Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


Blair kept quiet about faith over 'nutter' tag

Premium Article !

Your account has been frozen. For your available options click the below button.

Options

Premium Article !

To read this article in full you must have registered and have a Premium Content Subscription with the Scotland On Sunday site.

Subscribe

Registered Article !

To read this article in full you must be registered with the site.

Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 25 November 2007
TONY Blair avoided talking about his religious faith in public when he was running the country because he feared that voters would see him as "a nutter", he reveals today.
In an interview for BBC1's The Blair Years, the former Prime Minister concedes that his Christian belief was "hugely important" to the way he conducted himself in Number Ten.

In the programme, aides recall that, every Sunday, wherever they were in the world, they would have to find a church where Blair could worship.

In the programme, Blair recalls the infamous comment by his former spin doctor Alastair Campbell that "we don't do God."

Blair says it was not because Campbell was opposed to his boss's religious beliefs but because "you always get into trouble talking about it".

While in the US and some other countries, it is considered natural for politicians to be open about their faith.

"You talk about it in our system and, frankly, people do think you're a nutter," says Blair.

Voters tended to think that religious politicians "go off and sit in the corner and... commune with the man upstairs and then come back and say, 'Right, I've been told the answer and that's it'," he said.

Asked how important his faith was to his work, he replied: "If I am honest about it, yes of course it was hugely important. There is no point in me denying it. I happen to have religious conviction.

"I don't actually think there is anything wrong in having religious conviction. On the contrary, I think it is a strength for people."

He added: "To do this, the Prime Minister's job, properly you need to be able to separate yourself somewhat from the magnitude of the consequences of the decisions you are taking the whole time - which doesn't mean to say, and let me emphasise this, that you're insensitive to the magnitude of those consequences or that you don't feel them deeply.

"If you don't have that strength it's difficult to do the job, which is why the job is as much about character and temperament as it is about anything else.

"For me having faith was an important part of being able to do that."

The full article contains 375 words and appears in Scotland On Sunday newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 24 November 2007 10:14 PM
  • Source: Scotland On Sunday
  • Location: Scotland
  • Related Topics: Tony Blair's leadership
 
1

Jimbo2,

25/11/2007 00:35:56

The headline should have read......... 'Nutter doesn't keep the faith.'

2

dave A,

NZ 25/11/2007 01:02:36

Well said Jimbo.

3

,

25/11/2007 01:10:37
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason: Scotsman Import, Original comment id: 1171292, Article id was mapped to record!
4

,

25/11/2007 01:17:03
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason: Scotsman Import, Original comment id: 1171307, Article id was mapped to record!
5

Sanny,

Portugal 25/11/2007 01:44:13

4. Col Blimp IV*
They can't both be the much unloved AM2!

Surely everyone knew Blair and his dreadful wife were both Nutters regardless of their religious persuasion. His Catholic conviction couldn't be that strong that he preferred being PM to declaring his religious faith and perhaps being banned from being PM. This story just confirms that he was a hypocrite and a nutter.

6

Guru Gordon,

US 25/11/2007 02:26:44

Pity that Blair didn't walk the walk the same way that he could talk the talk!

Hypocrite!

7

Auckland Arab2,

25/11/2007 03:21:17

Blair does look good compared with the numpty now in No.10. Having said that he is a bit of a loon.

8

,

25/11/2007 04:12:33
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason: Scotsman Import, Original comment id: 1171438, Article id was mapped to record!
9

Ian_,

usa 25/11/2007 05:17:50

Here in America the politician "nutters" are proud to display their religious views. In fact, to have a prayer of being elected, they have to. When the Republican presidential candidates at a recent debate were asked their views on evolution, most of them said they did not believe Darwinism. There are lots of religions and they should all be kept out of politics.

10

Guga II,

Rockall 25/11/2007 05:54:35

I think a lot of us thought that Bliar was a nutter anyway, without giving a second thought as to which particular mythology he believed in.

He is, however, a total hypocrite, as well as a liar and a charlatan. He states that his faith is "hugely important" to him, yet he joined Bush in getting into an illegal war which has resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people. Nor did he do so for the sake of self defence of the country. His 45 minutes statement, for example, was a blatant lie.

Again, all this proves is that Bliar is a hypocrite, a liar and a charlatan, who is now trying, for whatever reason, to prove to people that he is a Christian. It is unfortunate that his beliefs are nothing other than mythology as, if they were fact, he could be sure of burning in hell alongside Bush and their ilk.

11

,

25/11/2007 07:59:24
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason: Scotsman Import, Original comment id: 1171552, Article id was mapped to record!
12

bill2,

25/11/2007 08:09:15

A murderer, thief, liar, traitor and denier, and unrepentant with it all.

