Tony Blair believes in God and trusts him to judge him over the Iraq war decisions. As you will see, this is being reported as an unusual event- a British leader saying he believes in God and follows a religious set of ethics. It is worth noting that he has become more open about his religious faith since he became a lame-duck.
No US politician would admit to being non-religious, let alone agnostic or atheist. Such an admission would make similar media headlines in the US to Blair’s current UK headlines. (vide the Vinnick story line in West Wing)
This seems to me to be a major philosophical and political gap between US and UK approach to life, the universe and everything.
How can it be so that two apparently similar cultures can be so extremely different? What effect does this have on interactions between our two countries.
Just my take on it but I do not think the the British, politicians or otherwise, ever pretend to be agnostic/atheist. Indeed British politicians make a point of going to church as much as their American counterparts. I just think the Brits are better at separating political decision making from religious reasoning.
In the US there is a mighty large religious voting contingent so political aspirants often play to that crowd and that crowd then demands to see action from those they put in office (one reason why I cannot think of a speech Bush has given where he does not mention God). I think British politicians have less need to so obviously pander to that type of interest group for their jobs. That Blair is reaching towards this may just be a sign of a drowing man grasping at straws hoping one will pull him out.
As for UK/US relations this is nothing new and we get along fine. Brits still roll their eyes at their wonky American cousins but we still have each other’s back.
I was not saying that previous PMs, politicians were agnostic or atheist. Just that religion was never mentioned. Going back through Major, Thatcher, Callaghan, Heath, Hume I cannot remember any religious protestations or even any obvious and public Church Attendance besides formal occasions.
As Blair became more open about his faith, it became a story because no previous premier had so much as given a passing mention to God.
A recent furore over Ruth Kelly (Education Secretary) has been over her Catholocism, but this seemed more about her overt and public religious beliefs rather than about her belief being RC.
Does Great Britain have an ascendant religious right movement as we do in the United States? In a democracy the guy with the most votes wins. If a voting block can be cobbled together comprised of people who claim religion as a common thread they can expect to get politicians who will pander to them.
Not being very aware of British internal politics (what little I know is what I glean from The Economist) I would guess either:
Blair is playing to a growing political demographic
Blair is flailing around for support from somwhere and hoping to maybe ignite such a demographic and profit from it as Bush has
Blair, like many people, turn to religion for their own comfort when things start going badly for them
I sincerely hope Great Britain is not facing anything like our religious right take over of government.
No, there is no religious right movement of any seriousness. People are sceptical/dismissive of the creationist/evangelistic/fundamentalist tendency.
Religious affirmation has always been seen as moderate to negative in political terms. Even Blair has not stressed his own religioius beliefs until it was politically meaningless. In fact it is widely believed that he is delaying his move to full Catholocism until after he leaves office.
The debate I was getting at was the incredible difference between the US and UK in politics- in the UK, public religious belief is newsworthy, in the US public religious disbelief is newsworthy.
I think it’s fair to say that attitudes towards religion, along with economic ideology, are the two biggest differences between the cultures.
It’s difficult to quantify religious belief in a population “Do you believe in God?”, “Do you pray” etc. aren’t good questions for surveys. But what is certain is that British people give a far smaller role to religion in their daily behaviour and appearance, including far lower church attendance. The behaviour of our politicians reflects this. When or why did Britain become like this? I’ve no idea.
Being a Brit ( I’d rather say Englishman) I’d say religion and politics is simply not to be mentioned in the same context and any UK politician attempting to associate policy based on religion IS commiting political suicide.
Church attendances are down for sure but that is not a reflection on lost spirituality, far from it. Religion is simply a personal matter no building, book, or preacher can persude Brits to attend church every Sunday because we know as well as they do its a lost cause, after all its 2006 not the 1500’s
on Blair remember that he is afterall an idealist leading a terrible set of politicians intent on creating an almost communist society in Britain…you know the score about left wing politics i’m sure!..so he’s not a bad guy, just a little misguided I think.
As for UK US ties, I think the cultural differences on worship/religion are insignifigant in the grand scheme of things. Just that us Brits are quite reserved about certain issues, religion being one of them.
To hear Blair using words like this is to say the least entertaining and a clear reflection of the fact he will quit politics soon
My guess : They and Europe have more of a historical awareness of religious wars and religious oppression than America does. Most of the Amercan version has been forgotten, or folded into other issues; slavery and the genocide of the Native Americans had a religious component, but what most people remember these days is the racism.
In Britain and Europe, they seem ( to me ) to have more historical memory, for good or bad; they also have more reminders. They have plenty of battle sites and historical incidents going back to the days when the people in charge didn’t even bother to pretend that they had any other motive than religion for killing people.
I suppose the closest American analogy would be the Salem Witch Hunts; you’ll note people still remember it, and still use “witch hunt” to mean a crazed pursuit for evildoers that nets innocents. Multiply that a few hundred or thousand times, and you have Britain and Europe.
Look at a map of the United States. There is that huge area of red states (flyover country) which elects the President. Bush is from Texas. Religion and church are a HUGE deal in Texas.
Clinton and Carter got elected because they could talk the talk of religion.
Blair has done himself no favours at all, it may well damage him, it will probably weaken him in his own party as others seek to distance themselves from what is seen as an illogocal, irrational and emotive way of governing.
