Tony Blair to convert?

Mr.Micro

It was reported yesterday in the British press that Tony Blair is shortly to convert to Catholicism,his wife Cherie is a Catholic. To me ,this, if it proves to be true is repugnant .Is the man seeking forgiveness for his sins or does he need something to do in his dotage or another publicity stunt .Will the catholic church have anybody these days ?

mikemac

An impressive rant OP but oh so wrong!

From what I've read he is very devout and takes his religion far more seriously than any of us do and you do.
So fair play if he wants to convert then let him.
It's something that he wants to do for himself and other peoples opinions don't come in it.

If you don't like his politics and what he has done then attack him but don't attack his religion.
Sure how many threads have I read on boards about the need for separation of church and state.
But here you are giving out about the religion of a politican.

I find it interesting you didn't attack the Taoiseach for his relationship outside marraige. There is a target if you want one

mike65

Blair is no longer in 'active' front line politics and the theme is religion is I guess this thread is in the wrong forum.

Mike.

Mr.Micro

Keep your hair own MICMCLO. Tony Blair is everyones business I am afraid.he earned that accolade .He needs forgivness obviously for his deeds and his contribution to humanity.

Mr.Micro

mike65 wrote: »

Blair is no longer in 'active' front line politics and the theme is religion is I guess this thread is in the wrong forum.

Mike.

a pity that MIKe as he is the peace envoy for middle east and arguably a politican.

Keano

It is old news about him converting to Catholicism. Months ago I read that story in the paper. If I can recall he always wanted to but choose to wait to until he was no longer PM

Mr.Micro

Keano A Legend wrote: »

It is old news about him converting to Catholicism. Months ago I read that story in the paper. If I can recall he always wanted to but choose to wait to until he was no longer PM

Yes, but he apparently he has not officially converted yet. St.Paul on his way to Damascus .

Dave!

Who cares? It's not important now, and it wasn't important when he was prime minister.

KlondikePaddy

DaveMcG wrote: »

Who cares? It's not important now, and it wasn't important when he was prime minister.

Yes who gives a fiddlers fcuk if he puts flowers in his hair and joins the moonies. Good riddance I say!

leninbenjamin

Keano A Legend wrote: »

If I can recall he always wanted to but choose to wait to until he was no longer PM

yeah, this has been common knowledge for a while now. people have speculated that he held off converting as the party were afraid it might alienate certain voting groups.... tbh who cares, a man can believe in what he wants.

A Dub in Glasgo

A sign of the unofficial sectarianism in Britain that he had to wait until he left the PM job to convert

Should still be tried for war crimes though

cabinteelytom

'Will the catholic church have anybody these days?'
Well, yes. The Catholic and Universal Church is and has been bent on receiving 'all men' (usually interpreted to mean women as well) everywhere.

Dirk Gently

micmclo wrote: »

If you don't like his politics and what he has done then attack him but don't attack his religion.

On it's own a very valid point, but extreme religious views drive the neo cons political policy in America and the ease at which Mr. Blair followed them so blindly does make me question his (and any heads of states religious views). I'd much prefer to have a non religious person, or a mildly religious person in charge rather than a "devout" person strongly influenced by any religious teaching. To be frank and honest I would question their judgement, motives and ability to make rational decisions. It would make me uncomfortable. At what point does a person heavily influenced by religion cut off his personal beliefs from his job, a position of immense power.

As for the OP, it was well known for a number of years that Mr. Blair would more than likely convert upon his resignation.

moe_sizlak

clown bag wrote: »

On it's own a very valid point, but extreme religious views drive the neo cons political policy in America and the ease at which Mr. Blair followed them so blindly does make me question his (and any heads of states religious views). I'd much prefer to have a non religious person, or a mildly religious person in charge rather than a "devout" person strongly influenced by any religious teaching. To be frank and honest I would question their judgement, motives and ability to make rational decisions. It would make me uncomfortable. At what point does a person heavily influenced by religion cut off his personal beliefs from his job, a position of immense power.

