Tony Blair has said in an interview that he will answer to God for taking us into war in Iraq. The sheer hypocrisy, insensitivity and downright brass neck of this observation by him defies belief. He has consistently insisted that subsequent terrorist attacks around the world would have happened regardless of the war in Iraq and has preferred to blame them on religious fundamentalists and zealots. Yet apparently it is acceptable for him to invoke the word of his God as being the authority he expects will judge his actions. That must be cold comfort for the people who might not share his religious convictions who have lost family members on both sides. The man who has played a major part in their loss does not believe he ultimately has to answer to his peers, or the electorate, but solely to his imaginary friend.
Some of the most despicable despots have used religion to justify their actions. I am not about to place T. Blair in the category of despicable despot but he would be wise to show a little more sensitivity to those who do not share his belief in fairy stories and have to cope with their loss without the delusions that he enjoys.
In the UK, a country where the predomininant religion would best be described as fundamentalist agnostic and whose government has said in the past "We don't do God", I can only hope his party, if it has any nerve, will try to accelerate his exit. At least then perhaps we can hope to have a country run by someone who can make a decision based on events and circumstances and not the claptrap that goes on his head when he shuts the reality out.
5 comments:
I agree with you. And I suspect though he said it on Parkinson, he had an American audience at the back of his mind.
By the way whatever past governments may have said, Britain remains a legal theocracy and in that way is no more secular than an Islamic republic. Perhaps we should be thinking about that too.
As your post was before the programme was broadcast you clearly hadn't seen it before you rushed to condemn. Tony Blair didn't say "that he will answer to God for taking us into war in Iraq". He said other people could judge his actions as could God (and, by implication, history).
Still never let mere facts and detail get in the way of a good zealous rant, eh?
Answer to God or be judged by God - I don't really see much of a difference. His religious beliefs are no secret but he should keep them out of his politics. History will certainly be a fairer judge. I'd love to hear God's opinion on the matter but I somehow think that's unlikely - barring bolts of lightning, plagues of frogs, burning bushes etc.
Ah, so you’re an interpreter rather than a viewer and one who knows other people’s inner thoughts rather better than they do themselves?!
I'd like to learn history's judgement (I wonder if Sadam deniers will one day be banged up?) but unfortunately, being an enthusiast for ‘evidence-based’ analysis, I’m anticipating being dead.....
I've tried to understand your last post in the context of our discussion but you've lost me.
Viewer or interpreter? Well, one can view, sit back and say nothing. That seems a little pointless. Or one can view, then interpret, speculate, debate, discuss, dismiss, embrace....any number of reactions are possible to someone with a moderately active mind. You seem to do plenty of that on your blog for which I commend you. Have a go - that's the spirit. The worst thing of all would be to passively accept.
Post a Comment