By Mary Honeyball
Religion was one matter where Tony Blair got it all wrong. The persistent rumours that he and President George W Bush prayed together at Camp David while deciding to go to war in Iraq have refused to go away.
Tony and Cherie have got religion, as we know, all too well. Now that he is no longer PM they both seem compelled to talk about their faith, saying some things which should not go unchallenged.
This article in the Daily Telegraph refers to "an aggressively secular age" and calls for Christians to stand up for what they believe in. Such nonsense is, of course, only taken seriously because it comes from an ex-Prime Minister. It is also not true.
While churches may be emptying (people having more sense than to pay even lip service to religion), Christianity is on the increase in the corridors of power. I have seen very obvious attempts to bring Christianity into the European Parliament during my nine years as an MEP.
Silvio Berlusconi attempted to appoint an intensely religious Catholic, Rocco Buttiglione, as a European Commissioner. Though his efforts were thankfully rebuffed by the majority of MEPs due to Buttiglione's anti-homosexual and anti-abortion stance, religion had reared its head. Likewise there was a strong movement to include a reference to "god" in the ill-fated European constitutional treaty.
Meanwhile back in the UK the Roman Catholic Church and other extreme Christian organisations tried to defeat parts of the 2008 Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act.
Activities such as these are not the mark of an aggressively secular society. There has, in fact, been a marked increase in political lobbying by Christian organisations over the last ten years. We are getting more of it in the public square not less.
I for one object to this. I do not believe Christianity should have the kind of privileged place in our public life which so manifestly does. In this article Blair is quoted as saying, "But in general terms in British society there is a risk that people see faith as a personal eccentricity."
Faith is and should remain exactly that - a personal eccentricity, not something to be forced on others in any way whatsoever.
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Facebook
StumbleUpon
on to me.
"Silvio Berlusconi attempted to appoint an intensely religious Catholic, Rocco Buttiglione,
as a European Commissioner. Though his efforts were thankfully rebuffed by the majority of
MEPs"
Why should a man's faith ever be a reason to exclude him from politics? Not long ago this
might have read, "Tony Blair attempted to appoint an intensely homosexual man, Peter
Mandelson. as European Commissioner. Though his efforts were thankfully rebuffed by the
majority of MEPs" What! Tony Blair the Catholic appoint a gay man? But he did, didn't he?
Why do you believe that the values of tolerance, fairness and respect apply only to certain
groups?
I am a Christian (Mormon) member of the Labour party. My faith leads me to believe that "I
am my brother's keeper" (that I have a duty of care towards others). I also believe that
all people, whatever their race, religion, culture, gender, or sexuality are brothers and
sisters within the great human family. That God is our father. That He expects us to treat
oneanother with kindness and charity. Jesus espoused these values when he drank with
Samaritans(considered unclean by the Jews). Tony Benn based his socialist values on his
Christian faith. The two are very compatible.
No doubt you will now accuse me of ramming my faith down your throat. Why is it that you
are allowed to speak openly about your values and beliefs but those with religious faith
should be silenced?
Today we live in a society where no one is to blame for anything, children are giving birth, schools are handing out the pill without parents consent, criminals are being councelled because they have had a hard upbringing instead of being punished, the law abiding are being criminalised for protecting themselves, our society needs moral guidance, it has broken down and is still declining into a cesspit.
I am sick and tired of hearing MPs telling the public that basically everyone is entitled to do what they want, thats the attitude that has got us in this mess this country is in today.
Our society no longer has bounderies like when our parents grew up, its that and other things which make our country a laughing stock, we need to reinforce moral values to our children, not go along the new labour route, that way has brought this country to its knees.....................
According to the logic of your thinking no philosophical position should have a privileged position in public life. Atheism is as much a matter of "faith" as theism - and if you do not understand that then you have no understanding of philosophy, and more particularly, epistemology. The media has forced on us for years the utter nonsense that "science" has debunked religious faith. I say it is nonsense, because science is not a philosophy. The scientific method is precisely that - a method. It is a method by which we investigate the empirical realm, otherwise known as nature. How we interpret empirical data in terms of meaning, values (and, dare I say it, origins) is a matter of philosophy, not science.
A more logical position in public life is to accept a certain agnosticism on matters of religious faith, which would therefore produce attitudes of maturity and respect, rather than prejudice.
If Tony Blair had told the world he was an atheist I can well imagine you would not be writing this kind of article with such vehemence. And if he wants to express openly how he interprets life, who the heck do you think you are to say that he is not permitted to?
