Tony Blair has urged world leaders to “do God”. Should they?
Tony Blair says politicians need to understand and incorpate religion into their politics. He says it’s a force for good which could bring us all closer together.
Does putting God into statecraft make politics more moral, foster peace, make torture less likely? Or will it alienate non-believers and those of different faiths?
Whose God for a start?
During Barack Obama’s Presidential campaign some people were claiming he was a closest Muslim – could there ever be a time when the US would have a Muslim President? Or for that matter an atheist?
While Tony Blair was in Office he refused to talk about religion because in the UK politicians believe there is a stigma attached to talking about religion in politics.
Wherever you are in the world does the religion, or otherwise, of your leader matter to you?
Should politicians do god?
RSS feed
BBC World Have Your Say 
Leaders in countries where religion is still the rule of conduct are considered as representatives of God and should act according to his teachings.
Conceding that politicians should do God, it remains which God teachings they should follow, especially in multi-faith societies.
Politicians aren’t perfect people. They are prone to mistakes and weaknesses and thus they can’t do God. This conflicts with democratic values as politicians should do what people , not what God, ask them to do.
Turning politicians into God-figures means they can be above reproach and anyone opposing them will be punished.
There are enough God-figures around the world in dictatorial regimes as in North Korea. Currently the world need much less of them, not more.
There shouldn’t be any hard and fast rules regarding God and politics. I believe in every society, politics is a reflection of the culture and laws of that society. So the answer to this question is not universal.
Well, if the society in question subscribe to the notion of God (by whatever name), especially if they openly engage in some form of religion, it will be nothing short of hypocrisy and disservice to elect politicians to leadership positions who do not ‘do God’ and expect them to understand and govern well a people who ‘do God’. It is also unfair to elect leaders who have always ‘done God’ and mixed God with their family, business and other affaires then expect them not to ‘do God’, or to be secretive in the practise of their religion just because some of their constituents are atheists, or feel religion should not be mixed with politics.
I get the feeling that the question “should politicians ‘do God’” is in a way biased against ‘doing God’ it seem to suggest that one needs some sort of permit from the public to practice religion; why is the question not, for example “shouldn’t politicians ‘do God’?” The question seem to suggest that the ‘default’ profile is ‘don’t do God’ and those heading Mr. Blair’s call (which he didn’t heed while in office) are about to break some long standing convention.
I am not suggesting that political rallies should hence forth be held in Churches or anything like that, but I am saying politicians should not be required to drop their faith before serving us. On the other hand, those who have survived without religion thus far should not quickly adopt one in order to win elections or popular support.
You know, the phrase ‘do God’ is really funny, I don’t know how anyone could ‘do God’!
Politicians do not need to be religious to understand what is right and what is wrong. I am an atheist and understand the difference perfectly well. My morality is informed by the environment in which I grew up and my experiences with other people, not by static rules handed down by a religious leader.
Religion if incorporated into politics can be used as a tool to repress different views. There are theocratic regimes which stifle all sorts of freedoms in the name of religion whose teachings they interpret according to their scheme to hold to power.
The excess of incorporating religion in politics will turn Christian countries to the Puritan era as it can turn Muslim countries to Taliban rule.
Religion should remain an individual matter; especially, in multi-faith societies. Imposing a unique brand of religion is likely to cause a clash among sections of society with different religious views and beliefs.
Any country should have a constitution that guarantees democratic values. Empowering religious institutions over the democratically elected ones will turn societies into theocratic where religious dissent can lead to persecution. As such, multi-faith societies should be governed by secular laws and religion should remain a personal matter.
God doesn’t exist and religion is therefore irrational. So, by putting God into statescraft, conflicts can get almost impossible to resolve. Take e.g. the Israeli Palestinian conflict.
Religion and politics do not mix. There is nothing wrong with a politician practicing their religion of choice in private, but given the Western world’s penchant for religious freedom, bringing religion into politics will actually end up being divisive.
It is admittedly somewhat ironic that this is divisive, but look at things like the debate that took place in the USA a few years ago over “one nation under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance. Immediately following this phrase is the word “indivisible” — which is exactly the opposite of what the Pledge made us.
As far as God is concerned i really think politicians should find some sense of God’s will in them, as for anything else..our politicians have proven to be nothing but disappointment. Thank God Tony Blair is amongst the few who not only say but deeply find it within.
James from Kenya
YOU! Most British are so touchy if someone mentions GOD not even Christ. Your descendants came to Africa gave us the gospels that you want nothing to do with because you see it as a deterrence to your modern life. Thanks to Dr Livingstone I love Jesus and not ashamed of him. We all need Christ and I am no fanatic I have PEACE and its not faked.
We do not elect our politicians to be spiritual leaders. Even as someone of faith I prefer politics and religion be separate entities.
Why ask about only President Obama and Prime Minister Brown? I don’t hear anyone challenging Mahmoud Ahmadinejad or a non-Christian leader on this issue. This entire “religious” subject is nothing more than an anti-Christian witch-hunt.
One of the things that I admire about the USA Constitution is the SEPARATION of “church&state”. For the only way I can see any state being fair to ALL its citizens is if it is truly secular.
Personally I think God should be at the centre of every human being’s life and our leaders are supposed to show the way by leading by example…
It’s not a matter of “should,” but rather, “when” will politicians “do God.”
Sometime in the not-to-distant future when the world descends into the 21st Century Worldwide Catastrophe which is so apparent to anyone old enough to have some perspective on what’s happening these days, they’re all going to suddenly be finding God because there will be nowhere else to turn.
