One thing is universally true. Every human being holds beliefs and lives and breathes them. Everything we do is related to the beliefs we hold. No-one is exempt from this. Not even those who believe they are. Atheist or scientific beliefs alike, all are expressed beliefs.

The real problem arises, in those who fail to see that their 'view' of reality is derived from beliefs.

The scientific view of reality, is itself, based upon assumptions. I won't delineate what these are. (It would only be my beliefs after all). We all operate through them. Why not be aware of this and allow that it offers us all, the rich interesting life we experience.

It is pretty obvious that 'beleif' plays out on the world stage. Until we get to grips with how belief informs all human actions, we will flounder along paying the price for our ignorence of its place in human affairs. It is not religious belief, or scientific belief which really matters, but ignorance of the part beliefs are playing.

Michael, Birmingham, England

Why do so many posters relate morals to religion? I believe in no God but still have morals.Morals are dictated to us by our intelligence. I don't need any religious types to tell me what's right and wrong. Hunanity is what guides us in our moral stances and it is humanity that will judge us when we stray from a moral path.

Derek Middleton, goole uk,

Mike Gilbart-Smith, Washington. As has often been remarked before, people who listen to God have a great tendency to hear him tell them to do the things they want to do anyway. It is being able to get “god’s approval”, but only they hear it, that encourages them to ignore the wishes of the electorate. God doesn’t vote! Since it is the people who vote politicians into power, under a democracy it is to the people that the politicians owe their allegiance, at least as far as anything carried out in their public capacity is concerned. What you describe is not democracy but dictatorship

Bob Finbow, HAverhill, England

I deny that the idea of ultimate accountability to God undermines responsibility to the electorate. The opposite is the case. If there is no all-seeing God, but only a partially-sighted electorate, then the only thing that a politician needs to do is to hide his lies from the electorate. Belief in an all-seeing God who will hold him accountable will make him think twice before he does such a thing.

Mike Gilbart-Smith, Washington, DC

Michael - Oh how I wish that there were politicians that had integrity and spoke truth these days. Then and only then one might start to have faith in them! As it stands I have found most of my clients (I cut hair for a living) are totally disollusioned with the way this country has been run; the break down in our society and despite being intelligent people - they no longer know who to vote for! That's what politicians have done to the ellectorate. You have put them in such an appathetic state they no longer know how to judge who to vote for! Morals and values came from the christian values that used to shape this country (I am talking REAL christian values - not the likes of say Henry VIII); if you take that away you are left with what is expedient for the individual and their beliefs - after all one has to define what is 'right' and 'wrong'. Very well put Andy Brown! Very interesting point!

Kevin Ash, Ashford,

Thank God you didn't become Tory leader.

Yes I do vote Labour.

J D Skrine, Cardiff, Wales UK

What a crying shame that you never made it to the leadership of the Conservatives. I apologise for not having been a supporter at the appropriate moment. All parties need clear-thinking secularist politicians who are not in thrall to some obscurantist set of ridiculous superstitions. Instead of seeing more and more secularism in the House of Commons to match the mood of the public, we seem to be subjected to a more reactionary group of zealots than ever. The involvement of Britain in the absurd Iraq imbroglio can only be explained by religious solidarity or insanity; that is if there actually is a difference?

Frankland Macdonald Wood, Sansepolcro 52037, Italy

Nicely put Michael. I am not convinced that when Blair said he answered to a higher authority than Parliament that he actually meant God, as he would have us believe.I think he was talking about George Bush. You were highly respected as a politician Michael so do your country a favour and lend your support vocally and punlicly to David Cameron. Religion is such a tickly subject that I prefer to folloew the teachings of Confucius and lead my lead as a good and honourable citizen, despite the fact I currently live in China

Phil Slocombe, Chengdu,Sichuan, China

creationism has many scientists in support; equally as qualified as darwiniansm read the journal "Daylight' for the refute of darwinism. but I doubt if many darwinians would do so, for fear of being compelled to admit of a supreme Creator - a being more qualified than they.

At root, all darwinians are complacent atheists

geoffrey, bicester,

I have never heard a religious political leader say that when he/she asked God's guidance with a policy matter the reply was that God thought that their policies up to now were wicked or cruel and that their desired future policy evil, thus they were rethinking their plans. In the zealots mind the original idea must have been placed there by God and if unchanged by God during prayer becomes the clear will of God, anything is possible to excuse so long as the believer thinks they have given God the chance to change their mind.

Huw Williams, Milford Haven, U.K.

But, what if there really is only one true God, and it is the God that Mr. Bush and Mr. Blair believe in? What if they are right and you are wrong?

Matt, Upland, USA

I do not trust Tony Blair one bit. if he thinks he is a christian then he has funny unbiblical ways of showing it but in his own words (almost gGd will judge him..) All i wanted to ask really was for one of the solid evidences that you think evolution is based on cos god or no god there is not acually one solid piece of evidence to back up the theory. at least jesus was recorded in history by people who were not his fans. I can believe he lived. have you never heard of irreducible complexity...how could that evolve ONE fact is all i ask thanks for everything else you said.

Kay McKinney, Mossley, Tameside

Mike, after reading this article, I'd say please get back into politics .........................we need someone at the helm who ain't religious and brave enough not to pretend to be.

You'd get my vote now!

Tessa Oxnam, Camberley, UK

You cannot argue with people who have reached a totally irrational view of the world. Heaven help them!!

Roger Parkes, Tunbridge Wells,

I think this article misses the point! Everyone has a 'religion' or if you like 'world view'. Better to have one that ascribes some dignity to humanity (as in Christianity) rather than one that sees human beings as biological machines that exist foir the sole purpose of passing on their genes (which is the logical conclusion of atheism or secular humanism). The fact that bad things have been done in the name of religion is hardly an argument against a politicain having religious convictions. Arguably the greatest crimes of the 20th century were committed by those who claimed to be atheists (Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot etc).

