We were on the phone. I could picture his eyes rolling as he spoke. “I just despair of Nick,” said my politically savvy friend. “He keeps answering the question.” We were discussing Nick Clegg, elected leader of the Liberal Democrats this week.
We were also discussing God, in whom Mr Clegg does not believe. The world now knows this because an interviewer asked him the short question straight out, and Clegg had the audacity to give the short reply.
I thought immediately of another theo-sceptic British politician whose wife (like Miriam Clegg) is a devout Spanish Catholic. Tristan Garel-Jones, now in the Lords, was John Major's Europe Minister. In the garden of their family estate in Spain he has had built a small chapel for Lady Garel-Jones. On the cornerstone is engraved (I translate from the Spanish): From TGJ, an unbeliever, to Catali, a believer in whom he believes.
Well, though well short of building a chapel either to God or the Liberal Democrats, I must confess that — whatever my politically savvy friend might think — I believe a little bit more in Mr Clegg for the way he answered. I also believe a bit more in Radio 5 Live's Nicky Campbell, who has demonstrated what few political interviewers ever seem to notice: the potency of a short question.
Baroness Thatcher was given a little more time when, 20 years ago, I handed her (as her correspondence clerk) a letter from a lady unknown to her, who had just lost her husband. It would be a great comfort (she told Mrs Thatcher) to know that she would see him again one day in Heaven; and as she had great respect for Mrs Thatcher, it would strengthen her faith if she could know that Mrs Thatcher, too, believed in the Life Hereafter.
This was not an inquiry I could answer on the Conservative leader's behalf. Her advice came back to me the next morning in the form of her personal, handwritten letter to our correspondent. Her answer consisted in a single, chilling sentence. “Christians believe in the after-life, and I am a Christian.”
I'm afraid I took that as a No. Or at least a Don't Know. And it sparked an interest that I've pursued ever since, in the real as opposed to stated metaphysical beliefs of British political leaders. My inquiries led me, almost ten years ago, to Lord Jenkins of Hillhead — the late Roy Jenkins, historian, Home Secretary, Chancellor, party leader and biographer of William Gladstone.
Lord Jenkins and I started with Queen Victoria's first Prime Minister, Viscount Melbourne. “Things have come to a pretty pass when religion is allowed to invade the sphere of private life,” Lord M said; and “while I cannot be regarded as a pillar, I must be regarded as a buttress of the Church, because I support it from the outside”.
A No there, then; Nick Clegg has at least one distinguished former Liberal Leader for company. Lord Jenkins gave Peel a Probably, Russell a Probably Not, and an open verdict on Palmerston, Aberdeen and Derby.
Gladstone was the 19th-century exception. A true believer, no question about it.
Benjamin Disraeli? Secular, I think. “Sensible men are all of the same religion,” runs the exchange in his novel Endymion.
“And, pray, what is that?” inquired the Prince.
“Sensible men never tell.”
Jenkins and I gave a probable No to Rosebery, too. The present Lord Salisbury thought his ancestor had a quiet but firm faith. David Lloyd George, “that siren-footed bard, utterly detatched from our notions of good and evil”? Unlikely. Bonar Law? Probably not. Baldwin? Yes.
Macdonald and Chamberlain? Actively uninterested. Churchill believed in Providence, but would not have got on with God at all. Attlee told his biographer privately he had no faith. There is no evidence for any lively Christianity on Eden's part; Macmillan took a somewhat theatrical interest in the Church; and Sir Alec Douglas-Home is a definite though quiet Yes.
Of Harold Wilson, his wife Mary would only say “religion was part of his tradition”. James Callaghan struck me as a mellow pessimist on such matters; and I never sensed any abiding belief on Ted Heath's part. Though hardly un-Christian, friends report a persistent difficulty in getting John Major into church.
Which leaves us, after an almost two-century sweep, with a clear majority of agnostics or atheists, and two enthusiasts for Christian witness: Gladstone and Blair. I doubt David Cameron will join their devotions. Gordon Brown's religious beliefs are located, like so much, in the unilluminated part of his personality.
So Nick Clegg is in good company except in this important regard: none volunteered their disbelief in public. Mr Clegg could have said: “Mind your own business, this is personal”; but he didn't. Some honest reflex told him that in a political leader religious faith is not simply personal.
