Tony Blair Does God After All

I think people are making a bit much of Tony Blair's reference to God and history being his ultimate judge as it relates to the Iraq war. Call it the Tony Blair does God controversy. But don't blame the bloggers this time. Three very different blogs I read regularly are all making quite a bit of sense making sense of Blair's remarks.

Our friend Rev. Richard Hall nails it at his great blogConnexions:

It is out of character for British politicians to “do God”. While many MP’s and government ministers are well known to have deeply held Christian convictions, the convention in British politics is not to parade these convictions too publicly. Broadly speaking, I’m sure that this is a good thing. It avoids, for example, the appropriation of the “Christian” label by one or other of the political factions. Christians are to be found in all political parties and while all would, I’m sure, say that their political convictions flow from their religious commitment, none would claim to have a monopoly on God in the way that seems to happen in US political life.

Even so, if a poltician who is known to have a Christian faith is asked a direct question which relates to that faith, it seems a bit much to catigate him for answering it. Blair is known to be a Christian. Why should it be surprising to learn that he believes his decisions will be judged by God? I kind of assumed that would be part of his faith. There is all the difference in the world between trying to appropriate God on the hustings and being open about the role that faith has in one’s life.

The Heretik, too, has a judge not message:

Is this a case of God talks to me, God made me do it as in the case of George Bush? Alan Cowell in the NY Times says:

Prime Minister Tony Blair has indicated that God influenced his deliberations when he committed British troops to fight alongside American forces in Iraq.

Or is that a distortion? God may one day be the judge, history may be the judge. The relatives of the war dead will make relatively quick judgment on Blair. Who is worse? Blair who reveals a conscience? Or Bush who doesn’t?

And for once (or is it twice?)we even agree with one of our favorite righty bloggers, Ann Althouse:

The real issue here is whether we were right to go to war and, more importantly, how best to deal with the current state of things. Worrying about Blair's slight reference to religious belief shows either an aversion to religion or the usual pointless grasping for political arguments

Our view: I don't think History will be kind to either Blair or Bush on Iraq--too many half-truths and lies and then a complete failure of execution. Although admittedly the Brits have done a bit better at least temporarily. And as for the second part--I'd never presume to speak for God.