As for the OP, it was well known for a number of years that Mr. Blair would more than likely convert upon his resignation.

i never bought the notion that extreme religous views drove the neo con agenda , i think it was just good old fashioned imperilism that drove it
sure the republican party court the religous right in america but i think many within the goverment view the religous right as usefull idiots , the only one in the bush admin who ever proffesees his religous beliefs is bush himself and we all know that bush himself is not a quintesential neo con like cheney or rumsfeld who have never really played the god card

Mr.Micro

cabinteelytom wrote: »

'Will the catholic church have anybody these days?'
Well, yes. The Catholic and Universal Church is and has been bent on receiving 'all men' (usually interpreted to mean women as well) everywhere.

Mr. Blairs recent actions as a Politician re Iraq and his WMD sham etc do not marry up with his Catholicism in my opinion. No Christian in my opinion would endorse war and destruction especially based on lies, unless he is a Christian zealot doing Gods work as he might believe ,either way he is not what true catholics are about.

jonny72

For one brief second I thought he might be converting to Islam, imagine that, my god there really is a huge rift between Islam and Christianity at the mo.

Hotblack Desiato

Mr.Micro wrote: »

Mr. Blairs recent actions as a Politician re Iraq and his WMD sham etc do not marry up with his Catholicism in my opinion.

So what. You can condemn his actions if you wish, fair enough, but it's his own business as to whether they tally with his professed religion or not. Otherwise we are into 'saying Jehovah' and public stonings...

No Christian in my opinion would endorse war and destruction especially based on lies, unless he is a Christian zealot doing Gods work as he might believe ,either way he is not what true catholics are about.

Maybe you can write to the Pope and ask him to be kicked out :rolleyes:

Fratton Fred

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

A sign of the unofficial sectarianism in Britain that he had to wait until he left the PM job to convert

Should still be tried for war crimes though

I think the fact that this is being discussed on an Irish forum is a sign that in Ireland religion is still an issue whereas in the UK no one gives a flying ferrets fanny.

Question to the OP, why would he not get "Forgiveness" being an Anglican? is it becuase any religion other than Catholicism is not a proper religion (The Pope's words not mine).

Mr.Micro

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I think the fact that this is being discussed on an Irish forum is a sign that in Ireland religion is still an issue whereas in the UK no one gives a flying ferrets fanny.

Question to the OP, why would he not get "Forgiveness" being an Anglican? is it becuase any religion other than Catholicism is not a proper religion (The Pope's words not mine).

Yes , you still cant criticize the catholic religion in Ireland it still has a hold .All I was trying to do was suggest that there appears to be a deep hypocrisy in that Blairs past actions do not marry up with what one would expect in christian values ,and he to all accounts is a devout christian (soon to be catholic).As for me I could not care less but no decent person would call himself or herself a christian and be responsible for war and destruction, unless thats been written in to the rules.My argument is not against or for any religion. its just what I perceive as the enormous hypocrisy of Blair.You cannot be a warmonger and genuine religious at the same time .

Mick86

ninja900 wrote: »

Maybe you can write to the Pope and ask him to be kicked out :rolleyes:

The Pope? You mean the one that fought for Hitler?

Mick86

Mr.Micro wrote: »

...All I was trying to do was suggest that there appears to be a deep hypocrisy in that Blairs past actions do not marry up with what one would expect in christian values ,and he to all accounts is a devout christian (soon to be catholic).As for me I could not care less but no decent person would call himself or herself a christian and be responsible for war and destruction, unless thats been written in to the rules.My argument is not against or for any religion. its just what I perceive as the enormous hypocrisy of Blair.You cannot be a warmonger and genuine religious at the same time .

What planet are you from? Being willing to kill for Catholicism is almost a pre-requisite of membership.More people have died because of their religious beliefs than for any other cause. For instance the war you are blaming Blair for was started by Al Queda, which wants the whole world to convert to Islam.
Personally I couldn't care less what religion Blair or anybody else is for that matter. It's nothing to do with his politics and nothing to do with anybody except Tony Blair. On the subject of "conversion" there is little difference between the Anglican and Catholic Churches so whats to convert to.