Yes it might.
In Kenya, politicians have championed for removal of some artifacts in the parliament believed to have caused mysteris and deaths of MPs.
A religious personality cum an activist has shouted from the roof tops for the ‘demonic tools’ to be removed and the parliament be given a facelift.
In the current tenth parliament, we have an MP who is a bishop of a leading chhurch in Nairobi and also she’s an assistant minister. She usually leads the house in prayers whenever they convenes for sessions.
However, MP’s have been accused of involvement in socerly and witchcraft to pave their way to the house during election time.
I believe that it’s is a fundamental thing to all MPs to incline to their religeon: muslims and christians.
Thanks.
Dear HYSs.Politicians have a right to prayers but the should give spirituals duties to the Bishops or Sheikhs because not all the religious leaders gives basics services to it subjects.
I beleive in complete separation of Churce and State. However I see it as a “perfect world goal” that in practice can never be achieved. So some sensible and reasonable compromise is the order of the day.
The reason is that Religion and State compete, they both have a desire to govern human activity through rules and laws, that is a very significant overlap.
I observe that whereever there is poor decoupling of Church and State, trouble is not far away… Middle East, Ache (Indonesia), Pakistan.
I dunno, maybe it’s me but:
God didn’t vote our politicians into their respective offices, the PEOPLE did.
God didn’t send American troops into Iraq, President Bush did.
God doesn’t govern a nation, its LEADERS do.
Religion and politics should never mix. That’s common sense.
every single person on the planet earth needs to accept the grace of our FATHER and have a personal relationship with our only LORD AND SAVIOR, JESUS CHRIST!
religion is not the answer, a personal relationship with JESUS is. if we were all in CHRIST, all the world’s problems would end.
Christianity: it is not a religion it is our personal relationship with JESUS CHRIST
Sorry to say that, during his 10 years as Prime Minister, Mr Tony Blair displayed very little of ‘Godliness’ qualities. I cannot think of a single election promise he made in 1997 that was fulfilled during his tenure – not in the nature of a true believer in ‘God’. Instead, he wasted so much public money, and, with it, virtually all public goodwill. If he does ‘do God’ now, it is only because he finds personal advantage to do so. He engendered so much cynicism in his time in office that nothing he says/does now can be taken at face value. Yes, let religious hypocrisy be separate from political hypocrisy.
Politicians who tout “doing God” as part of their platform are better suited to retire and attend seminary. No matter the religion, the God it represents is interpreted by man, and man is well-documented through history as having interpreted with war, as often as with peace and benefice for all.
No matter one’s evaluation of him as President, Jimmy Carter is the best, recent example of a religious man who lives his God in his work, instead of grandstanding to make God his work.
The Founding Fathers of the US got a few things right when they organized the world’s first democracy, and one of the most important points was to separate the preachers from the politicians. Each has his role, to be sure, but when those roles are confused, the fair and equal acquittal of responsibilities in each realm of influence can be compromised to the detriment of all.
is tony blair talking about any particular god thats not clear from his vague statements .
not only tony blair everyone realise that “NO GOD,NO PEACE-KNOW GOD ,KNOW PEACE”-
IF this be the realisation for all a big YES to TONYS religious statement but if its partisan to any particular god its better not inculcating godliness into politics as it will run parellely only like railline?
mixing politics with religion without having a proper knowledge will be a poisonous stuff that is presently ruining the worldly peaceful atmosphere?
devadas.v
kannur
kannur
Like Jesus said “take that plank out of your own eye…”
Sure, politicians should be looking at themselves and their moral and ethical philosophies as a matter of course. But, that is a private matter. They shouldn’t be looking to pull splinters out of other people’s eyes, and push their own ‘god’ onto other people. They should conduct themselves according to their personal morality from wherever that comes. And, if they make references to their personal morality that is probably OK too. These moral teachings come from many sources.
But, ‘god’ with a capital G like Tony says is an outdated concept. And ‘doing’ god sounds really horrible and sophomoric. There are too many people out there today with theocratic notions. In Africa, this ‘qualitative shift’ Tony speaks about is the cause of the today’s schism in the worldwide Anglican Communion because African Bishops are Homophobes and specters of hate, and they are encouraging the divide in other societies which were on a road to tolerance and civil rights before.
He speaks glibly about “faiths coming closer and closer on UK streets”, but there is more mistrust and hatred brewing there than anywhere right now. The traditional god books from Western faiths explicitly encourage that kind of hatred and dehumanization.
No we have to move beyond.
mixing God and politics is only a recipe for disaster. The world has become a melting pot and thus there are various religions in the world, thus if politicians choose a religion and air out their religious positions there tends to be a drift from the other religions.
NOBODY “should do god.”
People of faith believe very different things. While faith-based politics are, perhaps, feasible in one-faith areas, such as in Islamic Saudi Arabia or Mormon Utah, in a global environment faith-based politics can only be a source of discord, to say the least.
The Catholic church works to limit the distribution of condoms even in the face of the spread of HIV/AIDS; to disallow people in vegetative states to die a natural death; and, along with many Protestant denominations, to deny abortion under any circumstances (even in the case of the nine year old Brazilian rape victim whose doctors said both she and the twins she was carrying would die if the fetuses were allowed to come to term.)
Many Islamic cultures do not punish the perpetrators of “honor” killings of rape victims, and work to limit polio vaccination, even though the lack of vaccination allows polio to spread to areas that had eradicated the disease, as was the case when a Nigerian strain of polio (where people where told by their local leaders to not permit their children to be vaccinated) infected victims as far away as Indonesia.