A strange sort of Christian.

13

Richardinho,

25/11/2007 08:11:12

His faith must be strong if he's embarrassed about talking about it in public.

14

Garry Otton,

RELIGION IS THE PROBLEM 25/11/2007 09:09:28

The country is run by religionists. The Secular Society is best for updates on the seedy way they exhort privileges on www.securlar.org. The Scottish media is peppered with their placements and the militant CARE trains them up for politics with MPs. If you want a taste of what they were about during the 'Keep the Clause' debacle. Got to www.scottishmediamonitor.com.

15

Garry Otton,

RELIGION IS THE PROBLEM 25/11/2007 09:10:00
16

thatscottishwoman+00,

25/11/2007 09:26:50

#12 Bill2:

Yes, all those and a megalomaniac to complete the suit.

#15 Rules:

"What is required is for you to at all times behave morally. I doubt any of us do that. I wish I did."

Yes perhaps but then again you, or I, are not likely to be in the position to take this country to (an illegal) war.

#17 Garry Otton:

Interesting list on your site, usual suspects and some surprising revelations as well

http://www.scottishmediamonitor.com/features2.cfm?ID=19

17

,

25/11/2007 09:34:51
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason: Scotsman Import, Original comment id: 1171701, Article id was mapped to record!
18

albanman,

25/11/2007 09:51:44

#17 Your secular.org website is full of comments from people who are as fundamentalist as any far right evangelical Christian from the U.S. The website betrays an extremism that I saw grow during my time living in that beautiful land across the pond. Both groups are equally arrogant and closeminded, and virtually impossible to engage in rational and balance debate.

For you to make a comment such as the 'country is run by religionists' is absolute crap without any proof; it shows that you (a) are possibly from the US and know little or nothing about the situation in the UK or (b) are as closeminded as any fundamentalist secularist who refuses to accept the huge amount of evidence that people of faith have worked long and hard to make this world a better place.

It is neither people of faith nor atheists who are the problem. Rather, the fundamentalists in each camp promote a false dichotomy in society, giving the opinion that religion and science are mututally exclusive entities, and this is far from being the case as scientific history shows.

19

Boy Wonder,

25/11/2007 09:59:41

#12. bill2 ... "A murderer, thief, liar, traitor and denier, and unrepentant with it all."

"A strange sort of Christian"??

Not really ... sounds like your average religious nutjob to me!

Anyone who has religious convictions, should be kept out of politics ... and obviously, vice-versa!!

20

McGinty,

25/11/2007 10:02:01

#17. More than 50% of the poulation are religionists and a few more are non-atheists at least, so what's the problem? There's more than a few representative Darwinists, so they're not unrepresented and they have plenty voice. Secularism does not necessarily mean non-religion or atheism. It probably means public life will go on much as it always has. Live and let live I say, any Abu Hamsas are going to get locked up anyway.

21

Citylocal Fife,

Citylocal Fife News Room 25/11/2007 10:06:53

I'd like to see a different sort of conviction applied to one Mr T Bliar, via the courts of course.

22

Garry Otton,

25/11/2007 10:34:42

albanman: The difference between Secularists and Religionists is that the former respect their right to carry on with what they are doing WITHOUT special privileges. Religionists are constantly seeking special treatments and exemptions from equality legislation that effect everyone.

23

Riley Hamish,

Edina 25/11/2007 11:03:25

The nutter charge is sod all to do with his religion, and all to do with him being a warmongering b****rd who should be doing his praying from a cell at The Hague........
May he rot in Hell, if there is one.

24

McGinty,

25/11/2007 11:07:44

#27. Hate to say this, but no-one's ever satisfactorily answered this point to me, but Pol Pot, Mao and Stalin were all secularists in a sense that they wanted religion out of public life. Quite apart from the abuses that they committed in the name of an ideology that was anything but pluralist, they took all life, colour, beauty and even art out of public life. However, Tony Blair for all his sins was never an aggressive ideologue or religionist in public life, sure he screwed up, but nothing as bad as that, not even as bad as Thatcher's charlatanistic ravings.

25

McGinty,

25/11/2007 11:10:48

Sorry #27, that should have been #17.

26

ochone, ochone,

Sauchie, Clack's 25/11/2007 11:32:07

No Tony, not a religous nutter, just an ordinary run of the mill type nutter, with delusions of grandeur.

27

bill2,

25/11/2007 11:57:46

28. McGinty

"Pol Pot, Mao and Stalin were all secularists in a sense that they wanted religion out of public life"

What they followed was a religion to them, and they certainly put it into public life, or rather death.

