NationStates Jolt Archive

There's a massive media fuss at the moment over here in the UK about comments Tony Blair made yesterday that he prayed to God over the Iraq decision to go to war, and feels that God will be the ultimate judge over whether his decision was right.

It seems people are offended that he is going to war on the basis, as one person put it, "of voices in his head."

Why are people so intolerant of Christians these days? Blair did NOT say "God told me to invade Iraq," nor did he say "I believe my decision is justified in the eyes of God" or any such thing; he simply said he'd asked for guidance.

This is a crime now? Free speech and freedom of religion are all well and good when talking about other faiths, but anyone who is a Christian is somehow a crackpot?

"Christian man prays to God before difficult decision." What a scoop, oh mighty media, what a scoop.

People expect their leaders to make decisions, especially decisions as important as whether or not to wage war, on facts. People get nervous when it seems such decisions are being made on unprovable faith.

People expect their leaders to make decisions, especially decisions as important as whether or not to wage war, on facts. People get nervous when it seems such decisions are being made on unprovable faith.
But that's exactly my point - he didn't claim he made the decision on the basis of faith. I am a Christian, and why I pray over difficult things I don't expect a revelation or an 'answer' as such, just support. I ask God to help things become clearer, not to tell me what to do.

Surely even a non-Christian would be pleased that someone is taking the time to clarify their thoughts?

But that's exactly my point - he didn't claim he made the decision on the basis of faith. I am a Christian, and why I pray over difficult things I don't expect a revelation or an 'answer' as such, just support. I ask God to help things become clearer, not to tell me what to do.

Surely even a non-Christian would be pleased that someone is taking the time to clarify their thoughts?
You must understand. When you say you "prayed on it" it conjures up the thought that you've recieved some kind of divine guidance. It seems arrogant, and to those of us who don't believe in god, or in a god that interferes in human affairs, it seems like you're saying the voices in your head are guiding you.

Everything's about perception. You may say something that means one thing to you, but seen through the eyes of someone with different experiences and a different world view your statement may be percieved as meaning something totally different.

I don't belive in god nor am I offended that a world leader looks to his religion for guidence. So what he said a few words before he made his decision. Hell you never know he might have been like "God please let this be the right choice." Stop bashing people over inane things.

The whole reason for the apparent uproar (I live in Scotland, and this is the first I've heard of it) is that the UK has a preference for keeping politics and religion separate. It could also be that Mr. Blair asked for guidance from his God while ignoring the guidance from the thousands of British citizens protesting against the war on his doorstep.

He prayed to God!? That bloody ****! I may not particulary care about the impact Tony's faith has on his ability but it is a great excuse to call him a ****.

To reiterate my point; Tony is a ****!

I think the fact God set a million protestors in Westminster might have been a hint...

What I find annoying about this whole affair is that the show doesn't go out yet but we know all the inportant shi. Why can't we wait 24 hours and actually hear the PM's speech rather than being told by the BBC 'Tomorrow, the PM will say...'

I fucking hate this shit somedays:headbang:

I think the fact God set a million protestors in Westminster might have been a hint...

What I find annoying about this whole affair is that the show doesn't go out yet but we know all the inportant shi. Why can't we wait 24 hours and actually hear the PM's speech rather than being told by the BBC 'Tomorrow, the PM will say...'

I fucking hate this shit somedays:headbang:
Yeah.. somedays you feel like climbing that clock tower.... do you have a rifle?

I think the fact God set a million protestors in Westminster might have been a hint...



Which also means that God did not send the other 59 million residents of the UK to protest. That's quite a lot too. And maybe why the democratically elected parliament chose to support him, maybe that's also a "sign".

And for fucks sake everyone, he did not actually claim to have "prayed to God for guidance" - read the story, don't paraphrase him on the basis of the headline. What he actually claimed was that for him the choice was essentially a moral one and that judgement over whether it was the right thing to do would be made by the people and by God. Now if you believe in God (which Tony does) then it is just stating the bloody obvious if you make a statement implying that God will ultimately be the judge of your actions.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4773124.stm

But no doubt the Indie and the Guardian will distort the issue to make some cheap political capital.

the majority of british people did not support his decision to go to war in iraq, therefore he deviated completely from his role as public servant (most politicians do as they only care about their legacy, although in this case it was really obvious, oh well). I think that is what the real issue is here in the context of his faith.