Mr.Micro

Mick86 wrote: »

What planet are you from? Being willing to kill for Catholicism is almost a pre-requisite of membership.More people have died because of their religious beliefs than for any other cause. For instance the war you are blaming Blair for was started by Al Queda, which wants the whole world to convert to Islam.
Personally I couldn't care less what religion Blair or anybody else is for that matter. It's nothing to do with his politics and nothing to do with anybody except Tony Blair. On the subject of "conversion" there is little difference between the Anglican and Catholic Churches so whats to convert to.

you miss the point completely.One cannot be genuinely religious and a warmonger ,opposite poles, as Blair, and Al Qaeda started what war .Not Iraq surely ?
You are on the wrong planet if you buy into that.Its not the Crusades is it ?

djpbarry

clown bag wrote: »

I'd much prefer to have a non religious person, or a mildly religious person in charge rather than a "devout" person strongly influenced by any religious teaching. To be frank and honest I would question their judgement, motives and ability to make rational decisions.

Very good point clown bag - I would also put myself squarely in the secular camp.

moe_sizlak wrote: »

sure the republican party court the religous right in america but i think many within the goverment view the religous right as usefull idiots , the only one in the bush admin who ever proffesees his religous beliefs is bush himself

I'm not so sure about that; religion is still a major influence in US politics.

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I think the fact that this is being discussed on an Irish forum is a sign that in Ireland religion is still an issue whereas in the UK no one gives a flying ferrets fanny.

While I would agree that religion is still a major issue for a large number of people in Ireland, I would not be quite so dismissive of the influence of religion in the UK.

Mr.Micro wrote: »

All I was trying to do was suggest that there appears to be a deep hypocrisy in that Blairs past actions do not marry up with what one would expect in christian values ,and he to all accounts is a devout christian (soon to be catholic).As for me I could not care less but no decent person would call himself or herself a christian and be responsible for war and destruction, unless thats been written in to the rules.

With respect, I do not think this has much to do with politics - it is a religious debate.

Mick86 wrote: »

For instance the war you are blaming Blair for was started by Al Queda, which wants the whole world to convert to Islam.

Al Qaeda started the war in Iraq?

Mr.Micro

With respect, I do not think this has much to do with politics - it is a religious debate.QUOTE


No I dont think so .Blair is still a politician in the form of peace envoy in the middle east where the real difference between the sides is possibly religion.His own views then could be a major influence on politicial decisions .I do not believe that one can detach from being a devout religious person and be a politician whose actions are opposite poles to his beliefs .

JerkyBoy

There's no doubt that Blair is a war criminal. The war that the UK entered was in no way an act of self defense...it was pure aggression.
Not to mention the fact that the Downing Street memos show that Blair was complicit in a conspiracy to provoke Saddam into taking actions which would give a stronger pre-text to war.

Imagine that...planning to provoke a war that would lead to countless thousands of deaths. What a monster!

If he does convert...and confesses...he's got a sh~t load of Hail Marys coming to him! :-)

Thou shalt not kill, Tony!

Thread moved to humanities as it is essentially a question of religion.
Humanities mods may of course move it to christianity if they think it is better there.

Mr.Micro

Thou shalt not kill, Tony![/QUOTE] JERKBOY.

He is a war criminal and such an alleged devout religious person would not have acted as he did ,if he had true belief ,"thou shalt not kill" would have stopped him .So its an absolute insult for him to be converting to catholicism . There is no amount of hail Marys that would be enough.Its all BS he is no christian let alone a catholic.

lostexpectation

this is about a politician converting, we're talking politics here as much as anything...

so he now believes in transubstantiation? is that it?

almost as far fetched as humanitarian interventionism....

1.Blair is no longer a politician
2.His religion is a religous matter,the discussion of which is suited to either Religion or Humanities.
End of.
3.comments about the very busy politics board are irrelevant to the subject both in this thread and the other one I moved here.

humanji

I don't get it, you'd prefer a religious fanatic to rule instead of him? The head of any state should put their country first, not their own agenda. They have to try an do what's best for their country and not just themselves. I'm sure a god would prefer his follows not act selfishly.

And so what if he wants to convert? Many Christian figures converted after commiting horrific deeds. And it's not like all Catholics are clean living, good and honest, is it? Hell, the pope used to be a nazi, so if he can change his beliefs, then I don't see why others can't.

This thread just smacks of an anti-war protester wanting an excuse to stir the pot.