28

Methspaña,

25/11/2007 12:05:05

#8

"Tony Blair got off his arse, went into public life and, in general made Britain a better place, despite his error in going to war in Iraq."

A better place? Safer place? Richer place?

..Despite his error?....and a monumental one at that.

Silly boy.

29

Methspaña,

25/11/2007 12:06:31

20. Republican

"The problem with democracy is that idiots are allowed an opinion.

Well sod off then ya numpty.

30

Riley Hamish,

Edina 25/11/2007 12:34:11

#8 REPUBLICAN
.and what party pray do YOU stand for.........."THE FOUL MOUTHED NUMPTY PARTY"? the "I GOT OUTA BED THE WRONG-SIDE PARTY"
or maybe the "I'M A POISONOUS WEE TOAD AND EVERYBODY SHOULD IGNORE ME AS BEING A F***ING IDIOT PARTY"???????
Personally, I think your the founder and sole member of the latter and would encourage you to get back to bed.........preferably, death bed !!!

31

Choosername,

25/11/2007 12:34:16

Republican...you obviously have anger issues, but don't try getting them seen to under the 'so much improved' NHS, will you? What Blair's coming out of the communion closet only now reveals is that even his religiosity is utterly self-serving.

32

Toast,

25/11/2007 14:07:21

A christian war criminal,no big deal, he'll be able to confess and receive absolution soon,so it never happened !!

33

Carolyn 1,

New England, usa 25/11/2007 14:29:59

26. Garry Otton
You said "
The difference between Secularists and Religionists is that the former respect their right to carry on with what they are doing WITHOUT special privileges. Religionists are constantly seeking special treatments and exemptions from equality legislation that effect everyone."

This is the typical self-centered and selfish statement consistently muttered by the minority when it takes a right away from a long established right of a majority. Various dictatorships in past centuries exercised this tool. (you know the list)

This latest Secularism has little to do with faith or lack of, it is about sex and freedom of sex and freedom to have a multiplex of partners without being judged.

Reference to the Catholics right to believe that for an adoption the parents are Not two same-sex partners and wanting them to be married.
The Catholics have for centuries donated time, money and passion to running adoption centers. As a core religious belief Catholics believe in life and the right to life; they also believe in marriage and a family does not have same-sex parents. They exhibited tolerance of same-sex issues of non-catholics outside the church but such tolerance is not reciprocated to Catholics.
Tolerance and the balance it brings is the foundation of good community, and good government. By passing the new 'equality' legislation The UK has decided what a citizen with faith can believe and cannot believe as a religious principle, not unlike what sharia does for its followers, and morally enacted the government's standard as the law. Because of this new Equality- Everyone in the UK is now more equal, except for Catholics, who are now even less equal. (This inequality is not a new concept to a John Knox bred soceity)
The new legislation demands that all Catholics come under a law which is in direct opposition of their belief. - and so the Catholics were stripped of their religious rights beca

34

Garry Otton,

RELIGION IS THE PROBLEM 25/11/2007 14:48:46

#28 #38 The Secular Society does a grand job of exposing the overt and covert privileges awarded religionists. To regurgitate that religionist jingoism about Pol Pot being a secularist is a bit daft. Secularists are not fascists. Their aim is to provide a safe space for all religions and none. (And to stop religionists tearing each other's eyes out fighting over who gets what). It makes sense.

Without steering this too much off course, Carolyn - squealing about your right to discriminate being snatched from you. No one is saying you can't still be the mean-spirited, bigoted religionist you always have been; just not with public money! Many gays are in marriage with kids and many more make excellent parents. I'm sure most would like kids placed with a 'traditional family' but wake up and smell the coffee. There aren't enough!

35

Garry Otton,

RELIGION IS THE PROBLEM 25/11/2007 14:52:51

Oh, and by the way, Caz, ol' girl. If you go onto secularism.org you'll get the low down how the government - led by another religionist - is doing some backroom wheeling and dealing with the Catholic Church to help them get round the equality legislation. Some large sums of money are involved, I believe.

36

James at Perth,

25/11/2007 14:53:34

20. Republican, writes.

"The problem with democracy is that idiots are allowed an opinion. There is no better evidence of this than these posts."

Democracy has many problems, but I do not think idiocy is one of them.

We let idiots vote and idiots run the country. There are idiots on TV, running newspapers, driving buses, saving lives, fighting for their country and thankfully posting on websites.

Thanks to democracy we idiots get to do the best we can. Until a better system better comes along, Republican will have to put up with us.