"When you're faced with a decision like that, and some of those decisions have been very, very difficult, most of all because you know... there are people's lives... and, in some case, their death," he said.

"The only way you can take a decision like that is to try to do the right thing according to your conscience."

He said: "I think if you have faith about these things, then you realise that that judgement is made by other people... and if you believe in God, it's made by God as well."

So what exactly does he mean? Does he feel he can justify his decision, because his invisible buddy OKed it, or is it the other way 'round?

Seems like he won't answer that, as he won't get into whether he prayed for guidance or not. The implication is there though. I wish the PM here could plead insanity as well, but I think he's just plain evil.

the majority of british people did not support his decision to go to war in iraq, therefore he deviated completely from his role as public servant (most politicians do as they only care about their legacy, although in this case it was really obvious, oh well). I think that is what the real issue is here in the context of his faith.

There is more to democracy than simple majoritarianism, in electing people to represent us we ask them not only to represent our views but what they rationally deduce to be our interest. Also, the size of the majority opposed to the war was not so large as most people (with hindsight) seem to conclude. I agree that the context of his faith is very important but I fail to see how he has done anything more than acknowledge the obvious, that a Christian believes that God is the ultimate moral judge of our actions.

OH MY GOD! A RULER HAS A RELIGION, ACK MY ATHEIST HEART, GAHHHHHH!
Seriously people, someone needs to silence the media, for good. Thye do nothing but sensationalize everything to get viewers. So what if Tony Blair prayed before war? I bet FDR did before WWII. And I bet JFK did during the Cuban Missile crisis. You people need to get a life and stop erupting aver every mention of religion, all you do is make your atheist and liberal faces uglier.

Just because he's a leader doesn't mean he can't be religious! It's good that he prayed, get over it!

There's a massive media fuss at the moment over here in the UK about comments Tony Blair made yesterday that he prayed to God over the Iraq decision to go to war, and feels that God will be the ultimate judge over whether his decision was right.

It seems people are offended that he is going to war on the basis, as one person put it, "of voices in his head."

Why are people so intolerant of Christians these days? Blair did NOT say "God told me to invade Iraq," nor did he say "I believe my decision is justified in the eyes of God" or any such thing; he simply said he'd asked for guidance.

This is a crime now? Free speech and freedom of religion are all well and good when talking about other faiths, but anyone who is a Christian is somehow a crackpot?

"Christian man prays to God before difficult decision." What a scoop, oh mighty media, what a scoop.
Unfortunately, Blair conspired with the "devil" before he asked for God's guidance.

There is more to democracy than simple majoritarianism, in electing people to represent us we ask them not only to represent our views but what they rationally deduce to be our interest. Also, the size of the majority opposed to the war was not so large as most people (with hindsight) seem to conclude. I agree that the context of his faith is very important but I fail to see how he has done anything more than acknowledge the obvious, that a Christian believes that God is the ultimate moral judge of our actions.
The thing is that Blair has made a big thing about public response to the war. About this time last year, he said History would be his vindicator. That is, people of the future would look back and think "Yeah, that was a pretty good idea after all" as a counter to the fact that the people of the present are looking at him and going "What a crappy move, mister Prime Minister".

Now, however, he seems to be changing his track in such a way as to say "It doesn't matter as much what people think about it or will ever think about it any more; God will be the judge of everything". This is not something a national representative should be saying.

"I trust that God speaks through me. Without that, I couldn't do my job." -- Reverend George W. Bush.

Just because he's a leader doesn't mean he can't be religious! It's good that he prayed, get over it!
Amen brother

When I saw that U was fucking smart politcal move :rolleyes:
Someone needs to take him out ;) :sniper: .....politicly

Just because he's a leader doesn't mean he can't be religious! It's good that he prayed, get over it!
Prayer is essentially one individual's open meditation. Yes, it's a good idea, but it shouldn't be the basis for policy.

He prayed to God!? That bloody ****! I may not particulary care about the impact Tony's faith has on his ability but it is a great excuse to call him a ****.

To reiterate my point; Tony is a ****!

You are stupid.

When I saw that U was fucking smart politcal move :rolleyes:
Someone needs to take him out ;) :sniper: .....politicly

You are also stupid.

