CRANMER reckons there are many reasons why Christians should vote Conservative. Well, of course he does: he’s a Christian, he’s a Tory, ergo, all Christians should be Tories.
I’ve come across this nonsense before, of course, many times, within the church. Shortly after the 1987 general election, I was visiting a friend who had been a member of the same “house church” as me back in our Ayshire days. She had now settled in Sale, Cheshire, with her husband. A Christian friend came round in the evening (with his guitar, natch; wouldn’t want to avoid any evangelical Christian clichés, now, would we?). “Did you vote for our man?” he asked my friend. “Our man”, it turned out, had been the local SDP/Liberal Alliance candidate a few weeks previously, who was also a member of my friend’s local church. Never mind the policies — so long as the person voting for them in the Commons shares your faith. Apparently.
Cranmer’s argument, naturally, is slightly more sophisticated, and it centres on abortion. If you’re a Christian, you’ll oppose abortion, and since David Cameron has apparently offered a free vote on reducing the upper limit, then Christians should vote for a Conservative government. Now, I don’t deny that this argument has a certain logic: more Tory MPs and candidates than Labour tend to be pro-life, so if that’s the most important issue for you, you’ll be tempted to vote accordingly.
But as I’ve argued before, abortion has always been decided on a free vote, and I assume always will be. My biggest problem with Cranmer’s argument (apart from the fact that he refers to himself in the third person; Tom has never been comfortable with that style of writing, which is why he gave up on Facebook) is that he’s trying to accomplish what others —such as Nadine — have tried to do before: make abortion a party political issue along the same lines as in the US.
This would be very bad for British politics and even worse, in the long term, for the Conservative Party. Yes, there was a time when the Republican Party successfully exploited the prejudices and intolerance of the Christian Right for electoral gain. But they paid the price for their 4G strategy (God, guns, gays and gynecology) at the last election and look as if they’ll ditch their fundamentalist allies in order to gain a foothold in the mid-terms next year.
There’s nothing wrong in promoting your own party to those of your own faith, of course. In 1988 I made an impassioned plea to my own church members that the poll tax should be resisted on the basis that a flat tax, with everyone paying the same amount regardless of income, was incompatible with the Biblical principle of tithing. Most members agreed, but it didn’t mean they voted Labour afterwards; I suspect most of them continued to vote Tory.
Tory-voting Christians all too often try to make this specious argument, that a single party (theirs, of course) most accurately represents “Christian values”. Labour-voting Christians, in my experience, tend not to, or at least, they do it less often. Perhaps that’s because they look across at the American political system and are repulsed by the stranglehold that the Christian Right have over Republican policy and don’t want to see the same thing happen here.
More likely, however, they simply recognise that it’s far too simplistic to claim any one party for God, that individuals should be trusted to make their own choice, and those choices respected.
The problem is that there are some vocal Tories out there who look across the Atlantic and actually like what they see. They see the intolerance and ignorance of the likes of Sarah Palin and think: “Yes, let’s have some of that over here!”
Very worrying indeed.














Sunday 12 July 2009 at 3:40 pm
I don’t disagree with anything here.
I am a Conservative and an atheist. I think this is in line with a significant proportion of the younger generations of the party (i’ve no idea whether its a minority or majority, i suspect it would be a close call).
Some of the more radical/religious sections of the party really do scare me, but the overwhelming acceptance of the legitimacy of different right of centre views with-in the party is what holds the whole thing together.
If religion were to become a party political issue with the Tory party akin the Republicans; the Tory party would be two parties rather than one. Myself, and vast swathes of the Tory party WOULD leave, and without the centre right moderates such as myself; the party would never be elected to govern again, especially in such an increasingly secular country.
The religious right may be wrong but i don’t think they’re THAT stupid!
Sunday 12 July 2009 at 3:41 pm
I totally agree, Tom. I am a Conservative voter because I am a libertarian who believes in a smaller state – my economic views are incompatible with Labour or the Lib Dems.
But if social conservatives take over the party I shall never vote for it again.
Sunday 12 July 2009 at 4:10 pm
intolerance and ignorance of the likes of Sarah Palin
*************************************
Ah yes, would that be the intolerance and ignorance that believes there is something wrong with killing a foetus.
Sorry, that should have read ‘terminating a foetus’.
My bad.
Sunday 12 July 2009 at 4:20 pm
I agree that I don’t think abortion should be a party political issue here. What surprises me is that someone feels the Conservatives need more things to make issues out of. Fraser Nelson seems to come up with a new economic argument every week why people shouldn’t vote Labour. Why bother trying to make abortion an issue at all?
Agree on the principle of the first sentence too. Why do some people try to put people into neat little boxes (all christians are Tories, all single mothers vote Labour etc)? It just doesn’t work.
Sunday 12 July 2009 at 4:33 pm
@Mark M
The Conservative party has policies? When did they get those?
Sunday 12 July 2009 at 4:56 pm
I’d prefer religion be kept out of politics altogether. I’ve no problem with people following a faith but don’t believe in a bloc vote. These matters should be left to individuals.