37

bill2,

25/11/2007 14:54:15

38. Carolyn 1

For a change, you make many good points. Thank you.

38

Stockbridge,

25/11/2007 14:55:06

Christian fundamentalists v Moslem fundamentalists = normal casualties.

One gets a bundle of virgins for their deeds, the other a position on the board of an arms company.

39

bus user,

edinburgh 25/11/2007 15:05:07

The only surprise in this story is that the are so many comments on it. Blair had trailed his conversion from one Christian sect to another for years. He'll go down even better in the USA now, although Southern Baptist might have been a better choice for the Bible Belt, as they still have issues with Rome.

40

McGinty,

25/11/2007 15:26:26

#40. Re. the point I tried to make about getting religion out of public life. To say that the state should be independent of religion or a religion I don't have a problem with, but to prevent religion from having a voice and an influence is a different matter. However I don't think Mr. Blair brought his religious views out publicly too often, unlike Mrs. T. on several occasions. I think there's a fine line which Pol Pot etc. crossed, that seems fair to me, there's nothing jingoistic or daft or regurgitated about that, though perhaps an extreme example. My problem is that the secular ideologies they brought in which replaced state religiosity did worse than the damage done by religion, especially the sanctioning of the use of fear and violence related to a utilitarian worldview. The world seems to have either forgotten or gone into denial about much of 20th Century history. Secularism, in a Western sense I don't have too much of a problem with, but exclusive secularism seems to me to be associated with too much that's wrong in the world. Political pluralism, which this country embraces, is presumably a much better way to go.

41

James at Perth,

25/11/2007 15:46:20

38. Carolyn 1, New England, usa, writes:

"The new legislation demands that all Catholics come under a law which is in direct opposition of their belief. - and so the Catholics were stripped of their religious rights because Secularists decided the Catholic faith was a 'Special Priveledge' to which they are Not entitled."

That a bit of a leap of reasoning. You cannot argue that Catholics are deprived of their faith by this legislation, only that they may no longer practice it as they would wish.

Legislation acts against practice not faith. That is the same for all religions. Freedom of faith does not mean freedom of action.

There are many religious practices that have to be forgone in a multi-faith largely secular democracy and there are many practices contrary to faith that have to be tolerated.

Complain about it if you like but please do not complain that anti-discrimination legislation is discriminatory.

42

Garry Otton,

25/11/2007 15:51:29

Political pluralism means taking onboard diversity and we all know how well religionists deal with that! As I said, the Secularists can be applauded for exposing the covert operations and privileges religionists have been enjoying. You may say Blair wasn't that public about it. That's because what he did was kept from the public gaze. (Did you know a militant Christian, Joel Edwards was appointed commissioner of the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC)!) I'm just back from shopping. I couldn't buy wine until 12.30 (religion). They forgot to fence off the isle in Tesco and I was told by the checkout girl with a black cover over her head (religion). On another page in this paper there is a debate about a Scottish public holiday that we have been forced to have on a wet and miserable day in November (religion). Religion is a minority practice that is everywhere and I'm sick of it!

43

Carolyn 1,

New England, usa 25/11/2007 16:07:00

#40Garry Otton
And where does one draw the line?
If I believe in God, does that make me dscriminatory? According to you - yes .
If I believe in Do No Harm, does that make me discriminatory? According to you- yes.
If I believe a person of a religion has a right to believe the canons of his religion does that make me discriminatory? According to you- yes.

Who is the fascist? You, who decides morally and legally, what I am allowed to believe, or I who believes in God and individuation and practices tolerance with freedom of religion and freedom of speech? According to you- I am the religionist fascist?
Religion is not the problem.
Restricting freedom of thought and speech is the problem.

44

Carolyn 1,

New England, usa 25/11/2007 16:14:14

49. Servius Tullius
Let me get this straight:
You said:
".... only that they (catholics) may no longer practice it as they would wish.

Legislation acts against practice not faith..."

THIS IS A PROFOUND DISCRIMNATION AGAINST CATHOLICS!!!!

It is truly terrifying that you don't 'get it'

45

Carolyn 1,

New England, usa 25/11/2007 16:24:08

49. Servius Tullius

Your other statement
"There are many religious practices that have to be forgone in a multi-faith largely secular democracy and there are many practices contrary to faith that have to be tolerated."

the moral fiber of society is being ripped apart in the interest of a few at the cost of many.
Gay couples have freedom of religion- they are not required under law to be Catholic. The gay couples who wanted to adopt needed only to go to another agency: there was no need to discriminate against Catholics. The gay-rights movement tore into the Catholics with a vengeance that was never necessary.
I imagine there will be a significant rise in abortions now. Was that your goal?

