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.