Practitioners of witchcraft in Africa carve up albino “blacks” to use their body parts in mystic rituals. African witchdoctors have also carved up immigrant children as far afield as London, spreading their “magic” to previously unsullied areas.
While these practices might be condoned by leaders in the areas or religions that believe in them, the idea of running our complicated and dangerous planetary intercourse based on subjective beliefs is unconscionable in an interconnected and interdependent world.
I see that the debate is fast turning into a question of ‘does God exist?’.
Truly, since we are unable to come to a conclusion about God’s existence or non-existence that satisfies everyone, will not be able to arrive at any sensible conclusion about ‘doing God’. Theists may want politicians to ‘do God’ while atheist won’t accept it. So I guess we should just ask: Do you believe God exist in the first place before we get to involving God in politics.
I am a Christian and I believe politics should be governed by what is right and what is right should be the desire of the people, including that which is informed by their beliefs.
“Should politicians do god?”
No!
Grownups, especially grownups elected to positions of political responsibility, should put aside their childhood imaginary friends and deal with reality.
I wish they would “do” god rather that ‘religion’ at least a bit.
World might be a better place.
Politicians are such a god forsaken lot.
Just what the world needs, another fledgling theocracy. Religion should be forever severed from politics. One cannot govern based on books and seemingly mystical faith, as this always leaves the people lacking unbiased leadership. God has no second in the minds and hearts of the faithful and with politicians that only leaves room for the best interests of their party and themselves……………..Besides, with a belief in god comes an equal belief in the devil and satan is still the most reliable scapegoat around. Where would politics be without reliable scapegoats……..?
And I thought we’d seen the back of this irritating & absurd man.
The religious tradition of England is Anglican. Its outlook is characterised by moderation, reasonableness, decency, kindness, restraint, lack of fanaticism, commonsense, and decorum. It even has room for a little spirituality. While Prime Minister Blair, though nominally an Anglican, was in fact a crypto-Roman Catholic. He concealed this for fear of the impression that it would give, viz that he was a religious fanatic (only a man who took religion far too seriously, some might have thought, would find it necessary to convert to Roman Catholicism). And now this stealthy hypocrite is calling for others to do what he never had the courage to! Good riddance.
The point is, though, which religion are we talking about? There are evil religions. Being a major religion doesn’t mean a creed isn’t a force for intolerance and cruelty. If every religion had the Anglican or Quaker, or even Sufi, spirit then ‘doing God’ would be wonderful. Instead, some countries really need their own home-grown Ataturks to privatise religion, banish it from public life and make way for progress and commonsense. Some countries.
The two things one must not do, so as not to loose a friend is to talk or argue on religion or politics.
For Politicians to do God is to be honest and not to lie at all. It is common knowledge that politicians do lie to be successfull in achieving their goals, for better or worse.
It still has not been determined wether Tony Blair who I consider to be a brilliant politician, was part of the cause in going to war with Iraq based on a truth or a lie.
Western Christianity (like Buddhism and Taoism) has developed into the most gentle & inoffensive of religions. Christianity isn’t nowadays much of a problem for anyone; but cue the legion of raving Christophobes this debate will flush out.
Hindu fundamentalism is a confrontational & bullying force in India. Islam is currently a problem for non-Muslims, and probably an even bigger problem for Muslims (as several thousand Iraqis would testify but for the fact that they’ve been murdered by their co-religionists). It has degenerated into a violence-infatuated, oppressive, woman-hating death cult, a character arising directly out of its orthodox teachings (that’s the problem). Given that, Muslims would be well-advised – a la Ataturk – to do a lot less religion, or none at all, for what should be obvious reasons (Pakistan, Iraq, Taliban, Al Quaeda, Iran, Saudi Arabia, suicide bombers, sawers-off-of-heads, gender apartheid, etc).
Bottomline: no harm in doing Christianity/Buddhism/Taoism. Question mark against Hinduism. Judaism: too insignificant to matter. Islam…that’s the real debate.
Politicians should never ‘play God’. History tells us how ‘do God’ kings and leaders of the past by their dictatorship rule destroyed humans and their haves who ultimately were ruined themselves along with their whole dynasty for generations.
I’m still trying to decide if Tony Blair is a phony or a crackpot. He and George Bush lied to get us into the Iraq war, and they are responsible for all the deaths and suffering that followed. And now Tony wants what? To “do” unto God what he did to the rest of us?
If there is a God, someday God will “do” unto Tony what he deserves.
Seeing that Blair is now a Catholic I suppose he has to agree with the pope that Condoms should not be used to stop the spread of AIDs – I do find that ironic, but still.
Politicians should be secular – all of them!
*Shakes head*
Politics and religion are like cocaine and heroin. The suicidal addicts combine them.
Somebody very wise once said words something like:
“Mankind will never be free until the last Monarch is hanged with the entrails of the last Priest!”
Since there are still Monarchs and Priests in existence, mankind is not yet free!
It’s fine to have “faith” as a politician, but the job and the personal views on God should be completely separate. Putting faith into statehood as you put it, does not increase it’s impact on me, but instead lowers it. Religion is not logic based, it is emotional, and I don’t want those people who are in charge of my government making decisions based off of mystical feelings.
The combination of church and state has proven to be disastrous. See: The Crusades, The Spanish Inquisition, and the always warring Middle-East.