46

Carolyn 1,

New England, usa 25/11/2007 16:30:19

50. Garry Otton / 3:51pm
You said "Religion is a minority practice that is everywhere and I'm sick of it!

"Everywhere"
Your vehement blurt speaks volumes of your intolerance of the majority and tolerance of only those who agree with you.
your true colors bared themselves, quite ugly

47

,

25/11/2007 16:30:37
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason: Scotsman Import, Original comment id: 1172674, Article id was mapped to record!
48

Garry Otton,

25/11/2007 16:41:07

No, Caz, I'm not a fascist. And I'm very sorry that you feel - because of some idle superstition - you cannot afford gay people equal treatment in public services.

Tough! It's law.

49

James at Perth,

25/11/2007 16:50:09

Carolyn 1, New England, usa.

Particular legislation often impacts one faith more than another. That does not mean it is discrimanatory. You on the other hand are asking for the right to discriminate against gay people.

Could you imagine a whites only adoption agency policy exception for KKK.

50

Carolyn 1,

New England, usa 25/11/2007 18:24:04

If Article 28 is about religiousity vs. secular, where was the outcry when the government rotated the toilets so jailed Muslims could keep the covenant of their religion and pee in the correct direction?
They also are only served food according to their dietery religous restrictions.
It was done with taxpayers money.

Why is that allowed, but Catholics are not given freedom to place a child into a family with a tradtional family setting?

Furthermore, why are Catholics' belief superstition and the Islam is not?

#57
No, I did not suggest discrimination against gays, I said there are places other than Catholic agencies where they may adopt.

51

molu kikes,

basellalnschaftliche 25/11/2007 18:38:21

he said now best boon fo faith as he step down from the hollyrood these year ,., he declared as nutter,., to have his best coon on monk and ark and the pinnacle where he can ask for spirit for forgiveness against number ten scoundrel, braggert, war in iraq, impersonation of punt and gown oxford from mugabe president and his rector role.,.also acting as frankestein in brussel against european and agreat poodle to united state

52

oder,

Scotland 25/11/2007 18:53:23

Tony Blair might be a religious nutter, is that problem for anyone ? as long as he does`nt covert to Islam!

53

Worried Scot,

25/11/2007 18:58:02

Im assuming all those who criticise Tony Blair will be running for office at the next election then? Because of course they would make no mistakes at all. Or will they just sit on their fat a***s and bitch and moan about those who do try to achieve something?

Your first campaign pledge would no doubt be to return Saddam Hussein to power if he was still alive? Morons.

Tony Blair made mistakes, Gordon Brown will make mistakes even the Alex Salmond party will make mistakes (which will come as a shock to members of the cult). They are all trying to achieve what they believe is best for the country - rightly or wrongly.

54

James at Perth,

25/11/2007 19:03:57

59. Carolyn 1, New England, usa

You defend the right of adoption agencies to discriminate against gay people.

You mock the accomodation of Islamic traditions that do not hurt others.

I do not eat pork and I can usually get fish instead. Do you want an outcry against that too.

All faiths have to tolerate some customs and give up others so we can all live together.

You need to temper your faith, which I admire and respect, as I do Islam, with the realities of today's world.

Most of all you need to temper you prejudice.

55

Garry Otton,

25/11/2007 19:12:16

Dearest Carolyn
I suggest you address the one about the Muslim toilets being turned around at taxpayers expense so they could pee in the right direction to the Secular Society. Its hilarious! I've not heard of that one. Again, what they do in private is their own business but not at taxpayers expense.
Further... Did I say Islam wasn't superstition? I think you suggest I did.
And Carolyn, children are not commodities. They are placed in carefully assessed families. Given your homophobic and bigoted views I pity your kids if any of them were gay. I hope they would be in a school that offered them excellent sexual counselling and support outside the 'family'.

56

James at Perth,

25/11/2007 19:19:29

62. Worried Scot has a good point.

It is better to serve imperfectly, as most leaders do, than mock from the safety of an armchair.

57

bill2,

25/11/2007 19:47:07

62. Worried Scot

"Tony Blair made mistakes, Gordon Brown will make mistakes even the Alex Salmond party will make mistakes (which will come as a shock to members of the cult). They are all trying to achieve what they believe is best for the country - rightly or wrongly."

Don't know about Alex Salmond - he seems sincere and appears to have principles, unlike the other two you mention.

Blair and Brown are deceivers and murderers; they don't make mistakes, their acts are deliberate and the pair of them should be in the dock.

They are trying to achieve what is best for themselves, not the country; so far they have got away with it.