Andy Brown, Derby, UK

Peter from Somerton, I've never heard that Ghandi quote before, but I'd have to disagree totally and say it is the other way around - the trouble with christians is christianity. I'm sure the vast majority of them could be capable of leading useful fulfilled lives if they weren't brainwashed by their ludicrous superstitions.

Oh and Simon Hocking - please help win an argument for me. You are surely just a parody of a creationist aren't you?

Mark Allen, Nottingham,

oh, thank you Paul from Hull - I particularly like the last line 'because we take responsibility for our own actions.' Couldn't have said it better myself. Though the temptation to become, at least, militant in the face of the Rees-Mogg column is pretty strong. Have you read Sam Harris 'Letter to a Christian Nation'? Everyone should read it.

melissa, Ely, UK

To Paul Mahalo, Hull,

Atheism is quite simply, a lack of belief in gods and the supernatural.
To call Atheism a religion, is to call bald a hair colour.
I know lots of Atheists, I don't know ONE who could be described as a "fanatical" Atheist.
A fanatical football supporter maybe, do Atheists scare you? why.
We Atheists are a nice bunch really, we have to be, because we take responsibility for our own actions.

Alan Cowe, Shetland,

The fanatical Atheists are just as bad as the fanatics of any religion, the only difference is that they refuse to view their 'anti' belief system as a religion in itself.

Paul Mahalo, Hull,

I remember the Paxman interview alluded to by Michael Portillo and I think Blair, though obviously wretchedly uncomfortable, DID answer the question. He said that he did not pray with George Bush. Not for the first time the self-styled Grand Inquisitor missed the obvious follow-up of 'Why not?'
In general avowedly religious politicians unnerve the British public. They like them to 'believe in God,' attend church a few times a year and generally behave as though some sort of vaguely Christian moral code informs their personal philosophy. But bible-thumping programmatic zealotry on the American model will always be a turn-off, even amongst many voters who themselves have srtong religious beliefs.
Blair's admittedly disturbing recent remarks have been made with the freedom derived from his knowledge that he will never again have to face the electorate.
I really don't think secularists or lily-livered agnostics like me have that much to worry about. Yet.

NK, Glasgow,

To Simon Hocking of Birmingham: Perhaps you should actually bother to read ... the following article.
http://education.guardian.co.uk/schoolsworldwide/story/0,,1671684,00.html

Ken, Aberdeen,

Faith is for simple minded people who don't wish to burden themselves with things like science, rationality, truth and reason. It belongs to a primitive age when people didn't understand what made the earth go round and what caused thunder. It should be strictly segregated from education and politics. If we use the bible or qu-ran to guide us in moral issues we'll end up stoning adulterers.

andrew, BRISTOL, UK

"There is no debate. Darwinism is backed by an enormous quantity of scientific evidence"

Good grief - this kind of ignorance makes me wince! it is truly inexcuseable!

It is precisely because there is no such evidence that there is a debate. Yes countless scientists dont actually like that idea, their own faith in atheism means they would much prefer it if such evidence did exist but nonetheless the absence of it is nothing more than the cold hard light of day.

"so-called “intelligent design” (which is creationism by another name)" - This is just another example of pure, inexcusable ignorance. Perhaps Mr Portillo should actually bother to read something on the subject before commetning in such ill-informed and incorrect terms.

Simon Hocking, Birmingham, UK

Christianity requires faith. It is all about a relationship with someone you believe in. For most, It is not a BLIND faith, it is belief in something they have truly felt or have experienced. Of course for many who do not have this 'faith', who have never experienced that special touch, it is considered 'foolishness'. Indeed this aspect is even mentioned in the Christian Bible, so I am not at all surprised at the 'scoffers'. It would be interesting to know what Mr Portillo puts his faith in. Who does he trust, Who does he believe in.... No-one? or Himself perhaps? Should we all put our faith and trust in him. The Christian's outlook should be based on love for one another .... that can't be too bad can it? Unfortunately, ( was it Ghandi that said?) " the trouble with Christianity is Christians!" and yes we get it wrong sometimes but there again who doesn't. I'm rather glad that our leader meditates thinks about and yes 'prays' about his actions rather than just jumping in thoughtlessly.

Peter, somerton, England

I believe Mr. Portillo remark about Elizabeth's toleration of Catholics overlooks the Catholics of Ireland most notable the Plantation of Munster and the near extermination of the Geraldines. Also Mr. Portillo's remarks about the great benifits of The Glorious Revolution seem to overlook the Penal Laws of 1695 and there effect on the Catholics of Ireland I do not think that King William actions in Ireland can be viewed as tolerant in regargs to the Catholics of Ireland

David J.Fitzgerald, Chicago, Illinois, United States of America

Portillo is right who would want a leader who does NOT believe in stealing, lying, cursing, murder (just a few of the things that people of God believe in.). How could anyone follow an HONEST TRUSTWORTHY person.

Cathy King - St Petersburg,Florida,USA

Cathy King, St. Petersburg, Florida, USA

The point that M T Pearse, Houghton College NY U.S.A. is missing is not the fact that Christians, Jews, Muslims etc. etc. have no business in politics, it's the fact that the aforementioned religions and their respective leaders who profess to believe in those religions should not and MUST NOT say things along the lines of "God told me to do it...."
"Yaweh told me to do it...."
"Allah told me to do it..."
We ALL know that these claims can not be verified by the aforementioned 'Gods'.
<

Richard, Chester, UK

I can't agree more and it does seem that Portillo has learnt a lot since he was a member of that discredited right wing administration.