Sunday 12 July 2009 at 5:12 pm
Good post Tom. As a Labour voting Papist the fallacy for me is that such debate always centres on the upper limit on abortion as if a 16 week abortion is somehow more acceptable for Christians than 24 weeks. The other thing is that all parties have a lamentable record on this in my view. The original bill brought in by a Liberal and every year under Labour or Conservative the number of abortions has gone up.
Sunday 12 July 2009 at 5:28 pm
Surely the point is that religion has never played a big part in modern UK party politics, unlike its influence in the US. This is something that, as an atheist, I’ve always been proud of, and more than a little confused by.
Why does the US, with a constitution that explicitly seperates religion and politics, have a distinctly more sectarian political life than the UK, with our nominal head of state also being the head of the established church…?
I think it’s because in the UK, religious people have always behaved as though this was a personal matter, and not one that should be worn on their sleeve. It’s a worrying trend that more and more British people are looking to the US as a model for their religious life. It’s this move towards single issue, “I’m more religious than you” philosophy that worries me more than parties trying to adopt a more religious stance.
Sunday 12 July 2009 at 6:29 pm
Tom, great post – and I’d be really interested in you writing more on this subject.
For me, “Christian Values” are too often preached by those that miss the fundamental points of Christianity – grace, love, forgiveness. With those in mind, I personally feel that my faith strongly drives my politics be be naturally left-of-centre – initially Labour, now SNP. Specific party is irrelevant, but the overriding thing is that to me, being a Christian means that politically we must do our all to support, protect and improve the lives of those in need. Does this mean that Christianity is incompatible with core Tory or Republican values? Well to me it does mean that…. I’ve simply never been able to understand how the bible belt reconcile their faith with their politics.
Sunday 12 July 2009 at 6:31 pm
When is a free vote not a free vote?
When it is an issue of conscience and Harriet Harman leads a whipping like the one witnessed on the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill.
Whipping is usually fully disclosed, and why should it not be in a free and fair democracy? But to pretend that members have a free vote on an ethical matter, and to inform the public that issues of conscience will be respected, only then to force members down a particular lobby with threats for those who dare to disobey, is mendacious, manipulative and immoral.
Ultimately, it is for the Christian in a democracy to be discerning and to vote for the lesser evil. New Labour has shown itself to be antithetical towards Christian morality and has abdicated its responsibility to care for the poor, the needy, and the unborn (just ask Frank Field).
Harriet Harman was reportedly the driving force to prevent any reduction in the time limit for abortions. She allegedly organised a group of women MPs who ‘browbeat and bullied’ their colleagues into voting to keep the 24-week limit:
‘Technically, once the MPs turned up, they could vote either way. In reality, sources say, they were greeted by Ms Harman’s group, who pressured them to vote against the move, proposed by Tory MP Nadine Dorries. According to one account, women Labour MPs formed a “human corridor” to channel their colleagues into the ‘No’ lobby. One Labour MP claimed to have heard one of Ms Harman’s team shout: “Vote against us and the sisterhood will never let you forget it”.’
It was also reported that Ms Harman was assisted by fellow pro-abortion Labour MPs Barbara Follett, Joan Ruddock and Emily Thornberry. A former minister said: ‘Harriet organised the whole thing like a full-scale whipping operation. Everywhere you went there was someone saying, “Have you voted against Dorries?” If you said “No” you got an earful. Some male Labour MPs felt very intimidated. Afterwards, the women were crowing about how successful they had been.’
This Labour government has manifest a steadily increasing intolerance of religious or ethical considerations, and especially to those of immense concern to Christians. The principal justification given to sustaining the present abortion limit, to the production of animal-human hybrids, and to the creation of ‘fatherless’ children, was an appeal to ’science’ as if it were the only source of reason. The triumph of utilitarianism has relegated religious considerations to the peripheries of sanity, and the only rational context in which debate can now take place is that which reduces ethical considerations to matters of economics or science.
New Labour has cheapened the value of life and negated the primacy of conscience. They have misrepresented science in order to perpetuate their programme of social engineering, and they are intent on destroying the carefully-laid foundations of tolerance and respect which have set this nation apart. They are so intent on legislating for tolerance towards every intolerant minority that they are legislating for intolerance of the tolerant Christian majority.
Why should homosexuality trump religious conviction?
When Christians dare to be convicted, they are portrayed as bigots. When they articulate a view with which others may disagree, they are dogmatic. When they fall short of perfection, they are pilloried and cast as hypocrites. When they defend the unborn, they are unenlightened. When they oppose animal-human embryos, they are anti-science. When they express concern over the fatherless, they are homophobic. When they speak up for the poor, they are wishy-washy liberals. When they defend faith-based education, they are intolerant. When they seek to uphold marriage, they are ‘right wing’ reactionaries.
It is becoming increasingly evident that Christians should think not just twice but thrice before casting a vote for Labour at the next general election. And many do still vote en bloc, despite assertions to the contrary. All those Roman Catholics who have historically supported the Socialist cause must be encouraged to at least consider conversion to the Conservative cause – if only to see a modest reduction in the abortion limit.
