I don’t think I’ve ever agreed with Michael Portillo before. But he was certainly talking some sense in the Sunday Times last weekend.
After Tony Blair’s 10 years in Downing Street I am worried. At first I assumed that his attendance at church was simply a way of signalling to the world that he was a man of moral fibre who would bring an ethical dimension to governing Britain. That idea worked quite well for a while. When Blair told Britain that he was a pretty straight kind of guy the country was inclined to believe him. Now we know that going to church has no connection with telling the truth.
For Blair, worship in church was always more than a political tool or a lifestyle issue. He is apparently serious about religion. Reportedly he takes on holiday 12th-century theological texts for poolside reading. A year ago he told us that he had prayed to God about his decision to join the American invasion of Iraq and that, since he is a believer, it is how God will judge his actions that most concerns him.
I worry because men of power who take instruction from unseen forces are essentially fanatics. Blair is filled with a self-confidence and self-satisfaction that are dangerous. They were evident last week as he refused to take responsibility for anything that has happened in Iraq since America and Britain occupied it. Those who look for judgment not from the electorate or parliament or a free press but from God release themselves from the constraints of democracy.
He spoils it a bit later.
I do not regard myself as a militant secularist. For example, I see no need (as the government does) to drive Catholic adoption agencies out of business because they will not place children with same-sex couples. I recognise that teaching religious belief may be a good way, perhaps the best way, to impart a sense of right and wrong to children and it is fundamental to our society’s survival that most people should distinguish good from bad.
Many fine things are done by people because of their faith. As an MP I saw a number of examples. And as we mark the 200th anniversary of the abolition of the slave trade we are reminded that William Wilberforce, who brought it about, was a man driven by religious conviction who eschewed political ambition.
Of course, by campaigning to abolish slavery, Wilberforce was acting directly contrary to the biblical instruction to keep slaves[1].
He recovers and ends on a good note though.
My guess is that historians will look back on the early 21st century in puzzlement. How was it possible, they will ask, that man had such deep scientific understanding but clung so tenaciously to his gods? Why did western politicians think that doing God (even a tiny bit) was an electoral or strategic asset?
I can’t disagree with that at all.
[1] Leviticus 25:44 (NIV) “Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves”. Oh, maybe the problem with the slave trade was that Africa isn’t a nation around us. Perhaps it’s ok if we only get slaves from Scotland and France.