Blair Sites Religion...

Off Topic Politics and World Issues
1

Blair stated in an interview that the decision to go to war eill “be judged by history and then by God”

Has hanging around GW rubbed off? There surely should be no place for decisions of faith in politics, otherwise we will be one step away from ismaic type states, where the 2 are intrinsically intertwinned.

Whilst i am sure many MP’s have strong religious beliefs and they may influence them, they cannot say this openly. As Alistair CAmpbel, ex press secretary to LAbour sid “We dont do God”, identifying the need to seperate the 2. This more so in our time.

This has been received with general abhorance by most, including families of soldiers killed.

2

[quote]miniross wrote:
Blair stated in an interview that the decision to go to war eill “be judged by history and then by God”

Has hanging around GW rubbed off? There surely should be no place for decisions of faith in politics, otherwise we will be one step away from ismaic type states, where the 2 are intrinsically intertwinned.

Whilst i am sure many MP’s have strong religious beliefs and they may influence them, they cannot say this openly. As Alistair CAmpbel, ex press secretary to LAbour sid “We dont do God”, identifying the need to seperate the 2. This more so in our time.

This has been received with general abhorance by most, including families of soldiers killed. [/quote]

it is proposterous to think that religious belief doesnt affect political decision making. however there is a distinct difference between using is as a moral guide and a justification of your actions.

i will be interested to see how openly he inserted these comments and how far they were pushed out of him by jeremy paxman.

3

Since Tony Blair is often associated with the Christian Socialist movement, it is not terribly surprising.

4

[quote]miniross wrote:
Blair stated in an interview that the decision to go to war eill “be judged by history and then by God”
[/quote]

Oh, no, the prime minister may believe in…God…

…why is that bad?

What? Either your total bias against God and people of faith has so corrupted and skewed your thinking, or you have an IQ of a pea.

Miniross, name the last democracy (i.e. free society) which was founded upon the Judeo-Christian tradition, that acted like the “Islamic Type States?” Hmmmm? We’re waiting…

Comparing true Christianity (you know the “born-again” type) to fundamentalist Islam – is simply trying to inflame the debate, and discredit God by discrediting Christianity.

Why not? The last time I looked, Britian was supposed to be a “free democratic society.” It seems to me that your insistance that people of faith must keep silent shows that it is YOU who would turn your country into an “Islamic Type State” where only one religious point of view is accepted. In your case, you want the Atheist “religion” as the only one that can be mentioned openly in the public square.

If the prime minister invoked Darwin, would you be up in arms today about it? Would you say that he has to keep his evolutionary ideas out of the “public square?” Why is it only Christianity that must be repressed in your view?

Hey you might want to rethink that position. It is not like England has done very well since it left God.

Also, people of faith cannot separate their lives from their relationship with God. A person’s views in politics as in other areas of his or her life are shaped by their core values and core beliefs. To expect somone who has a strong faith in God to put that aside when he or she approaches an issue is as ridiculous as expecting someone who doesn’t believe in God or has hostility to God to put that aside when they view the world. A true faith does affect a person’s life and the way they think. That’s why it is a TRUE faith.

OK, people don’t like other talking about God, so people of faith should just stop, right? That’s democracy in your eyes, is it Miniross? Or is it just the Christians that should “shut up?”

Seems to me like you wouldn’t mind turning your tiny little country into a fascist atheist state, where only the secular is allowed to be spoken in public. I am hoping that there are more tolerant people in England that make up the majority.

God help your country if your opinion is the majority one…

5

steveo5801>

the UK has had a fairly long history of separation between church and state. as i said before i believe that every action and decision is influenced by your on personal moral code. TB’s is a roman catholic one.

however, there is a difference between being guided by your spirituality and using it to justify your actions. thats why i suggested waiting to see the programme (it is not aired in the UK until tonight)

6

[quote]steveo5801 wrote:
miniross wrote:
Blair stated in an interview that the decision to go to war eill “be judged by history and then by God”

Oh, no, the prime minister may believe in…God…

…why is that bad?

Has hanging around GW rubbed off? There surely should be no place for decisions of faith in politics, otherwise we will be one step away from ismaic type states, where the 2 are intrinsically intertwinned.