And it is a fallacy to insist that politics and religion should be separate. The British Constitution is founded on the principle that the Queen is both Head of State and Supreme Governor of the Church of England. That 26 bishops sit in the House of Lords is intrinsic to that settlement. Argue against it, by all means. But do not pretend that the UK somehow holds politics and religion apart: they are fused at the foundation. Tamper with that, and the whole house of cards will come tumbling down.
Sunday 12 July 2009 at 6:37 pm
Cramner doesn’t force you to vote one way or another though, he doesn’t claim ownership to any group of block voters like Labour members [Mr Bradshaw the other week anyone?]have been prone to do…
He gives Christians one good reason, as he sees it, for people to consider backing the Tories. He doesn’t berate christians who don’t vote a certain way.
Sunday 12 July 2009 at 6:55 pm
@Archbishop Cranmer: I’m surprised your Christian faith allows you to repeat a lie as if it were fact. Take it from someone who supported a reduction to 20 weeks – there was no bullying or intimidation of Labour MPs by anyone. Yes, I’m sure a number of women Labour MPs, including Harriet, were lobbying colleagues to support a particular position, but why, when she does this you call it “whipping”, but when Nadine lobbies for a different position, that’s simply lobbying? The story of a “corridor” of female MPs trying to intimidate their male colleagues during the vote simply never happened. I know – I was there. By all means argue your point about abortion, but don’t perpetuate the lies and smears that have been spread by the Tory pro-life lobby against Harriet and the Labour Party.
Sunday 12 July 2009 at 6:56 pm
You’d probably be better off finding out what your MP thinks about issues of conscience if they are the thing that you vote on. The varying views of MPs mean that it’s nigh-on impossible to make party distinctions.
Sunday 12 July 2009 at 7:01 pm
I don’t really see why religion should be a personal matter. Surely a lot of religious teaching is about how we live together, as well as how we live as individuals, and the scriptures seem very political in places.
In some communities, in some parts of the world, groups of people with similar political/social beliefs and attitudes have clustered around branches of one religion or other (social conservatives, Islamists, etc).
However, on a global scale it’s difficult to map political beliefs to religious ones, largely because both are so diverse. Religion can make one man a pacifist and another a bomber. Over the past two millenia, Christianity has persuaded some to provide care and charity, whilst inspiring others to torture and murder Christians of different hues. Even today, even within the Anglican church, there are senior clergy with wildly divergent theological and social views.
I wonder why people interpret religion so differently? Maybe because religious beliefs grew up in the same way that political beliefs developed – organically, as part of the development of diverse social groupings. Both seem to be attempts to find a framework for living successfully – though perhaps religion focuses more on the individual and politics focuses more on the communal.
My personal belief is that politics is an important and noble pursuit, and religion is bollocks.
Sunday 12 July 2009 at 9:01 pm
Mr Harris,
His Grace thanks you for your response.
It is, however, most telling that your only objection is to that part of the comment which deals with the Daily Mail’s account of the division.
Is the remainder therefore irrefutable?
If not, could you please explain (in all sincere humility) why homosexual rights trump Christian conviction, and why Catholic adoption agencies are being forced to close after decades of stirling service to the welfare of children, solely because they refuse to dispense children to gay couples who have never sought to adopt via those agencies and could, in any case, go elsewhere?
Sunday 12 July 2009 at 9:32 pm
Very worrying indeed. The job of politicians is defence of the realm, provision of education, protection of the vulnerable, maintenance of social security, and management of the public purse, and that’s it.
(Had me breakdown – recovered – feel much refreshed for it – that was quick – ah lithium carbonate – great stuff – true, doesn’t work for everybody – really must try it sometime).
Sunday 12 July 2009 at 9:35 pm
Should say – the first one I had took me out for more than six months – blessed peaceful time that was for the rest of the world.
Nae luck these days, eh?
Sunday 12 July 2009 at 9:37 pm
I think it’s obvious that the Labour Party once had a strong Christian ethos: “The Labour Party owes more to Methodism than to Marx”.
Many people, like our Catholic friend, above, still vote Labour based on their past form – not yet able to see that New Labour has different ‘values’ and priorities now and that these are often contrary to their own values.
As a result of this shift away from a strong moral code, the blue corner is shuffling along in the same direction.
Whereas Labour people now tend generally to be brazenly opposed to traditional moral values regarding such things as abortion and homosexuality, Tories are becoming the same – not necessarily because they believe it, but because they’re scared.
Scared of being seen as somehow old-fashioned and scared of losing votes to all the various groups claiming victimhood.
As for 20 weeks, it’s better than 24, but not as good as 0. Whatever arbitrary time limit you use, the result is the same: human beings being wiped out of the pages of history.
As to whether Christians should support abortion, I think the Bible makes it clear that we shouldn’t.
The Psalmist wrote: “I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvellous are thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well.”
The Lord told Jeremiah: “Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations.” Jer 1:5
Even an abortion pill, had they been readily available as they are today, would have prevented this prophet from ever living – because his purpose was predetermined.
If you believe this then it follows that you must also believe that nobody has the right to terminate the unborn because it’s not just a bunch of cells that’s being destroyed, but a whole life.
Sunday 12 July 2009 at 9:52 pm
On a personal note, I realise of course that my intellect is infinitely superior to that of most people who post on this blog, just as thay realise that theirs is infinitely superior to mine.