The problem with religious folk for UK voters is that they can be seen as sectarian, and prejudiced, and closed minded.
We really are not too keen on such folk in power, suspicious would be a good description.
I should imagine that all those in opposion to Blair have had their own prejudices confirmed, and for thos in his own party who were not infavour of the war in Iraq, there will be a certain unease given that the purported reasons for war were so transparently false.
It is worth noting that this was only a minor part of the interview, and even then it was pretty guarded a comment from Blair, and yet this is what our media has seized upon, and not in a favourable way, the best that could be said by some of the published media is that it was neutral in a way that was not all that neutral - if you take my meaning.
John Smith, the previous leader of Blairs party was also noted for his religion, however he never lived to take it into power, and anyway he was considered a far more humble man, and not one to make decisions based upon those values.
Blair is seen very much as an image man, which is why his religion is viewed with some concern as he would seem to be the type to pander to those who might lean toward his views.
I think there’s a difference of viewpoint. In England, openly religious people are viewed as casdave puts it, polticians moreso. In America, it’s perfectly natural to base your ethics on religious principles; it’s surely as valid as some esoteric philosophy, and probably moreso.
I don’t think folks across the pond know how religious it is here. I think in almost any jurisdiction in America: city, state or federal government – no agnostic or atheist can be elected to office. Oh, they’re allowed to run. But if their opponent learns of their agnosticism or atheism, it becomes a trump card in electoral politics. No matter what the candidates’ other positions, they would lose. There just aren’t that many atheists or agnostics over here, and the ones that aren’t are deeply suspicious of nonbelievers. Fortunately, many Americans are religious in form only, and don’t really take the beliefs seriously. Or this would be a fucking theocracy.
I disagree. At least if someone bases their ethics on a philosophy, they’ll have to defend their beliefs; someone whose “ethics” are based on a religion is likely to just scream “faith” and “God says so !” and ignore questions and arguments. I put “ethics” in quotes like that because I don’t consider the religious version to be ethics at all; just obedience to orders.
Another (possible) factor is that as I understand it, British politicians are answerable to a much smaller demographic. There is nothing resembling the national (President/VP)* or statewide (Senator) races in the US.
If polls show that 50.00000001% of state x voters identify themselves as religious conservatives who will only support someone of like mind, a candidate for Senate will tend to present him/herself that way—no matter what voters in specific areas may feel on the subject. A British pol, who only has to deal with a single district, will only have to deal with the issue if the voters in that district feel strongly about it (which they are much less likely to do).
Or I could be out of my mind—a thought that had occurred to me.
Yes, I know the President is elected on a state-by-state basis. Still, the message has to be somewhat consistent, so the attitude of the national electorate as a whole matters.
Technically, yes, Blair is elected by 60,000 people in County Durham. But in reality, elections are a nationwide test of the party leaders on offer, with local issues normally being of secondary importance.
I had the better part of a lengthy essay written, based on a speculation that it might have arisen from the tension between the established Protestants and the immigrant Catholics (in which the Catholics attempted to be “more” American than the Protestants while clinging to their religion), resulting in an “excess” of religious enthusiasm on both sides that spilled over into the public sector (thus the Knights of Columbus spearheading the silly addition of “under God” to the Pledge of Allegiance while six years later Kennedy still had to fight against anti-Catholic prejudice to get elected).
However, I then realized that the American fascination with religion is far older. Thomas Paine was reviled as an atheist (which he was not) despite his very visible efforts to help in the creation of the nation and much of the calumny directed against Thomas Jefferson for political reasons focused on the claim that he was an atheist. (Neither of those Toms were Christian, strictly speaking, but neither was actually an atheist, either.) The introduction of “In God we Trust” to U.S. coins was the result (otherwise unsuccessful) of an effort to have the U.S. declared an explicitly (Protestant) Christian nation. 90 years later, “under God” was wedged into the Pledge of Allegiance by a Catholic movement that was doubly inspired by an urge to demonstrate that the U.S. was not a “godless Communist” country and that Catholics were “real” Americans.
There have been several periods in U.S. history which have been characterized by religious revivals: the Great Awakening of the 1730s through 1740s swept all the English speaking world, but the Second Great Awakening, culminating in the 1840s was pretty much an American phenomenon. Again, following the First World War, there was a great religious Revival in the U.S. Finally, at the beginning of the 1970s, in direct reaction to the secular surge of the 1960s, an American religious movement that was explicitly political developed.
Even setting aside my first impulse to see it as the result of a Protestant-Catholic conflict, I suspect that I was near the mark. I wonder if the very pluralist nature of American society, in which each denomination must actively strive to maintain an engaged membership to keep from being swallowed up by similar-but-larger denominations has fueled a constant series of programs to keep religion in the public consciousness.
Blair? Socialist?? Oh, perleease! The Labour Party has been ‘labour’ in name only for some time now. It’s not even ‘Tory lite’ any more - its now a bunch of Thatcherite, right-wing freemarketeers. :mad:
Sorry, God-bothering, Thatcherite, right-wing freemarketeers. It’s often been said that “the Church of England is the Tory party at prayer” - this just goes to prove how far Blair and his cronies have strayed from socialism.
