Jeremiah Wright: Why does Mr. Obama support him?

[Schrodinger's Dog]

Lots of people equate Satanism with atheism, sadly.

Well in La Veyan terms they would be right, since it's the largest religion associated with Satanism, and they are atheist, it is at least similar. Satanists who stand around in robes trying to bring about the Antichrist don't really exist anyway, and if they do it's in very very small numbers; that's conspiracy theory territory.

My bad I've kinda threadjacked this. Not my intention, back to the news, let's get back to you Yanks teaching us provincial Brits et al. a thing or two about American politics. Thanks.

 

[D H]

I wish politics here in the States was more secular, like it is there in the UK. Sure would go a long ways toward "de-muddying" the waters.

It's not, and Schrodinger's Dog nailed it in post #136:

I really didn't like the religious persecution that happened in Europe, but at least if nothing else it marginalised fringe groups and beliefs, as bad as it was. This was good for Europe and it's states, but unfortunately they had to go somewhere.

The Americas have been plagued with fundamentalism since 1620 (the year the Mayflower sailed). The Pilgrims, the French Huguenots, the Dutch in New York were all Calvinists. Today's fundamentalists are Calvinists as well; Europe's gain was our loss.

 

[mheslep]

This is going to sound a bit patronising but it's not meant to be. I really didn't like the religious persecution that happened in Europe, but at least if nothing else it marginalised fringe groups and beliefs, as bad as it was. This was good for Europe and it's states, but unfortunately they had to go somewhere. Thus the ties between religion and politics in the American elections I think, have a lot more to do with some minority religions than perhaps they should. Not that it's necessarily a bad thing but it gives me the willies when religion even sets foot in the same place as politics. It must be an inherently English thing.

Yar, Mr Jefferson would have a good laugh out of that one. You are suggesting that booting out the minority religions from Europe somehow left Europe in the hands of a more tolerant majority religion (or even religion free?). Hardly. Ye olde Archbishop of Canterbury is still on the UK govt. payroll, as are religious officials throughout Europe because the persecution of opposing religious views centuries ago allowed them to be forever entwined in EU governments.

 

[mheslep]

...He was the first politician I had heard stating that the problems facing the black community were not merely structural, and that the blame also lay with the people and the choices they made.

I haven't heard anyone with so much to lose address black-on-black racism as he has From the DNC speech:

Addressing a primarily African-American audience in Beaumont, TX:

Obama took flack from the black community for stressing individual responsibility during the recent debates, when on the other hand, Hillary was doing everything she could to pander to the Hispanic vote. Obama's base is the younger generation of voters, yet he's risked disenfranchising them by telling them to essentially stop looking up to Hip-hip stars.

I had heard pieces of this. I applaud what I see here. I just heard Sen. O's Tuesday/Philly speech in full and there's more of the same honest appraisal in it - a good speech, impressive, far better that anything I've ever heard from Sen. Clinton. I still don't agree with all of it - still heavy on rationalization via victimization though he turns and denounces victimization in the end.
BTW, President Clinton spoke similarly back in the 90's http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpa...A25752C1A965958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all":

If [MLK] were reappear by my side today and give us a report card on the last 25 years, what would he say? "You did a good job," he would say...
But he would say, "I did not live and die to see the American family destroyed. I did not live and die to see 13-year-old boys get automatic weapons and gun down 9-year-olds just for the kick of it. I did not live and die to see young people destroy their own lives with drugs and then build fortunes destroying the lives of others. That is not what I came here to do. I fought for freedom," he would say, "but not for the freedom of people to kill each other with reckless abandonment, not for the freedom of children to have children and the fathers of the children to walk away from them and abandon them, as if they don't amount to anything.

"I fought for people to have the right to work, but not to have whole communities and people abandoned. This is not what I lived and died for, my fellow Americans," he would say. "I fought to stop white people from being so filled with hate that they would wreak violence on black people. I did not fight for the right of black people to murder other black people with reckless abandonment."