It’sa pity when religion does politics. that’s what the Catholic Church did when it formally accepted Tony Blair into the fold. While Prime Minister he had supported and enforced policies that flouted the most basic Catholic doctrine: abortion, homosexual rights, measures that undermined the integrity of family life such as ‘civil unions’ , unjust war (in Iraq), etc. The Catholic Church embraced him as a matter of public relations and getting one over on the Anglicans: by any objective measure he was an anti-Catholic and an anti-Christian.
I suppose one reason why politicains shouldn’t ‘do God’ is that their sleaziness and hypocrisy – and Blair possessed both in abundance – can only taint the higher things of the spirit.
Politicians should do ethics, not God. The ethics may originate from religions but they should not be dictated. Even the God of the old testament gave humankind the power to choose good or evil. People who refuse to choose or even consider the necessity of choosing haven’t grasped the concepts.
Those who refuse to choose for themselves of their own free will goodness, ethics, morality, right behavior, etc. risk having others’ wills imposed on them. And we all know that imposed right behavior is inferior to, less likely to be effective, and less likely to be in one’s own interest than that chosen of one’s own free will.
Atheists and agnostics are just as capable of ferreting out and practicing good ethics as the religious are. To the extent that they accept their own responsibility for their own behavior, they are superior morally to those who blindly accept what others insist is God’s final word on any and all subjects. You want the rewards, you’ve got to do the work.
@ Count Iblis
“God doesn’t exist and religion is therefore irrational.”
That in its self is an irrational statement.
-Anthony, LA, CA
I’d like to add to the conversation this quote attributed to the author Upton Sinclair –
“When fascism comes to America it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross.”
I’m not religious. I don’t trust religious leaders who think their god gives them a mandate to impose their god’s will on others who believe differently. The comedian George Carlin said most of our problems would be solved within a few generations if we got rid of politicians and religion.
@Tom D Ford: so your lack of religion causes you to support murder, just so long as the victims are royal or clerical?
But it’s the religious who are called ‘intolerant’, ‘extreme’, ‘oppressive’ and ‘fanatical’!
Religion can be very valuable for fostering personal ethics and morals, but it has no place in politics except to guide the morals and ethics of the politicians. If you mix religion with politics, then someone will have his rights trampled on. Freedom for all is regardless of majority or minority religion or any other factor.
Considering how there are many examples worldwide of the abuse of religion against people and problems extreme or fundamental views create it is not such a good thing to be promoting one’s religious credentials. As Tony Blair famously said it makes a leader seem like a nutter. Although it does show to others what this person is about, so you do not have to wonder or think all is okay when they are secretly being influenced by religious doctrine. But it happens with everything, whether they are politically motivated or personally motivated by other factors such as business ties – which are far more widespread and far reaching on policy. Think of the US and the big business that was behind specific international actions of recent time. Yet somehow it is religion that people will often (those with opposing or no beliefs) see as either threatening or as a mark of concern.
And why, may I ask, should God get off Scot free, they’ll “do” everyone else.
g
Actually some Catholics have made this point to me about Mr. Blair. They are down right annoyed with him because if he was so eager to be a Catholic and embrace the liturgy, etc of the religion and is proud to be an out and out Catholic now shouting it from the rooftops so to speak, then it is something of an insult to some Catholics that he was so fearful to be seen as one and waited until out of office to become a Catholic. He should have become Catholic when the decision was made to convert and not to reach “minimum safe distance” before changing teams.
Religion and Politics create conflicts of interest and lead to dangerous justifications for war and persecution. President Bush used religion as justification for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and was quoted as saying that God told him, “George, go and fight those terrorists in Afghanistan,” and “George, go and end the tyranny in Iraq …”
This is a perfect example of why our leaders should not openly mix their faith with political decisions.
MY problem with religious politicians is that all of the main stream religions have people among them that don’t uphold the core doctrines of the religion itself. Catholics for one have pedifiles. Christians in my own experience try to indoctrinate people with a story thats been repeated through many religious incarnation dating back to the earliest Egyptian religions.
I seem to remember our President Bush stating that god had given him a mission. This was quickly followed by the term “axis of evil” and the lying deceit that led us into a war that has killed thousands of our own men and who can even know how many innocent civilians. It’s 6 years now and the killing is still going on with millions of Iraqi refugees in displacement camps and nowhere to go.
Everybody’s idea of god is different. And no, I can’t imagine an atheist or Muslim becoming president. The “Christian” way seems to be the only one these days – no one even seems to remember that Nixon was a Quaker.
It hasn’t been an improvement that’s for sure. We need to go back to the precepts of our forefathers who designed the Constitution and decided that separation of church and state was essential for freedom.
And who remembers that the composer of the Pledge of Allegiance left his Baptist ministry because it wouldn’t condemn slavery and who did NOT want the word “god” in that pledge?
Maybe people should read their history. In America today teachers don’t have time to teach social studies (it requires essays that don’t translate to the testing standard which make millions for companies who make tests). Maybe we should rethink our thinking and teach our children (and adults) to think for themselves without having to blindly follow a “religion” (which word means “rules.”)
I would never support legislation that abridges a candidates right to express his religious views but there is one simple indefatigable reason why society should agree not to except to much faith in politics. Those who follow their faith blindly will vote for who ever professes to be faithful possible missing the warning signs of a wolf in sheep’s’ clothing. Second, although religion provides a good rubric for determining a persons moral code it does not tell you how readily they will break that code. Just look at Mr. Bush he professed religion then tortured un-convicted prisoners. Ultimately though, the only immunity a government has against such snakes is and should be it’s peoples commitment to informed voting.
