Portillo is wrong about faith and politics

With David Burrowes MP, I founded the Conservative Christian Fellowship in 1990.  With that declaration of interest out of the way I hope readers will forgive me if I use this post to disagree with Michael Portillo's piece in The Sunday Times: 'If God is talking to you, too, Mr Cameron – don’t listen.'  Do read all of Mr Portillo's article but here is a key section:

"I worry because men of power who take instruction from unseen forces are essentially fanatics... 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."

A few quick responses as I'm dashing off for Sunday lunch (roast lamb!):

1. The greatest killers of the last century weren't religious "fanatics" but atheists.  I think of Stalin and Hitler and Pol Pot.
2. Not all religions are the same.  Some religions are defined by the teaching of forgiveness and peacefulness.  Others are more open to interpretations that lead to violence.
3. It's a bit rich for Mr Portillo to imply that Christian leaders like Bush and Blair want to "release themselves from the constraints of democracy." Both men have been more successful voter-getters than Mr Portillo.  I'd rather have a leader that felt a deep sense of accountability to his maker than someone who thought he could get away with anything if noone was looking.
4. Christian men have been at the forefront of many of the great reforms of our times.  I think of William Wilberforce's campaign against slavery (something Mr Portillo acknowledges) but also Shaftesbury's educational and mental health missions and, more recently, Martin Luther King's civil rights campaigns.  In the Conservative Party today it is interesting that many of the great compassionate causes are being led by Christians - think of social justice (IDS), international development (Peter Lilley), combating domestic violence (Caroline Spelman) and international human rights (Gary Streeter and Ben Rogers).
5. Britain is much richer for the involvement of Christians in public life.  Christian schools generally outperform secular schools and a disproportionate share of the country's charities and volunteers are faith-inspired.
6. If you want to understand philanthropy you have to understand the 'God factor.'  A recent analysis of giving in the US proved that religious motivations were more powerful than any other factor in determining generosity.

Are Christians perfect?  Of course not and there are many Christians who would would make bad governors but the overwhelming contribution of Christianity to public life is beneficial.

Comments

[Henry]

Religion is a private matter and should remain so, but it is disturbing to think that atheists are governed by a lunatic fringe who believe a supreme being is pulling their strings and whispering instructions into their ears. Especially when they believe that they should be judged in the after-life; not in the here and now, by the people they govern.

Cue Imams, Popes, George Bush and Tony Blair.

Scary.

[TomTom]

Portillo is a funny man. He has little real world experiece and was rather a cartoon figure in his rabid right guise - and I still treasure Rory Bremner's Portillo-SAS sketch.

Then as he presumably found people mining into his private life he "did a Bercow" and became 'BBC-approved' with the value-set of an approved trainee.

Portillo is simply a parrot - I can see why German Defence Minister Volker Ruhe used to call him Polly . He just recites whatever he feels will get him on. I find Portillo to be one of the opportunists on the lines of Keith Best, who were always out for themselves and still are.

I worry because men of power who take instruction from unseen forces are essentially fanatics

Yes appeals to Hegelian History are a curse and I am sure Portillo knows he is a figure of fun

[Seb]

I am always sceptical towards people of faith (in Politics and Business). If they can believe something as unreal as religion, I fear what other unreal theories they are believing in. Does it impede their judgement on other issues? I think concerning Iraq, Blair and Bush did believe (more so the latter), that they had some 'calling' to put things 'right'...Religion may be good for the 'masses', but I want me leader to be able to be more in touch with reality, and able to make sound judgements.

[Cranmer]

If His Grace were to accept the Portillo doctrine, he would necessarily have to terminate his blog.

To assert that 'religion is a private matter' is to misunderstand both 'religion' and 'private'. The reality is that religious devotion may indeed be private, but adherence to doctrine may have a very public outworking; indeed, religious adherence may transcend the public/private division because it is artificial: one does not leave one's religion in the bathroom. Christians involved in politics do not declare 'Thus saith the Lord'; their faith should induce humility, and in that regard they can be a whole lot more beneficial to society than the atheistic political ego which lives and breathes nothing but itself.

Portillo is a lost soul in search of meaning. He will not find light on his present path.

[Seb]

"Especially when they believe that they should be judged in the after-life; not in the here and now, by the people they govern.

Cue Imams, Popes, George Bush and Tony Blair.

Scary. "

I AGREE 100%

[John Coles]

Does anyone take any notice of Portillo? - that ghastly, unprincipled, one-time Thatcherite, now trendy-leftist, media suck-up, greasy failure.

[Seb]

"Does anyone take any notice of Portillo? - that ghastly, unprincipled, one-time Thatcherite, now trendy-leftist, media suck-up, greasy failure."

I agree in part John, but I think he is on to something here. Atheists fear religious people, I mean some really do. I am one.

There is a post from a reader under Portillo's article that says:
"Cameron lost my tentative vote the minute he chose to advertise his religious views."

I think that sums up how a lot of my 'Metro Friends' that you all despise on here feel. Cameron spent a year courting us 'Soho' voters, and blew it in one line.

[Justin Hinchcliffe]

Totally agree with Portillo.

I still want an answer as to why the Conservative Christian Fellowship enjoys special privileges at CCHQ. To date, I have not had an answer - even from our beloved Editor.