...Cosby will vote for - he once showed an interest in Kucinich, but has since insisted that his vote is a personal thing that he will not discuss even with his wife.

My wife and I will likely follow his advice.

 

[mjsd]

You (et al) can't be serious. McCain's relationship with Hagee and Obama's with Wright have nothing whatsoever in common. It is rediculous to even suggest, as quite clearly, McCain isn't a member of Hagee's church. You guys are really reaching and even mheslep missed the real key to McCain's relationship with these guys that differentiates it from Obama's with Wright:
...
McCain -- that I've seen -- has never made even a tacit endorsement of the message these guys are putting out.

Do you seriously believe that those who do go to Hagee church and those who believe in what Hagee has said (no matter whether it is on gay, Catholicism, Iran), would not in any way think that McCain shares their values/views on these issues before voting for him? The fact that McCain wanted Hagee's endorsement can mean either he is a hypocrite wanting to gain the conservative evangelical votes by pretending he is one OR he truly believes in some of those issues. either way, it presents a problem that warrant some discussion BUT the media chose not to.

Obama is a member of the church while McCain goes to dinners looking for votes: McCain is looking for their endorsement, not giving them his. That's how this differs from Obama and Wright. Obama endorsed Wrights message for 20 years before denouncing it after it came back to bite him.

It doesn't take 20 years to turn bad. But it may take 20 years to become good again.

you say McCain is ok because he wants their endorsement and not giving them his... At the moment, Obama is neither giving them endorsement nor wanting them to be so close to him. The issues is guilt by association. Obama, well, 20 years in that church you can't say there is no association even he tried to distance himself from it. McCain, doesn't even have to be associated with those folks, but actively trying to bring them onboard. Yet, we say there is an association in Obama case only.

Now the argument is often that Obama's connection is a more profound one (ie. one cannot wipe out 20 years of association), while all of us somehow believe automatically that McCain is just pretending, and the connection is fake and so all is ok even he brought the issue to himself.

As already pointed out - by looking for one where none exists, you are creating your own double standard.

the matter of the fact is the media did not cover the McCain/Hagee/Parsley story well enough to even merely to inform 80% of common Americans what these ppl suppose to stand for, as a result there is no discussions on them among the common ppl... and so you say there is no issue. I have to go away and do my little research on these guys before I even know who these guys really are. And you can bet not every American would do that if "Fox & Friends" tell them that it is a non-issue as well.



Perhaps, Americans do find Hagee's and Parsley's rhetorics a lot more palatable than Wright's and that's why we in general don't care and don't want to care.

 

[rbj]

This is going to sound a bit patronising but it's not meant to be. I really didn't like the religious persecution that happened in Europe, but at least if nothing else it marginalised fringe groups and beliefs, as bad as it was. This was good for Europe and it's states, but unfortunately they had to go somewhere.

i don't know if i would say that it "was good for Europe" but i must confess that i am not a disinterested party. being a Mennonite and coming from the Anabaptist tradition (and ethnically from the same lines of Germans who are the Pennsylvania "Dutch"), i have distant ancestors who were persecuted to the point of burning at stake and drowning. there was even a case where one anabaptist "heretic" was drowned in a gunney sack tied shut with live (probably stray) cats tossed in the bag. cats were considered evil, too, from the western POV of the time.

anyway, from our POV, persecution of the church was far better than the seduction of it by power which started with Constantine and continued for the next millenium until the reformation. and then the reformation was only half-baked since Luther and Zwingly were merely kicking out one state-church institution and replacing it with their own state-church institution. "separation of church and state" was the talk of heretics who were fuel for the fire.

That said it has little to do with the OP, I don't think Obama is going to be too damaged by this in the long run, at least that's not the impression I get, of course I could be wrong our media is not as extensive about the issue as the American media.

i think he dealt with it exactly right (tried to run above the issue of race, but when they crammed it down ours and his throat, dealt with it directly, honestly, and persuasively. i think he'll be okay and the drumbeats of intolerance will again be exposed for the @ssholes they are.