Hopefully once the criminal Bush cabal is history ,that will be the last we hear of all this god nonsense once and for all.

Hundreds of years of bloodshed and lives it took us in the west to defeat the repressive control of the religious delusionists and evolve into secular societies. Lets grow up, be European and confine these regressive American influences to where they belong, the other side of the world.

robin, LONDON, England

Thank you Michael for expressing your views on this subject. I fully agree. The more people with these views who are prepared to stand up and be counted the better.

Peter, Nottingham,

I am shocked. Whatever Mr Portillo's opinion may be on Mr Cameron's religious views, Does he really want us to believe that he would prefer his Party to be led by a hypocrite - the clear implication of his remarks?

Nevertheless, it is a back door acknowledgement that religious and moral views cannot be separated from how individuals conduct themselves in public (or private) office. In this Mr. Portillo clearly differs from the view of many in the current government.

Mr Portillo tries to reassure us that, 'I do not regard myself as a militant secularist' but the problem with secularism, militant or not, is that no one ever knows what forces may be shaping decision making. At least with people of religious conviction I am in a position to judge whether I agree with their beliefs. Secularists have a duty to explain the basis of their ethics even if it is only whatever happens to be the majority view! As with Nietzsche's philosophy which led to Nazism.

RogerMC, , Gloucester, UK

Dear Michael, one question. Only one! What would you say if God would speak to some of the leaders indeed? Leave alone human religious convictions and biases. I mean real God giving real guidance.

Alex Spak, Aberystwyth, UK

White House correspondent Hugh Sidey said that what reporters held against Carter was that he actually believed in his religion. But Carter went too far. While Carter was President, he tried to convert the head of the South Korean government and bawled out Golda Meir for not makign Israel more of a religious (Jewish) state. Silly errors regarding religion and state were: JFK's extreme statement that his religion would have no effect on his politics; and Romney saying that Americans want their President to have a faith, and it doesn't matter to them what faith that is.

Richard L.A. Schaefer, Dubuque, USA/Iowa

He would feel better if Mr. Cameron were a hypocrite.
What does that make him?

Agatha Crispie, Watertown, CT

Portillo writes that Blair"was uncomfortable" when facing Paxman's question of "whether he and President Bush prayed together", because "If the answer was “no”, the prime minister was open to a charge of hypocrisy. Why wouldn’t two practising Christians share a moment of communication with their maker? If the answer was “yes”, the British electorate would be terrified."

Do I get Portillo aright? The conclusion he is guiding us to, presumably, is that Christians have no business being in political office. So who else doesn't? Muslims? Jews? And in the name of what? Tolerance? Ho, ho, ho, Mr, Portillo.

M.T.Pearse, Houghton College NY, U.S.A.

Politicians like Portillo frighten me even more than politicians like Bush and Blair. Amid his meandering thoughts, I think I discern that his real dislike is not for politicians who are in some way religous, but for those who apply their own unorthodox and private interpretations of religious principles. He must know this, for he is aware that the Pope condemned a war aginst Iraq before it even started.

But, whether he knows it or not, Portillo is no stranger to unorthodoxy. His opinions on science and theology smack more of popularism than true knowledge. In fact, he is an example of the strong case against modern democracy, in that he is permitted to air his ignorance in what were once truly prestigious publications (like The Times).

Stuart, Chester,

Religious zealots should not be allowed to hold office.
Religion is nothing short of a dangerous mind plague that utterly destroys the thinking & reasoning of a rational mind.

Nunyabiz, Raleigh, NC USA

It is a measure of the upside-down world of politicians that Mr Portillo finds it normal to commend hypocrisy and lukewarm convention instead of conviction. I am no fan of religion but I would say: if Mr Cameron doesn't believe in God, he shouldn't go to church. If Mr Blair does believe in God, at least his convictions are both explicit and meaningful.

The statement that for Blair not to pray with Bush would have been "hypocrisy" displays a flagrantly lazy abuse of the word. Unless Mr Portillo has evidence that Blair claimed he prayed with Bush prior to the Paxman interview, he doesn't even know how to use the English language properly.

Jonathan, Canterbury,

Communism wouldn't be branded a religion and yet it has caused incalculable problems: human rights abuses abound in China, Cuba and North Korea. North Korea is vehemently anti-religion and cites no religious text. Yet its leader is very aggresive and he mistreats his people.

Therefore Mr Portillo's comments are way off the mark. Science and atheistic perspectives (remember that communism is atheistic) could be viewed as just as dangerous as so-called religious fantacisim.

I don't know why Blair and Bush went to war after praying. It's a good thing that Saddam Hussein is no longer in power, but B & B's methods of getting rid of him are questionable.

The underlying issue to all these things is the nature of man, which, without Christ, is inherently evil.

Chris E, Sussex, UK, England

"But if our political leaders cite faith as their political guide, then how do we distinguish ourselves from the religious extremists who wreak havoc in our world?"

In other words, Bush/Blair justifying the invasion of Iraq by telling us God said it was OK allows me to justify my own atrocities by claiming God gave me the go ahead, too.

All we need to clear up is whose God rules, mine or theirs. Well obviously it's mine, but it might take a Crusade or two to make the point.

Andrew Harnwell, Manchesto', Airstrip One

I don't recall Tony Blair ever saying "God told me to do it!" On the other hand I do accept that religious people will make moral decisions on the basis of their faith. That will include reflection on scripture and the religious tradition as well as prayer and meditation. Few people think this is tantamount to claiming some sort of 'hotline' or guaranteeing they always do the right thing. Michael Portillo has set up a bit of an Aunt Sally here!