Or is your language suggestive of the fact that you really want to force your anti-religious (unproven and unproveable) views on other people?
Alternately, they could form their own Vaticanist party which would be best all round.
Labour MP's certainly should not represent the bigoted views of the Catholic church.
I am sick to death of morally conservative religionist MP's who think it is their role to impose their religious beliefs upon the rest of us.
When they are Labour, it is particularly unacceptable. The usual suspects...look at the votes on gay rights and they are always there, ready to vote for oppression.
Labour would be better as a clearly secular party which separates religion into where it belongs - the private sphere.
So in Tony Blair and George Bush, we have a perfect example of why this mindset is so dangerous to the rest of us. They both Knew Absolutely that there were WMDs in Iraq (without any evidence) and attempted to evangelize that belief to the rest of the world, treating anyone who didn't Believe as though they were agents of the Devil.
"Faith is and should remain exactly that - a personal eccentricity, not something to be forced on others in any way whatsoever." Of course, you have a 'faith' in saying that God does not exist, in your world should only agnostics be allowed a vote? Or maybe only those who agree with your views instead?
I'm afraid not, Ms. Honeyball as your bigoted article reveals. For many people their faith is the most important thing in their life. What you have demonstrated is that there is no common ground between the two religions: marxist atheism and christianity.
You wrote "I have seen very obvious attempts to bring Christianity into the European Parliament during my nine years as an MEP"
Well, you know, that might be because most countries in Europe are still christian. They even have political parties called Christian Democrats. Did you know that Mary, or did you spend you nine years in Brussels in a bunker?
Displaying either a brazen mendacity or a complete lack of self-awareness, Honeyball persists in fatuously denying that she’s anti-Catholic. She is, she declares, pro-people, whatever that means. Certainly she’s not pro-Catholic people. She wonders whether they should be discriminated against in Labour Party politics. Oh yes she does. This is what she wrote back in May: “Should devout Catholics such as Kelly, Browne and Murphy be allowed on the government front bench in the light of their predilection to favour the Pope's word above the government's?”
That’s the old dual loyalty charge, which Catholics used to be accused of, ooh centuries ago. In reply she says she supports the right of Catholics to join the Royal family. It’s very sweet of her to offer her us that sop, which many of us don’t want anyway, in return for suggesting that our right to participate in democratic politics be taken away from us.
And that’s not even half of it. In true tinfoil hat style, she says the Roman Catholic Church has “a grip on parliament, the media and the public sphere” and that it “wields power in parliament through manipulating members’ interests”. She’s also engaged in a very nasty campaign against the Labour activist, Conor McGinn. By resigning as vice chair of Young Labour, she said he was using “bullyboy tactics” against her. Mary Honeyball doesn’t do rational. She does vituperative, she does aggressive, she does plain barking mad.
There are serious issues in all this. Mary Honeyball brings the Labour Party into disrepute everytime she hauls herself onto her soapbox to have another one of her bizarre rants about Catholicism and Catholics. Her personal attacks on Conor McGinn have also provoked widespread disgust. Her unambiguously expressed obsessive hatred of Catholicism is plain to see. Given the depth of her anti-Catholicism, given the way it has interfered with her judgment so far, there is a genuine question about her ability to represent her Catholic constituents.
I have no problem with you opposing the current composition of the House of Lords, or opposing policies you disagree with whether or not they are put forward in the name of a particular faith. I would just ask they you focus on the person or policy you disagree with specifically, not Christians or any other faith group as a whole.
I think the problem with Tony Blair is that he is a right-winger.
Rachael, we still have Anglican Bishops as Lords, surely I can object to that and other religious interventions in political life I disagree with such as on abortion? I will not pretend to have different views that is an unhealthy way forward surely? You may not be homophobic, but many organised religious groups are, should I stay silent?
Sean I have long supported Catholics not being barred from the Royal Family or other High office, the rest of your post is assertions that are nonsense. For example remember Section 28 supported so strongly by so many religious groups?
Celia yes pro-life that's why you disagree with me. I have asked you to look at my blog, instead you choose to go around repeating the same false statements, I think that's called being a troll.
Your characterisation of Roman Catholicism as an "extreme Christan group" is part of a long history of anti-Catholicism in this country. The gruesome execution of Catholics for no greater crime than being Catholic happened in this state. As recently as the 1980's articles would appear in The Spectator expressing horror at Catholics entering public office.
Your views amount to a call for at least the social prejudices of yesteryear to be reintroduced. Such comments are unacceptable in a modern democracy. You are a bigot.