It might be worth noting though that nearly all of us are democrats who respect each other’s right to disgree and to be stupider than we are, even as we despair of the alleged basis of the disgreement, knowing, as we do, that we are right.
Sunday 12 July 2009 at 10:06 pm
Mr Baxter,
If the job of politicians is, as you say, the provision of education, could you please explain if that education ought to be moral, and, if so, the source of that moral framework?
Sunday 12 July 2009 at 10:13 pm
[...] seems to me that Tom Harris has the better of Cranmer. Cranmer tries to claim Christians ought to vote Tory. (Cranmer is very [...]
Sunday 12 July 2009 at 10:15 pm
[...] seems to me that Tom Harris has the better of Cranmer. Cranmer tries to claim Christians ought to vote Tory. (Cranmer is very [...]
Sunday 12 July 2009 at 10:20 pm
Abortion is murder. That’s what it is. who could not have compassion fro a woman whi is prgenat becyuse of rape and whi wishes to have no reminder in her life of that trauma as long as an altenrtaive is available which might allow her to shut the episode off. who would not feel compassion for a young oman who has made a mistake in the heat of the moment – like in the days of the so-called ‘back-street abortionist. So we want those back? No. Keep the law as it is.
But let’s not call it something else. It is murder. And it is not the woman that is the murderer on her own. In many cases it is the man who just can’t be bothered, who forces the mother to it because she sees no hope on her own and on her own is where she will be.
Sunday 12 July 2009 at 10:30 pm
Tom,There was no one as delighted as me to see you in the lobby on the night of the vote, however, if you had spent as long as I did Tom, at the entrance you would have seen for yourself what was going on. Ask Peter Kilfoyle and Frank Field why they stormed in and voted with us. Did you speak to Peter? Do you know the reason why when only that afternoon he had told me otherwise he voted with us? You don’t tell Peter what to do. your sisterhood tried and we benefited. Instead of denying what happened Tom, I think it’s fair to say that as one of the very first into the lobby, as you were, you just weren’t aware of what was going on outside and it would be much better if instead of attempting to claim that what happened was a lie, if you spoke to some of your own MPs who were channeled into the ‘Noe’ lobby via a corridor of female Labour MPs.I saw it with my own eyes Tom, as did some of your own MPs who turned their backs and reversed back into Members lobby rather than vote under duress. I am so grateful for your support on that night, but I do hope you realise that by attempting to minimise the force of argument and tactics against us, you are actually making the job that little bit harder. This isn’t party politics, it’s the life of a many babies, who if allowed to be delivered at 24 weeks, rather than injected via a cannular with a lethal injection into a beating heart and then chopped up into deliverable bits, may be born and live and become who knows who? Maybe another good and honourable man like Tom Harris
Sunday 12 July 2009 at 10:31 pm
Your Grace,
Which of your hands has offended on this occasion? Whichever, kindly hold it to the fire. You’ll be running out of hands at this rate.
It is the job of politicians to provide the means such that those who are philosophers, defined as those who only know that things are seldom known because all things are questioned, may impart the joy of inquiry and uncertainty to those who have yet to learn.
Sunday 12 July 2009 at 10:38 pm
I remember back in 1980 before I had begun de-converting from my born again tongue speaking pentecostal phase. The pastor of my church said during his spiritual talk, strongly influenced by the holy spirit of course, that Thatcher and Reagan were good people.
By the way Tom, I will be listening out for a middle aged lady with a Scottish accent now. Just curious, I am not planning on going up to a stranger and asking if they know Tom Harris.
Sunday 12 July 2009 at 11:04 pm
@Nadine Dorries MP: “I saw it with my own eyes Tom, as did some of your own MPs who turned their backs and reversed back into Members lobby rather than vote under duress”
Who, Nadine? Name names. I know of not a single Labour MP – or MP of any other party, for that matter – who would allow him or herself to be intimidated by colleagues to vote against their conscience and it simply did not happen on this occasion. Not a single colleague even mentioned this tactic to me, either as a passing reflection or observation, or as a direct experience.
How do I know there were dirty tricks by the pro-life lobby in all of this? Have a look at this comment from a post I wrote at the time. It purports to be from a Labour back bencher (!), but it’s clearly from a Daily Mail reader/Tory Party member who believed the nonsense that you yourself were peddling about Labour MPs being summoned to the chamber that evening on a three-line whip!
“This isn’t party politics”. Please, Nadine! Just about everything you’ve ever uttered on this subject can be equated to: “vote Tory to end abortion”. I heard you myself on the Today programme the morning after the vote saying as much. By deliberately and cynically seeking to politicise the abortion debate, with the aid of the Daily Mail, you have done immense harm. If in future I have to vote on this issue again, it is the antics of you and the pro-life lobby who are more likely to turn me against voting for a reduction in the time limit than the entreaties of Harriet Harman.
Sunday 12 July 2009 at 11:45 pm
Tom – “If in future I have to vote on this issue again, it is the antics of you [Mrs Dorries] and the pro-life lobby who are more likely to turn me against voting for a reduction in the time limit than the entreaties of Harriet Harman.”
You’re an enigma, Tom. Does petulance usually figure in how you vote?