58

bill2,

25/11/2007 19:49:02

65. Servius Tullius

"It is better to serve imperfectly, as most leaders do, than mock from the safety of an armchair."

Most leaders, excluding the criminal ones like Blair who only serve themselves.

59

Worried Scot,

25/11/2007 19:54:57

Bill my friend,

I'm assuming you are willing and able to provide evidence of your claims about Blair, Brown and Salmond?

For example, how can you be sure that given the Iraq war situation Prime Minister Salmond would not have made the same decision? Or for that matter Prime Minister Cameron, Kennedy or anyone else you care to mention?

60

Selgovae,

Scottish Borders 25/11/2007 19:56:21

#52 Carolyn

"Legislation acts against practice not faith..."

THIS IS A PROFOUND DISCRIMNATION AGAINST CATHOLICS!!!!"

It's discrimination, yes, and profound too in the sense that no individual or group should be above the law. (I believe Jesus sad something along these lines too.) We're all subject to discriminatory law. I can't steal my neighbours's car. I can't refuse to sell milk to paraplegics. Usually we call this civilisation.

It's extremely difficult for a civilised society to tolerate all religious practices. Roman Catholics are free to believe that same-sex couples shouldn't be parents. That's freedom of belief. Roman Catholics are not free to act in a way that prevents same-sex couples from becoming parents. The difference is profound.

While your "toilets for Muslims" point sounds like an extreme waste of money, it is a policy of tolerance, not of discrimination.

Frankly, I find your views an indication of how out of touch with society the Roman Catholic church is.

61

Garry Otton,

25/11/2007 20:02:59

Selgovae. Marry me.

62

Sanny,

Portugal 25/11/2007 20:13:03

21. albanman : Is your real name Anthony - call me Tony - Blair?

63

Carolyn 1,

25/11/2007 20:15:04

A quote from The [London] Sun, 20 April 2006

Jail bosses are rebuilding toilets so Muslim inmates don’t have to use them while facing Mecca. [...] The Islamic religion prohibits Muslims from facing or turning their backs on the Kiblah – the direction of prayer – when they visit the lav. Muslim lags claimed they have had to sit sideways on prison WCs. But after pressure from faith leaders the Home Office has agreed to turn the existing toilets 90 degrees at HMP Brixton in London.

The Home Office refused to reveal the cost of the new facilities – part of an “on-going refurbishment”. One Muslim former inmate said: “The least the Prison Service can do is make sure people can practise their religion correctly in prison.” But a Brixton jail officer said: “If they didn’t get locked up for committing crime they would not have this problem. Yet we have to sort out their loos. If we weren’t paying for it as taxpayers I’d laugh my socks off.”

64

Garry Otton,

25/11/2007 20:46:56

Thanks Caz. Now we can see why we're better off without a religionist-led gov. Without one, Muslims wouldn't be able to ask for special cludgies and Catholics wouldn't be able to give gays such a hard time and we'd all live happily ever after. x

65

truthsleuth,

South of the Border 25/11/2007 21:07:38

Well blairt said it and it described him .
Problem is many of us voted for him !!!

He brought in 'faith Schools legislation now we know why.
The Pope will no doubt make him a saint and The Mullahs a Prophet.

66

Carolyn 1,

25/11/2007 21:09:39

63. Servius Tullius

The realities of the world?
The reality is that the United Nations and its Human Rights Organization tolerates and accommodates Muslim laws, which are in many cases a violation of basic human rights,; yet when I ask why a Catholic in the United Kingdom must do something in opposition to their faith- I am the bigot?
Unfortunatley, it's the UK who is the bigot.

Hopefully there is a 'Rosa Parks' somewhere in the UK who will stand up for her rights as a Catholic and sue the state when she isn't allowed to place her child for adoption with a same-sex marriage family

67

Carolyn 1,

25/11/2007 21:22:31

57. Servius Tullius
No, I cannot imagine a whites only adoption for the KKK because the KKK is illegal. Last I checked being Catholic in the UK may not be desirable, but it is legal.
69. Selgovae
Your statement:
'Roman Catholics are not free to act in a way that prevents same-sex couples from becoming parents. The difference is profound."
I've studied many of the legaal documents that crossed the aisles. The Catholic agencies Never wanted to stop gay adoptions- they referred gay couples to other agencies.
Did you think I didn't read the law?
The gay rights movement was not happy with the Catholics, and so they held the government hostage over a right they already had.