And although I get Fox News, I can't say I watch it on political issues.

otherwise known as Faux News. it's not a news organization, but an arm of the Republican Party.

 

[mheslep]

...Oh it's not just the gays. Don't forget to include civil rights proponents (like me), feminists (by the definition used by the RR, this includes me), secularists (me again), "evolutionists" (made it again), environmentalists (I might make this group too), atheists (that's me), supporters of gay rights (me), Muslims, often Jews (sometimes referred to as the antichrist), and sometimes Catholics, Mormons and Episcopalians.

We have been discussing bigotry - as in 'I hate you just because of your race or ethnicity without knowing anything else about your ideas and beliefs'. Most of the above is about ideas and policy which is by definition (mine) not bigotry, so time for me to move on.

When these folks start calling for government mandated executions or even criminalization of races or classes, we'd then be getting close. Until then, there's no comparison

.
Now we're into the fringe, we were discussing main stream thought that can influence elections. If you want to stick to a 'cumulative force' argument then I mention Farrakhan, Black Panther groups, etc and it becomes an unproductive 'you have the worst crazies', 'no they're not my crazies' discussion.

 

[mheslep]

... from our POV, persecution of the church was far better than the seduction of it by power which started with Constantine and continued for the next millenium until the reformation. and then the reformation was only half-baked since Luther and Zwingly were merely kicking out one state-church institution and replacing it with their own state-church institution. "separation of church and state" was the talk of heretics who were fuel for the fire.

Exactly.

I think he dealt with it exactly right (tried to run above the issue of race, but when they crammed it down ours and his throat,

Was Imus and his firing crammed down our throats? Or was that the media finally paying attention to wink and nod racism?

dealt with it directly, honestly, and persuasively.

Yes agreed, honestly, from what I know.

i think he'll be okay and the drumbeats of intolerance will again be exposed for the @ssholes they are.

If there's still such a thing, then the drumbeat of intolerance must include Wright.

 

[Gokul43201]

We have been discussing bigotry - as in 'I hate you just because of your race or ethnicity without knowing anything else about your ideas and beliefs'. Most of the above is about ideas and policy which is by definition (mine) not bigotry, so time for me to move on.

Common forms of bigotry:

* Ableism
* Adultism
* Ageism
* Anti-Americanism
* Anti-Catholicism
* Anti-Mormonism
* Anti-Polish sentiment
* Anti-Protestantism
* Anti-Semitism

...and that's just the As.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bigotry

These are people that think women are inferior creatures, meant to serve man. If radical chauvinism is not bigotry, I don't know what is.

Now we're into the fringe, we were discussing main stream thought that can influence elections.

If Falwell is fringe, that's fringe. What I quoted above are the words of a spokesperson for the Moral Majority - the same Moral Majority that handed Reagan the Evangelical vote. And we were discussing people and groups, not thought, that influence elections. Falwell's own favorite joke is that if he saw his dog engaging in homosexual behavior, he'd take it out and shoot it.

If you want to stick to a 'cumulative force' argument then I mention Farrakhan, Black Panther groups, etc and it becomes an unproductive 'you have the worst crazies', 'no they're not my crazies' discussion.

I didn't know anyone pandered to these groups and sought their endorsements.

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

Yar, Mr Jefferson would have a good laugh out of that one. You are suggesting that booting out the minority religions from Europe somehow left Europe in the hands of a more tolerant majority religion (or even religion free?). Hardly. Ye olde Archbishop of Canterbury is still on the UK govt. payroll, as are religious officials throughout Europe because the persecution of opposing religious views centuries ago allowed them to be forever entwined in EU governments.

