Tom Brown: God – or whatever – save us from pious politicians

WHAT is the difference between Ben Elton and Tony Blair? Answer: Elton should be able to use religion – all religion, including Muslim – in his comedy routines; but Blair should steer clear of the queasy combination of religion and politics.

Elton, who describes himself as an atheist, says the BBC is "scared" to broadcast jokes about Muslims and would "let vicar gags pass but would not let imam gags pass" or even the long-accepted "if the mountain won't come to Muhammad…", for fear of provoking fundamental Islamists. For our national broadcaster to exercise that kind of self-censorship is a chicken-hearted affront to free speech. It is also insulting to moderate Muslims, because it assumes they would resort to extremism at even the mildest mention of their beliefs.

Blair is on different and more dangerous ground because he should know better than anyone the volatile mixture of faith and politics from his close involvement in Ireland and the Middle East. Yet he insists on playing with fire and, instead of keeping the two incendiary elements apart wherever possible, he insists the two should not be separated.

The former PM has set up his Faith Foundation to call for religion to be given a central role in tackling the world's problems. Surely that is a triumph of faith over reason, for all the evidence is that the world's worst problems have been exacerbated by religion. It is also typical, but still mind-boggling, effrontery for Blair – the leader who took us to war on the basis of false information and the only Prime Minister to be interviewed under caution by the police – to preach about the place of religious principles in world affairs. And it is incredible that his foundation aims "to foster greater understanding between the world's religions, particularly Christianity, Judaism and Islam" when he and Bush have done so much to demolish bridges between the West and Islam.

From the very first days of his ascent to power, there has never been much doubt about the religious mainspring that drives him, although very often his actions gave cause to doubt. Asked for my impression after my first interview with him on his becoming Labour leader, I said: "He scares the shit out of me," because of his unshakeable moral certainty. As the years passed, he became even scarier, more certain that he was right and there was no room in his camp for doubters.

The more cynical Alastair Campbell, aware of the public unease about overtly religious politicians, said flatly: "We don't do God." Last year, however, Blair said his faith had been "hugely important" to his premiership but he had been wary of talking about it because "frankly, people do think you're a nutter".

He was also reluctant to admit that he and President Bush prayed together, something which sent a shiver through those who fear the dominance of the US religious right. The constitution strictly separates church and state, but Bush has spoken of hearing God's call to run for the presidency and praying for His help in office. Whether or why God told him to invade Iraq is beyond mere mortals.

Gordon Brown rarely spoke publicly about his own deep-rooted Christian convictions and adopted a low profile on moral issues until his leadership campaign last year, when he made speeches about his "moral compass" and the values he had absorbed from his father, a minister of the Kirk.

The affiliations of MPs and MSPs are well known – although they should normally have no bearing, since they are elected to represent constituents of all faiths and none – yet Parliament invariably gets itself into a tizzy over moral matters. The current legislation on stem cell research has been marred by shrill hysteria from church leaders, not least Scotland's Cardinal Keith O'Brien, who thundered against "Frankenstein" experiments.

The Prime Minister, who supports the bill, told MPs of the possibility of "new and effective treatments and cures for diseases that have afflicted mankind from time immemorial – from leukaemia and Alzheimer's to conditions affecting every family such as cancer and heart disease". Out of "respect for the religious beliefs of those who have fundamental concerns" he is allowing a free vote on the three new ethical issues of admixed embryos, 'saviour siblings' and the status of IVF fathers.

For his pains, Brown was damned by the cardinal for "wilful ignorance" and heading up a "morally bankrupt blind alley of embryo destruction". Hardly the way to address a father who lost one baby and whose son has a distressing condition. So much for gentle Christian theological debate.

Church leaders seem to be in similar 'wilful ignorance' of the fact that their views cannot be imposed on a secular society.

Their opinions are note-worthy but they carry no more weight than those of secular citizens and interest groups. To give the God lobby special status is to say that only the righteously religious have moral values and denies the goodness of humanists, atheists and agnostics who try to live decent lives and help the less fortunate.

God (or whatever) save us from the horrible parable now being enacted in the US elections, where candidates compete with pious platitudes and pseudo-religious references – America is The Promised Land and these are The Chosen Ones. It is a small step from mouthing such tripe to believing, as Bush appears to do, in the divine right to invade, destroy and torture. When religion and politics combine, both are bedeviled. The mixture is bad for politics – even worse for religion.