68

Carolyn 1,

25/11/2007 21:43:29

#64
Dearest Garry,
What a nasty talker you are. Was your book full of this jargon? (My daughter, btw, who is bi-sexual, things you're a time bomb of insecurity)
Mark Vernon has a good book out- read it: A Secular Age, Harvard Press - here's a paragraph:
We live in a world in which every day we rub up against people with very different worldviews to our own - theistic, atheistic, agnostic; Christian, Muslim, Hindu - and of every conceivable variety in between.

This ease of confrontation in itself would mark our age as challenging. It becomes threatening, and violent, since in the secular age it is also quite possible to imagine ourselves changing worldview. Before modern times, a Christian might have met, say, an atheist, but they could no more have thought of becoming one than changing their sex. Today, such radical changes are entirely viable. These cross-pressures are a defining characteristic of our sense of self. They are the pressures that are tearing the Anglican church apart. They are the pressures that have led the United Kingdom to breed its own suicide-bombers. They are the pressures that lead some to believe we are on course for a clash of civilisations.

69

Selgovae,

Scottish Borders 25/11/2007 21:45:29

#70 Garry "Selgovae. Marry me."

Sorry. It's against the law.

70

Garry Otton,

25/11/2007 22:01:59

Dearest Carolyn,
I know, honey. Indeed, quite vicious. But I'm fascinated by your daughter. She's sounds a darling!

71

bill2,

25/11/2007 22:02:50

68. Worried Scot

When voting for a politician you should vote for the man/woman not the party, and be certain of their principles and integrity. Blair's deceit became quickly apparent when he gained power, as did Brown's.

The evidence against Blair and his gangster friends (Brown wrote the cheques for the illegal invasion) is overwhelming.

Tam Dalyell's view:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,922541,00....

72

Selgovae,

Scottish Borders 25/11/2007 22:10:16

#76 Carolyn 1

I probably shouldn't have used the adoption issue in my post as it's moving things away from the original point made at #49 and to which you reacted. (I have some sympathies with the Roman Catholic church over the adoption issue.) The original point was about legislation that restricts the practice of religious beliefs. My point is that it would be natural in a civilised society to consider restricting any practice (religious or otherwise) that impacts the freedom or choices of others.

73

Carolyn 1,

25/11/2007 22:10:26

Correction:
Charles Taylor is a canadian philosopher who wrote A Secular Age. - fascinating-
Mark is a journalist with a good blog.www.markvernon.com

74

Worried Scot,

25/11/2007 22:18:58

80

I did. I voted for Tony Blair after he took us to war in Iraq (as, I might add, did the majority of the voting public) because I believed then as I do now that based on the information he had at the time he thought that the UK should join the coalition invasion of Iraq. That was all I needed to know. It was an extraordinarily difficult decision and he believed at the time that he was doing the right thing and didn't allow himself to be ruled by what the newspapers were saying, no doubt with memories of Chaimberlain ringing in his ears. Then he won an election - clearly the people weren't as against the war as the f***wit newspaper editors would have you believe.

You can never "be certain of their principles and integrity" because all politicians tell people what they want to hear in order to try and gain their vote - it's the nature of the job, no votes = no job.

75

Carolyn 1,

25/11/2007 22:29:22

#81 Selgovae
I agree.
My objections are broad and humanitarian:
The gay rights movement broke what was not broken.
Catholic Charities was wonderful in taking care of babies and running adoption agencies. It was never necessary to take that from them. My daughter is adopted privately, and it required no legislation.

The point is - people rip each other apart over anything that doesn't please them.
Garry Otton's rant #50 about wine, a checkout girl and a holiday- he being being sick of it all- a guy who is published with a book about intolerance but is more bigoted than any other blogger on the forum

76

Garry Otton,

25/11/2007 22:31:32

Simon Icke from Middle England. Shy about being Christian? Where have you been? Have you any idea how difficult it has been to get any laws through that the Catholic or Church or England/Scotland have not approved of? Militant gay lobby? Oh, pleeease! Nicholas Witchell sitting on a few lesbians and abseiling into the House of Lords is about as militant as they got. If you want militant, just look at the Christian Institute or CARE and all those unelected religionists in the House of Lords. Call that democracy? Your time's up mate!

77

Republican,

Censored by the scotsman for telling the truth 25/11/2007 23:01:24

Morons the lot of you. Lets hope you get a muslim fanatic running you toxic little island next time.

78

The Federalist (the poster formerly know as NAUON),

25/11/2007 23:27:43

One reason that he has played down the Catholic aspect to his life is that this country is still in an anti-Catholic time warp - not just the knuckle-dragging bigots that inhabit the likes of Larkhall but also supposedly intellectual areas like the English broadsheet press.