Now for the insults: "You and Portillo are not real Conservatives..." Snzzzzzzzzzz

[Sean Fear]

Blair's failings as PM aren't down to his Christianity - rather down to administrative incompetence, his political correctness, and a belief that government can solve all of society's ills.

Seb - don't you think that's just a bit paranoid. Not that I mind overmuch if Soho voters are dismayed by Cameron's religious beliefs.

[Sean Fear]

Now for the insults: "You and Portillo are not real Conservatives..."

If the cap fits.........

[Great Gatby]

Justin Hinchcliffe's comments are incredibly tiresome, and his prejudice disappointing. That is all.

[Great Gatby]

I've seen no evidence whatsoever that Blair's apparent faith has influenced him or his policies. For shame.

[Editor]

Justin: your questions re CCF and CCHQ are best addressed to CCHQ - not me. All I'll say is that CCF has been a good servant of the party over the years. It ran the Listening to Britain's Churches process and helped deliver the party's emphasis on social justice. More recently it has been helping facilitate the party's outreach to black majority churches.

[Patsy Sergeant]

I do not consider myself a Christian anymore, although I was educated at a Catholic Convent, nowadays a try to adhere to Bhuddist principles (without meditation, as I can neither sit still nor think of nothing, for long enough)!

However I think that most people need some belief or other, often so-called atheists have something else that is like a religion to them.

I think that fanatics can develop from all walks of life, and I certainly don't think it is 'poverty' or 'discrimination' or 'lack of opportunity' which breeds fanatics - thats just a fashionable cop-out! I do think that certain personality traits lead to some people being more likely to become a fanatic, whether it is an atheist fanatic/dictator such as Stalin, or a religious fanatic such as Al-Qa'eda there is not a great deal of difference.

I think that religion is or can be a humanising influence in people's lives. Some people - the modern term I think would be - control freaks - see religion as a means of exerting control over other people, either for monetary gain, or for political power.

The religion of this country is Christianity, and has been for centuries. In the past the tenets of Christianity were taught in all schools as a matter of course, and the general public adhered to those principals - more or less!

Perhaps one of the problems with state education nowadays is that the religious messages that the children receive - if they do - are so garbled and confused, that the children have no solid benchmark in life to start from, most particularly if they come from broken or multi-father homes!

[Justin Hinchcliffe]

"More recently it has been helping facilitate the party's outreach to black majority churches" - no doubt we can look forward to gaining Tottenham, my constituency, as a result of your work?

[TomTom]

no doubt we can look forward to gaining Tottenham, my constituency, as a result of your work?

That seems to be the sole reason for you to help anyone Justin...perhaps you ought to see some things as an end in themselves rather than as a means to an end

[Justin Hinchcliffe]

"It ran the Listening to Britain's Churches process ... More recently it has been helping facilitate the party's outreach to black majority churches."

"That seems to be the sole reason for you to help anyone Justin...perhaps you ought to see some things as an end in themselves rather than as a means to an end"

Please explain what benefit either of those campaigns had beyond the attempt to increase votes amongst those groups.

[Jon Gale]

Hitler believed in god, you cant pin that one on us atheists, sorry.

"Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord."

[Denis Cooper]

In my view each of us is entitled to hold and express our own beliefs, but we can't necessarily to be permitted to act upon them. There have to be power structures to constrain what each of us can do to others on the basis of our personal beliefs. What if God told Bush that it was time for the world to end, and he should start a nuclear war? Is there any reliable mechanism to stop him doing that?

[David Sergeant]

"I think that fanatics can develop from all walks of life, and I certainly don't think it is 'poverty' or 'discrimination' or 'lack of opportunity' which breeds fanatics - thats just a fashionable cop-out!" Patsy Sergeant

Absolutely. Can we get this straight.

Afternoon Patsy.

[Jack Bains]

"The greatest killers of the last century weren't religious "fanatics" but atheists. I think of Stalin and Hitler and Pol Pot."

The point about Hitler has already been made and Stalin was a trainee priest. Anyway, if we want to start a tally we can't, asmore people have been killed in the name of religion over the past 1000 years than we could count.

"Christian men have been at the forefront of many of the great reforms of our times." Yes but many other religious leaders have stopped reform. Medical research was held back by the catholics and huge numbers of British citizens were controlled by rich christians using religion to justify social inequality - "the rich man in his castle, the poor man at his gate".

Don't use History, Tim, it always blows up in your face.

[Cllr. Gavin Ayling]

It's interesting that no atheists agree with that position. Most areas where debate can reasonably be had surround things that people either side of the argument agree on.

For example, fox hunting is supported and opposed by people living in the country and the cities.

Religious fanaticism is not cherished by any atheist I know of, and so, I'm afraid, I agree with Portillo. I believe that is the 'real' Conservative position.

[Editor]

Hitler may have sometimes appealed to the German people using religious arguments but he was no Christian - he didn't go to church and believed in doctrines like Aryanism that were completely alien to Christianity. You're on much shakier grounds trying to say that Stalin wasn't an atheist, Jack. His communist belief system which did not allow for God is well-documented. It is true that people have used religion to commit serious crimes but it was atheistic creeds - Nazism and communism - that filled the graves of the 20th century.