What? Either your total bias against God and people of faith has so corrupted and skewed your thinking, or you have an IQ of a pea.

Miniross, name the last democracy (i.e. free society) which was founded upon the Judeo-Christian tradition, that acted like the “Islamic Type States?” Hmmmm? We’re waiting…

Comparing true Christianity (you know the “born-again” type) to fundamentalist Islam – is simply trying to inflame the debate, and discredit God by discrediting Christianity.

Whilst i am sure many MP’s have strong religious beliefs and they may influence them, they cannot say this openly.

Why not? The last time I looked, Britian was supposed to be a “free democratic society.” It seems to me that your insistance that people of faith must keep silent shows that it is YOU who would turn your country into an “Islamic Type State” where only one religious point of view is accepted. In your case, you want the Atheist “religion” as the only one that can be mentioned openly in the public square.

If the prime minister invoked Darwin, would you be up in arms today about it? Would you say that he has to keep his evolutionary ideas out of the “public square?” Why is it only Christianity that must be repressed in your view?

As Alistair CAmpbel, ex press secretary to LAbour sid “We dont do God”, identifying the need to seperate the 2. This more so in our time.

Hey you might want to rethink that position. It is not like England has done very well since it left God.

Also, people of faith cannot separate their lives from their relationship with God. A person’s views in politics as in other areas of his or her life are shaped by their core values and core beliefs. To expect somone who has a strong faith in God to put that aside when he or she approaches an issue is as ridiculous as expecting someone who doesn’t believe in God or has hostility to God to put that aside when they view the world. A true faith does affect a person’s life and the way they think. That’s why it is a TRUE faith.

This has been received with general abhorance by most, including families of soldiers killed.

OK, people don’t like other talking about God, so people of faith should just stop, right? That’s democracy in your eyes, is it Miniross? Or is it just the Christians that should “shut up?”

Seems to me like you wouldn’t mind turning your tiny little country into a fascist atheist state, where only the secular is allowed to be spoken in public. I am hoping that there are more tolerant people in England that make up the majority.

God help your country if your opinion is the majority one…

[/quote]

SteveO.

There is a massive difference between our countries. Here, we dont have a majority of Christian believers, being secular. Being our democrcy and social state is much older that the US, issues such as these have been played out before.

Stating “god told me” is not political judgement. For many in the UK, including me, this would not stand, and will not.

As for saying our country hasn’t done well since it left god, well bravo. I am sure that is the reason for foot and mouth and the collapse of the empire. When Alistair Campbell says “we dont do god”, that is politically, as it does not go down well with the electorate. Keep on the facts rather than nonsense like that

It would be very different if someone was elected under that premis, much like Bush was. That was part of the deal, but i am sure that the President should only be answerable to one group of people, the electorate. As i stated, the Labour party, much like any party that would be elected here does so under a secular flag, not a religious one. Here we just don’t wear that kind of rational.

The Queen is the leader of the Church of Englane, defender of the faith etc, and parliment, is nost definately not. This will go back to our Civil war, with Oliver Cromwell and the being changed even more recently, where an MP can swear an alegience not on the bible, but to the country.

And of course, people of faith can speak, we get it every Sunday. What religion and democracy have in common, i dont know. If there is a link i am willing to listen the evidence.

As for turning it into an atheist state, they are your words and not mine. In response i could say the reverse to you with your country, but i am sure that your tolerence far outstrips mine.

I am unaware of the IQ’s of peas, so let me know what that is and i will do a quick comparison.

As for camparison to Islamic states, it simply was that religion has no place in governing of a country, making legislation and laws, or going to war. Tat would then make it a religious war, and therefore be along te lines of islamic states ordering Jihad.

7

[quote]Chris Jayne wrote:
miniross wrote:
Blair stated in an interview that the decision to go to war eill “be judged by history and then by God”

Has hanging around GW rubbed off? There surely should be no place for decisions of faith in politics, otherwise we will be one step away from ismaic type states, where the 2 are intrinsically intertwinned.

Whilst i am sure many MP’s have strong religious beliefs and they may influence them, they cannot say this openly. As Alistair CAmpbel, ex press secretary to LAbour sid “We dont do God”, identifying the need to seperate the 2. This more so in our time.