He's right, isn't he? If George W.Bush prays for guidance on invading Iraq, I want to know that. If (as we now know) Mr Blair would regularly choose biblical texts to contemplate in Downing Street, I want to know that. If a Cabinet minister whose government must take decisions on abortion, or homosexuality, or contraception, or embryo research, belongs to Opus Dei, I want to know that. And if a party leader is an unbeliever, a convinced Christian voter should equally want to know that too.
We non-believers are always puzzled by protests that strong religious conviction could be without huge influence in the way a man lives his public as well as his private life. We read the Gospels (sometimes with more attention than believers seem to); we learn about Judaic beliefs in God's purpose for the Jews and for mankind; we hear and try to understand the claims of Islam; and it strikes us that these belief systems make enormous claims on their adherents, with the most profound practical consequences.
We know very well that not all — not most — of their adherents seriously believe what they profess, but we know too that some do, and some are in politics, some are leaders, and pitching for the votes of the “faith community”.
We think it matters. It genuinely pains us to seem to insult nice Anglicans, decent Methodists, quiet Catholics, moderate Muslims and liberal Jews, but we don't think they're representative of their faiths militant. When we were younger many of us put these worries aside, confident that belief like this was subsiding, and, left alone, would die. But in 2007, observing North America, parts of Europe, the Middle East and the Indian sub-continent, our confidence is faltering. We hear that faith-based political appeals win votes from blocs of believers and we want our politicians to reckon on the realisation that there are votes to be lost here, too: ours.
We don't want to be a bore but we sense a parting of the ways between faith and reason, and a need to stand up and be counted. Perhaps without meaning to, perhaps without thinking, Nick Clegg this week seemed to me to be responding to that anxiety for honest clarity. Millions more than will say so will approve.
In putting oneself up for a position of leadership, in any walk of life, I would say a declaration that one believes in 'God' would make such a statement of intent suspect, as anyone who believes in an invisible entity, has to have a flaw in intellect.
Thus, being suspect, his or her intentions would, and should cast doubt on their ability to act on behalf of those under such potential leadership.
I cannot see any justification for anyone to be allowed to state that they believe in anything that cannot be, rationally, substantiated, whilst at the same time taking decisions that may well be influenced by such a belief.
Religious belief defies belief, and requires a suspension of rationality anyway.
They may as well believe in fairies, or Santa Claus.
I for one would be, and am, extremely wary of leaders who say they believe in such irrational and unsubstantiable godheads.
morgan, Pontypool, wales
Wrong on Macmillan. He almost became a Catholic and anyone seeing him at prayer, as I did once, would not have called his Faith theatrical.
Christopher Gillibrand`, Brussels, Belgium in exile
Perhaps Cleggy has noticed that Dickie Dawkins has been at the top of the non-fiction charts for months. Or, perhaps he really is a serious non-believer.
Young Nicky Campbell should have asked Clegg if he was a Bright. That is the next bandwagon to climb on.
Robin McWilliams, Evesham,
American politians please take note!
Eunice Muir, Lake Helen, FL USA
Video interviews can be found on WayOfTheMaster dot com. I found these to be very informative and utmost shocking to some in response to the questions. Kirk Cameron, I would like to say, THANK YOU! Your friend, R.Comer
Russell, Texarkana,
Make that 2880, Jim, because I've just invented another one. Now all I have to do is convince enough gullible people that my god is the only true one, and that I'm his prophet, and, oh boy, we'll have another religion. Hey, I might even make some money out of it too.
(Anybody out there want to know about my new god? Cos he'll save you. Believe me.)
alan, cologne,
Man invented gods (2879 and counting) - God reveals Himself in Christ.
Jim Ewing, Hardgate, Dunbartonshire, Scotland UK
Blah blah blah. A person's religion is interesting but unimportant as an issue it's the interpretation placed on the religion and therefore it's only about opinions whether you're jew or muslim. The archbishop of cant. is different to bush who clearly is different to jesus himself ('eye for an eye' is in the wrong part of the book mate).
there is no shorthand to understanding people.
mount, dorset, gb
Yes, one day EVERY knee will bow, and every tongue confess Christ as LORD.
So True!