I absolutely do NOT want my politicians to “do God”. Not only does it highlight differences, it is insane. Yes, the idea of God does have a huge impact on how much of the world operates, and it’s important to understand that, but if my politicians make God a big issue in how they run my country, then that is a huge problem for me. For instance, Bush openly admitted that his religion had a huge influence on him. Given that God is just an imagined entity and doesn’t actually exist, to claim that God has an impact on political decisions basically means that you have an insane politician who is listening to “voices” and deciding policy based on this. That is insanity in any psychological book.
I definitely want my politicians to understand how God is an influence in how people make decisions, but I do not want my politicians to be religious and bring their religion into their work beyond this understanding. God should NOT mix with politics and the more we can encourage secular governments at home and around the world, the better.
I’d rather have a leader who “walks the walk” not “talks the talk.”
Former US President Jimmy Carter was a fervent Christian — he taught Bible study. Yet he rarely talked about his religion. Instead, he acted like the ideal of a believer — humble, well-intended, etc. And since leaving office he has used his position to do good.
By contrast, George Bush loudly professed his love for Jesus, used his religion as a shield and a bludgeon, and yet rushed to unleash the ultimate evil — war.
I think that some views of the American ‘seperation of church and state’ are getting mis-represented. If you look at the history of founding the colonies and then the United States, the goal was to keep the State out of Religion. Not the other way around. Religous tolerance and letting each have their own ways and beliefs up until the point that your beliefs infringe on someone else’s.
You can never take religion out of people entirely. Everybody has their opinions and their biases.
I would like my politians to speak about their beleifs. This allows me to better understand them and how they may think. I want to know the person who is representing me.
No, politicians should not “do God”, at least publicly. I thought President Bush was very out of line in espousing his beliefs as if those in the U.S. (or the world for that matter) should believe as he does. Barack Obama is much more in line with how I think a leader should approach the subject of religion. He recognizes there are many different beliefs and they all need to be respected. He must make decisions based on what he thinks is best for our Country and not place judgment on those people that don’t believe exactly has he does.
Tony
United States
Anyone who professes to believe in supernatural gods should be automatically excluded from office on grounds of insanity. Hasn’t the human race progressed enough that we should have leaders acting on the basis of rational thought?
There is nothing wrong with a political leader expressing his or her religion in the discourse of politics. However chances are that a politician that bases his or her decisions overly on faith will probably have difficulty with the outcomes of some of those decisions. Religion is not solely emotional, there is a great deal of logic behind the moral foundations that encompass most of the major religions.
The danger is at both extremes. Religious fundamentalism has demonstrated the problems that can arise when religion is the center-piece of a government. At the other extreme we have witnessed a Soviet Union that eliminated religion from nearly every part of society, killing millions of its own people under Stalin.
Open dialogue about religion, politics and the freedom to express oneself should be a healthy thing.
As a Christian myself, I can’t do a thing in life without considering God first. If a politician is truly a Christian, everything they do will take their faith into consideration therefore making it impossible to separate.
Politicians have the right to their personal beliefs. The problem arises when a politician thinks he speaks for all those within his religion. And the converse is also true, if the people of his particular religion believe he speaks for them.
There will never be a one world religion, or another way of looking at it, there will always be as many interpretations of religion as there are people. We must accept that no one religion will speak for all people and to expect our leaders to represent us as people who are of multi faith.
Religions in general have the nasty habit of wanting everyone else who may think differently, to think the same. This is not the nature of humans, nor gods.
What really scares me is the thought that the people who make the big life and death decisions for the world, the people with their fingers on the button, believe that there is some all powerful being there to bail us out if we screw up. The idea that “god will make everything will be ok in the end” could spell global disaster. If we leave important issues like overpopulation, nuclear proliferation, and climate change for some god to solve, we will kill ourselves and our planet. The only way for a politician to act responsibly is to keep his “faith” as far away from his decision making as possible.
Turkey hasn’t fought for so many consecutive years to keep separation of church and state because it was a bad idea. They, in fact, pride themselves on this. Not only does the marriage of politicians and religion have the potential to dissimilate a people, but the idea that decisions are then allowed to be made for an entire country free of a subjective approach. Religion, being looked at purely from a statistical standpoint, is responsible for more mass genocide in our world history as a motive for imposition of power and decision making than any other factor combined. Turkey has maintain the ability to be called a secular country, and the current PM has been able to run and continue an efficiently growing country thanks in large part to the continued legacy of a secular government.
There is no god. give me a break. Any examination of any religion, any time, any where, and it just doesn’t hold up. Elect politicians who are religious/faithful: not if that overly informs their political platform/ideology. Not a chance.
Whose God?
Here in the good ol’ USA we say we want freedom. We (some of us, at least) also say we want Christian Values to guide our politicians, because the Word of God is higher than the Law. But then we go and say that we don’t want governments dictated by Islam. Double standard? Is the Christian god the one true god, and any country whose leaders preach to another god misguided?
By these standards, if you are in the United States and you are not a Christian your views do not count.
Should that then dictate that it is legitimate to say that non-Islamic people in countries with Islamic governments are not important? Or should Islamic governments be overthrown and replaced with Christian governments?
The logical conclusion is that all infidels should be converted or killed and one religion dictate the law all over the world. The only question is, which religion will win? What if that religion didn’t get it right?
WHAT IF THERE IS NO GOD?
We cannot win at this game.
Dear Politicians,
Please keep your religion out of my public policy.
You represent me, my neighbors, my community and my country. We are a diverse lot, and while you are welcome to hold dear to your beliefs, you cannot do your job of representing all of us if you let your faith become part of your policy making.