I don't really care if he prayed to God. It's not like it would have changed his decision anyway.

maybe people are pissed off because politcal leaders tend to 'blame' things on religon.
George w bush said god told him to go to war
Hitler said god told him to kill the jews (even though jesus was a jew (make sense to any1 else?)):eek:
and then whatever blair said.
i dont really give a toss wat he said but i do agree with the whole keep religion and politic seperate...two completely different playing fields.

I think its a case of misdirected criticism. Bush prayed, too, but I don't care. I'm not going to waste my time criticising him for that when there are som many tangible things about how completely ignorant and stupid he is to harp on. Ultimatley, since i don't beleive in God, I do not believe that the decision was made by him. The decisions this imbecile makes are made in his own, severly deficient brain and that's where I'll direct my criticism.

it seems that, nowadays, bashing Christianity is quickly becoming as popular as bashing conservatives, America, and G.W. Bush, in roughly that order :rolleyes:

btw Questers, i think Zero Six Three was being satirical

There's a massive media fuss at the moment over here in the UK about comments Tony Blair made yesterday that he prayed to God over the Iraq decision to go to war, and feels that God will be the ultimate judge over whether his decision was right.
Blair is a democratically elected leader, and hence it is the electorate that is the ultimate judge over his decisions. Britons tend not to be very religious, so are understandably concerned when their leader seems to say he's not accountable to them, but to god.

Blair is a democratically elected leader, and hence it is the electorate that is the ultimate judge over his decisions. Britons tend not to be very religious, so are understandably concerned when their leader seems to say he's not accountable to them, but to god.
which is why there shouldn't be an uproar, since, if people would stop and THINK about a few sentences for a mere minute or two, they'd realize he didn't say he's only acountable to God.

a man can be "judged" way more times than once, even with double jeopardy laws :p

he's not accountable to them, but to god.
here might be a better way for me to word it:
"ultimately accountable to God" != (does not equal) "not accountable to one's country"

it just means that, in the end, God will judge one, regardless of how many times or how harshly one has been judged by others previously.

which is why there shouldn't be an uproar, since, if people would stop and THINK about a few sentences for a mere minute or two, they'd realize he didn't say he's only acountable to God.

a man can be "judged" way more times than once, even with double jeopardy laws :pIt's a secular government. The man shouldn't drag god into this, because various biblical junk might get in the way of his decision making process.

You must understand. When you say you "prayed on it" it conjures up the thought that you've recieved some kind of divine guidance. It seems arrogant, and to those of us who don't believe in god, or in a god that interferes in human affairs, it seems like you're saying the voices in your head are guiding you.
I've never heard my Christian friends claim that God verbally answers their prayers.

I've never heard my Christian friends claim that God verbally answers their prayers.
one time i prayed for and recieved the answer to a geometry problem... but that's about it. :D

Blair is a democratically elected leader, and hence it is the electorate that is the ultimate judge over his decisions. Britons tend not to be very religious, so are understandably concerned when their leader seems to say he's not accountable to them, but to god.

What he actually said was: "I think if you have faith about these things, then you realise that that judgement is made by other people... and if you believe in God, it's made by God as well."

In no way did he claim that he wasn't accountable to the British people or in any way ignore his prime ministerial responsibilities.

OH MY GOD! A RULER HAS A RELIGION, ACK MY ATHEIST HEART, GAHHHHHH!
Seriously people, someone needs to silence the media, for good. Thye do nothing but sensationalize everything to get viewers. So what if Tony Blair prayed before war? I bet FDR did before WWII. And I bet JFK did during the Cuban Missile crisis. You people need to get a life and stop erupting aver every mention of religion, all you do is make your atheist and liberal faces uglier.

The Japanese had attacked pearl harbour. There were photos of the missiles in Cuba. Tony had nothing except a promise to keep to the chimp in chief across the atlantic. This makes him worse than a poodle. Hes now a semi-rabid deluded rodent.

The Japanese had attacked pearl harbour. There were photos of the missiles in Cuba. Tony had nothing except a promise to keep to the chimp in chief across the atlantic. This makes him worse than a poodle. Hes now a semi-rabid deluded rodent.
what a logical, non-sensational, and productive post that was :sigh:

It makes him look unprofessional. The simple fact is, Europe is a secular society, and while religion is tolerated as a private activity, the moment it enters an individual's professional life, a question mark hangs over them.

Similarly in the US, were a politician to declare his atheism, his/her integrity would immediately be questioned. Personally I do not think much of such attitudes, but it is not for nothing that we have the word "taboo", and every society seems to have theirs.