[Cllr Iain Lindley]

What a depressing thread. Portillo's comments are way out of proportion, but that's no excuse for the editor inferring a casual link between atheism and mass-murder. Shame on you, Tim.

[Ted]

In all faith systems, religious, fascist, communist. atheist, even vegetarianism, you will get the fanatics whose beliefs drive them to inhuman conduct. It doesn't need a belief in God or Gods to do that.

Portillo is guilty of lazy thought. A leader who searches his conscience in light of what his beliefs are and asks if he can face his maker certain in his choices is generally to be preferred to one who looks to the next headline or political advantage. That is a very different matter from the leader who believes he is ordained by God or Allah or some other diety or purpose to achieve divine purpose on earth.

Leaders have to make difficult choices and often ones that have a cost to others. I prefer knowing they have a strong moral code, that I am aware of, to a leader who has beliefs that shift in the vagaries of politics.

[Justin Hinchcliffe]

What is a 'real' Christian, Ed? This is simply the no true Scotsman fallacy.

Communism wasn't an atheist system. It tried to replace god with money. That is not atheism. On top of that Stalin and Pol Pot didn't use atheism as a basis for the slaughter, unlike the church which encouraged murder in the name of god (not in our name but perhaps in his!). Removing religion wont stop these kinds of acts, it will however remove one simple justification.

"I'd rather have a leader that felt a deep sense of accountability to his maker than someone who thought he could get away with anything if noone was looking."

I'd rather a leader who felt accountable to the people he was leading not a nebulous entity who has a poor track record of making people do the right thing. This is simply the 'morality only comes from god' cannard rephrased.

The ease with which Hitler used the German's religious beliefs to his own ends demonstrates pefectly the reason religion is such a dangerous and malign influence in politics. Anything can be justified and you are accountable to no-one.

"If you want to understand philanthropy you have to understand the 'God factor.' A recent analysis of giving in the US proved that religious motivations were more powerful than any other factor in determining generosity."

I'd be intrigued to read that analysis. Does it count donation to churches (charitable bodies in the US) as part of this generosity? I'm also unclear as to the relevance of this point even if it were true. Just because the religious are more generous why should they be listened to any more than anyone else?

"Not all religions are the same. Some religions are defined by the teaching of forgiveness and peacefulness. Others are more open to interpretations that lead to violence."

I beg to differ, there is very little to seperate most religions. Taking Jesus' teachings to be all about 'forgiveness and peacefulness' requires some selective reading of the New Testament, something xians are already well practised at.

[Richard]

One wonders whether or not Portillo has a bit of a chip on his shoulder regarding the traditional attitude of Christianity to homosexuality. While one can sympathise with his displeasure at this particular aspect, it ought to be time he got over it.

"Our main objectives are: To uphold the Christian religion and resist all attacks upon it."

Winston Churchill, Conservative Party Conference 1946.

[Alex Forsyth]

Militant Christian-haters like Portaloo have no place in our party which is a party of religion - mainly but not exclusively Christian - or it is nothing.

I laughed at Tom Tom's reminiscences concerning Portaloo and that "SAS" speech, and I can recall a few more along similar ignorantly bombastic lines. Remember the one about how German and French academic qualification weren't worth the paper they were written on?

Half an hour or so after the SAS drivel in Bournemouth I found myself strolling in front of the old Palace Court Hotel right behind Portaloo and some female sidekick.

The self-styled future leader - who is as short as he is vain - was preening himself and yattering non-stop about how the conference had loved the speech and how much he was looking forward to his star role in the forthcoming press headlines.

He didn't have long to wait. As history records, the media judged his objectionable windbaggery a turkey among turkeys.

In trouncing Portaloo IDS rendered a signal service to the whole of humanity. Incidentally, isn't it interesting that Polly claims to be a great fan of Wagner?

Now who could that remind me of?

[Editor]

Iain Lindley: "What a depressing thread. Portillo's comments are way out of proportion, but that's no excuse for the editor inferring a casual link between atheism and mass-murder. Shame on you, Tim."

You over-interpret what I was saying, Iain. Michael Portillo was arguing that religious believers were fanatics. I was simply countering that other belief systems were more fanatical/ murderous in the last century. I didn't mean to offend.

[Jack Bains]

Tim, there were also many 20th century graves filled by Franco's catholics in Spain and US troops led by religious Presidents such as Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Reagan, Bush, Clinton and Bush have filled enough ground. Then of course we have the very religious leaders in Germany, Russia France and Britain in the Great War. The Argentines in the Falklands all said prayers to the Virgin Mary and Christians, Jews and Muslims do tend to mix it up a bit in the Middle East. The Stern gand members that butchered my grandfather's comrade were good Jews. India and Pakistan, again a religious conflict of the 20th century - and a product of the Christian British Empire. General Dyer went to Church the Sunday before opening up on pilgrims at Amritsar. My point is - Christians kill, Hindus kill, Muslims kill, Jews kill!

[Martin Wright]

"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."

I can't see the logic in this assertion. A politician who has a faith faces two constraints: what his conscience tells him is God's will, and the judgement of the electorate. He thus faces a much more difficult path, for at times he will have to lose popular support in order to do what he believes to be right.

Of course an atheist with principles will tread the same rocky path, sometimes loosing popularity for the sake of principle.