Most people, religious or not, resort to some sort of tradition or philosophy to help make decisions.

Surely the point is exactly that we recognise that we have to take responsibility for our own decisions and face judgement from a higher authority. If Tony Blair really believed that God told him to invade Iraq, for example, why would he expect God to judge his decision?

Andrew Holden, Oxford, UK

spot on!!
the christian church didnt volunteer to give up burning people at the stake.
religion and politics have no place together and Tony Blair- isnt 'Do not lie' one of the 10 commandments?- and David Nice but dim Cameron should keep their half baked supersticions out of public policy and keep it to themselves.
Were not Afghanistan or Somaila, we dont want the 'dark fordes' of religion in Europe again!

imabeanme, london, uk

It is so sad that people don't have charity in their hearts, love the sinners but hate the sin, comfort others without expecting any recompense, protect the helpless, Trust God to lead us in Righteousness and to love all men. THESE are the Christian beliefs that I believe in and that are preached in the Christian Bible. What "Bible" does Mr.Portello preach from? Secular Science and the Rules of Human Nature? That's why the World is in the mess it is in.
Fierce men with Evil / Pagan ideas and Non-Godlike ways will populate the Earth in the End Times according to the Bible.
Righteous men are supposed to help the oppressed! Sometimes it results in a Physical Conflict with the Devil's forces. (David and Goliath--Remember?) So be it! "Christian Churches are the Recruiting Center for the Living God, NOT retirement homes for Fat Cats" says Rev. John Hagee. Stand up for God or sink with Satan!

Theron Helton, Taylorville, USA, Illinois

Religion, politics, turning into a history lesson! How lovely to read on a Sunday; & thank you John Vincent for presenting the correct facts.
nNow though where do so many of us go? We cannot vote for another religious nerd, we already have two, one each side of the herring pond.
So Campbell must go, or lots of us must go NF.
Religious schools of any faith can be and now in some instances are being dangerious.
This system must be stopped and all children mixed in all subjects without religious or parental interferance

David Skeggs, Paris, France

This part of the column stood out for me:

<i>But if our political leaders cite faith as their political guide, then how do we distinguish ourselves from the religious extremists who wreak havoc in our world?</i>

The same way we would distinguish good secular movements from bad secular movements, by their stated goals and by their accomplishments. For example, a Christian who says that God tells him to help feed the poor in Africa can be distinguished from a Muslim who says that it is God's will that infidels be slaughtered in front of food markets.

Now, you can look at the Iraq war as good or bad, depending on your views regarding that issue. But why get so worked up on whether Bush or Blair had God in mind when he made the decision? If Bush and Blair had said, "I prayed and asked God to give me wisdom regarding Iraq," and they concluded that they should not invade, one should support or oppose that decision based on the merits.

Mark, Denver, Colorado

One point should be corrected. Under Mary I's reign it was the government in the guise of the Crown that was doing the executing. Currently we have the citizenry doing the dirty work. In the first case there is a legitimate if misguided force at work, while in the later there is no legitimacy attached and it is purely criminal behavior. The Tudors were not elected and therefore the people cannot be put to blame for their behavior, however in a democracy the results of the majority's will as expressed at the polls are the source of any public display of voices from beyond.

Larry Seman, Broadview Heights, Ohio

I am astounded at Mr Portillo's romp through Britain's history - revealing a lamentable ignorance of the real causes of the protestant reformation. However, it is his last two paragraphs which sadden me. It is because people have abandoned belief in God (with a Capital G please note!) and gone after many and various false "gods" e.g. power, wealth, greed, envy and worship of sex that Western Europe has lost its way.

No, Mr Cameron should not become a hypocrite just to please Michael Portillo and his misguided cronies. There is no other reason for anyone to go to Church other than to declare their belief in God and to Worship Him. For Cameron to do otherwise would be to give in to the popular belief that Christianity makes no demands on anyone. G.K. Chesterton once said that when someone ceases to believe in God, they don't believe in nothing, they end up believing in anything - even the silly nonsense like Brown's Da Vinci Code.

James Fyfe, Hunstanton, UK

I share Mr Portillo's concerns about fanatics, as did Jesus who reserved his greatest anger and criticism for the Pharisees and who declined to align himself with the Zealots. I do not regard myself as "religious", however, I am a "Christian". Jesus called people to follow him, specifically to love others, including our enemies, to serve others particularly the poor, to help others to do the same and thereby help bring about his Kingdom, characterised by Love, Joy, Peace, Patience, Kindness, Goodness, Faithfulness, Gentleness and Self-control. Like it or like it not this is a radical "political manifesto". Call me naivie and a cock-eyed optimist but the World would be a better place if this were the manifesto of us all. Jesus called us to take responsibility not to seek power whereas politics seems to be about a few seking power and the majority being denied responsibility and appearing happy with that situation.

Andrew Taylor, Reading,

Michael Portillo is wrong to state that religious violence has been unknown in Britain since 1689. Anti-Catholic intolerance and violence was a defining characteristic of 18th century politics. Has he not heard of the Gordon Riots?

Kate, Southampton, UK

It would please me if Mr Cameron went to a good Conservative church where the elders could lead him back into the path of Conservatism, and common sense.

phil evans, Newport, England

I have followed Mr Portillos career with amazement. His religious belief in all things right wing culminated in that atrocious S.A.S speech. Humbled by Twigg he sought refuge, as do all scoundrels, 'the media'. Why don't they get a new job were they have to work. Sadly, as with Archer and the rest , we plebs have to listen to these characters ad infinitum, as they are wheeled out on numerous incestuous chat and pannel shows. Why don't you do the decent thing and find a real life. Then again after your Liverpool child minding performance , maybe not.