What I see is media twisting a story.

It makes him look unprofessional. The simple fact is, Europe is a secular society, and while religion is tolerated as a private activity, the moment it enters an individual's professional life, a question mark hangs over them.

Similarly in the US, were a politician to declare his atheism, his/her integrity would immediately be questioned. Personally I do not think much of such attitudes, but it is not for nothing that we have the word "taboo", and every society seems to have theirs.
but in America we also have seen many cases in recent history where declairing oneself to be Christian leads people to consider them crackpotish.
lovely little irony, our "double negative" standard :rolleyes:

People are always outraged that politicians often go to considerable lengths to avoid answering questions directly or in plain english yet this is a good example of what happens when they do - the media distorts their views in the name of partisanship or sales figures and then uses it as a stick to beat them with.

what a logical, non-sensational, and productive post that was :sigh:

Awwww...you didn't like it? Here it is again.

There was clear evidence of aggression and intent in WW2. There was clear evidence of missiles in Cuba. There was nothing of the fucking sort with regard to Iraq (and I've read the Butler report with the JIC documents etc). The only solid thing tony had in his pocket was a big promise he made to the chimp in chief across the Atlantic, his "brother in christ" G Bush. This is bad, but that fact that he thinks that in some way his conscience is "guided by god" or that he is in anyway in touch with some deity, means hes a deluded, cheshire-cat featured little fucking lunatic.

Awwww...you didn't like it? Here it is again.

There was clear evidence of aggression and intent in WW2. There was clear evidence of missiles in Cuba. There was nothing of the fucking sort with regard to Iraq (and I've read the Butler report with the JIC documents etc). The only solid thing tony had in his pocket was a big promise he made to the chimp in chief across the Atlantic, his "brother in christ" G Bush. This is bad, but that fact that he thinks that in some way his conscience is "guided by god" or that he is in anyway in touch with some deity, means hes a deluded, cheshire-cat featured little fucking lunatic.
now see, you were off to such a great start!

also don't forget the facts that it was the US and Britain, not Bush and Blair, that declared war on Iraq. the US Congress passes bills of war, not the prez, and i think i recall hearing something about Britain not being a monarchy but rather a nation who makes profound decisions (e.g., going to war) with parlimentary vote.

as for the evidence or lack thereof about Iraq... i concur that we didn't find any real sort of WMDs, but we did find a few thousand Iraqi citizens in mass graves, first-hand (no pun intended) accounts of people getting mutilated for opposing Saddam - and oh yeah, that whole Persian Gulf agression thing. Would Germany have made such a mess they did back in the late 30's if Europe deftly and surely fought back when the invasions first started? maybe not... but maybe

The whole reason for the apparent uproar (I live in Scotland, and this is the first I've heard of it) is that the UK has a preference for keeping politics and religion separate. It could also be that Mr. Blair asked for guidance from his God while ignoring the guidance from the thousands of British citizens protesting against the war on his doorstep.
What about the Queen of England being the head of the Church?! In fact she is also the Head of State for my country too.

There is more to democracy than simple majoritarianism, in electing people to represent us we ask them not only to represent our views but what they rationally deduce to be our interest. Also, the size of the majority opposed to the war was not so large as most people (with hindsight) seem to conclude. I agree that the context of his faith is very important but I fail to see how he has done anything more than acknowledge the obvious, that a Christian believes that God is the ultimate moral judge of our actions.

1. Under that logic, a leader could rationally deduce that its in our interest to turn the state into a dictatorship. A public servant is ultimately a servant of the public and must serve their interests. This is not what happened with the decision to go to war.

2. The extent to which their was a majority/sizeable minority is a moot point. Overall there was a considerable majority.

3. It is not the role of a democratically elected leader to impose their personal ideals on national policy if it runs contrary to public opinion.

1. Under that logic, a leader could rationally deduce that its in our interest to turn the state into a dictatorship. A public servant is ultimately a servant of the public and must serve their interests. This is not what happened with the decision to go to war.

2. The extent to which their was a majority/sizeable minority is a moot point. Overall there was a considerable majority.

3. It is not the role of a democratically elected leader to impose their personal ideals on national policy if it runs contrary to public opinion.