In theory I can't see much difference between the two. But the believer faces sanctions in the after life, which might stiffen his/her devotion to principles more than for the atheist.

Better the believer or the principled atheist than some one who has no faith or principles. A politician lacking either faith or strong principles could well be a dangerous opportunist.

[Denis Cooper]

"But the believer faces sanctions in the after life" More to the point, the believer believes in an after life, and as that's an eternal after life suffering in this world may be seen as unimportant - whether it's his suffering, or that of other people.

[Philip]

Yes, Richard (1657), I had wondered the same. I have long been aware of that Churchill quote: "Our main objectives are: To uphold the Christian religion and resist all attacks upon it." How are we doing on this? Yes, I know this might raise questions about DC's support for Labour legislation removing the freedom to act according to Christian conscience.

But in response to posts suggesting Mr Cameron, is advertising his religious views, I don't think he is doing this. What are his religious views anyway? His stance in the gay adoption row shows he doesn't identify with the Christian view on everything. On families etc, he just realises that marriage is the basis of a healthy society. Objective statistical evidence that children tend to get the best chance when brought by married mother and father seem to be the basis for what he is saying rather than religion.

The beneficial impacts of Christianity the editor points to, and that statistics objectively prove the benefits of Christian aspiration for marriage/family, must give good reason for what Churchill said was that main objective of the Conservative Party: “To uphold the Christian religion and resist all attacks upon it."

[Philip]

"the believer believes in an after life, and as that's an eternal after life suffering in this world may be seen as unimportant - whether it's his suffering, or that of other people." Denis Cooper (18:12)

It's true that the promise of eternal life should mean believers are not so obsessed with temporal concerns, money and materialism and so on, but they do also believe they face rewards and judgements in the "after-life" based on the good or otherwise they have done for others in this world, and on how they have lived their lives here.

[John Irvine]

Most of these people are anti-Christian. You can see it on here.

Read the Bible and you'll find out why

[TomTom]

Posted by: Jon Gale | February 25, 2007 at 15:00

Yes Jon Gale and he was such a truthful man, a man who stated:

When I came back after my second visit I told the House of Commons of a conversation I had had with Herr Hitler, of which I said that, speaking with great earnestness, he repeated what he had already said at Berchtesgaden-namely, that this was the last of his territorial ambitions in Europe, and that he had no wish to include in the Reich people of other races than German. Herr Hitler himself confirmed this account of the conversation in the speech which he made at the Sportpalast in Berlin, when he said: "This is the last territorial claim which I have to make in Europe." And a little later in the same speech he said: "I have assured Mr. Chamberlain, and I emphasise it now, that when this problem is solved Germany has no more territorial problems in Europe." And he added: "I shall not be interested in the Czech State any more, and I can guarantee it. We don't want any Czechs any more."

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/wwii/bluebook/blbk09.htm

I think it is good you look to Adolf Hitler for your inspiration...perhaps you and Zundel and Irving should get together sometime ?

[Dr Alan Patterson, Northumberland]

I'ts THE LAW Stupid. The Divine Law that was given to our Celto-Saxon-Israelite ancestors Adam, Abraham, Moses, David, Apostles and Paul. That's what nominal Christians like Blair, Cameron, Gove and Rowan Williams reject. They masquerade as Christians while devoting their working lives to dismantling Yahweh-God's perfect laws and substituting their own man-made laws and emotions. When Britain broadly kept these laws --from Alfred the Great, to Queen Bess, to Cramner, to Victoria to Bishop Ryle, we were broadly a happy, healthy, prosperous, and immensly powerful Nation. Only the blood-ritual Laws were nailed to the Cross!
We have sunk very low in 100 yrs, but we will eventually come to our senses and return to our God...and Greatness.

[Justin Hinchcliffe]

Doctor of what?

[Sean Fear]

Communism is, and was an atheistic ideology, Justin. Communists were absolutely explicit about that.

It was probably rather cold comfort to the millions of victims of Communism to know that they weren't being killed in the name of religion.

As a more general point, if what human beings mean by religion were to disappear from this planet, we can be pretty sure that conservatism would disappear with it.

[malcolm]

I have given up trying to understand what motivates Michael Portillo. His journalism is often entertaining and sometimes he makes some very interesting points but the only predictable thing about him is his unpredictability. It was only a few short months ago that his Sunday Times editorials were full iof praise for Blair and Bush for their disastrous policy in Iraq and he was an early sabre rattler regarding Iran.
Regarding their Christianity I do not believe that either man is in any sense a fanatical Christian both a far too pragmatic for that. Blairs inability to tell the truth so often leads me to think that he wears his religous conviction lightly if at all.
As regards whether it is good to have political leaders motivated by Christianity I believe on the whole that it is,but as we have seen both in history and more recently in Northern Ireland it is a small step from religous conviction to religous bigotry, as with so much it depends on the character of the individual.

[Sean Fear]

Jack Bains - actually, I'm not sure what your point really is. Human beings do kill - in certain circumstances, with greater or less justification.

[Denis Cooper]

Philip @ 18:40 - "It's true that the promise of eternal life should mean believers are not so obsessed with temporal concerns, money and materialism and so on, but they do also believe they face rewards and judgements in the "after-life" based on the good or otherwise they have done for others in this world, and on how they have lived their lives here." Yes, but the second part "how they have lived their lives here" is what always matters, and what that means depends on their particular religious belief. It could mean doing what others would accept as being "good", or it could mean blowing themselves up to kill non-believers.

