missionaries < regular church goers < Unitarianism < Deism < Secular Humanism < Agnosticism < eventualy...(?) < Atheism.
Quote from: Malleus ArianorumjGants:
martyrs < missionaries < regular church goers < Unitarianism < Deism < Secular Humanism < Agnosticism < eventualy...(?) < Atheism.
There is actually a militant atheism step at the end which includes atheists who persecute and kill those who are religious (or would, if they could).
I think it's best to keep murderous intent on a different axis. Any group on jGants could incited to violence in dire circumstances. (Or as you say, if they had the upper hand)
How about
...Atheism > Solipsism > Nihilism
I think Solipism and Nihilism are a good paralels to the self abnegation of the missionaries and martyrs on the religion side of the spectrum.
Quote from: Malleus ArianorumI think it's best to keep murderous intent on a different axis. Any group on jGants could incited to violence in dire circumstances. (Or as you say, if they had the upper hand)
Well, then I don't think martyrdom belongs on the scale, either, because any group could be incited to die for their beliefs in dire circumstances, too, by that measure.
You know guys, my "scale of religiousness" was just a vague concept of mine based on personal impressions. It wasn't meant as a serious theological rating and ranking tool.
Just thought I'd point that out in case anyone mistakingly believes it to be based on any kind of scholarly work (as the closest I've come to philosophy or theology studies were classes in logic and business ethics). :D
And again, by any rational measure, a "scale of religiousness" would have to be by people's actions rather than their private thoughts.
Which makes Tony Blair about as Christian as your average mugger. This is just Former Statesman Liberalism. When they're in office they're all buddy-buddy with the most brutal dictators, happily cut welfare programmes for the poor, bomb the crap out of other countries - but then, five minutes after they've finished their memoirs savaging their mates, they turn all mushy and liberal, and want poverty and conflict to end.
Tony Bliar would have been considered a nutter for expressing religious convictions because they're so obviously in complete contradiction to his actions. If the Dalai Lama says he's a believer, or Mother Teresa did, no-one thought they were nutters - they matched beliefs to actions. Your average Western political leader, though - no. Complete contradiction. To say you're a devout Christian while putting into place the policies Blair did, you can't believe that unless you're a nutter.
If he'd behaved in a Christian manner, he could have spoken about it as much as he'd liked, people would have just thought he went on a bit - but they did anyway.
Wait, Kyle....isn't the goal of most secularists to keep religious beliefs out of policy making? I would think this would be a perfect example of someone who didn't let his religious convictions stand in the way of what he thought was the right thing to do for the country.
The argument about whether he was right or wrong, whether he was hoodwinked or it was all a lie, etc. can go on ad infinitum. But it can't be both "Keep your religious convictions out of policy" and "Look how bad you are at infusing your policy with your religious convictions."
Quote from: John MorrowWell, then I don't think martyrdom belongs on the scale, either, because any group could be incited to die for their beliefs in dire circumstances, too, by that measure.
Good call. ...I suppose by extension all groups have "missionaries" and 'church goers' which leaves us with...
jungian God/atheism/nihilism tendency spectrum (jGants):theism < unitarianism < deism < secular humanism < agnosticism < eventualy...(?) < atheism < solipisim < nihilism.
But the D&D player in me wants to put this into an alignment chart. Perhaps if we map altrusim/self as 'good/evil' and map Theist/Atheist as 'law/chaos'
Theocracy__Deism_________Secular Humanitarianism
Theism_____Agnosticism____Atheism
Solipisim____Paganism______Nihilism
Row by row...
Theocracy, Deism, Secular Humanism. These altruistic beliefs are dedicated to conforming society to their ideals of goodness which flows from their belief in the status of God's existence. Theists aim to conform the world to God's will. Diests aim to promote "self evident" rights. Secular Humanists try to do what's best without getting bogged down in transendent values and other God talk.
Theism, Agnosticism, Atheism. These beliefs are primaraly concerned with the existence of God.