This has been received with general abhorance by most, including families of soldiers killed.

it is proposterous to think that religious belief doesnt affect political decision making. however there is a distinct difference between using is as a moral guide and a justification of your actions.

i will be interested to see how openly he inserted these comments and how far they were pushed out of him by jeremy paxman. [/quote]

It wasn’t paxman and he volenteered the information. It was Parky, and he couldn’t force toothpaste.

8

It is just an expression.

You hardcore atheists are just as silly as the religious zealots.

9

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
It is just an expression.

You hardcore atheists are just as silly as the religious zealots.[/quote]

It was not an just an expression.

It is a clear divide on our very different cultures. The only thing we seem to share in common is similar language and a pechant for obesity.

10

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
It is just an expression.

You hardcore atheists are just as silly as the religious zealots.[/quote]

Also, this was (i will use) opposed by virtually everyone in parliment who was asked, be they religious or secularist.

It is not the done thing here.

11

[quote]miniross wrote:
steveo5801 wrote:
miniross wrote:
Blair stated in an interview that the decision to go to war eill “be judged by history and then by God”

Oh, no, the prime minister may believe in…God…

…why is that bad?

Has hanging around GW rubbed off? There surely should be no place for decisions of faith in politics, otherwise we will be one step away from ismaic type states, where the 2 are intrinsically intertwinned.

What? Either your total bias against God and people of faith has so corrupted and skewed your thinking, or you have an IQ of a pea.

Miniross, name the last democracy (i.e. free society) which was founded upon the Judeo-Christian tradition, that acted like the “Islamic Type States?” Hmmmm? We’re waiting…

Comparing true Christianity (you know the “born-again” type) to fundamentalist Islam – is simply trying to inflame the debate, and discredit God by discrediting Christianity.

Whilst i am sure many MP’s have strong religious beliefs and they may influence them, they cannot say this openly.

Why not? The last time I looked, Britian was supposed to be a “free democratic society.” It seems to me that your insistance that people of faith must keep silent shows that it is YOU who would turn your country into an “Islamic Type State” where only one religious point of view is accepted. In your case, you want the Atheist “religion” as the only one that can be mentioned openly in the public square.

If the prime minister invoked Darwin, would you be up in arms today about it? Would you say that he has to keep his evolutionary ideas out of the “public square?” Why is it only Christianity that must be repressed in your view?

As Alistair CAmpbel, ex press secretary to LAbour sid “We dont do God”, identifying the need to seperate the 2. This more so in our time.

Hey you might want to rethink that position. It is not like England has done very well since it left God.

Also, people of faith cannot separate their lives from their relationship with God. A person’s views in politics as in other areas of his or her life are shaped by their core values and core beliefs. To expect somone who has a strong faith in God to put that aside when he or she approaches an issue is as ridiculous as expecting someone who doesn’t believe in God or has hostility to God to put that aside when they view the world. A true faith does affect a person’s life and the way they think. That’s why it is a TRUE faith.

This has been received with general abhorance by most, including families of soldiers killed.

OK, people don’t like other talking about God, so people of faith should just stop, right? That’s democracy in your eyes, is it Miniross? Or is it just the Christians that should “shut up?”

Seems to me like you wouldn’t mind turning your tiny little country into a fascist atheist state, where only the secular is allowed to be spoken in public. I am hoping that there are more tolerant people in England that make up the majority.

God help your country if your opinion is the majority one…

SteveO.

There is a massive difference between our countries. Here, we dont have a majority of Christian believers, being secular. Being our democrcy and social state is much older that the US, issues such as these have been played out before.

Stating “god told me” is not political judgement. For many in the UK, including me, this would not stand, and will not.

As for saying our country hasn’t done well since it left god, well bravo. I am sure that is the reason for foot and mouth and the collapse of the empire. When Alistair Campbell says “we dont do god”, that is politically, as it does not go down well with the electorate. Keep on the facts rather than nonsense like that

It would be very different if someone was elected under that premis, much like Bush was. That was part of the deal, but i am sure that the President should only be answerable to one group of people, the electorate. As i stated, the Labour party, much like any party that would be elected here does so under a secular flag, not a religious one. Here we just don’t wear that kind of rational.