D Bush, York, u.k

I have some major problems with Mr. Portillo's version of British history. As a person of part Irish ancestry, I can assure him there was intolerance, fanaticism, and atrocities committed on both sides of the Protestant/Catholic issue. As a Agnostic-Socialist. Portillo cannot comprehend the difference between religious conviction and separation of church and state. Portillo's model for the Church of England would be the Moscow Patriarchy of the Russian Orthodox Church, where religious activities were controlled by the Government, and they just "pretended." The Church was kept around for ceremonial and historical purposes, and to keep real believers at bay.

Mike Davidchik, Sioiux City, Iowa

There seems to be a kind of false syllogism to which some believers are prone: 1. I want x; 2. I believe in God; 3. God must want x; 4. I am thus entitled to pursue x without regard to evidence or the views of others. It is common to find people on church committees caught in this psychological trap and bringing their zeal to trifling issues of worship or church organization. But it's alarming to find the world's most powerful political leaders stuck in this mentality also.

David Pugh, Kingston, Ontario, Canada

Why is it that the moment a rational point of view is expressed, the superstitious amongst us get so self rightious defending beliefs for which there is no supporting evidence other than some long dead persons say so. Methinks they protest too much.

Arnold Ward, Weybridge,

The results of not listening to God and not 'doing God' that the like of Mr Portillo preach are there for all to see.
A morally bankrupt society where the natural order of things seem to have given way. kids telling their parents and society what to do and where to go.
I certainly would rather listen to God than any politician who himself doesnt have an answer to society's problem.

Feyi, Enfield,

I whole heartedly agree with Mr Portillo, yet I also find it bizarre that in a predominantly secular country such as the UK, we seem to readily accommodate the wishes of Islamists and their theocratic view on life into essential British institutions in the name of cultural inclusion. The latest example is the list of demands the Muslim Council of Britain has made for state schools so that they take into account Muslim children's 'special needs', such as no dancing in PE classes, gender segregaged swimming classes etc. Surely we should be rejecting religious dictates, not encouraging them, no matter which religion is asking for them, and that personal belief in god(s) remains an extracurricular activity only.

Nigel Dingwall, Exeter, UK

Mr. Portillo claims to be no arch secularist, but expresses his evident preference for hypocrisy over genuine belief, and finds genuine belief terrifying. Apparently religion is all fine and good so long as everyone is merely pretending.

As for terrorism, perhaps one could point out that the problem with say the 9/11 plotters is not that they claim to hear God (which, claiming to be Sunni Muslims, they don't) but the fact that they fly airplanes into buildings.

David Richards, Jerusalem, Israel

I am delighted to see someone of Mr Portillo's high profile voicing these concerns. The logical equivalence between the citing of Christian belief as a justification for political action and "Islamist" attitudes should be obvious but we have become accustomed to one being harmless and even praiseworthy while the other is the credo of fanatics. Which is which? It depends where you live and what voices you hear...

Ray Bishop, Brighton, UK

Religion will find its true level in the overall scheme of things when we treat religion in the same manner as we treat other beliefs especially scientific beliefs. If a scientist were to claim that eating avocados cures the common cold because the truth was revealed to him when he meditated in a cave, society would loudly question his claims. Yet a billion plus Muslims base their lifestyles on the teachings of Muhammad who claimed that the rules he established were revealed to him when he meditated on Allah in a cave and what is worse is that a significant percentage of Muslims are willing to impose their beliefs on the rest of the world. Yet political correctness prevents society from questioning Muhammad's and Muslims' claims of revelation. The resulting bloodshed is there for all of us to witness. Queen Elizabeth's actions took hundreds of years to bear result and even today secularism is under constant threat in western societies. Requiring the questioning of religious beliefs in school, colleges and the media will produce quicker results.

Jai Khosla, New York, New York/USA

I always ask campaigning politicians who knock on my door if they are regular churchgoers. Eager to impress me with their faith, they will predictably reply "yes, of course". I then tell them I cannot vote for anyone who believes in such unscientific superstitious medieval nonsense. Gives them something to think about.

David Rochester, Liverpool, UK

Im afraid Mr Portillo has totally misrepresented Elizabethan Anglicanism--it fiercely persecuted all dissenters including the 200 or so Catholics who were executed during her reign.Far fron crucifixes and candles being tolerated they were illegal in Anglican worship until the end of the 19th century.If Mr Portillo want to make---sensible---points about religion they should at least be based on accurate history not the traditional myths about the Anglican settlement.

brian morris, london,

Good heavens, not another ignorant recycling of the "religion is an opponent of science " and "science has disproved religion" tropes! Read some real scientists who have studied the issue seriously, like John Polkinghorne, not PopSci writers who pontificate about god and philosophy without any serious engagement with, or background in, either topic. FWIW the Bp of London never said that flying on holiday was a sin either, but that “selfish choices such as flying on holiday or buying a large car are a symptom of sin.” If you want to be treated as a serious commentator, please get your facts right.

Nicholas Beale, London,

How do we distinguish ourselves from the extremists, you ask. The answer is that true Christianity works by compassionate love. It's willing to sacrifice self for the benefit of others; it lives to serve. Often individual Christians and Christian organisations fall sadly short of the principle.

John Tindall, Birmingham, UK

I really enjoyed your witty article, Mr. Portillo. And its appearance this morning also coincides with the day I go to church. What a serendipitous surprise on a Sunday morn. God Bless you!

SD GOH, Petaling Jaya, Malaysia

Wilberforce brought about the end of slavery? Nonsense. The most powerful arguments against slavery were those of Adam Smith. What ended slavery, in the British Empire and some, but not all, other places, was industrial capitalism, which was more efficient that slavery. By then Christianity had tolerated slavery for eighteen centuries.