Thank you,
From what I’ve seen, religious politicians hardly have a monopoly on morals. And morality based largely on religious dogma or the threat of severe punishment seems a bit shallow. If a heaven exists, those who base their treatment of others on empathy, a default kindness, and the avoidance of harm are more likely to end up there. Ironically, that might include a good percentage of atheists and agnostics.
Hello again
Tony Blair was most famous for his lying and his boot licking ( to avoid the indecent but much more appropriate term).
If that’s doing god I think it is something to be avoided.
Jim
From what I’ve seen, religious politicians hardly have a monopoly on morals. And morality based largely on religious dogma or the threat of severe punishment seems a bit shallow. If a heaven exists, those who base their treatment of others on empathy, a default kindness, and the avoidance of harm are more likely to end up there. Ironically, that might include a good percentage of atheists and agnostics.
The only POWER religion should have is the power of fellowship, NOT the power of RULE!
Hmmm….
I heard someone say George Bush is a Christian. Really. Is that what he is? I don’t see many examples of brotherhood, friendship, service, or peace –
Religion has always been used to keep the people ignorant and living in fear so that they are easily oppressed. Pharoahs, Monarchs, Popes, Kings, even Tibetan feudalism under the Dali Lama oppressed the people with religion.
Political leaders should. It is a supreme standard by which they can be held to account in their leadership
I think politicians have the right to their religion, just like anyone else; however, because they are representing a whole country, and in the case of the USA, representing people who hold a myriad of beliefs, these beliefs and the practice of them should be private.
The problem with religion is that by definition it excludes some of the people, a kind of “If I’m right, that means you’re wrong” attitude. That attitude doesn’t help any situation.
So, once again people, God doesn’t mean religion. People on WHYS seem to mix this up quite a bit. You can state the reasons of a faulty religion without any problem, but to plainly state “there is no God”, thats just ignorance.
If we’re going to go the evolution route, then each country should look out for their own, and destroy other people that get in our way.
@ August
Saying you believe in a “high force” is just as stupid as the dogmatic evolution belief system. There are more holes in the evolutionary theory than the bible. Here’s something insane, I read and have seen things on the big bang theory…and ALL MATTER in the universe was compacted into something the size of the tip of a pen…talk about false gods, and don’t forget the problems that people forget to address regarding the “Big Bang”!
-Anthony, LA, CA
It would be excessive for me to call in again, but please stop speaking as if there were a religion called ‘Religion’. There are different religious traditions. Some are benign, others indifferent, and a few are (very) malign. That’s the point: we need less of the nasty religions.
Here in Britain we have an established political tradition. Part of that involves politicians – as a point of good manners and commonsense – not constantly flouting their religious beliefs, however intensely held they may be. That kind of thing tends to be a bore, even if it really is sincere (and, btw, are politicians to be believed when they declare their piety, when we know that they lie about so many other things?) . Blair would obviously have been happier in the US, where the tradition allows politicians to talk about their faith and what God ‘means to them’ in a way that we find mildly ridiculous and slightly unctuous. That suits them, however much it may make us smile. You can’t make one-size generalisations about this.
I can’t believe this is even an issue. Pick up a US history book and read about why there is separation of church and state in the US. Are we doomed to relearn the lessons of the past? No one is going to agree on one religion. Religion must be kept out of politics. The role of government in religion is to allow the people to practice the religion of their choice.
I can’t honestly believe that anyone can hold these views anymore.
It’s sad when reason is trumped by the writings of men from a thousand years ago or more.
I would hope that we could get beyond all of this.
As an atheist, I am appalled that people would suggest I have no morals simply because I don’t accept their cultural illusions.
The inclusion of religion into most politics more often than not brings out the intolerance, hypocricy, and worst of all, the ‘holier than thou’ attitude and conduct.
As a Hindu from India living in the UK I believe politicians should NEVER mix politics and religion. There should be a separation of religion and the state in a democracy to ensure that all interests are represented regardless of people’s ethnicity, race or religion. Politicians especially in the Indian subcontinent have always used religion for their political ends. It has given to right wing politics everywhere and now more than ever it is evident, for instance in the attacks against young women in Mangalore (a south indian city) by the self proclaimed upholders of Rama’s virtues!
It’s a basic tenet of Islam that it embraces every aspect of life, including politics. Muslims often boast of this point. So how is political life in a Muslim country – when political life, as opposed to dictatorship, actually exists – supposed to ever free itself from religion? That fact about Islam makes this debate completely irrelevant to the Muslim countries, and is the reason why all over the Islamic world Talibanesque groups have the momentum and are headed for ultimate victory.
As usual, the question posed is worded to provide the most controversy possible. To make it simple, if the government established is dedicated to a particular religion, known as Fundamentalism, then there is no separation as it should be.
If the government was established to provide freedom of choice to all, then religion is a suppression of freedom. The government is required to provide freedom to all to the point that conflicts of freedoms arise. Any specific recognition or support of any religious group, ranging from a displayed symbol, to a law or tax beak, is discrimination against all other people.
As for power, any organized group is a power, what the group represents is irrelevant.
Should politicians do God?
Obviously politicians should have an appreciation of the importance of religion in the world ,thank you for the platitude Tony.
Different societies have their own expectations of how and when their politicians should profess their personal faith.
The BJP have distanced themselves from Varun Gandhi,so it quite interesting to hear a spokesman for the BJP in Delhi defending the sentiments behind his speech,maybe she thinks Indians don’t listen to the BBC,she is going to get into trouble.