[Jack Bains]

Sean, Tim seems to think that we atheists are more likely to kill and be bad than religious people and he used examples of crazy atheists to prove his point - that was my point.

[Cranmer]

When Britain broadly kept these laws --from Alfred the Great, to Queen Bess, to Cramner, to Victoria to Bishop Ryle, we were broadly a happy

Why can so very few spell His Grace's name correctly?

It is CraNMer.

[Patsy Sergeant]

Justin Hinchcliffe you seem to b suggesting at 16.54 that an atheist leader wouold feel more accountable to his people than one who is of religious motivation.

In terms of Hitler and Stalin and even some moderen African leaders - dictators all, who never feel accountable to their population, thats their problem they never do, and so die (one way or another) in office. Of course that is not to say that there haven't, or indeed aren't right now religious dictators also!

[Stewart]

I find many of these comments very sad. I am a christian, and that is what shapes and drives my life. It is as a result of my faith that I have come into politics, and after exploration of the various alternatives, felt that the Conservative party most closely fits with my faith which cannot ever be private (Henry 13:20).

If I believe that I have been given the greatest gift of all and have been told to go and share to all, how can I or any other christian remain silent.

If Justin and others find this offensive, then I'm sorry, but why do you find this a threat?

In addition, if Justin wants to know about how the Black majority churches can impact electoral results in Tottenham and other parts of London, maybe he'd like to come and speak to me.

[Justin Hinchcliffe]

"His stance in the gay adoption row shows he doesn't identify with the Christian view"

I was unaware that there was a monlithic 'christian view'. The good folks at www.gaychristian.net or www.lgcm.org.uk might disagree with that notion.

"The beneficial impacts of Christianity the editor points to"

Whilst ignoring the hugly detrimental impact religion has had.

"and that statistics objectively prove the benefits of Christian aspiration for marriage/family,"

I wasn't aware that aspiration for marriage/family was a xian thing. Must tell that to all the Jewish, Shikh, Hindu, Humanist etc married couples.

"but they do also believe they face rewards and judgements in the "after-life" based on the good or otherwise they have done for others in this world"

But their basis for deciding what is good comes from their own interpretation of Bronze-Iron age myths. The bible has shown time and time again that depending on your interpretation it can say whatever you want it to say.

"Communism is, and was an atheistic ideology, Justin. Communists were absolutely explicit about that."

Really what about 'Christian Communism' - the idea that Jesus' teachings are mostly closely matched by communist ideals. Stalinism may have been a secular ideology but my point was that they didn't use their atheism as justification for murder. "There is no god so you must die". Whereas "you have a different god to me/follow a different subset of my religion so you must die" has been a common refrain.

[David DPB]

In this debate about atheism vs religion, the only conclusion to draw is that human beings are vicious bastards who will latch on to what they can to justify their behaviour, be it an ideology or a religion.

[Stephen Tolkinghorne]

"no doubt we can look forward to gaining Tottenham, my constituency, as a result of your work?" - Hinchcliffe

Unfortunately, even the good work done by the Tim in his capacity with the church, reaching out to other black majority churches will not win Tottenham for you, Hinchie. You see, black dominated churches tend to stick to the teachings of the bible, not picking and choosing those things which fit their life-style choice. As a result, they're strongly opposed to homosexuality being promoted as being an equal arrangement to normal heterosexual marriage and relationships.

Therefore, Hinchie, your love of all things homosexual is going to be the vote loser in Tottenham. Tottenham is out of reach to the Tories, and it's all down to you, Hincie, despite the hard work of everyone else.

[Justin Hinchcliffe]

"You see, black dominated churches tend to stick to the teachings of the bible, not picking and choosing those things which fit their life-style choice."

Really, do they wear only cloth of one fibre, do they keep the Sabbath, do they stone adulterers, idolaters, children who don't respect their parents? No? Then they pick and choose which bits they want to follow.

Before someone claims Jesus did away with OT law remember Matthew 5:18 "Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled." Or is that a bit of scripture that we CAN pick and choose?

[Justin Hinchcliffe]

"Tottenham is out of reach to the Tories, and it's all down to you, Hincie, despite the hard work of everyone else."

So before I became involved Tottenham was a winnable marginal? Who is this 'everyone else' and what work have they done in Tottenham?

[AlexW]

The missing piece from the Portillo puzzle is that we must consider that he was educated at the feet of Maurice Cowling, the late Peterhouse fellow whose historical analysis was that politicians acted by way of self-interest, with ideals, principles and other such "fanaticism" a mere smokescreen. Yet whilst Cowling's work was an analysis of the past, Portillo took this view of politics as a primer for the future.

Politics is, therefore, the pursuit of power and power alone. Anything that could feasibly obstruct the path to power should be ruthlessly discarded - hence Portillo's absurd conversion between 1997 and 1999. Jettisoning his old values was his perceived route to the top. When Portillo speaks of the "constraints of democracy", he means the joy of re-election: principles can be readily sacrificed at the altar of popularity.

[Beth Gore]

Quoting Sean Fear: "If what human beings mean by religion were to disappear from this planet, we can be pretty sure that conservatism would disappear with it."