John Vincent, Christchurch, New Zealand

You make a good point when you point out the incongruity in God's having survived the "great scientific age." So why does He survive when everyone wants Him to do away?

Jason Harris, Cardwell, Australia

Stop getting hypnotized by all the God blather. The Bush/Blair project is about raw power and the liberation of oil money to corporations where it can be doled out to compliant politicians & parties who feed them more oil The only god they hear speaks in terms of billions and vote totals.

Thomas Ward, Katama, U.S.A. (Planet Bush)

Excellent article Mr Portillo, broadening the debate over the religous pretexts for political actions. I would also agree with Mr Hunt's comments.

Unfortunately it seems that Bush and Blair, left with no plausible defence of their actions in Iraq, have hidden in the political taboo landscape of God. It is entirely true that he believes God will be his judge. It is however arrogant to assume that only God can judge him, and thus punish him. For the sake of the country criminals are judged by a council of their peers; if Mr Blair is seen as the villain of the piece he will also be judged by his electorate. However, if Tony Blair is willing to brush aside the judgement of his country, perhaps he would be willing to let a clergyman preside over criminal trials?

Keep up the good work Michael, and don't be afraid to put the boot in from time to time.

Kevin, Edinburgh,

Any views, whether religious or not, that do not accept the dignity and respect due to each and every human life, are inherently dangerous. Atheism, for example, the philosophy par excellence of negation and despair, has an appalling track record. To talk so patronisingly of religion, as though all religions were irrational nonsence,shows both ignorance and arrogance. Remember that reason leads to faith and faith enlightens reason.

Philip Lowen, Hammersmith, London

Even history can be politically correct and I would prefer to see in a balanced article the correct term for the Revolution of 1688: there was nothing glorious about it if you were Catholic.

As for listening to God: what's wrong with that, is it different to reflecting before acting?

Peter GODDARD, Cheam, England

Keep religion out of politics - wise advice. But keep beliefs out of politics? that's tricky.

James, Norwich,

Your point has nothing to do with religion. But more a conceptual one i.e. how one philosophy can motivate what seems to be contrary actions, while both are justified. The same is true of atheism, religion and normal practical reasoning.

And oh yes, darwinism is no more supported by scientific theory than intelligent design. Both use empirical evidence, both make assumptions as to what is and isn't defined as 'design'. You claim theologists make a contradistinction between religion and science, you've made just as much a mistake in gluing darwinism and science together.

Ataullah Parkar, Birmingham,

I completely agree with Mr Portillo, if you believe in something that cannot be proven, like God, then you can believe in anything, like Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. In fact it gets worse because you can say things like, I believe I am right and therefore you are wrong without recourse to evidence, objectivity, thought or reason.

There is no need for religion. The only moral compass people need is "love thy neighbour as thyself".

Peter Lappo, Hove, UK

Setting aside many of the glaring inaccuracies within this muddled piece, its central suggestion - that politicians with a faith can only act properly as politicians if they discard or disregard the teachings of their faith - is utterly absurd. And impossible. If a politician prays, feels accountable to the judgement of God in all that they do (including, but not only their work) and uses their faith as a guide for behaviour, then that's hardly grounds to disqualify them from holding office. Or is it? Mr Portillo seems to be suggesting that. Which faith would he like to start with? If he has a concern about extremists and fanatics, fair enough. So do I. But you aren't an extremist if you believe you will ultimately be judged by God - you're just religious. Please try and exercise a bit more intellectual discernment Mr P.

RAC75, Selsdon,

Portillo says that Britain's established church (NB Wales does not have an established church; England & Scotland have different ones) has made few demands of our leaders or people. That is why they are declining into oblivion.

Any truly religious person will have their whole moral outlook formed by their faith. Secular morality, if genuine, is derived from inherited religious values of society. There is no new morality, or immorality; genuine major religions share basic values - C S Lewis called it the tao.

While politics should be based on morality, it has also to be informed by practical understanding & skills. Church & state should normally operate separately, but are inevitably intertwined as Michael Burleigh has shown. The problem is that a good many 'Christians' (& muslims) have a very limited & stunted understanding of their faith. All people, religious or not, are sinners; Christians, above all, should know this.

Dave, Wrexham,

Not only is this piece intolerant, abusive, self-indulgent and short-sighted, but, even more disappointingly, it is utterly unimaginative.

Bryan Dove, Cincinnati, OH

Self-confidence is the enemy of self-knowledge.

Blair is a very self-confient person, but until he leaves office he will be none the wiser about himself than when he went into office.

Michael, this is a path you have trodden yourself.

Robin, London,

A completely absurd view of modern Christianity that repeats falsehoods about Bush (e.g God "told" him to invade Irag and he supports creationism being taught in schools as a valid theory), repeats moronic equivocations between Islam and Chrisitianity, and displays a profound misunderstanding of religious belief in general. It's an adolescent mentality that can't help but sneer about its superiority to people who might actually belive in an absolute morality. It was the faithless who killed 100 million people during the 20th century.

S. Davis, Las Vegas, Nevada

It is very rare that I can agree unreservedly with anyone - but here I can. Well done, and thank you for speaking out on this. Religious fanaticism, however 'mild', has no place in government.

I would vote for a party that advocated real secularism-the total seperation of Church and state, the secularisation of all state funded schools etc.

Deborah Barnard, Edinburgh, UK

This article seems to leave no room for a reasoned faith. Is Mr Portillo so sure that all people of a religious conviction are completely lacking in reason? Might it not be the case that many people consider faith to be founded on reason, and not opposed to it?

Perhaps some people find that God speaks through people and through our own intelligence - not through voices in our head.