Something tells me you don't know much about politics in the EU or the UK. Can you tell me exactly what powers over parliament the Archbishop has, and the last time he set foot in parliament? Since The House of Lords has no power to overturn laws, I don't see what your point is. Like anyone else the Archbishop can say whatever he likes, doesn't mean anyone has to listen to him though. The queen as defender of the faith has an advisory roll, but the monarch has not challenged a decision in parliament in nearly 200 years, and that resulted in the queen being overturned by parliament, and IIRC threatened with being beheaded if she refused to sign a law. Bishops have no power whatsoever in the UK, nor do they in most of Europe. The papalcy isn't a political wing of the Italian government either, although I admit they may take what they say more seriously. What you see in the US is religion directly effecting Congress. Since ESCR is legal here, I don't see that happening to anywhere near the same degree in the secular states of Europe.

I can give you links of all the things the Archbishop has said recently that have been ridiculed if you like. Tony Blair mentioned God in parliament once, it made if not front page news a column in all the newspapers. It also raised derisive laughter to a point that is seldom reached in the barracking sessions at parliament. Might have something to do with us being staunchly and defiantly secular, for some very good reasons. It's called European history.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I haven't checked to see if this came up already, but yesterday CNN played the entire video of Wright's controversial sermon. A surprise to me was that he only "damns" America IF we don't stop doing such and such... I had only seen his statements represented as an imperative and not in the subjunctive mood as it was actually expressed. That makes quite a difference!

 

[Amp1]

Sure does Ivan. Not only that much of what he said about chickens comming home to roost was true.

The US supported and put in power some of the worst dictators. Saddam H., The (former) Shah of Iran, was found GUILTY by the World Court of terrorist activities in Nicuragua.

The CIA's greatest hits - N. Chomsky
Why do people hate America - Ziauddin Sardar and Merryl Wyn Davies

are two sources to find out about the chickens.

 

[TVP45]

Mr Jefferson

"Mr. Jefferson"? Are you a Hoo?

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

Let's not forget why the US&UK put The Shah into power either, it was because the Iranian pm at the time refused to grant favourable oil concessions to the UK and of course the US stood to gain from a favourable deal from a favourable leader.

I really don't see what politics has to do with religion in anything he says? Or according to the religion of The NT what right anyone has to judge in political terms. But to discuss why would be a render unto Caesar moment and that's religion. :/

This guy sounds like another Fred Phelps, maybe not as hard line, but definitely bigoted.

i don't know if i would say that it "was good for Europe" but i must confess that i am not a disinterested party. being a Mennonite and coming from the Anabaptist tradition (and ethnically from the same lines of Germans who are the Pennsylvania "Dutch"), i have distant ancestors who were persecuted to the point of burning at stake and drowning. there was even a case where one anabaptist "heretic" was drowned in a gunney sack tied shut with live (probably stray) cats tossed in the bag. cats were considered evil, too, from the western POV of the time.

Like I say I don't condone religious persecution, but I don't see how the Mennonites really effect politics anyway. Other than by their vote? Bear in mind I did say at least. I'm not condoning anything done in the name of Catholicism or Protestantism in Europe. This is why there's such a division of state and church though. In fact after looking at their beliefs, I think the Mennonites are not in the same league as some of the more evangelistic religions in the US.

I can see why they were controversial though.

* Freedom of religion
* Priesthood of all believers
* Bible as the sole rule of faith and practice
* Pacifism

Those are dangerous ideas. Well to Catholics anyway, placing authority in the common folk? Pacifism? Freedom of religion?

 

[Amp1]

Arildno, it doesn't seem to be hate but anger that Wright spewed. I notice how no one rebutted or attempted to argue against the posts I've read that say much of what Wright said is factually correct.

 

[mheslep]

didn't know anyone pandered to these groups and sought their endorsements.