I would disagree with this. My understanding is that conservatism is, fundamentally, a moral system that is defined by the presence of a moral hierarchy - a ladder upon which you can rank the "moral authority" of groups or individuals. A simple one would be God, Man, Animals.

Christianity appears to lend itself to a belief in absolutes of right and wrong and accepting (without question) the moral authority of those legitimately entitled to it, God, then Priests, then Parents, etc. I would theorise that a strong Christian upbringing would likely lead to a greater understanding and sympathy towards conservative political positions. Political conservatives probably incline towards perceiving Christianity as a positive force for "good."

Whilst the two reinforce each other, they are not dependent on each other. You can be one without the other. I would even argue that conservatism, as a moral system, informs the understanding of (and informed the development of) Christianity and other strongly patriarchal religions.

[Jon Gale]

TomTom, 19:40

"I think it is good you look to Adolf Hitler for your inspiration...perhaps you and Zundel and Irving should get together sometime ?"

You odious little scrote. I pointed out that contrary to the Editors remarks Hitler believed in a God and thought that he was doing God's work, and this obviously so offends your sensiblities you equate me with Holocaust deniers and nazis!

Stalin was an atheist and killed millions.
Hitler believed in a God and killed millions.

They were both monsters, I am defending neither.

[Automated Robot]

Portillo's piece is unoriginal and flawed.

It is a poor reflection of the current debate amongst US Democrats as they court mainstream religious voters - and minimise the damage caused by blogs and recent publications from their anti-religious flank.

The reasoning is also flawed in at least two ways.

1 - Not all who claim the same label (or those on whom we seek to hang such a label) hold the same beliefs.

Humanity is much more diverse and rich than our simple categorisations. (A further order of differentiation lies within the degree to which these beliefs inform and influence different believers' actions). If we do not recognise this, then gross caricatures and point scoring from history will persist.

2 - The system must orbit around the norm, the average, the typical and the status quo. An academic point, perhaps, but it follows that significant advances and improvements are highly likely to come from challenge without Portillo's own trinity of press, parliament and electorate.

If the state is secular, it can expect the challenge of religious inspiration and thinking - and vice versa.

Having said that, it has always seemed strange to me that those who deny the supernatural and fear the inspiration of the divine (to choose as broad a label as possible) cannot counter such flawed thinking with the force of their own sound reason, or the checks and balances of a democratic system.

[Buckers]

I am a Conservative because I believe the market should decide and that a small state built on the inherent virtues of the individual, maximises freedom. Religions, demagogues and bureaucracies do not.

I don't always agree with Polly, but I think he's essentially correct on this one. If politicians consider themselves accountable to God on the day of judgement and not to the electorate at the ballot box, the public ought to be clearly warned so that they may vote against, as they surely would in a country where religion is a mere passing interest to most. If anyone feels otherwise, I'd reccommend they set up a Christian Consevative Party with Leigh and friends, and see how much enthusiasm it generates.

People of faith have an important role to play within the Conservative Party and mainstream politics, but we ought to know if they base their judgments on unprovable dogma or rational pragmatism before we elect them into positions of power.

[Londoner]

As a semi-detached Christian, who if pressed would say they believe in it and quite likes going to church (C of E) for the music, quiet time for reflection and sense of shared values and community, I suspect that David Cameron is in exactly the same category. When he stood for leader he was asked if he believed in God and said "yes but I don't go to church, other than the major festivals, as often as I should" and was also asked if God spoke to him and he laughed and said "no direct line, no". I thought: very sensible and balanced, a traditional semi-active/sem--dormant member of the C of E.

I think Portillo's problem is maybe that he does not understand such an English position. His family heritage was presumably RC and therefore he either had to embrace it very actively with a large sense of commitment, or reject it. He did the latter; the C of E English don't really have to, which means that we can equally drift back into it at different stages of their life.

It has only come up now because Cameron is seeking a place for his child in a church school, which probably means, like others in his position, that the family is going to church rather more now than before. It is most unlikely to mean that he has become a born again Christian (so I don't think Portillo needs to worry, even if we accepted his premises). Ironically, this has come about only because he is not sending his (non-disabled) children to a private primary, which he absolutely would have done without a second thought it he had not been leader of the Conservative Party. So in spinning himself as a man of the people, he has landed up inadvertantly spinning himself as a man of faith.

The one grain of recognition that Portillo's article will evoke is that Bush and Blair have given Christianity in political leaders a bad name. So far as one can tell, there appears to be a major hypocrisy at the heart of Blair's Christianity in that he is a closet RC who so lacks the courage of his presumed convictions that he has not converted whilst PM because he feels it won't spin well. Unless the deep Christian feeling is a sham, which I doubt, he is bound to convert when he leaves office because, if religion is as important to him is it seems, he will want to be in the denomination that he is most comfortable with. To me that is the nauseating aspect about Blair's Christianity (the hyprocrisy, not the RC leaning).