Why not vote for what’s right; what your “soul knoweth right well”?
Monday 13 July 2009 at 12:22 am
Stewart, I said “more likely” not “likely”…
Monday 13 July 2009 at 12:48 am
Speaking as a confimed atheist I find the question of which party is closest to God genuinely laughable.
Surely a better question is ‘which mainstream party is closest to the established Church of England’, which surely must be the Conservatives.
Monday 13 July 2009 at 2:29 am
Tom i’m sure i’d disagree with a great deal of this (not least ignoring the goverment’s resriction on religion
a) but in particular where has Sarah Palin been intolerent-and you don’t really given an example-not very christian
b) given the government tried to impose a whip on destroying embroys (and creating them to destroy) how can you compalin it’s dorries and co seeking to politicse the issue-when it was done by your own party leader?
Monday 13 July 2009 at 5:01 am
God save us from confirmed atheists. They are all 17 years old.
Oh, Tom Has been disallowing some of my comments you know. I’m not complaining. I practically begged him to. Anyway, they were off-colour – he was quite right.
Yes. I know it’s five in the morning. Yes, I know the rest.
Try to tell me something I don’t know. Go on. Give it a shot. Like me, with the lithium. It wakes you up.
Monday 13 July 2009 at 5:11 am
There is a serious point here though. I try to make light of it – see the funny side. But there is a serious point. You come across too many ad hominem arguments. Oh, Baxter – manic depressive, Lecter was right – let him have his say but you can safely ignore him. Not right in the head.
Fair enough. Ignore him – that’s what he does (third person – like Cranmmer and Guido) – to your heart’s desire. Doesn’t bother him. But it should bother you. The argument, I mean, not the person. Not because the argument is good, bad, or otherwise. But because it is there. as Leigh-Mallory said. And because this is a democracy, and a better one than it has ever been.
The PM is a toad. Try posting that on the internet in Churchill’s time.
Monday 13 July 2009 at 9:13 am
In the end, no major political group has all the answers, and of the actual christian party, I just don’t think they have the politics to run the country (sorry) and so rather then base my politics on religious ideals, I vote in regards to my social ideals (which stem from religious) and I personally vote tory. However, there are Labour voters as well as Lib Dem voters in my church…
Rather, we should lobby ALL the parties on christian values (as christians) as there is (in my opinion) no better way of living.
As a summary, none of the 3 main parties are ideal, and so pick the one you think is more suited to your beliefs. Politics is not based on one single policy and never should be.
Monday 13 July 2009 at 10:03 am
Cranmer writes at such length, and it seems so lacking in merit, that I couldn’t be bothered to read it all. But I did spot one line that is worth addressing: “explain why homosexual rights trump Christian conviction”.
I think it’s about individual freedom. If, as a Christian, you believe homosexuality is frowned upon by God, then it’s your choice to abstain from homosexual activity – but you have no right to foist that choice on others.
BTW – If God doesn’t like watching same sex couples get it on, he can avert His eyes. They’re not actually doing anyone any harm. While He’s doing so, He might like to lift a finger to avert the thousands of paedophile acts taking place every night under His watch. If He’s willing to indulge in circus tricks (water into wine anyone) perhaps He could also do something useful once in a while.
Or is it only Gordon Brown who should shoulder responsibility for all the ills of the world?
Monday 13 July 2009 at 10:25 am
This is all very relevant to me. I guess I could be described as an “evangelical Christian” and I’ve been having lots of conversations about politics with other evangelical Christians here in Copeland.
The religion of our local MP, Jamie Reed, it has to be said, is a bit of a mystery, having variously claimed to be a “Jedi” and a “good Methodist” on the floor of the House of Commons.
Nevertheless, there is a tremendous amount of warmth towards Jamie amongst Christians who would be described as “evangelical”.
I think this is testament to the fact that he very obviously cares about his constituency, works tirelessly to secure our economic future, works blinkin’ hard and everyone who’s ever met him says he’s a very genuinely nice bloke.
Perhaps our minds have become focused because of the rise of the BNP in the local area – and recognising our sobering duty to voice our opposition them. It puts a lot of other things in perspective.
I’m not saying abortion isn’t an important issue. It’s just that, unless a party can pledge to outlaw it all together (and even George W. didn’t manage that after 8 years in power), then it remains politicially neutral. If not, then it just remains a smokescreen for other issues.
Besides, the same sense of hopelessness that breeds fascism also results in teenage pregancies and unless these are being tackles head-on then outlawing abortion is just a sticking plaster rather than a cure.
Monday 13 July 2009 at 10:52 am
There is always a problem when people try to make issues simpler than they really are. As a Christian I try to vote and act in response to a whole swathe of moral issues, from abortion to global warming via immigration and education policy, to attitudes to debt and greed. Taken together, it’s hard to see that one party is clearly ahead of the others on claiming Christian allegiance.
Of course it’s a lot simpler if you make one policy area into your trump card. I’m personally quite glad that the evangelical ‘constituency’ in the UK has resisted that. Trump cards take away the need to think about what else the party stands for, and to wrestle with the more complex stuff.
