Saturday, March 04, 2006
The land that I live in has God on its side
Much mention in Conference already of Tony Blair's claim to have God on his side in invading Iraq. Is it possible that he has spent too long in the company of George W Bush or is it that he has just lost the plot? Perhaps he should consider the words of Bob Dylan when he next considers whether to invade a foreign country, using a false pretext and in defiance of international law:
But now we got weapons
Of the chemical dust
If fire them we're forced to
Then fire them we must
One push of the button
And a shot the world wide
And you never ask questions
When God's on your side.
In a many dark hour
I've been thinkin' about this
That Jesus Christ
Was betrayed by a kiss
But I can't think for you
You'll have to decide
Whether Judas Iscariot
Had God on his side.
So now as I'm leavin'
I'm weary as Hell
The confusion I'm feelin'
Ain't no tongue can tell
The words fill my head
And fall to the floor
If God's on our side
He'll stop the next war.
As somebody said today, many people go into politics because they have strong religious views and a sense of duty to their country, but once they are in power they are required to act in the best interests of those who elected them. Their own faith should not form part of any decision-making process and it certainly should not be used as a prop to avoid proper scrutiny.
But now we got weapons
Of the chemical dust
If fire them we're forced to
Then fire them we must
One push of the button
And a shot the world wide
And you never ask questions
When God's on your side.
In a many dark hour
I've been thinkin' about this
That Jesus Christ
Was betrayed by a kiss
But I can't think for you
You'll have to decide
Whether Judas Iscariot
Had God on his side.
So now as I'm leavin'
I'm weary as Hell
The confusion I'm feelin'
Ain't no tongue can tell
The words fill my head
And fall to the floor
If God's on our side
He'll stop the next war.
As somebody said today, many people go into politics because they have strong religious views and a sense of duty to their country, but once they are in power they are required to act in the best interests of those who elected them. Their own faith should not form part of any decision-making process and it certainly should not be used as a prop to avoid proper scrutiny.
Comments:
<< Home
I guess you know the invasion of Iraq was in defiance of international law because of your background as an expert in these things? Or because you parrot Ming?
I don't know whether it was or wasn't and neither do you. Of course, it's a different matter whether it was just.
And Tony Blair didn't claim to have God on his side. Did he? Eh?
Just make it up, Pete.
I don't know whether it was or wasn't and neither do you. Of course, it's a different matter whether it was just.
And Tony Blair didn't claim to have God on his side. Did he? Eh?
Just make it up, Pete.
Peter: Where has TB claimed to have God on his side? All he claimed was that he prayed about Iraq (and any Christian PM considering sending British troops into action would pray. A lot) and that as well as being judged by the people he will one day be judged by God (orthodox Christian belief). If TB had said he should be judged by God alone - then your point would stand - but he didn't. He also clearly ignored the clear teaching of his faith, which would suggest he made his decision on political grounds.
David: The majority of international lawyers believed that the war was not legal. And centuries worth of religious and philosophical thought says that without some form of authority, war cannot be just.
David: The majority of international lawyers believed that the war was not legal. And centuries worth of religious and philosophical thought says that without some form of authority, war cannot be just.
Dear, dear, seem to have touched a raw nerve there. Nice to see you all leaping to his defence so strongly - it's a sure sign that such defence is needed!!
Paul, the Attourney General gave advice it was OK. Dershowitz thinks pre-emptive war is defensible. You'll be able to come up with names to support an anti position but you'll be hard pushed to stand by your assertion about a 'majority of international lawyers' - I'm afaid I missed that poll - let alone Peter's bald statement that it just was illegal.
An honest position would be that it's a complex issue without a definite answer yet.
The war was backed by authority - although I'd question your history, philosophy and ethics - the Commons voted in favour, remember? But that's nothing at all to do with whether it was just.
Karen, not leaping to Blair's defence. I'm a confirmed atheist and I detest Blair's Christianity. I loathe Peter's opportunistic misrepresentation of the facts more, though.
An honest position would be that it's a complex issue without a definite answer yet.
The war was backed by authority - although I'd question your history, philosophy and ethics - the Commons voted in favour, remember? But that's nothing at all to do with whether it was just.
Karen, not leaping to Blair's defence. I'm a confirmed atheist and I detest Blair's Christianity. I loathe Peter's opportunistic misrepresentation of the facts more, though.
Perhaps you should consider the actual words of the PM, before you post on the subject.
You won't though, because you're an opponent and will believe what you want to believe/will say what you're told to say.
You won't though, because you're an opponent and will believe what you want to believe/will say what you're told to say.
I have linked to his actual words. As such you are able to make your own judgement. My point was that Blair may believe that he is ultimately answerable to God for his actions but he first has to account for them to us and he should not hide behind that faith to avoid scrutiny.
Of course I can make my own judgement - I have. That wasn't my point.
My point is that YOU (not me, you) should look at his words and then tell me exactly where he says what you claim he says.
And please don't pretend that you're not making any claim about his statement. To state "Is it possible that he has spent too long in the company of George W Bush or is it that he has just lost the plot?" is exactly the kind of absurd politican's false dichotomy that makes the rest of us fed up with you lot.
My point is that YOU (not me, you) should look at his words and then tell me exactly where he says what you claim he says.
And please don't pretend that you're not making any claim about his statement. To state "Is it possible that he has spent too long in the company of George W Bush or is it that he has just lost the plot?" is exactly the kind of absurd politican's false dichotomy that makes the rest of us fed up with you lot.
I think that you just need to chill out a bit. When you read this blog you know what you are getting. If you do not like it then do not read it. This post is a perfectly valid bit of fun at the PM's expense whilst at the same time exposing his pomposity and his hypocrisy. You do not need to take every word literally.
Post a Comment
<< Home