In general where Portillo is totally wrong is in not perceiving that it is actually rather comforting if political leaders believe they will ultimately be accountable to a higher authority because, whilst at many times rulers will be confident that they can fool the electorate, if they are believers they will know that they can't fool God. I cannot see how that is a disadvantage for the unbelieving ruled like Portillo, unless it is that he has elevated democracy into a religion. After all, religious or not, surely our leaders should be most strongly bound by what they think is right, not by what they think will be popular? Has Portillo drifted so far from his Thatcherite past that he no longer believes that? I remain a fan of Portillo's Thurs late night TV political natter, where as well as being amusing he also often remains quite sensible, so I am inclined to think that he was a bit short of material for his Sunday Times column this week and that we should give him the benefit of the doubt that he didn't really mean it.

[Beth Gore]

I would argue that putting ideological or religious belief ahead of critical thinking is unhealthy for politicians that are in positions of power and expected to govern.

On the other hand, people driven by ideology and/or religious belief make very willing and pliant party workers and easily satisfied voters.

By the way, nothing anyone can say will make me change my mind on this. I know I'm right. I can feel it in my gut.

[TomTom]

and easily satisfied voters.

Which shows just how wrong being so smug can be Beth Gore

[TomTom]

You odious little scrote. I pointed out that contrary to the Editors remarks Hitler believed in a God and thought that he was doing God's work,

Thank you for your kind words Jon Gale; I wish you the very same.

It is rare one gets the chance to discuss with one who idolises Adolf Hitler, but I shall take this chance to puncture your adoration.

Hitler was not interested in any Christian God and enounced Christianity. Catholic priests were the first to be shot in Poland, and large numbers went to Auschwitz-Birkenau.

I had not expected to find on CH one who recites Neo-Nazi propaganda about Hitler being a "good Christian" for his actions in liquidating Jews, but I see from your unsourced quotation

Hitler believed in god, you cant pin that one on us atheists, sorry.

"Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord."

Posted by: Jon Gale | February 25, 2007 at 15:00

that you believe him and that murdering Jews is true Christianity.

YOu are very lucky the Act has not yet passed or ou could face prosecution for incitement to religious hatred....but to quote Adolf Hitler is the sign of a very troubled mind

[Alex Forsyth]

I am a Conservative because I believe the market should decide and that a small state built on the inherent virtues of the individual, maximises freedom. Religions, demagogues and bureaucracies do not.

Ah yes. Mr "Buckers" the ideological expert. We recall some of his previous Camerloon ravings.

Does he suppose that Edmund Burke, "Father of Conservatism", who objected strongly to the involvement of atheists in politics, and the devoutly Catholic French legitimists who actually coined the word "Conservative" would have agreed with this interesting analysis?

[Jon Gale]

TomTom,

I am not "idolising" Hitler or repeating neo-nazi propaganda you fool. Neither am I saying Hitler was a "good christian" (I'm not sure he should even be classed as christian).

But he did believe in a Supreme Being - which by definition means he was not an atheist. I merely pointed that out. How hard is that to understand? Go on a literacy course.

I pointed it out as an historical fact:

Hitler believed in a God.
Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot were atheists.
Mussolini was an atheist.
Franco was a catholic.
Fidel Castro is an atheist.
The Romanian 'Iron Guard' fascists were orthodox.
Al Queda are muslim.

I am sorry if the idea of Hitler believing in a god somehow offends you, but don't accuse me of being a Nazi.

Now apologise.

[Soupy Twist]

I guess you can argue just about anything if you are selective with the evidence.

For instance if one were to go by the hate-filled outpourings of various celebrity atheists and their blogging disciples, one might conclude that all atheists were really rather unpleasant.

As it is I know plenty of very nice atheists and agnostics and so know that this isn't true.

[Ian Collard]

I approached this thread with some trepidation, but have been relieved to learn how many fellow Conservatives share my view that we must remain a firmly secular party and not have policy driven by religious belief.

As has been mentioned earlier, the Conservative Christian Fellowship seems to enjoy a priveleged position in the party and is very adept at putting its views across.

Perhaps we secularists should look to the same tactics and form a Conservative Secularist Society to start defending our own corner, and expounding the values of a society that is independent of religious influence.

[Alex Forsyth]

Of course atheists may subscribe to an acceptable moral code.

The problem is that for them it is merely a lifestyle choice. There's nothing to make their choice of, say, Kantianism any more or ls valid than Hitlerism or Stalinism.

We don't only need to keep our party Christian; we need to make it a lot more Christian.

And that won't happen if we ape the debauched morals of Blair's "Coolbritannia"

[Erasmus]

"Perhaps we secularists should look to the same tactics and form a Conservative Secularist Society to start defending our own corner, and expounding the values of a society that is independent of religious influence."

Well go on then, no one's stopping you. This is a pluralist democracy in which anyone can use their right to free speech to influence society.

[Sean Fear]

"Really what about 'Christian Communism' - the idea that Jesus' teachings are mostly closely matched by communist ideals. "

No Communist state ever espoused an ideology of Christian communism. Some Christians are undoubtedly communists, but it's pretty much a minority viewpoint within the Church.

"Stalinism may have been a secular ideology but my point was that they didn't use their atheism as justification for murder. "

On the contrary, they murdered considerable numbers of religious believers, on the ground that they were religious believers. Admittedly, during WWII, Stalin found it expedient to tone down religious persecution, in order to rally the population to fight the Germans, but that was purely expedient.

I'd accept though that *most* victims of communism have been murdered on grounds other than their religious beliefs.