Monday 13 July 2009 at 11:27 am
@Tom – you have a duty as a politician to ensure the wellbeing of the disadvantaged and that includes the unborn.
You have the same duty as a Christian.
@Richard
“Speaking as a confirmed atheist…”
Who did the ceremony?
@Jim Baxter
(Re. confirmed atheists) “They are all 17 years old.”
I think Richard’s 19 so he’s a slow developer. Actually, I think he’s just a professional atheist and he carries the Church Times around in a brown paper bag.
@Scott Speight
“As a summary, none of the 3 main parties are ideal, and so pick the one you think is more suited to your beliefs.”
Don’t vote for them – they’re all controlled by the same people.
@Simon (another one)
It is *people* who commit paedophile acts. If those same people did as Christ taught them then there wouldn’t be a problem.
It was *people* who sinned to usher in this fallen world.
Our problems are *man* made so it’s pointless blaming God when you and most others turn your back on Him.
When was the last time you prayed for a situation to improve? How many of *your* prayers could help heal the world?
Monday 13 July 2009 at 11:51 am
If you are of a Christian mind, then all things will be considered when voting for a political party. Abortion is a difficult and emotive subject, and it is not a subject that can be dealt with by a handful of generalisations; it needs thorough, adult and mature debate. But most Christians I have spoken to seem to agree that the present levels of abortion within our country are not conducive to a healthy, moral society.
It has been said that the wages of sin is death, and Christians believe that morality should be based on scripture. It is not right that Christians should seek to impose, but it is becoming increasingly so that secular immorality seeks to impose upon the Christian. As a Christian, this make me nervous, and I will consider these things at the ballot box, “The wages of sin is death”, and it seems obvious to me that Labour will draw its salary at the next election.
Monday 13 July 2009 at 12:03 pm
The Muslim, Christian and Jewish ‘God’ (if he existed) may be a Tory, but surely Christianity centres on the teachings of Christ?? And come on – silly beard, sandals, no love life and wishy-washy ideas – yep, Jesus was a Lib Dem for sure.
Monday 13 July 2009 at 12:33 pm
It’s pretty usual for people to make the ‘If you’re a Christian, you should vote Tory’ statement, as it was two weeks ago when the ‘If you’re gay you should vote Labour, otherwise you’d be sorry’ line came out – excuse the pun – from Chris Bryant.
It’s plain lazy, everyone has some views which stem from a belief or facet of their personality but it is unlikely to colour everything they believe. If only people would be a bit more grown up.
Monday 13 July 2009 at 12:37 pm
Tom, you seem to be criticising the idea of courting a ‘block vote’. Presumably that objection only bothers you when it is for the vote of the ‘evangelical Christian’. It certainly doesn’t seem to bother you that over the past few weeks Labour tried to out-gay the tories to court the gay vote. Or that they have made all sorts of concessions to muslims to tout for their vote (in Labour heartlands … or is that just a coincidence?).
I think you are being disingenuous here. The real problem you have is the fact that the issue involves the rights of unborn children – for which this government in particular has been particularly shameful. You would have no problem if Cranmer had suggested that a reason to vote for Labour would be for their … er…. nope, can’t think of a single good reason!
Monday 13 July 2009 at 12:51 pm
To Jim and Stewart, who seem intent on disparaging atheists:
Have some respect. Or, perhaps, just bear in mind one of your own principles: do onto others as you would have them do onto you.
Monday 13 July 2009 at 1:37 pm
As an “evangelical Christian” I would very much appreciate it if the Labour Party would court my vote. Please!
Most evangelicals that I know who are of my generation (first voted in 1997) could best be described as “informed floating voters”. They look at the issues, they consider carefully the character of the candidates and vote accordingly. They ARE open to persuasion.
They are also extremely cynical about any politician saying they are Christian and any candidate that does so should expect additional probing. That doesn’t mean that evangelicals won’t vote for a non-christian; but they certainly won’t vote for a hypocrite.
In the last round of elections public policy arm of the Lawyers Christian Fellowship (CCFON) issued a press release making it absolutely clear that Christians shouldn’t vote for the BNP and instead advising them to vote for the CPA-Christian Party on the basis that all the main parties had departed from Christian values.
In the Northweest 26,000 people voted for a CPA-Christian Party “paper candidate”. Nick Griffin only got in by 5,000 votes.
All main parties ought to be concerned about the drift of the “Christian” vote to fringe parties.
Monday 13 July 2009 at 1:44 pm
This is an interesting thread, Tom. Nice to discuss big issues.
As I posted earlier, I don’t see why religion shouldn’t be brought into politics because it informs decision making and provides a system of values (or more accurately, lots of different and often conflicting value systems).
However, I also don’t see why politics shouldn’t be brought into religion, and why accountability should be left outside the Pearly Gates.
I’m told that it’s *people* who commit, for instance, paedophile acts and that our problems are *man* made.
However, I’m also told that God created man, that he is omnipotent, omnipresent, and has a hand in all things.
He created man and the world we live in. He clearly did a very poor job. He fails to protect the vulnerable, including tiny children, from the monsters He has created.
Where was God when Baby P was suffering month after month? Watching, but evidently doing nothing. Not minding his flock. Not protecting the innocent. Was it the child’s fault because he’s one of the *people*?