It seems to me that the cardinal rule of most religions is to LIVE your faith, not SPOUT it. It appears always that those who “do god” rarely “do” what their religion asks of them; rather, they USE religion as a marketing tool at the least, and a hammer of oppression and war at its worst.
Historically, so many millions have DIED for their religion, their god, when most religions encourage one to LIVE a good and generous life.
It’s not faith or god or religion that is wrong, or bad… it’s in human nature.
Religion has caused most of the world conflicts so I don’t see how it is a good thing to mix the two. In fact I would use my vote to elect someone who would help remove religion from government and policies. I’m in the US and hate how religion is trying to influencing the country. In some states they are trying to teach creationism instead of natural selection!
Now this is getting silly. Everyone knows which religion has been the cause of millions of deaths in the Sudan, with its fundamentalist government. But it’s only identified as ‘Religion.’
Christianity and Hinduism are criticised by name, as they ought to be, but when it comes to the chief culprit discretion is the order of the day. Disappointing.
By defiinition, a ‘believer’ believes that his/her faith is superior to all other faiths. How can such a person be expected to behave and act fairly towards followers of faiths other than his/her own? The fact of the matter is that ‘religion’ was used down the ages to justify the worst atrocities the world has seen.
I personally believe in God, although I don’t practice any kind of organized religion. I have many friends who are atheists. Maybe “doing God” in politics matters less than what kind of person you are. If you are the kind of politician who has to push your views and your own agenda onto your constituents, instead of doing what’s best for the people, then you are a corrupt politician, whether you are an atheist, religious, spiritual, or whatever.
Tony Blair is right. A good leader will definitely understand the different religions and the impact they have on people so they can make good empathetic decisions. I notice very few have heard what he said. This says a lot about people’s strong views on religion and their inability to separate their belief and their right to impose it on others.
I think Tony Blair said “do God”; not “do religion”. We have all distorted religion. God’s message is one of peace, integrety, love and tollerance. What is so wrong with this message? These are not qualities usually associated with politicians. The question should be; can politician be people of integrety? I think so, that is how it should be. Can religion help them? Yes, if they are genuine and if we truly understand what God teaches.
Your guest from the New Stateman seems over-keen in deprecating Christianity and excusing & appeasing the Muslim world.
Your caller (Simon) wasn’t making ‘assumptions’ about Islam. He was referring to basic, unambiguous, orthodox Koranic teachings. The BBC needs to get its facts right before criticising people for saying what is demonstrably true.
In the Sudan, religion has been central in causing problems and deciding negative exploitative policies by successive regimes in Khartoum.
More recently, when JEM attacked Oumdourman, Salva Kiir, the President of the Government of Southern Sudan, and 1st Vice President of the Republic of Sudan, and commander in-chief of the Sudan Peoples Liberation Army, was not able to command the Sudan Armed Forces. For many reasosn i may add, but also for the fact that many moslems in the SAF could not embrace the idea of being led by an infidel, a Southerner, a christian who visits Kator’s St. Theresa Catholic Church every Sunday.
politics and religion can be different, and separate, but its the people to decide, and only when the cosntituency has the power to decide policies that affect them and every day of their lives.
Individual beliefs can be good or bad.
Religions are huge belief packages. So are political parties. This can be a problem.
Anytime you package something – think mortgages with some sub-prime mortgages – you have something that needs to be sorted out.
When people first adopt a religion and by extension ‘All’ of the beliefs, they usually pick up some destructive and divisive ones, along with the constructive ones. People of good will learn to sort these out. This, however, should never be taken for granted.
When we elect leaders we need to not be lazy. We need to ferret out all of the beliefs in their personal belief package, and judge them on those. (This includes the beliefs that are not religious.)
As citizens, we are often prone to being less than thorough in picking apart the individual beliefs that make up a political candidates broad collection of beliefs. We generalize that they are either Christian or Muslim, Catholic or Protestant, Democrat or Republican. The generalizations of Liberal, Conservative, or Fundamentalist are more informative, but still way too general. They tell you nothing about specific beliefs that might cause trouble in the future.
“Should politicians do god?”
Only after “God” presents him/her-self personally in the House of Commons for questioning.
Then after answering all questions to the satisfaction of the people, “God” can be voted on whether he/she can be allowed to apply for citizenship and then after meeting all of the requirements for British citizenship, given citizenship and the opportunity to participate as a citizen.
Until then, “God” is an Illegal Alien and ought either to be held in prison or deported to some nation where he/she can prove citizenship.
I firmly believe that people with a religious belief hand over a vital part of their character, the part that drives creative thought via an open mind, to a third party that in reality does not exist. The absence of an open mind will, without a doubt, instill prejudice and intolerance and therefore corrupt judgement. The bloodshed and thug violence Bush and Blair inflicted on our world in recent years in the name of the moral high ground they stomp around on was certainly driven by their religious beliefs and subsequent moral judgements.
Sadly, although I think politics should be void of religion, it never will be. Politicians are driven by a hunger for power and a belief in a higher power makes it a heady and dangerous mix. Religion preys on weak characters with no imagination. Religion gives people a sense of empowerment that is artificial and when built on through religious belief and the study of scriptures translated through several languages by people who wanted to believe them, a frightening meglamaniac scenario can manifest.
Look at history, politics and religion they are in the same bed and always will be.
When people, especially politicians, don’t come out with there personal philosophy, believes or religion, it is impossible to hold or pin down them on something.