Mike, London,

I do not agree totally with Michael Portillo. The former east European Countries ( USSR , Poland , Bulgaria..) banned churches for more than 50 years . It is amazing that churches businesses are booming out there. The biggest church is Europe in now in Kiev with political elites very involved in the activities . They are the same who denied the existence of God only less than 20 years ago .
For Mr Portillo , It is to do with being born and bred in christian country and the spirit of rebellion only.

Nico Ntumba, Middlesex , , UK

I do not wish to be ruled by religious zealots who believe they answer to God alone. When God makes the effort to come down and vote in elections, then I will consider my position and atheist stance.

Until then, politicians should keep their belief in invisible beings to themselves.

dee, Yorkshire, Enlgand

Let's see..St Robert Southwell, Edmund Campion, Henry Walpaole, Margaret Clitheroe, Anne Line. All executed (the first two tortured as well) by Elizabeth I.

Where did Mr Portillo learn his English history?

Mary Shelley, London, UK

Who was it who said that when you talk to God, thats piety: when God talks to you, thats psychiatry?

Brian, High Wycombe, UK

Once again, a lucid article. Keeping God out of political affaires for over 300 years , has stood this nation in good stead. I would like my leaders to be clear of thought and purpose, serving the country for the good rather than God.

Vivek, Northwood, UK

I have no sympathy with Bush, Blair, or any other political leader who justifies his actions by reference to God. Christians are not people who hear messages from God and do whatever the messages tell them. That's a definition of lunatics. I'm an Episcopal priest, and I don't hear messages from God. I look at the teachings of Jesus and try to work out what those teachings imply for my behaviour (not anyone else's). They don't imply going to war or compelling anyone else to agree with me. They do imply trying to bring peace and understanding to the world, or at least to my little part of it.

keith hudson, philadelphia, usa

I'm not sure that you're sure about the existance of any God, but witha little help might get there.
I suggest you read Dawkins book " The God Delusion" and then pass it on ASAP to Gordon Brown......it's tooo late for Blair let alone Bush.

mike o'hare, stockport, UK

What a load of rubbish to be printed up! Would the Times have printed such an inanely argued article if it were not somebody of the standing of Mr Portillo who had written it? I think not! But because it has Portillo's name attached, in some way it makes it acceptable to publish badly argued rubbish which is so clearly argued from Mr Portillo's own 'world view'. I would argue that if Mr Portillo is talking to you, I would be worried - don't listen!

Matt, London, UK

As usual, clear thinking on a tricky subject.
Sadly you are wrong about Elizabeth 1.
I think History clearly shows her to be on an equal with Mary on the intolerant stakes.
But you are absolutely right to awaken Cameron to any further flirtation with Religion.
Let them all be like Washington.
A Deist. Acknowledge a God.
But remain distant from all sorts of Revelations.

John Collins, Lewes, East Sussex

Mr Portillo is presumably oppsed to having any Christian MPs unless he can arbitrate about how they practise their religion. He seems to equate taking God seriously as a sign of fanaticism. He is, at best, deeply condescending to people of faith. At worst he has failed the test of the preacher - secular or religious:
'Blessed is the one who, having nothing to say, refrains from giving evidence of the fact.'

Lister Tonge, Oxford,

Mr Portillo's article represents a clarion call for good sense - though one increasingly obscured these days by smells, bells, mullahs and muftis.

As for the perfectly rational, even-handed and secular observation that much good has undoubtedly been derived from the moral teachings of the church, this in no way contradicts the logic of Portillo's argument, nor diminishes the fundamental sanity of secularism.

Though I am an atheist, my moral compass has been calibrated, in large part, by the Christian tradition - a tradition, one might observe, that can easily be interpreted in Darwinistic terms (be nice to people and you're likely to get on...)

Faith, on the other hand, by its very definition, requires the believer to be removed from reality. As such, it's potential for brutality and inhumanity is unbounded.

Jeremy Hunt, Doha, Qatar

Mr Portillo,

It is entirely unreasonable to expect a man of faith to put aside his religious beliefs when making decisions of policy. Christianity affects every aspect of a person's life and cannot simply be put away at convenience, or kept behind closed doors.

"But if our political leaders cite faith as their political guide, then how do we distinguish ourselves from the religious extremists who wreak havoc in our world"

Here you fail to distingiush a faith that demands love and respect in every aspect in one's life from a warped ideology that feeds on hatred and intolerance.

Alexander Cox, Bristol, UK

Faith when it degenerates into religious extremism is dangerous, but let's not throw out the babies with the bathwater.

Malcolm Uren, Hayle, UK

You can keep your science because until scientists can produce a single leaf, the Almighty will take precedence.

Phil, Waltham Abbey,

An excellent article with the exception of teaching children religious belief to impart a sense of right or wrong. "Moral" behaviour has been shown through many studies to be inherent to human's with religious people exhibiting no greater morals than atheists. Kids can be taught about courtesy, respect for themselves and each other, not to cause harm and a miriad of other life values without any reference to mythical heavenly deities. Indeed, most are. Let's not forget it wasn't atheists who dropped bombs on Baghdad. It was God's children, Bush and Blair, no doubt following their Old Testament convictions.
How much greater the Tory party would be with you and William Hague leading it. Happy days indeed!

john smith, MAnchester, UK

I must admit when I heard the news about Cameron's child going to a faith school, my heart sank.

I want a leader who takes total responsibility for his actions without any influence from men in frocks.

Whether there is a God or not is a debateable subject - but poverty, war, brutality, etc. etc. are not.