[Chris]

Michael Portillo is one person I wholeheartedly agree with on many issues and this one is no different. I have a deep mistrust for people who have deeprooted beliefs in relgion.

[Michael McGowan]

I don't think the secularists on this site should have any concerns about defending their corner. Even Robespierre and friends were less self-satisfied about their monopoly of wisdom and rectitude.

Londoner is too charitable about Portillo. The man is a seeker after power pure and simple, his career littered with tactical errors and ideological handbrake turns driven by expediency. He now spouts the secular leftist prejudices of his BBC paymasters. What will it be next? Bercow is a poor man's Portillo.

[Michael McGowan]

Chris said: "I have a deep mistrust for people who have deeprooted beliefs in religion". In which case you presumably had a deep mistrust for the three greatest Western political figures of the last generation: John Paul II, Reagan and Thatcher? Any one of who towers over the political pygmy Portillo.

[Alex Forsyth]

Even Robespierre and friends were less self-satisfied about their monopoly of wisdom and rectitude

Robespierre was actually a deist who promoted the Worship of the Supreme Being

His model and idol in such matters was J-J Rousseau.

[Michael McGowan]

Well, let's just say Alex that Robespierre et al were not exactly friends of the Christian religion.

[Graeme Archer]

I don't believe there's much of substance to be found by debating whether or not this or that morally stumped figure from history was religious. Dawkins has a whole section in his latest book to build up the evidence base that Stalin was religious, in fact, though my eyes glazed over at that point, because I've never understood what I'm supposed to learn from the point that this or that individual, whom I'll never know, believed this or disbelieved that. I dislike the thought of Stalin because of ths system he promoted and the results it had on real people; I couldn't care less what his motivation was. Sean made an interesting point once about how most Tories are either Christian or are at least polite about the utility of Christianity to our culture; he's too bright for me to even attempt to contradict! But I might suggest another difference between Tories and the left, which is that we tend not to be psychoanalytical, but empirical, i.e. I don't really care why someone is behaving in the way that they are (not as a first priority, in any case), I only care about the impact of their behaviour.

I get the same feeling about this religious stuff (in a much more low-key way) when someone embellishes their political point with an "As Margaret Thatcher said in 1976" type quotation. I don't really care, other than enjoying the literary flourish; it doesn't make me more or less in favour of the proposition being discussed. It can be anyone, not necessarily Lady T. I imagine socialists try to cap their arguments with deadpan riffs from Orwell or Shaw.

Most discussions about religion end up in this sort of displacement activity - I would have taken money (and won) on homosexuality being mentioned at some point - there's a reason for that, I believe, but I'm probably too clumsy and limited a thinker to set it out properly. Popper discusses it, he calls it the auxiliary hypothesis: you can't falsify the primary one so you try to see what would be entailed by its truth and see if you get a contradiction. As usual I don't think it works outside closed analytical systems (ie maths). It certainly doesn't work when there's zero way of producing any evidence for or against the existence of a deity, because then the auxiliary hypotheses (and entailed data) are just as supported by the non-God hypothesis as they are by the God one. "I believe in God" isn't proof, or even evidence, and "Stalin believed/did not believe in God" is even less of both.

British people - I assert - are uncomfortable with overt and florid expositions of religiosity for reasons that have nothing to do with their faith, or lack of. I could cap my amateur epistemology with some amateur history and say that this is likely due to the results of our beautiful, Elizabethan settlement. I dunno. I know I have the emotional response ("stop it") before I have an intellectual one. That doesn't make me any less fond of Anglicanism.

[Andrew]

Jesus always sounded a bit like a soppy lefty to me.

As for all the "Hitler was a god-botherer, Stalin was an atheist, etc": only a yawn from the depths of my soul could fully convey the boredom such arguments bring on. These are little more than insults by association - you're talking about a tiny number of individual demagogues, hardly a representative sample useful in judging a modern day leader in a democracy.

[Buckers]

Mr Forsyth, I didn't realise that a single previous post expressing mild support for Cameron, that heavily mandated leader of the Conservative Party, renders all future contributions as "Camerloon ravings". How unfriendly.

Figures of the past associated with the conservative movement were often men of religious conviction but also many other opinions that science was able to disprove -it was after all, the past. Religious fervor, is no more essential to being a conservative than the belief in a flat earth or dinosaurs bones being a test of faith.

Your form of moral totalitarianism, is far more akin to the forms of control that socialists wish to thrust upon individuals. They attribute it to ideology, you to religion.

[TomTom]

I am a Conservative because I believe the market should decide

That sounds like Manchester School Liberalism to me....the Party of Cobden and Bright and not very in tune with Conservative tradition.

[Buckers]

Perhaps Thatcherism is too TomTom. Peter Hitchens often proclaims that she advanced the permissive society more than anyone else.

[Jack Bains]

Alex - I'm learning not to get upset by TomTom, he can't help the way he is. I would't be too shocked if he turned out not to be a party member at all - perhaps a UKIP plant??

[Jack Bains]

Sorry - I mean Jon Gale. Ooops

[Ted]

TomTom - remember the Unionist in Conservative & Unionist comes from our Liberal Unionist inheritance rather than our 19th Century Tory one. The Liberal influx gave us many of our 20th Century parliamentarians.