Solipism, Paganism, Nihilism. Right action is determined by the self. Indoctrination and attempts to produce conformity are at best foolish and at worst tyranny. Solipisits believe that they themselves are 'god.' Pagans believe that individuals are best suited to determine right and wrong on a person by person basis balanced with a prohibition against harming others. The believe in godlike beings or powers but deny the existence of a single unified God. Nihilists are the 'no-no boys' of this alignment chart.
'Course wether or not you'd want any of these folks for neighbors (let alone prime minister!) depends on their actions actualy are. (Like Kyle said)
Quote from: Kyle AaronTony Bliar would have been considered...
:lol:
Quote from: James J SkachWait, Kyle....isn't the goal of most secularists to keep religious beliefs out of policy making?
No. That might be the goal of some militant atheists, I don't know.
You can have a secular state with religious people elected to high office. The important thing is that Church and State be kept separate. Bishops should not sit in on Cabinet meetings. But that doesn't mean no religious people should be in government. Likewise, the legislative and judicial functions of government should be kept separate, but that doesn't mean no former lawyers should be elected.
Electing people who have a personal philosophy which guides their actions is not at all a problem for a democratic country; whether that philosophy is theist like being Anglican, or atheist like being an economic rationalist - doesn't matter, just let your philosophy be known so that people know what sort of policies to expect from you if they elect you.
A secular state is simply one in which Church and State are separate. That doesn't mean only atheists can be elected.
Quote from: Kyle AaronNo. That might be the goal of some militant atheists, I don't know.
You can have a secular state with religious people elected to high office. The important thing is that Church and State be kept separate. Bishops should not sit in on Cabinet meetings. But that doesn't mean no religious people should be in government. Likewise, the legislative and judicial functions of government should be kept separate, but that doesn't mean no former lawyers should be elected.
Electing people who have a personal philosophy which guides their actions is not at all a problem for a democratic country; whether that philosophy is theist like being Anglican, or atheist like being an economic rationalist - doesn't matter, just let your philosophy be known so that people know what sort of policies to expect from you if they elect you.
A secular state is simply one in which Church and State are separate. That doesn't mean only atheists can be elected.
It's a nice dodge attempt, kyle - but you failed your reflex save.
I didn't say that - but then, you knew that.
Then I've misunderstood you. You said,
Wait, Kyle....isn't the goal of most secularists to keep religious beliefs out of policy making?
and I said, no, it isn't. The goal of secularists is to keep church and state separate, not to keep religious beliefs out of policy making.
What did you mean, if not that?
Blair in any case obviously did not let his religious beliefs in any way affect his policies. It's sheer humbug for him to say otherwise. I'm Jewish, and even I think better of Christians than that a man who lied to Parliament in a conspiracy to wage aggressive war should be able to call himself "Christian" in his actions.
I'm fine with religious leaders as long as they don't think god is backing their specific policies.
To have your policies be influenced by your faith is one thing, and can be a good thing, to believe that your policies are vindicated by your faith is a very different animal.
One permits of doubt, your policies are influenced by your faith but you are fallible so your polices may be wrong. One does not permit of doubt, your policies are vindicated by your faith, your policies cannot be wrong because they are god's policies.
The latter is hubristic and more importantly very dangerous, as it's the lack of doubt that gets people killed.
Most US presidents of both parties I suspect were influenced by their faith, Bush 2 and Blair were vindicated by theirs. The difference is a lot of needless deaths.
Quote from: Kyle AaronBlair in any case obviously did not let his religious beliefs in any way affect his policies. It's sheer humbug for him to say otherwise. I'm Jewish, and even I think better of Christians than that a man who lied to Parliament in a conspiracy to wage aggressive war should be able to call himself "Christian" in his actions.
You're assuming his religous beliefs were in line with the teachings of his religion, I don't think that's a safe assumption. I think it more likely he thought he was acting in line with his faith, but his own arrogance led him in to terrible errors about what his faith actually teaches.