The Queen is the leader of the Church of Englane, defender of the faith etc, and parliment, is nost definately not. This will go back to our Civil war, with Oliver Cromwell and the being changed even more recently, where an MP can swear an alegience not on the bible, but to the country.

And of course, people of faith can speak, we get it every Sunday. What religion and democracy have in common, i dont know. If there is a link i am willing to listen the evidence.

As for turning it into an atheist state, they are your words and not mine. In response i could say the reverse to you with your country, but i am sure that your tolerence far outstrips mine.

I am unaware of the IQ’s of peas, so let me know what that is and i will do a quick comparison.

As for camparison to Islamic states, it simply was that religion has no place in governing of a country, making legislation and laws, or going to war. Tat would then make it a religious war, and therefore be along te lines of islamic states ordering Jihad.[/quote]

your “democracy” is much older than the US?

riiiight…

monarchy + house of lords = no democracy for you! Heck, you guys still havent even got the separation of church and state down.

12

[quote]Diomede wrote:
miniross wrote:
steveo5801 wrote:
miniross wrote:
Blair stated in an interview that the decision to go to war eill “be judged by history and then by God”

Oh, no, the prime minister may believe in…God…

…why is that bad?

Has hanging around GW rubbed off? There surely should be no place for decisions of faith in politics, otherwise we will be one step away from ismaic type states, where the 2 are intrinsically intertwinned.

What? Either your total bias against God and people of faith has so corrupted and skewed your thinking, or you have an IQ of a pea.

Miniross, name the last democracy (i.e. free society) which was founded upon the Judeo-Christian tradition, that acted like the “Islamic Type States?” Hmmmm? We’re waiting…

Comparing true Christianity (you know the “born-again” type) to fundamentalist Islam – is simply trying to inflame the debate, and discredit God by discrediting Christianity.

Whilst i am sure many MP’s have strong religious beliefs and they may influence them, they cannot say this openly.

Why not? The last time I looked, Britian was supposed to be a “free democratic society.” It seems to me that your insistance that people of faith must keep silent shows that it is YOU who would turn your country into an “Islamic Type State” where only one religious point of view is accepted. In your case, you want the Atheist “religion” as the only one that can be mentioned openly in the public square.

If the prime minister invoked Darwin, would you be up in arms today about it? Would you say that he has to keep his evolutionary ideas out of the “public square?” Why is it only Christianity that must be repressed in your view?

As Alistair CAmpbel, ex press secretary to LAbour sid “We dont do God”, identifying the need to seperate the 2. This more so in our time.

Hey you might want to rethink that position. It is not like England has done very well since it left God.

Also, people of faith cannot separate their lives from their relationship with God. A person’s views in politics as in other areas of his or her life are shaped by their core values and core beliefs. To expect somone who has a strong faith in God to put that aside when he or she approaches an issue is as ridiculous as expecting someone who doesn’t believe in God or has hostility to God to put that aside when they view the world. A true faith does affect a person’s life and the way they think. That’s why it is a TRUE faith.

This has been received with general abhorance by most, including families of soldiers killed.

OK, people don’t like other talking about God, so people of faith should just stop, right? That’s democracy in your eyes, is it Miniross? Or is it just the Christians that should “shut up?”

Seems to me like you wouldn’t mind turning your tiny little country into a fascist atheist state, where only the secular is allowed to be spoken in public. I am hoping that there are more tolerant people in England that make up the majority.

God help your country if your opinion is the majority one…

SteveO.

There is a massive difference between our countries. Here, we dont have a majority of Christian believers, being secular. Being our democrcy and social state is much older that the US, issues such as these have been played out before.

Stating “god told me” is not political judgement. For many in the UK, including me, this would not stand, and will not.

As for saying our country hasn’t done well since it left god, well bravo. I am sure that is the reason for foot and mouth and the collapse of the empire. When Alistair Campbell says “we dont do god”, that is politically, as it does not go down well with the electorate. Keep on the facts rather than nonsense like that

It would be very different if someone was elected under that premis, much like Bush was. That was part of the deal, but i am sure that the President should only be answerable to one group of people, the electorate. As i stated, the Labour party, much like any party that would be elected here does so under a secular flag, not a religious one. Here we just don’t wear that kind of rational.