Mr.Micro

humanji wrote: »

I don't get it, you'd pr
This thread just smacks of an anti-war protester wanting an excuse to stir the pot.

No not the case at all .As a devout christian Blairs teachings and faith would preclude him from waging war. Yet he waged war. YOU CANNOT BE BOTH a devout christian and a war monger.The UK was not attacked so defence of his country is not an excuse.Its as if the Vatican attacked another country and the Pope was in command .Would you see him as a devout christian after that ???

purple'n'gold

Well, to be fair the Catholic church had some “interesting” members, the late Adolf Hitler for one, although he didn’t practise for quiet some time.

Nevyn

Mr.Micro wrote: »

YOU CANNOT BE BOTH a devout christian and a war monger.

Tell that to those who went and waged war in the crusades...

Mr.Micro

Thaedydal wrote: »

Tell that to those who went and waged war in the crusades...

How did they get past "thou shalt not kill"? and several of the other main stay commandments and still believe they were devout . No its like doing the crime and then forgiving yourself .

humanji

Mr.Micro wrote: »

No not the case at all .As a devout christian Blairs teachings and faith would preclude him from waging war. Yet he waged war. YOU CANNOT BE BOTH a devout christian and a war monger.The UK was not attacked so defence of his country is not an excuse.Its as if the Vatican attacked another country and the Pope was in command .Would you see him as a devout christian after that ???

He went to war and THEN became a Catholic.

Mr.Micro

humanji wrote: »

He went to war and THEN became a Catholic.

SAY NO MORE AS THAT IS PURE IRONY. THE POPE HAS HAD HIS CAKE AND ATE IT .GOOD LUCK TO HIM ,ONLY THE BEST WILL DO.YOU HAVE TO HAVE PEDIGREE THESE DAYS TO BE A CATHOLIC I GUESS.To be fair he was in the Hitler youth in the war and not in command so the comparision is not the same .He probably did not even commit any crime.Our Tony knew better ,still if he fits the catholic mould they are welcome to him, hypocrite that he is.

humanji

I'm talking about Blair! Christianity is about forgiveness and love, not tyranny as you'd have it.

Mr.Micro

humanji wrote: »

I'm talking about Blair! Christianity is about forgiveness and love, not tyranny as you'd have it.

The love should come first and not as you put it , and the forgiveness when it suits.You advocated Blair waging war when his country was not attacked or even threatened .As a Christian why would one do that?

humanji

I neither advocate the war nor am I Christian. Why do you keep twisting what is being said? Is it not possible, and has it not been done by many religious figure, to sin but to find redemption? So why are you so against people being forgiven, or seeking forgiveness?

Mr.Micro

humanji wrote: »

I neither advocate the war nor am I Christian. Why do you keep twisting what is being said? Is it not possible, and has it not been done by many religious figure, to sin but to find redemption? So why are you so against people being forgiven, or seeking forgiveness?

I am not against forgiveness or people seeking forgiveness at all.My point is the whole process of Blairs actions demanded cogitation ,not an overnight process .He as christian at the time would know he was wrong yet he carried on. To sin is human .I do not believe in any of that religious nonsense but I hate the hypocrisy .Be a war monger ,be a christian or whatever but he cannot be both at the same time .

humanji

But can you not see that there has to be a seperation between the man and his position? If he was to use his Christian beliefs as the basis of all his decisions, then he's be no better than the likes of the Taliban, forcing his views on others. A leader has to be able to step back and think of others before themselves, otherwise they will ultimately fail as leaders.

Blair had his reason for going to war. I can't believe for a second he did it just for the hell of it, so he must of seen some benefit in doing it, be it for the hope of cheaper oil, better relations with the US, or whatever. It was all part of a plan that he believed was for the best for the UK. I can't say whether it was a good plan or not, since I doubt anyone here will really know what really went through his or any other politians, heads.

See, I don't see him as a warmonger. Misguided, maybe, but hardly a warmonger. I understand what you mean when you say that you can't be both a christian and a warmonger at the same time, but I don't fully agree with it. As a christian, he had to think of others before himself. And sure, maybe he really believes he did what was right by god. Who knows?

Actually, there's a point. What are his views on religion? He may of said he is a devout Christian, but only on his terms and interpretations.