Democratic candidate for President Jesse Jackson attended Farrakhan's Million Man march in '95 'without hesitation' when other's refused to attend.
http://www.time.com/time/special/million/1023time.html

[Rep] Gary Franks won't be going. He feels that Farrakhan's rhetoric is just as offensive to some whites as the Ku Klux Klan is to African-Americans. "The Ku Klux Klan hates blacks, Jews, and Catholics," Franks said. "The Nation of Islam hates whites, Jews and Catholics."

http://www.cnn.com/US/9510/megamarch/

With regards the whack job Wycoff on the video clip (equating homosexuality w/ murder), I wasn't aware anyone pandered to him either. As far as I can see the only common cause between the Republicans and the Moral Majority group is on abortion.

 

[mheslep]

"Mr. Jefferson"? Are you a Hoo?

Grad school

 

[Amp1]

Arildno, I'm assuming your not a christian. However if you are, what type of people did Jesus associate with... and in what way did his associating with them disuade him from his message or cause him to exhibit their behavior.

 

[mheslep]

...Might have something to do with us being staunchly and defiantly secular, for some very good reasons. It's called European history.

Funny, I would have said that E. history includes the crusades, the Inquisition, the 30 yrs war, on and on.

Yes I am aware that the Archbishop of C. does not speak in Parliment. The fact remains he's on the UK payroll and no other religions are so represented.

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

Funny, I would have said that E. history includes the crusades, the Inquisition, the 30 yrs war, on and on.

Yes I am aware that the Archbishop of C. does not speak in Parliment. The fact remains he's on the UK payroll and no other religions are so represented.

Did you know when the Knights of the first crusades asked if killing was wrong, as it was according to The Bible. He came back and said it's fine if it's infidels? I mean how scary is that? Killing in the name of? A pacifistic religion?

That's exactly what I meant, The 30 years war, the division of church that lead to both Catholic and Protestant persecution. The corruption and greed and politicisation of the Church, indulgences, the fact that priests were made celibate in the middle ages to protect the churches wealth from being passed to family members on their death, persecutions of Jews and Heretics. That's why we are now secular; religion and politics.

He's on the payroll because he works for a living? Is that wrong? he is not a representative though, his views do not pass parliament, and his views in the Lords are outvoted or ignored. So he has no power, no ability to affect policy, he might say ESCR is wrong, but no one is going to listen to him, unlike in the US, where you have to pander to the religious conservatives.

 

[Art]

Schrodinger's Dog for someone who lives there you have a very strange perception of the role of religion in the UK.

Not so long ago, and probably still happening in some places, councils ran by Presbyterians chained up the swings in kids' playgrounds every Sunday to ensure the Sabbath was adhered to and Sunday trading laws are still a major bone of contention.

On a national level although religion plays a smaller role in the Labour Party it is still a big deal with Conservatives and Parliament still begins each day with a prayer.

The UK is not secular! In legal terms the UK is a Protestant Christian state with the Anglican church being the established religion of England and Wales one consequence of which is Britain is the only country left in the democratic world that allows clerics to sit in its legislature as of right and another consequence being it is the established Protestant religion which is compulsorily taught in state schools.

The UK only voted to repeal blasphemy laws in March of this year although this has yet to be ratified (blasphemy laws which btw were restricted to statements against the established Protestant religion only)

This only passed because religious adherents including the C of E believed it's content was captured in the Racial and Religious Hatred Act of 2006 rendering it obsolete.

The US populace no doubt take their religion more seriously than their UK counterparts which is then obviously reflected in the stated views of politicians but to suggest the UK's political ambivalence to religion is due to clever deliberate secularisation by the UK government is totally misleading. It is purely down to the personal apathy of UK citizens.

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

Art do you live in the UK? Do you realize how secular we are? Tradition may still be tradition but it affects politics little. A recent poll showed that belief in a God or gods had gone from 79% in the 1960's to 49% and that includes all faiths. We are more secular than ever and sliding further that way. You may begin parliament with a prayer but that has nothing to do with the way parliament runs, and all to do with an outdated tradition.

Can you tell me the last time blasphemy laws were enforced? They are redundant under new laws as you say, they don't need repeal to be frank, apart from to clear out dead wood. It's still legal to shoot a Welshman with a crossbow when he ventures across the border of a weekend. Doesn't mean it's a particularly enforcible law.