People who are having a believe or ideal can be called hypocritical, but when you do not have a vision of morality, nobody can catch you being a hypocrite, It is a very unengaged convenient attitude, a little cowardice i would say.
When you take a stand, you express your believe and conviction.
So conviction and politics are one of same coin.
Whoa there everyone! The answer is hard, fast and simple.
No.
The only reason Blair is stooping to religion is so that he can neatly sidestep the warcrimes tribunal he should have been on and stay in the public eye. Tbh he’s just grubbing to clear his name.
More importantly, isn’t the point of modern politics to make everyones life easier, so by having politicians who are actively religious one way or another you get… well lets take a look at Iraq :). There you go, no need to go further. Equally the theologians could say “Well, Stalin and Saddam” but tbh they failed (And were somewhat exceptional cases).
Isn’t it so much easier to just say “Alright lets go by a general set of laws that everyone (Generally) agrees on no matter wether they (are empricists) or not” … (What, like what politics is supposed to be).
I’d love for one day someone to take heed and listen but for some reason religion gets votes, must be the same reason that some religions think its ok to KILL PEOPLE
We elect our public officials because they posses values that we feel are important, some of those values are religious/spiritual values. Those values should influence their behavior and their goals in office.
YES, politicians should do God. And, I am not talking about Nancy Pelosi either.
I am what some may describe as a right-wing fundamentalist Christian. I do believe though, that leaders relationship with God (if they believe in Him) is a strictly personal matter. A lot of leaders in my country and continent ( Nigeria and Africa ) have touted God, but their actions have been totally reprehensible. Claiming to ‘do God’ or not ‘do God’ can never be a pointer for good leadership.
Should politicians do God? It depends on the situation, however I would prefer everyone not only politicians to do God. What I think is, doing God will automatically make one to practice a particular religion. With this view, it is important in that religion is with a believe system/faith that makes one imagine that there is someone somewhere more powerful than you upon whom you depend to guide you through the right way.
As per politicians, I believe doing God will help them reduce things such as corruption in every form, etc.. I also believe that doing God should be personal, not to show up. They could ‘do God’ and politics at the same time, but bear in mind that the public is multi-culture based and there is no need to impose their religion or practices on the others.
But then grand question remains: Is there (a) God/god?
Since we each have different inclination/belief as to the existence thereof about this entity/theory, isn’t it better we be secular which is the centre-ground for all this rumbling?
God/god and/or religion is a personal matter. So, keep it to yourself and serve the people who elected you. When you do God/god, which would you do? The God of the Muslims which is intolerant and demands killings or the God of the Christians which is dictatorial and narrow-minded, or the pegan God which is immobile and need to be fed?
God is not universal. Tolerance and love and respect for one another is.
In this day and age, education should have relegated such ancient superstitions to the dustbin of history. Politicians, and all people for that matter, should rely on reason, not bronze age mythology, to govern their morality, and consequently, govern us.
Praise Reason
God does and can do whatever He considers better for His creatures irrespective of their differences.
Whereas, humans cannot and even should never play the God’s role, or if they do so that would be their biggest possible folly/ risk and consequences towards causing many harms to His belongings on the face of the God’s earth.
In America ALL politicians “do god, “and they are still a pack of liars and thieves.
Even if no one does ‘God’, we still have the problem of ‘beliefs’ that are divisive/destructive. These can and do exist without religion.
Religions evolved in the framework of cultures and societies. They packaged the beliefs found within the diversity of those cultures and societies. The collection can be a strange assortment of the universal and inclusive mixed with the tribal and exclusive.
This should not be too surprising in that societies have both an interest in internal cohesiveness and making peace with their enemies.
Beliefs about all manner of things are how humans cope with a world of complexities and unknowns. Beliefs came before religion, and would still exist if religions did not exist to package them.
Religion can expose people to beliefs that are constructive, and harbor beliefs that are destructive. Every individual belief, no matter where it is found, needs to pass a ‘smell’ test.
When Tony Blair says leaders need to do ‘God’; is he talking a belief package? Or is it just One belief? How about two, five, or, two hundred and sixty three?….. We need to know!
Just like ‘packaged mortgages’, very single one has to pass the smell test.
Its good if political leaders stick on to their personal beliefs,but its bad if they openly profess their religious convictions in the capacity as leaders because they are chosen by people to lead , not to teach
Hello again
To Anthony. I wish Darwin was still around you could have helped him out a lot.
As far as doing God is concerned I think it’s a cop out. The concept of God, being outside of and above everything leaves the field open to anyone who wants to claim it. The interpretations of God are manifest.
Personally I think that if we can arrive at a point were we can believe in ourselves we have probably achieved the maximum and that leaves a big margin for error.
Jim
Oh God!!!
The laws of a Country are an interpretation of the divine nature of God, so, when a politician reazons, he is talking about God.
Politics should be ‘done’ by people make decisions based on evidence and rational, evidence based thinking.
Religion is deeply political – traditionally elitist and conservative and sexist.
Any statement that could be taken as promotion of religion should be open to challenge by atheist perspectives.
It is high time that the BBC asked:-
“SHOULD THE BBC DO RELIGION”
Only if their god is against killing, is an enviromentalist and encorages people to have small families of no more then one or two children.
It’s a peculiarity that secular governments do a better job of protecting the citizen’s rights to a religion that expresses their beliefs.
It’s really controversial putting together God and politics, leaders of countries generally don’t inspire from any religon to rule over the citizens, if this were so a lot of killing, harms, corruption and injustice would not be that very much reported.
why should politicians do god.they are humans