P Maycock, Chesterfield, UK

Well said Michael. Religion "is" politics, the Middle East confirms this, the American system confirms this, and now perhaps our system may fall into this schism. The various leaders use their god as a political tool, to be brought out as and when etc etc. I believe that "our" problems will be solved by humans making the right decisions based on what "we" need to do and not on what any leader dreams they were told in their sleep/prayers/whatever. That comment applies to all of the religions. No "God" will be coming to save us, indeed at this time, the opposite is true. Someone else's "God" is doing it's best to destroy us or is it just the misguided humans of that "faith"? Rejecting religion doesn't make you bad or lacking in morals. It frees you of the corruption of the various brands of religion. Children can be taught morals but they need a better mixture of discipline and love. That it what our kids are lacking not God, whatever brand you choose.

Nick Chalk, Istanbul, Turkey

Well done Mr Portillo - at last someone in public life has had the guts to say what a lot of people are thinking.

Every time a political leader brings religion into the equation to justify an action the more religious leaders are emboldened to interfere in politics and the quicker we slip back towards the dark days of our nation's history.

Cameron lost my tentative vote the minute he chose to advertise his religious views.

If religion's hold over our current leaders continues it will become absolutely essential for us to start a political party founded on secular values to protect those hard won freedoms which everyone enjoys.

Rob Green, Braintree, England

Mr Portillo does not in the least belittle religion, he merely stands up for the separation of powers, leaving what is God's to God and what is Caesar's to Caesar. When he says, 'Britain has benefited enormously from a weak clergy that has mainly remained aloft from politics', I thoroughly concur, and, as a practising Roman Catholic living in Italy, wish I could say the same about my adopted country. Theocracy and Democracy are like chalk and cheese, and I know which food is more nourishing for mankind.

Stephen Wilson, Rome, Italy

Correct.

The issue is not whether Blair (or any other politician) has religious belief, strongly held or otherwise. The issue is that such belief cannot be the basis for a political judgement. That judgement must be supported by rational explanation. Messages from God are not part of such explanations, for as you point out someone can always claim to have received support from that quarter.

If a politician receives messages from God he should keep them to himself. If he insists on telling us about them, we can use that in our judgement of him.

Alan Taylor, London, UK

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

How is this the case? There is a huge jump between the former and the latter, and besides, it is a careless generalisation. For example, I was compelled by an unseen force (love) to give my girlfriend a present on Valentine's day, yet I am not a fanatic. I am still a rational human being with a head as well as a heart.

This is the sort of careless name-labelling, prejudice even, that gives atheism a bad name.

Benedict Melvin, Cambridge, Britain

I agree with those who say that Religion is important for children, so that it establishes a sensible set of moral values in the trainable years. But of course, it is equally important that children believe in Fairies and Father Christmas, so that they can, in their innocence, enjoy the childhood years to the maximum.

But, it is equally important that they grow out of any literal belief in Father Christmas, Fairies and Religion: to do otherwise is to remain childish.

Michael, The Wirral, UK,

Bravo, Mr Portillo.

Nicolas Soames, Welwyn, Herts

So, is your problem with Tony Blair, Christians in general, or religion? You can't seem to make up your mind. You seem to have a vain "hope" that you know better, but at the same time you express a hopelessness.

And what's worse you put Christianity in the same sense as Muslim extremism. I suggest to you that you need to think your "world view" through a lot more than you have.

Andrew Williams, Los Angeles, California

Mr. Portillo
I liked your article very much. We all try to "play god" and faith is a wonderful thing as long as it is within the sensible limits.

Sam, Reading, UK

2I find it difficult to reconcile these quotes with each other:-

"Blair correctly cites tolerance as one of Britain's defining virtues"

and

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

The first quote I agree with, but the second seems to mean that the explicitly religious should be excluded power. It doesn't matter if a politician is doing something because of a "gut feeling" or whether he prays to God for guidance. What matters is the quality of the decision not how he got there.

I live in the Us and it would be difficult for a politician who did not attend church to be elected. That is bad, but a country where the religious were excluded from politics is no better.

michael lamb, Miami, FL, USA

You concede that "teaching religious belief is perhaps the best way to impart a sense of right and wrong to children." So, with our children shooting each other and our national morality rotting by the day, is this an indirect acceptance that the secular morality that our nation has adopted is failing our society?

You ridicule religion, and you are of course free to reject it, but what interests me is our society's widespread refusal to acknowledge the correlation between the rejection of religion (and by implication it's moral code), and the moral vacuum that has left our nation's children with a frightening inability to differentiate right from wrong.

By acknowledging that perhaps the best way of teaching children right and wrong is through religion, then rejecting religion as a foolishness, I think you are guilty of a hypocrisy that is endemic in current policymaking, ie: that secular, relativistic morality MUST be good for society, regardless of the evidence to the contrary.

Toby Cosh, Bedford,

You concede that "teaching religious belief is perhaps the best way to impart a sense of right and wrong to children." So, with our children shooting each other and our national morality rotting by the day, is this an indirect acceptance that the secular morality that our nation has adopted is failing our society?

You ridicule religion, and you are of course free to reject it, but what interests me is our society's widespread refusal to acknowledge the correlation between the rejection of religion (and by implication it's moral code), and the moral vacuum that has left our nation's children with a frightening inability to differentiate right from wrong.

By acknowledging that perhaps the best way of teaching children right and wrong is through religion, then rejecting religion as a foolishness, I think you are guilty of a hypocrisy that is endemic in current policymaking, ie: that secular, relativistic morality MUST be good for society, regardless of the evidence to the contrary.

Toby Cosh, Bedford, uk

Blair did not refuse to answer when asked if he and Bush prayed together. According to my recollection he denied it quite emphatically.

This point does not change my view of him as delusional, self-aggrandising and not actually very intelligent.

Marek, London,