It's not down to apathy it's down to the increasing secularisation of Europe. I never said it was deliberate, but in a democracy if no one cares about religious issues, and when they are raised they are mocked then apathy is a secular fault, so be it.

 

[Art]

Art do you live in the UK? Do you realize how secular we are? Tradition may still be tradition but it affects politics little. A recent poll showed that belief in a God or gods had gone from 79% in the 1960's to 49% and that includes all faiths. We are more secular than ever and sliding further that way. You may begin parliament with a prayer but that has nothing to do with the way parliament runs, and all to do with an outdated tradition.

Can you tell me the last time blasphemy laws were enforced? They are redundant under new laws as you say, they don't need repeal to be frank, apart from to clear out dead wood. It's still legal to shoot a Welshman with a crossbow when he ventures across the border of a weekend. Doesn't mean it's a particularly enforcible law.

It's not down to apathy it's down to the increasing secularisation of Europe. I never said it was deliberate, but in a democracy if no one cares about religious issues, and when they are raised they are mocked then apathy is a secular fault, so be it.

I did all of my schooling in the UK although I don't see how my domicile makes the slightest difference to the facts.

In a secular state there is a division between church and state. How can you possibly claim the UK is secular when the Protestant religion is a compulsory subject in state schools along with regular traipses to the local C of E for services on religious days? All mandated by the government.

The statistics you cite simply serve to affirm my contention that it is the British publics apathy to religion which diminishes it's influence on the political scene but it is certainly not through secular legislation.

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

I did all of my schooling in the UK although I don't see how my domicile makes the slightest difference to the facts.

In a secular state there is a division between church and state. How can you possibly claim the UK is secular when the Protestant religion is a compulsory subject in state schools along with regular traipses to the local C of E for services on religious days?

So environment makes no difference to your social status? Controversial?

RE is a compulsory. But that would be religious education not Christian education. They learn about world faiths now. And it's only compulsory up to secondary education, ie age 11, and it's part of the whole cultural integration thing.

Because 49% of people don't believe in God, that makes the majority unconcerned with religious issues. And those that are aren't generally Bible thumping evangelists, there evolutionary theolgists, or Sikhs or Hindus, Buddhists and so on, and liberal Christians in the main. Women Vicars, gay Vicars and so on in the Anglican Church. Even the Catholic Church has refused to condone ID and creationism.

 

[Art]

So environment makes no difference to your social status? Controversial?

RE is a compulsory. But that would be religious education not Christian education. They learn about world faiths now. And it's only compulsory up to secondary education, ie age 11, and it's part of the whole cultural integration thing.

Because 49% of people don't believe in God, that makes the majority unconcerned with religious issues. And those that are aren't generally Bible thumping evangelists, there evolutionary theolgists, or Sikhs or Hindus, Buddhists and so on, and liberal Christians in the main. Women Vicars, gay Vicars and so on in the Anglican Church. Even the Catholic Church has refused to condone ID and creationism.

Huh? So if everyone is so liberal how do you explain Dr Rowan Williams yielding to the African evangelical lobby and forcing the resignation of the Bishop-designate of Reading, Canon Jeffrey John, a celibate gay man whose cause he had previously advanced?

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

Huh? So if everyone is so liberal how do you explain Dr Rowan Williams yielding to the African evangelical lobby and forcing the resignation of the Bishop-designate of Reading, Canon Jeffrey John, a celibate gay man whose cause he had previously advanced?

Outside of the UK. I never said everyone is but Anglican vicars in the UK can be both gay and female or either or not. It's unfortunate but it's nothing to do with UK religion. I can give you the names of lesbian vicars, and gay vicars. It doesn't mean anything in terms of the liberalism of the CoE.