Nothing gets them foaming at the mouth more than Catholicism and Politics (or Royalty).

79

Selgovae,

Scottish Borders 26/11/2007 00:02:49

#88 "this country is still in an anti-Catholic time warp"

Aye, it's time to move into a pro-Catholic time warp, viz,

-- the explanation of the Holy Trinity is pefectly rational
-- using condoms contradicts God's will
-- the Pope is chosen personally by God
-- being celebate in your twenties is a good thing

That should keep them quiet in Larkhall for a while.

80

Stockbridge,

26/11/2007 01:09:13

87. Republican

In 2004, 17% (and increasing) of your nations equities were in the ownership of those you are offensive to in your post.

Should you not be more polite to the future owners of your nation?

81

Stockbridge,

26/11/2007 01:19:42

88. The Federalist

I don't think its anticatholicism.

I guess it just does not look good for your chosen religion to show it attracts murdering despots, who start illegal wars, based on lies, and try to avoid over ten percent of the citizens of your democratic country who marched to protest to you.

Or am I just being picky?

PS What are the odds Bliar wont end up on the board of a yank arms (etc) company by 2010, after its realised his appointment as a peace envoy would have been akin to appointing Gary Glitter as a babysitter?

82

Stockbridge,

26/11/2007 01:22:01

This just appeared on the BBC feed - if its not all about image - how about this!!!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/7110457.stm

83

thomas,

midlothian 26/11/2007 03:04:34

if tony blair had deep religious and christian beliefs, why did he work in a manner which was neither religious nor christian. the man sold his soul to the devil, or george bush depending where you are at the time!

84

whatsyourname,

26/11/2007 03:05:18

They dont beleave in God if they did the world would not be so corrupt

85

Buck Buchanan,

CRETE, NEB., USA 26/11/2007 05:01:33

With all due respect.
the lot of you are "nutters.

86

M & S loyal,

Lochwinnoch 26/11/2007 12:03:46

Blair cannot have much faith in his faith or the British public if he thought revealing his religious convictions would harm his political ambitions. Or is he just saying this now to get himself back in the public eye, one a liar always a liar.

87

bill2,

26/11/2007 13:37:29

98. Wini

"Sometime in the future, when people can judge with hindsight, the phrase, 'Blair's legacy' may be to his great credit for standing up to a global threat... the dictators and Islamic Fundamentalist Terrorists."

Wishful thinking. Blair will always be remembered as one who took this country into an illegal and unjustified invasion resulting in the deaths, injuries and exile of millions. A war criminal, a traitor, a thief, and a liar.

"the author of the above post who is a fool for blaming the situation onto Tony. Does she blame the conflict of WW2 onto Winston Churchill."

Churchill led us in a just war against our country and its allies. Blair led us into an illegal and unjust invasion. His name is not fit to be in the same sentence as that of Churchill.

"So now Tony is being made out to be a liar and criminal for declaring war on dictators and the Islamic Fundamentalist Terrorist."

He didn't even declare war, which is illegal in itself. He just steamed in and killed people without any valid reason.

"the examples of Iraq and Afghanistan are well worth while, and we are all safer as a consequence."

Rubbish, we are all in far greater danger as a consequence.

New Labour Achievements?
Rampant house price inflation, low interest rates causing debt economy, minimum wage causing unemployment and black economy. Plus wrecking of the fabric and institutions of our society, rubbishing of schools and healthcare, crime-ridden streets, and thievery of our money. Even the wretched tories couldn't do worse for us.

Where are you posting from - some parallel universe with good substituted for the bad that we have to live with?

As for your #97, I have answered that type of nonsense on previous occasions; if you choose to ignore the facts, that is your business.

88

AJ of Fife,

26/11/2007 17:07:16

Would a Roman Catholic Blair still have had the ear of the American ultra-protestant rightwing Bush?

Probably not, the American establishment don't care for anybody with Papish tendencies - look what happened to the Kennedys!

Maybe that's why the evil and cowardly Blair kept quiet!

89

AJ of Fife,

26/11/2007 17:07:35

Wow, anither hunner!

90

karin m,

Fri 30 november boycott the scotsman forums 27/11/2007 00:09:44

3 days to boycott the scotsman day.

Fri 30 november boycott the scotsman forums

any poster failing to adhere to the boycott on fri 30th novemeber will themselves be boycotted.

91

jmacleve,

US 27/11/2007 20:50:19

Well, Someone said:

Luk 9:26 For whosoever shall be ashamed of me and of my words, of him shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he shall come in his own glory, and [in his] Father's, and of the holy angels.

Hard to take your confession seriously, Mr. Blair.


 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.