As it happens, I breed poisonous cobras. One of them was naughty (ate an apple after I’d told her not to) so I let them loose on Hampstead Heath. Don’t worry, though – I gave them free will (and lectured them about propoer behaviour), so if they get up to no good I can hold my hands up – it’s not my fault if they bite somebody.
Is that a morally defensible position?
Bring politics into religion. Let’s have some celestial accountability. Frankly, I have more faith in Tom and his colleagues than I have in God. I don’t think things are going so well on Earth, I’d like to see things change, and I haven’t noticed religion making much positive impact. Or do we just blindly praise Him because we’re terrified of the consequences of not doing?
Monday 13 July 2009 at 1:47 pm
Apologies for the length of the last post, especially after I was critical of the length of someone else’s previous one!
Monday 13 July 2009 at 2:22 pm
This is going to sound harsh, and I do hope another Christian can coat it in honey after me. It has been said from God how we are to conduct ourselves, we are messing up, and because we have free will, we are living in the sewer we have built for ourselves.
Sorry Simon, and other Christians, but I am not very good at diplomacy, but I can recommend a book by C.S Lewis called the problem of pain.
Monday 13 July 2009 at 2:59 pm
Simon – at the risk of taking Tom’s post down a very long and wearisome path – you raise some interesting questions but demonstrate a lamentable knowledge of even the most basic points of Christian thought.
If God is God then why does anything bad ever happen is to imagine God as a great big benevolent Father Christmas whose primary raison d’etre is to “keep the children happy”. The imagery of a loving father is more apt. Any human father constantly intervening in the lives of his adult children for ‘their own good’ would be more like living under a NuLabour government than heaven on earth!
Much as I would love to discuss things further, it would seem impolite to abuse Tom’s blog in such a way!
Monday 13 July 2009 at 3:38 pm
“the intolerance and ignorance of the likes of Sarah Palin”
Of course, Sarah Palin’s ACTUAL positions are a lot more boring and mundane. But it’s more fun picking on the caricature you’ve built around her, isn’t it? Seems you have a taste for ignorance and intolerance of your own…
Monday 13 July 2009 at 3:46 pm
This actually made me ponder about voting for a party at all.
The way it is supposed to work is that a community selects the person from their community that they feel is best placed to represent their community in the local/national/european government – instead what happens is that that person then gets told that he isn’t actually to represent the community that sent him, rather he is supposed to represent and be loyal to ‘The Party’ – I am beginning to come to the point of view that a lot of the trouble in our present democracy can be put squarely at the feet of the party system. It is the party system that disenfranchises people rather than ‘The Government’(because let’s face it, whichever party is the government, the only constant is how ‘it was better under the last mob’).
I think that if all the parties moved towards the open-primary style selection thing it would make things much more powerful.
Monday 13 July 2009 at 4:18 pm
Sorry, Tom Harris, but Archbhishop Cranmer ISN’T repeating lies. And I write as a Labour member.
Frankly, if you think that Pro Life Labour MPs don’t get a hard time in the party then you should get out more. Or listen to what some of your Pro Life parliamentary colleagues have to say.
Here’s something else you should do: read Catholics by Dennis Sewell
Read especially p188 which details the shoddy treatment meted out to Labour Catholics and pay special attention to something Ronnie Campbell MP is quoted as saying:
“To say Labour MPs have a free-conscience vote on abortion is an absolute lie”.
Monday 13 July 2009 at 5:51 pm
#Rebel Saint. I’m sure Tom will forgive us. He’s like that – must be something to do with his values.
Whenever I get the opportunity to provoke Christians into giving a convincing account of their faith I take the opportunity, because I’m genuinely fascinated. And this post, after all, is about the merits of introducing religion into politics – so the essential validity and worth of religion is a relevant topic.
If so many clever people are into it, there must be something there. Unfortunately nobody ever responds with anything better than glib nonsense about free will. I do have a lamentable knowledge of Christian thought, but it’s not for want of listening for hours to Christians or spending many many hours in Church.
BTW if my real father behaved like God I wouldn’t consider him benevolent. I’d consider him somewhere between casually amoral and murderous, depending on which of the scriptures were to be believed.
Monday 13 July 2009 at 6:05 pm
How is a flat-tax incompatible with tithing, which is a flat-tax? Tithing means giving 10% of one’s income, regardless of income, to the church. I wasn’t aware of a system of progressive tithing (which, of course, wouldn’t be tithing)?
I think the reason Christian Conservatives think other Christians should vote Conservative is because conservatism tends to promote Biblical values, such as support for Biblical (i.e. heterosexual) marriage, keeping sex for marriage, supporting the traditional family, respect for the sanctity of life, family-friendly tax and economic policies, support for Christianity &c.
It’s no coincidence that this Labour Govt. has been one of the most hostile towards Christian values and the free expression of those values (and don’t give me the nonsence that Blair is a “committed Christian”- that just makes it all the worse) and it’s no coincidence that the hugely destructive liberal policies of the ’60s, which have resulted in soaring divorce and STD-transmission rates, our sex-saturated culture, and our broken society- were enacted by a Labour Govt.