I demand that you retract your comment or qualify it or I will have to forward this article to the police.
What you think it says about you: I don't believe in God; I have read Dawkins; mine is an intellect so razor sharp it cannot be expected to suffer these fools gladly.
What it actually says: I don't believe in God; I have read Dawkins; in fact, it's the only work of non fiction I have read; I know nothing about theology; I have not had anything approaching an original thought for years.
I am just replying here because, having written this article a short time before the Euro election in which you are a candidate, I believe you are likely to have done the Labour Party some damage.
It is clear that throughout history people have done terrible things in the name of faith. Atheists and agnostics have probably done wrong as well. This does not mean that anyone can blame me as a Christian for the crusades, or for homophobia. Labour represents people from all faith communities and many of our greatest advocates have been devout Christians, from Keir Hardie to Blair and Brown, and their faith and the ethics that flow from it have informed their beliefs in justice and equality. Please try to criticise people on the basis of their actions and what they say and do, rather than their identity or faith.
Every Sunday morning I go down to the end of my garden and give thanks to the fairies for delivering yet another week of war, poverty and random depravity in the world by playing canasta. Of course, I never seem them but well I just KNOW they are there and I know they appreciate the canasta. Some people may think me strange, but is it any business what I get up to on a Sunday morning at the bottom of my garden? Not as long as it is legal, no. Consider it a hobby and people are free to pursue whatever hobbies they like.
Imagine however I started playing Canasta in the middle of the office and celebrating the evil garden fairies. Suddenly my private beliefs are someone else's problem. That's just the point: I don't care what hobbies you pursue of as long as they remain private just don't bring them into my workplace, place of education, laboratory or political debate.
Nothing against atheism both religious and atheist viewpoints stem from no evidence.
But when you start bringing up fascism, I'm afraid you fall foul of Godwin's Law.
Actually, we are all pro-people. But your comments seem to deny people with particular values the right to express them through the organisation to which they belong.
There is a strong fascist bias in your arguments and also a clear lack of intelligence.
I am not sure why religion is afforded this unearned respect, I refer you to my earlier point about fairies in the garden. If I believed that fairies lived at the bottom of my garden I'd be locked up. I wouldn't be defended by people suggesting that anyone who disagrees with me is a bigot.
The irony that this comes from a Labour MEP on the same day that an attempt is made to tarnish the Tories by associating them with offensive comments made by a maverick Polish Euro MP is astonishing.
Most Labour supporters, for instance, traditionally support the redistribution of income. Some do so because they think it's right according to religious principals; others support it because they think it's right, according to their own sense of justice; precious few support it because of anything Einstein said.
Even the stem cell research example (and nothing else I can think of comes closer to supporting your view) falls down, not least because there is disagreement over Bush's approach even among those that share his faith. Neither Bush nor Obama ultimately took the decision on scientific grounds, because science has sod all to say about what is right. Bush banned the research because he thought, despite the benefits it could bring, it was morally wrong. Obama will allow the research to continue because he thinks it will bring benefits and the moral objections are unfounded. The only reason either had to even consider it was that there were potential benefits to science, and at that point the scientific arguments had no more to say. The decision then, whether to allow it or not was, in both cases, made on the grounds of what they thought was the right thing to do - according to their personal view of morality.
Catholics are still seen as second class citizens in this country and have been seen as such for far too long. Not only, as Adam states in his post, can a Catholic not hold high office in this country, in addition, a Catholic cannot marry into your Royal family.
Isn't it a shame that Tony Blair had to hide his Catholic beliefs from the voters until after he left politics? That has a lot to do with people like you who hold a prejudice.
What exactly are you trying to achieve in stirring up religious hatred by saying that, "Christianity is on the increase in the corridors of power"? Why do you want people to fear those of us who do have faith. Churches and religious groups are a part of the glue that binds strong communities together.
Your article shows you can never truly represent anyone of faith in Europe. People should remember that on poling day.
"Make no mistake: no fornicator or idolator, none who are guilty either of adultery or of homosexual perversion, no thieves or grabbers of drunkards of slanderers or swindlers, will possess the kingdom of God."
or perhaps:
"If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them."
We are talking about whether political influence from individuals who base their values on things found in a book written thousands of years ago is a good idea.
We live in an era where scientists are on the verge of making the most remarkable breakthroughs with research that has the potential to ease the suffering of many people, the potential to allow people with paralysis to walk again, but in America until last week this research was prevented because of the President's 'faith'. Some of the smartest people in the world could not continue their research because of people who believe in a talking snake and deride the theory of evolution.