The Queen is the leader of the Church of Englane, defender of the faith etc, and parliment, is nost definately not. This will go back to our Civil war, with Oliver Cromwell and the being changed even more recently, where an MP can swear an alegience not on the bible, but to the country.

And of course, people of faith can speak, we get it every Sunday. What religion and democracy have in common, i dont know. If there is a link i am willing to listen the evidence.

As for turning it into an atheist state, they are your words and not mine. In response i could say the reverse to you with your country, but i am sure that your tolerence far outstrips mine.

I am unaware of the IQ’s of peas, so let me know what that is and i will do a quick comparison.

As for camparison to Islamic states, it simply was that religion has no place in governing of a country, making legislation and laws, or going to war. Tat would then make it a religious war, and therefore be along te lines of islamic states ordering Jihad.

your “democracy” is much older than the US?

riiiight…

monarchy + house of lords = no democracy for you! Heck, you guys still havent even got the separation of church and state down.

[/quote]

Well, shows what you know.

the monarchy is just a show piece, symbolic to the initiation of laws and parliment. It has nothing to do with the election of governments and interventions such as war (even though they go through the rigmarol of asking permission…like she has a choice).

The house of lords, is not elected, and is not parliment. It is the old house. It now only has life peers, people made lords/ladies/baroness in their life, rather than hereditary peers. It serves as a non party organisation that filters and examines laws, and actually can be over ridden by parliment, but why and what the ramifications of this are, i do not know.

Repunlicans (ones can only be elected) + democrats (bunch of unorganised plonkers) + electoral fraud and nepotism of the highest order = no democracy for you.

stick that ion your pipe!

13

[quote]miniross wrote:
Diomede wrote:
miniross wrote:
steveo5801 wrote:
miniross wrote:
Blair stated in an interview that the decision to go to war eill “be judged by history and then by God”

Oh, no, the prime minister may believe in…God…

…why is that bad?

Has hanging around GW rubbed off? There surely should be no place for decisions of faith in politics, otherwise we will be one step away from ismaic type states, where the 2 are intrinsically intertwinned.

What? Either your total bias against God and people of faith has so corrupted and skewed your thinking, or you have an IQ of a pea.

Miniross, name the last democracy (i.e. free society) which was founded upon the Judeo-Christian tradition, that acted like the “Islamic Type States?” Hmmmm? We’re waiting…

Comparing true Christianity (you know the “born-again” type) to fundamentalist Islam – is simply trying to inflame the debate, and discredit God by discrediting Christianity.

Whilst i am sure many MP’s have strong religious beliefs and they may influence them, they cannot say this openly.

Why not? The last time I looked, Britian was supposed to be a “free democratic society.” It seems to me that your insistance that people of faith must keep silent shows that it is YOU who would turn your country into an “Islamic Type State” where only one religious point of view is accepted. In your case, you want the Atheist “religion” as the only one that can be mentioned openly in the public square.

If the prime minister invoked Darwin, would you be up in arms today about it? Would you say that he has to keep his evolutionary ideas out of the “public square?” Why is it only Christianity that must be repressed in your view?

As Alistair CAmpbel, ex press secretary to LAbour sid “We dont do God”, identifying the need to seperate the 2. This more so in our time.

Hey you might want to rethink that position. It is not like England has done very well since it left God.

Also, people of faith cannot separate their lives from their relationship with God. A person’s views in politics as in other areas of his or her life are shaped by their core values and core beliefs. To expect somone who has a strong faith in God to put that aside when he or she approaches an issue is as ridiculous as expecting someone who doesn’t believe in God or has hostility to God to put that aside when they view the world. A true faith does affect a person’s life and the way they think. That’s why it is a TRUE faith.

This has been received with general abhorance by most, including families of soldiers killed.

OK, people don’t like other talking about God, so people of faith should just stop, right? That’s democracy in your eyes, is it Miniross? Or is it just the Christians that should “shut up?”

Seems to me like you wouldn’t mind turning your tiny little country into a fascist atheist state, where only the secular is allowed to be spoken in public. I am hoping that there are more tolerant people in England that make up the majority.

God help your country if your opinion is the majority one…

SteveO.

There is a massive difference between our countries. Here, we dont have a majority of Christian believers, being secular. Being our democrcy and social state is much older that the US, issues such as these have been played out before.