Mr.Micro

I agree with much of what you say humanji as you put it eloquently .Its just that I have trouble with peoples ability to be able to detach to separate conscience( in the form of beliefs) and advocating war and destruction .If it was me I fear I would have to let go of what I believe in and do the job or not do the job and let my conscience win . I do not think that I could be both.Anyway the matter is purely conjecture on my part and not worth falling out over.

Nevyn

Mr.Micro wrote: »

How did they get past "thou shalt not kill"? and several of the other main stay commandments and still believe they were devout . No its like doing the crime and then forgiving yourself .

Papal dispensation, they were fighting God's war.

Mr.Micro

Thaedydal wrote: »

Papal dispensation, they were fighting God's war.

As we now know, the church then was a political animal granting licences to wage war and ready to grant forgiveness afterwards .

dr_manhattan

Well exactly:

"i never bought the notion that extreme religous views drove the neo con agenda , i think it was just good old fashioned imperilism that drove it"

I'm not so sure that - christianity in particular - religion can be completely separated from imperialism, if you look at history. The very fact that every major religion has 'holy places' and 'holy cities' sheds light in that regard.

Unfortunately, though I would like to believe that a person's religion can be separated from their job as a politician (and if middle east peace envoy is not a political job then what is?) - I don't think it can.

And in a very similar way, i don't think that those who cynically exploit religion for power can be separated from those who are fundamentalists, when the former pander to the latters goals.

What difference is it if don rumsfeldt is a zionist christian end-timer or not, when he makes decisions and takes actions that are designed to serve their geopolitical ambitions? And what difference if osama bin laden believes in or practises fundamentalist islam, when his every action is designed to exploit the feelings of those who do or might?

And sure, friendly old tony blair is none of those things: he is what we see as a harmless, middle of the road, polite western christian.

But if we were on the receiving end of his troops and bombs, we would perhaps see him as an imperialist christian, when out own neighbourhood fundamentalists "explain" to us that he acts to support a new crusade against us.

So I don't think we can dismiss his religious choices: in fact i think we might see better the problems we face in the rest of the world if we remembered that we are the monotheistic white christian europeans, when viewed from the outside.

Oh and the point about this thread being an excuse for a war protester to rattle their sabre.... I agree. But I strongly disapprove of the war, and the actions of all the christians involved (and many of the moslems, too).

I do feel that we have to ask questions about religion in order to understand why we are having a religious war in the year 2007. I think that our failure to question our christian heritage has led us into trouble again and again, because we insist on looking at ourselves as "secular" when in fact the bulk of our populations and government are in fact pretty damn religious. We just can't see it, cos we grew up here.

Dave!

The deed is done
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1196847405557&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

Just days before Christmas, former British prime minister Tony Blair converted to Roman Catholicism, his official spokesman confirmed on Saturday.

The move came after speculation that Blair, 54, who is currently serving as the Quartet envoy to the Middle East, would convert from his Anglican faith after leaving office.

Blair was received into full communion with the Roman Catholic Church by Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor during Mass at the Archbishop's House in Westminster in central London on Friday night.

"I am very glad to welcome Tony Blair into the Catholic Church," Murphy-O'Connor said. "For a long time he has been a regular worshipper at Mass with his family, and in recent months he has been following a program of formation to prepare for his reception into full communion."

"My prayers are with him, his wife and family at this joyful moment in their journey of faith together," he added.

Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams, the Anglican leader, wished Blair well.

etc

dr_manhattan

To me this smells bad: a man who claims to represent a secular democracy, yet doctrinal differences as small as the differences between protestantism and catholicism are important to him?

I mean, central to the issue - to take an example from his new job - to the question of peace in the levant is al quds or jerusalem: doesn't he understand that there's 12 christian sects squabbling over the church of the holy spulchre alone? Doesn't he get that faith is a politicised decision in the middle east right now?

And - more importantly - doesn't he get that catholicism is the faith of the crusades, which his fundamentalist opponents accuse him of reviving?

It's like hiring someone to manage security at a violent soccer grounds, and just after they get the job, they appear in the newspaper as the newest member of one of the supporters' clubs: it sends a bad message regarding fair treatment imho.