Religion has been completely refuted, it is nonsense, it has no place in a reasonable society, it is irrational, a
throwback to a barbaric and uncivilised age when humans didn't know any better. It was a way to explain the inexplicable
and I am sick to death of having to allow people to peddle this rubbish. Religion should be banned. That is not fascist,
in fact, it is religion that is fascist. If one is able to make broad moral judgements backed up by nothing but superstitious
nonsense, the door is open to justify all manner of reprehensible positions in this manner. Just as racists back up their
views with irrational arguments, 'people of faith' back up their views with fallacies. WHEN WILL WE HAVE THE COURAGE TO
DISCUSS RELIGION FOR WHAT IT IS! It makes me despair of the childish, primitive reasoning capacities of the human race
that religion still takes such a prominent position in the world.
No, it isn't. We live in a democracy. Religious people are in the minority, in society as a whole and in Parliament. So I would prefer, Mary, if you debate with them on the points on which you disagree in the European Parliament, rather than launch into a blanket criticism of them on here. You show yourself to be slightly bigoted, to be frank.
Tony Blair didn't try and impose any relgion on the rest of us. He has his personal beliefs and his own outlook on life which he is entitled to follow, and this in no way reflects his ability to lead.
Religious extremism arises when people get scared of the rapidly changing world we live in, giving religous people the chance to gently change their lifestyles instead of abruptly, will reduce the chances of religious extremism. So immigrant islamic families wont feel scared by a new world of Britain, if they can gently change their lives, and a way to gently change your life is too send your kids to an islamic faith state school, and then think about moving them to a secular state school and sixth form, instead of sending them straight to a secular state school or C of E school, even if they don;t yet want to.
I'm also not quite sure what you hope to prove with your two examples: in the first, Berlusconi tries to appoint an "intensely religious" commissioner (five years ago) and the European Parliament threatens to veto the entire commission; consequently he's forced to withdraw. In the second, the UK Roman Catholic Church "and other extreme Christian organisations" lobby against a law they felt conflicted with their faith - and were defeated.
These illustrate the growing power of religion in public life, do they? Wouldn't an instance where they won illustrate it better?
As for Blair and Bush, if the prayer went something like this - "Lord, help us to know what is right and wise regarding the decision we have to make on Iraq", I'm not entirely sure what the problem is. Unless we just don't like the idea of them praying, but then that would, I think, be a mark of an aggressively secular society.
And by the way, it is the "people" you are "pro" that are religious, which makes your argument a non sequitur, unless you are only "pro" atheists.
I'll bet you are pro-life, pro-choice and pro-abortion too.
I am anti all religion and pro-people.
And with regards to calling me anti-semitic, you might want to read my blog post on the adverse effect of religious parties in Israel: http://thehoneyballbuzz.com/2009/01/06/gaza/. Jews in London who have written to me have overwhelmingly backed this position.
I believe that devout Catholics do not use, nor are allowed to use, birth control equipment.
They didn't call Blair "phony Tony" for nothing.
Off to Den Haag with the man.
The offensiveness of the political lobbying from religious organisations is that their views are not based on observable scientific evidence but on their own personal view of 'morality'. A morality which has allowed the spread of AIDS in Africa because of the church stance on the use of contraception.
Aggression is defined as giving yourself rights which you deny to others. Your position against christianity seems to fall into that category. Shame on you for your lack of objectivity and self awareness.
I applaud Obama's recent decision on stem cell research.
I would rather see a much more secular Britain, free from viewpoints coloured by books written thousands of years ago which encourage irrationality, intolerance and which idiots like Stephen Green (Christian Voice) use as justification for their own hatred towards homosexuals.
There are of course individuals who have faith and turn to it at times of personal tragedy and use it as a source of strength and comfort, and I have nothing against that but I cannot stand people forcing their 'imaginary friends' down my throat.
Decisions made by government should be based on the needs of the public, based on facts and evidence not based on an individuals faith.
I imagine when you've done what Blair did, you need someone to forgive you.
Have you cleared your anti-Christian article with your very own "Son of the Manse"?
And where is your anti-Semetic and anti-Islam rant, or would that be treading on too many egg shells?
what is wrong about two Christians praying together? Can you explain?
It is an aggressively secular age when praying is regarded as suspicious behaviour, being a Catholic bars you from holding high office, political views are to be dismissed because they come from people of faith, and faith is derided as a personal eccentricity as you are so keen on doing.