Stating “god told me” is not political judgement. For many in the UK, including me, this would not stand, and will not.

As for saying our country hasn’t done well since it left god, well bravo. I am sure that is the reason for foot and mouth and the collapse of the empire. When Alistair Campbell says “we dont do god”, that is politically, as it does not go down well with the electorate. Keep on the facts rather than nonsense like that

It would be very different if someone was elected under that premis, much like Bush was. That was part of the deal, but i am sure that the President should only be answerable to one group of people, the electorate. As i stated, the Labour party, much like any party that would be elected here does so under a secular flag, not a religious one. Here we just don’t wear that kind of rational.

The Queen is the leader of the Church of Englane, defender of the faith etc, and parliment, is nost definately not. This will go back to our Civil war, with Oliver Cromwell and the being changed even more recently, where an MP can swear an alegience not on the bible, but to the country.

And of course, people of faith can speak, we get it every Sunday. What religion and democracy have in common, i dont know. If there is a link i am willing to listen the evidence.

As for turning it into an atheist state, they are your words and not mine. In response i could say the reverse to you with your country, but i am sure that your tolerence far outstrips mine.

I am unaware of the IQ’s of peas, so let me know what that is and i will do a quick comparison.

As for camparison to Islamic states, it simply was that religion has no place in governing of a country, making legislation and laws, or going to war. Tat would then make it a religious war, and therefore be along te lines of islamic states ordering Jihad.

your “democracy” is much older than the US?

riiiight…

monarchy + house of lords = no democracy for you! Heck, you guys still havent even got the separation of church and state down.

Well, shows what you know.

the monarchy is just a show piece, symbolic to the initiation of laws and parliment. It has nothing to do with the election of governments and interventions such as war (even though they go through the rigmarol of asking permission…like she has a choice).

The house of lords, is not elected, and is not parliment. It is the old house. It now only has life peers, people made lords/ladies/baroness in their life, rather than hereditary peers. It serves as a non party organisation that filters and examines laws, and actually can be over ridden by parliment, but why and what the ramifications of this are, i do not know.

Repunlicans (ones can only be elected) + democrats (bunch of unorganised plonkers) + electoral fraud and nepotism of the highest order = no democracy for you.

stick that ion your pipe!
[/quote]

you’re honestly going to tell me this is all true as of 1787? That the Monarchs of England had NO POWER AT ALL?

You had hereditary peers until 1999 in the house of lords. and only recent reforms have completely gutted their power.

I’m sorry, but England claiming to be an older democracy than America is rather silly.

14

[quote]miniross wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
It is just an expression.

You hardcore atheists are just as silly as the religious zealots.

It was not an just an expression.

It is a clear divide on our very different cultures. The only thing we seem to share in common is similar language and a pechant for obesity.[/quote]

Use of the word “God” is unacceptable now in Britian? It is worse than I thought. You guys are goddamned nuts.

I use the word God and or Jesus about 100 times a day and I am a non-believer.

And amazingly it is not used solely to enhance my cursing.

15

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
miniross wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
It is just an expression.

You hardcore atheists are just as silly as the religious zealots.

It was not an just an expression.

It is a clear divide on our very different cultures. The only thing we seem to share in common is similar language and a pechant for obesity.

Use of the word “God” is unacceptable now in Britian? It is worse than I thought. You guys are goddamned nuts.

I use the word God and or Jesus about 100 times a day and I am a non-believer.

And amazingly it is not used solely to enhance my cursing.
[/quote]

Yes we are bannans.

It has been that way for a while.

16

[quote]miniross wrote:
Has hanging around GW rubbed off? There surely should be no place for decisions of faith in politics, otherwise we will be one step away from ismaic type states, where the 2 are intrinsically intertwinned.
[/quote]

Oh my…a very large flaw in your thinking.

Since Islam seems to be a violent religion (for some that is) then any sort of embracing of religion is also bad.

Funny stuff!

Someone should have told George Washington your rule.