Of course the Conservatives have passed anti-Christian legislation, such as Sunday Trading. However, by and large, it’s Labour which has been against Biblical values.
Monday 13 July 2009 at 6:10 pm
I could be wrong here, and it does worry me that my unorthodox views will tar all the other Christians, but I think many of them in here will testify that they came to God rather than have God explained to them by someone else. I don’t try to give people faith, I do not have the capacity, so apologies for sounding glib earlier.
I would love to say more on the subject but it would all be subjective and unhelpful.
Monday 13 July 2009 at 6:16 pm
@ Simon – I think it’s good that you ask questions. I’ve always had much more respect for non-believers who DO ask questions than those who blindly dismiss the Christian faith without so much as a wimper.
The trouble with a weighty question like “why does God allow suffering” is that no answer can be provided in the short space provided in this forum that could possibly justify the weightyness of the question. Many countless books have been written on the subject – which goes absolutely to the heart of the Christian message.
One book I would recommend is John Blanchard’s “Where was God on September 11th:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Where-Was-God-September-11/dp/0852345089/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1247505299&sr=8-2
Monday 13 July 2009 at 6:51 pm
@ Alexander Smith – the Poll Tax was a flat tax in that it was a fixed amount of money rather than a fixed percentage of income.
I agree that the Labour Party has questions to answer in terms of freedom of speech for evangelicals – and that would always be what I’d want to raise with any Labour MP that represented me.
…but as an evangelical, I’m equally aware that if I bang on about that but fail to raise my voice as the BNP raises its ugly head in our communities, if I fail to defend my MP as he bends over backwards to bring prosperity to some very disadvantaged communities, if I fail to “defend the cause of the weak and fatherless;” and “maintain the rights of the poor and oppressed” (Psalm 82:3) not to mention the immigrant (Exodus 23:9) then not only am I acting unbiblically, I’ll misrepresent the gospel as something utterly irrelevant to the problems of our day.
Monday 13 July 2009 at 11:25 pm
@Andy,
Those who want respect give respect.
Monday 13 July 2009 at 11:43 pm
Yez are all feckin eejits, apart from Stewart, who is a nut, but a kindly hearted nut who had earned my respect (ah, there is a VERY high price on that – invest now – worth more than odd 20p coins will ever be), whether he needs it or not.
Do yez not know that we live in an infinitely dimensioned multiverse? Even physicists know that. What you see is an infetismally/infit/ damn/cuff/very small small fraction of what there is.
Physics used to be called ‘Natural Philsophy’. Wanna you should know why?
Thursday 16 July 2009 at 4:40 am
I am new to this blogging thing. I am not sure that I understand what is going on.
Is the initial statement at the top of this paticular element a statement by Tom Harris MP? It does not actually say so. One can only assume that it is. Maybe, the statement should be SIGNED – Tom Harris – so that people know that the opinions expressed are in fact his.
“Should you vote for a party or for God” combined with “Abortion” is a very strange juxtaposition of ideas. If you accept “God” at all, then you must, surely, accept Christ’s statement, “Love God above all things and thy neighbour as thyself”.
But there is a problem.
Is the TRANSLATION of Christ’s words correct? It is possible that the words ‘love God’ should really be ‘respect God’, meaning accept whatever Nature and Fate throw at you. And, ‘love’ your neighbour means ‘respect’ your neighbour. Help him when he has problems and expect his help when you have problems.
There is one thing that is very important to me and that is that the God who created the universe and is eternal is TOTALLY INCOMPREHENSIBLE to me. I can, however, get a little tiny glimmer of God if I look outside myself at the universe in a physical sense and if I look inside myself at my thoughts. We should be humble.
As regards Abortion.
Since I became a MAN (not a male child), I have always thought that a woman has ABSOLUTE PERSONAL CONTROL OF HER OWN BODY. Is that not what the present abortion law is based upon? There is, obviously, a problem FOR HER to decide when a mere collection of cells changes into a baby. That is a very, very difficult call. 20 weeks? 22 weeks? 24 weeks? 26 weeks? What does it matter?
Perhaps we should have a different idea altogether. Perhaps we should say that a foetus does not become a living child until it becomes separated from the mother’s body (IE. until the umbilical cord is cut). In that case, it would become a matter of the woman’s CONSCIENCE and the doctor/abortionist’s CONSCIENCE as to whether or not the foetus should be aborted. Perhaps the lawyers should get out of this matter.
The same applies to people who want to end their lives. A person has AN ABSOLUTE RIGHT TO DECIDE THE FUTURE OF HIS OWN BODY. Essentially, the possibility that he may be PERSUADED to end his own life is, again, a matter for the CONSCIENCE of those who might persuade. It is not a matter for the law.
Maybe MPs should stop being ‘lobby fodder’. Maybe they should go into Parliament without any expectations of ‘office’. Maybe MPs can be ‘Labour’ or ‘Tory’ or whatever without being slaves. Maybe, even, they could actually start to read the Bills that the Government propose!
Saturday 18 July 2009 at 9:27 am
Tom
Agree with what you say. Real dangers involved in any link between faith, politics and campaigning. I have written a piece for CiF on a realted issue
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2009/jul/17/conservatives-christian-politics
Leave a comment