I believe there is a balance in reflecting the views of the population and the elected leader acting in a manner consistent with their rationality and their conscience. It choosing to elect that someone, people do not choose an empty vassal to reflect their views, they elect an individual who they feel suitably represents their interests and their wishes.

Public opinion is very fickle, at the moment if there was a referendum on whether we should bring back hanging in the UK it would be passed, yet most intelligent people realise it would be a poor policy. Democracy is not simply about cow-towing to the maddening crowds.

also don't forget the facts that it was the US and Britain, not Bush and Blair, that declared war on Iraq. the US Congress passes bills of war, not the prez, and i think i recall hearing something about Britain not being a monarchy but rather a nation who makes profound decisions (e.g., going to war) with parlimentary vote.


I won't, provided you don't forget that the U.S. Congress never declared war on Iraq. What they did is agree to let the president take whatever steps necessary.

There's a massive media fuss at the moment over here in the UK about comments Tony Blair made yesterday that he prayed to God over the Iraq decision to go to war, and feels that God will be the ultimate judge over whether his decision was right.

It seems people are offended that he is going to war on the basis, as one person put it, "of voices in his head."

Why are people so intolerant of Christians these days? Blair did NOT say "God told me to invade Iraq," nor did he say "I believe my decision is justified in the eyes of God" or any such thing; he simply said he'd asked for guidance.

This is a crime now? Free speech and freedom of religion are all well and good when talking about other faiths, but anyone who is a Christian is somehow a crackpot?

"Christian man prays to God before difficult decision." What a scoop, oh mighty media, what a scoop.
And yet some people are saying that kirpans should be banned from school and all Muslims should be driven out of the country.

If anyone has persecuting me for my religion, it was the Christians. Not moderates, but the fundies.

Let me guess. Another thread where the forum's christians get to act like victims, as if they're some kind of oppressed minority?


Demographics of England from the 2001 United Kingdom census

* Religion
o Christian: 71.7%
o No Religion: 14.6%
o Not Stated: 7.7%
o Muslim: 3.1%
o Hindu: 1.1%
o Sikh: 0.7%
o Jewish: 0.5%
o Buddhist: 0.3%
o Other: 0.3%

Let me guess. Another thread where the forum's christians get to act like victims, as if they're some kind of oppressed minority?
Yes, because that's exactly what it's about. No one is claiming to be a victim; what is being said is that if you're going to respect everyone, that includes Christians as much as anyone.

Yes, because that's exactly what it's about. No one is claiming to be a victim; what is being said is that if you're going to respect everyone, that includes Christians as much as anyone.

Really? No-one has acted that way? (not the same as explictly stating it) That must be a record considering this thread is already four pages long.

I prefer a leader who bases his expectations, hopes and actions on rational thought rather than religion.

Yes, he can hope by god that something will work, but then he is taking too big a chance and shouldn't be doing it in the first place.

In response to the original post,

Methinks that people these days expect their government to be totally secularised. Which means, no rulings or mentioning of religion anywhere, whatsoever. This is comming from an American viewpoint, and while I know that the United Kingdom is different, is seems to remain nearly the same. Religion, and the Judeo-Christian god, should be left untouched. I have a feeling that its something left over from the good ol' days when kings claimed that they were chosen by the Lord when thier actions clearly displayed otherwise.

Yes, religion has seeped in someplaces, but not like it used to be, say five hundred years ago.

All in all, these days most people feel that religion stays at the dinner table, the bedside, and house of worship. That's what the fuss is about. If anyone mentions God outside of thier personal lives, they must be wacko, or evil, maybe a lovely combination of the two. Its just people being uncomfortable with religion being flaunted in public. Its not really the social norm.

I believe there is a balance in reflecting the views of the population and the elected leader acting in a manner consistent with their rationality and their conscience. It choosing to elect that someone, people do not choose an empty vassal to reflect their views, they elect an individual who they feel suitably represents their interests and their wishes.

Public opinion is very fickle, at the moment if there was a referendum on whether we should bring back hanging in the UK it would be passed, yet most intelligent people realise it would be a poor policy. Democracy is not simply about cow-towing to the maddening crowds.

ok, but I think blair overturned that balance in deciding to go to war. He didnt represent the interests and wishes of the public, he went against them and it wasnt a case of simply refusing to bow to irrational mob rule. What evidence do you have to support the idea that the british public would vote to bring back the death penalty? Opinion polls arent that reliable as sources of information.