Why the public should be told if their MPs “do God”
Tony Blair
When it comes to politics, the right to personal belief isn’t necessarily a right to private belief, argues Penelope Blatchford.
So Alistair Campbell, when he gave evidence to the Chilcot Enquiry, maintained that Tony Blair sincerely believed the intelligence regarding Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction.
During his own appearance today, Blair agrees: he was sincere… though exactly what the “45 minute” claim meant is now wrapped in cautions and qualifiers. Perhaps we’ll never know what he really believed?
But we have to bear in mind that Tony Blair also apparently believes in virgin births, that wine can literally turn into the blood of a two-thousand-years-dead Palestinian man/god when imbibed (conditions apply), and that the torture and death of one individual is a perfectly acceptable way of atoning for the misdeeds of others. For this reason, how impressed should anyone be by Mr. Blair’s ability to assess evidence, apply reason to it and to make sensible decisions based on his “beliefs”?
We should not forget that it was Alistair Campbell who famously interrupted the then PM’s interview with Vanity Fair reporter David Margolick who asked Tony Blair about his Christian faith. “We don’t do God”, said the Master of Spin. Unless Alistair Campbell was referring to the Royal “we”, this statement was dishonest. As we now know, Tony Blair does “do God”. He “does God” a lot!
What people believe is personal, so is why they believe it. However, the moment they act on those beliefs in a way that involves other people, it ceases to be private. The affect of an individual’s beliefs on his or her actions can have far-reaching ramifications. In the case of a politician, those ramifications can be matters of life and death for hundreds of thousands of individuals. They can, quite literally, change the world.
Isn’t it time the public were told before each election what the candidates religious beliefs are?
A candidate who believes that the universe is 6,000 years old and denies all the evidence for evolution has, by definition, a distorted view of science and his or her attitude towards research funding may be highly damaging. Equally, one who joyfully anticipates the End of Days may well be influenced by this belief with regard to topics such as global warming or WMD, to the detriment of all living things.
More generally, how seriously should we view the candidacy of someone believes that in order to get verification that a thought is reasoned, accurate and justified, all they have to do is pray? If they claim to have their choices affirmed by mind-talking to a being whose existence they cannot give empirical evidence for, shouldn’t this disqualify them from standing for office? In other words, would we take seriously an individual who claimed to get advice from the fairies at the bottom of their garden and shouldn’t we at least know that this is what they “believe” before we vote for them?
Penelope Blatchford is a psychology graduate and science “hobbyist” with a particular interest in religious belief and its evolutionary and psychological origins.
We’ve basically got back to Charles I and the divine right haven’t we?
Do we really believe that “believers” like Tony Blair really “believe”? Or is it more likely that they believe we will be hoodwinked into thinking them more believablr if we believe that they really “believe”?
Er….has anyone seen my marbles?
He really does believe. Cherie isa catherlic and it must have done something to him. Scares the hell out of me that he can hold such influence and believe in his invisible magic friend, There should be a law against it.
David Tredinnick MP’s promotion of alternative medicine and other wooful wackiness springs to mind.
The Blairs also consulted psychics and homeopaths. Consider also the history of astrologists in the Whitehouse and “psychic spy” programs in the US. It scares the living daylights out of me that people responsible for decisions that affect not just the country but the whole world, people with their fingers on the launch buttons of nuclear missiles, could be so ingenuous. Of course, there are even crazier leaders around the world, but not with so much power. I worry that they might just not bother doing anything useful because they blithely assume that everything is going according to God’s plan or that they might do horrible things to people because they see they world in simplistic terms of “good” and “evil”. I definitely want to know about candidates’ beliefs before voting.
Matt Damon had a good rant about Sarah Palin on this very subject – you can see it on Youtube. It’s very funny.
Everyone has a right to a personal belief, but should this belief enter politics or any decision making procecss that will affect others? NO, it should not and it is about time that we became a secular state and remove religous leaders from the House of Lords, which should be an elected second chamber anyway.
The religious beliefs of MPs can never be just a personal thing, because it would invariably be reflected in their approach to legislation, which is a public matter. Consequently, disclosure of religious faith and affiliations should be made obligatory at the time of standing as a candidate, and registered as an “interest” once elected. Once this information is out in the open, then it is up to the electorate to decide whether they want such an individual to represent them in Parliament. Such is the working of a democratic state, that the people get a government they deserve.
Ms, Blatchfords comments are spot on. Most if not all religions rely on brain washing to exist especially Roman Catholicism, so you can not rely on these people to arrive at an individual personel dicision.
If you expect to be told if MPs do God, you might also expect to be told when they don’t. Atheist candidates might lose votes from the religiously prejudiced – and there a lot of them. If you want a secular state, then you should expect people to keep their beliefs private, whoever they are. However, there’s nothing to stop us from asking PPCs a few questions that might reveal their attitudes to the things we care about.
Well I’m a Christian and I don’t think the Universe is 6000 years old and don’t dimiss some form of evolution. Perhaps she needs to understand a little more about Christianity before she blankets everybody!