Washington prayed all the time. This was one of his final prayers before leaving office:

“ALMIGHTY GOD, WE MAKE OUR EARNEST PRAYER THAT THOU WILT KEEP THESE UNITED STATES in THY holy protection, that THOU wilt incline the hearts of the citizens to cultivate a spirit of subordination and obedience to government; to entertain a brotherly affection and love for one another and for their fellow citizens of the United States at large, And finally that THOU wilt most graciously be pleased to dispose us all to do justice, to love mercy and to demean ourselves with that charity, humility and pacific temper of mind which were the characteristics of the Divine Author of our blessed religion, and without an humble imitation of Whose example in these things we can never hope to be a happy nation. GRANT OUR SUPPLICATION, WE BESEECH THEE, THROUGH JESUS CHRIST OUR LORD. AMEN.”

(Engraved on a bronze tablet in St. Paul’s Chapel, Broadway and Vesey Streets, New York City.)

17

[quote]ZEB wrote:
miniross wrote:
Has hanging around GW rubbed off? There surely should be no place for decisions of faith in politics, otherwise we will be one step away from ismaic type states, where the 2 are intrinsically intertwinned.

Oh my…a very large flaw in your thinking.

Since Islam seems to be a violent religion (for some that is) then any sort of embracing of religion is also bad.

Funny stuff!

Someone should have told George Washington your rule.

Washington prayed all the time. This was one of his final prayers before leaving office:

“ALMIGHTY GOD, WE MAKE OUR EARNEST PRAYER THAT THOU WILT KEEP THESE UNITED STATES in THY holy protection, that THOU wilt incline the hearts of the citizens to cultivate a spirit of subordination and obedience to government; to entertain a brotherly affection and love for one another and for their fellow citizens of the United States at large, And finally that THOU wilt most graciously be pleased to dispose us all to do justice, to love mercy and to demean ourselves with that charity, humility and pacific temper of mind which were the characteristics of the Divine Author of our blessed religion, and without an humble imitation of Whose example in these things we can never hope to be a happy nation. GRANT OUR SUPPLICATION, WE BESEECH THEE, THROUGH JESUS CHRIST OUR LORD. AMEN.”

(Engraved on a bronze tablet in St. Paul’s Chapel, Broadway and Vesey Streets, New York City.)
[/quote]
Hi Zeb

I guess this is the big difference between the polotics of this country. Leaders stopped invoking God a long time ago.

Over there, it has a more direct link to its past.

18

[quote]miniross wrote:
Blair stated in an interview that the decision to go to war eill “be judged by history and then by God”

Has hanging around GW rubbed off? There surely should be no place for decisions of faith in politics, otherwise we will be one step away from ismaic type states, where the 2 are intrinsically intertwinned.

Whilst i am sure many MP’s have strong religious beliefs and they may influence them, they cannot say this openly. As Alistair CAmpbel, ex press secretary to LAbour sid “We dont do God”, identifying the need to seperate the 2. This more so in our time.

This has been received with general abhorance by most, including families of soldiers killed. [/quote]

All actions will be judged by God but it infuriates me when these so-called leaders invoke his name as a means for rationalization for war. It is sheer rhetoric and PR for the masses that they do so. It is stomach-turning!

19

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

All actions will be judged by God but it infuriates me when these so-called leaders invoke his name as a means for rationalization for war. It is sheer rhetoric and PR for the masses that they do so. It is stomach-turning![/quote]

God seemed fairly pro-war in the old testament.

20

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
miniross wrote:
Blair stated in an interview that the decision to go to war eill “be judged by history and then by God”

Has hanging around GW rubbed off? There surely should be no place for decisions of faith in politics, otherwise we will be one step away from ismaic type states, where the 2 are intrinsically intertwinned.

Whilst i am sure many MP’s have strong religious beliefs and they may influence them, they cannot say this openly. As Alistair CAmpbel, ex press secretary to LAbour sid “We dont do God”, identifying the need to seperate the 2. This more so in our time.

This has been received with general abhorance by most, including families of soldiers killed.

All actions will be judged by God but it infuriates me when these so-called leaders invoke his name as a means for rationalization for war. It is sheer rhetoric and PR for the masses that they do so. It is stomach-turning![/quote]

Exactly my point.

In the US, it is expected to say “i thank god” etc i award shows (certainly seems the norm, and this seems to be the case with politicians.

As a cynical bunch, the UK electorate has difficulty reconcilling the 2.