 

[Art]

Outside of the UK. I never said everyone is but Anglican vicars in the UK can be both gay and female or either or not. It's unfortunate but it's nothing to do with UK religion. I can give you the names of lesbian vicars, and gay vicars. It doesn't mean anything in terms of the liberalism of the CoE.

You do know Doctor Rowan Williams is the Archbishop of Canterbury and that Reading is in the UK don't you

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

You do know Doctor Rowan Williams is the Archbishop of Canterbury and that Reading is in the UK don't you

Yeah but what does that have to do with the liberalisation of the Church in the UK, because some bigots from wherever said they would leave the Anglican Church if they didn't get their way?

This is really OT anyway and I don't see what it has to do with secularisation. If anything it just confirms that some countries are living in the past. And that one person will not dictate policy of Anglicanism, no matter how powerful. There are gay Vicars and lesbian vicars, and female vicars. He doesn't define the Churches opinion he's as subject to ecumenical concerns as anyone else who is the leader of a religion. Despite being liberal on gay issues before he came to power, he still has to avoid schism.

 

[Art]

Yeah but what does that have to do with the liberalisation of the Church in the UK, because some bigots from wherever said they would leave the Anglican Church if they didn't get their way?

This is really OT anyway and I don't see what it has to do with secularisation. If anything it just confirms that some countries are living in the past.

The bottom line is UK politicians are every bit as capable and as likely to pander to religious groups if they see votes in it. There is nothing in the UK's state structures to prevent this from happening or even to make it less likely.

I also think you vastly underestimate the subtle influence of religion on UK politics today through groups such as the Masonic Lodge and even the Knights of Columbus whilst you blindly ignore the overt influence of religion in areas of the UK and it's dominions such as Scotland and NI.

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

The bottom line is UK politicians are every bit as capable and as likely to pander to religious groups if they see votes in it. There is nothing in the UK's state structures to prevent this from happening or even to make it less likely.

I also think you vastly underestimate the subtle influence of religion on UK politics through groups such as the Masonic Lodge and even the Knights of Columbus.

Compared to the US, I think not. They might pander to voters, but policies are still decisively secular, and of course they only have to pander to a tiny, tiny minority of right wing conservative Christians, such as evangelists, particularly labour who aren't traditionally pro church anyway.

Let's ask an American if they think US policy is affected by religion? Let's likewise ask a UK citizen if this is so?

 

[Art]

Let's likewise ask a UK citizen if this is so?

Ahem, Iraq - Tony Blair - God. Sure you want to go there?

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

Ahem, Iraq - Tony Blair - God. Sure you want to go there?

Not a good example, the fact that he mentioned God, has really made him unpopular amongst traditional labour voters, and seen their popularity edge further towards Conservatives. One man does not a religious state make, even if he is TB. And thank Someone he's not in power any more, he was getting past his sell England by the Iraq war date.

 

[Art]

Not a good example, the fact that he mentioned God, has really made him unpopular amongst traditional labour voters, and seen their popularity edge further towards Conservatives. One man does not a religious state make, even if he is TB. And thank Someone he's not in power any more, he was getting past his sell England by the Iraq war date.

So unpopular he got reelected for a record 3rd term

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

So unpopular he got reelected for a record 3rd term

Conservatives got five terms, despite being really unpopular past the mid 80's. First past the post system, you have to overturn a massive majority when the government screws up massively. That means nothing. Their majority has been sliding since they got into power. Unlike Thatcher where it was rising until we realized what a right wing nut she was.

 

[Art]

Conservatives got five terms, despite being really unpopular past the mid 80's. First past the post system, you have to overturn a massive majority when the government screws up massively. That means nothing. Their majority has been sliding since they got into power. Unlike Thatcher where it was rising until we realized what a right wing nut she was.

SD no offense but are you really from the UK? Thatcher wasn't dumped by the electorate! Just like Blair she was dumped by her own party in a palace coup. IMO If the Tory party hadn't stabbed her in the back for not being right wing enough she'd still be PM. The British public loved her and many still do.