Stuart Kirkham
Stuart Kirkham, Stockport, England
One thing we can all be sure of is. One day EVERY knee will bow and EVERY tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord. Amen. Praise God.
James, Perth, Western Australia
As for David Lloyd George, “that siren-footed bard, utterly detached from our notions of good and evilâ€
his machinations have left a bitter enough legacy in Ireland, while as for the Middle East ... the Arabs call him a "fox".
Robert, Reading, England
I WON'T BELIEVE IN GOD UNLESS I CAN SEE AND TOUCH
HIM says doubting Thomas. Blessed are those who have
not seen but believed.
God chose the Jews, they are still here hated and persecuted,
from the Reformation to the second world war when Britain
honoured the God of the Bible the nation was great. since the
second world war, abandonement of christianity and national
decline......COINCIDENCES?
Philip, Dorset, England
Religion is the last bastion of scoundrels. Lookat Bush and Blair.
oldasiahand, Guildford, UK
Of course a man's religious beliefs should have a profound effect on his politics. However, Matthew Paris seems to imply that if he believes strongly it will be for the worse. May I point out that Wilberforce and Shaftsbury were both deeply committed Christians and Stalin, Pol Pot, and Mao were deeply committed atheists.
Dave Littlewood, Sheffield, UK
Stephen Powers: "... all this celebrating the birth of Jesus going on at the moment."
I thought it was a two-week binge of booze and merry-making for its own sake. What has Jesus got to do with it?
Stewart Ware, London, UK
Thank you Matthew, I don't often find I am in agreement with you so wholeheartedly, so I thought a little praise and gratitude was in order. Well written and lucid, thank you again.
Kidd Garrett, Bristol, UK
You have to be a fool to believe in the Church of England but an even bigger fool to be an atheist. A sensible man, surely, covers his options: believe in God but don't try too hard to deconstruct what that belief means.
Adrian Gilbert, Tonbridge,
Surely belief that your destiny is governed by a large magic pooh bah in the sky makes a man completely ineligible for leadership. We should place leaders who profess a belief in God, or anybody else that does, in care. It is clearly a psychosis.
Eric, London,
When an ordinary Christian believer says he 'prays for God's guidance', he means he asks God to help him make a wise choice given the practical options and circumstances. Only religious nutcases expect an angel or a dream or to hear a 'voice'. Matthew, like many secular commentators, is mistaken over the everyday Christian usage of this phrase.
Carey Harmer, Taoyuan, China
What with this and Blair's conversion I now have much more respect for the Lib Dems. He is absolutely right. To believe these things is absolutely ridiculous. Yet for a world leader to be guided by these beliefs is terrifying.
Ben, York,
And being secularist is something you practice only in private? Come on - stop being hypocritical!
Norman Hamilton, Belfast,
When I tried to quietly stop going to church because I had quietly stopped being able to believe, not a single Christian I knew took the attitude that this was my private business. I know many of them were concerned for my soul and felt they must try to bring me back into the fold. But I soon discovered I was in a no win situation. If I answered their questions about how could I look at the sky, the flowers, the trees and say there is no god, I was arrogant and of trying to undermine the questioner's faith--a very nasty thing to do apparently. If I tried to avoid the conversation saying it really wouldn't get us anywhere, I was arrogant and obviously had no arguments to offer.
So before Christians whinge about the 'mad atheists', perhaps they should look to the beam in their own eyes. We atheists, however defined, have had a lifetime of mad Christians. And, yes, it does matter to many of us if they are running things. Time for an Unbelievers Party???
j, adelaide, australia south australia
Read the sub-header on this piece and then take a look at the state of the UK. It pretty much says it all.
Val, Chicago, USA
Mr Parris is right that the REAL beliefs (the lack of belief is also a form of belief) of politicians are relevant because they form part of their conception of the man and of the world at because of that they inform at a fundamental level many decisions.
Sharon from Lancashire thiks that politicians should keep their beliefs for their private life and so those beliefs would become irrelevant but that is plainly absurd. Our REAL beliefs influence our decisions and that is as true for Sharon as it is for Mr Zapatero. Behind that curious thinking lies the notion that those who do not believe in God have no beliefs and as such their thinking and decision making is not tainted . That is false: they do and they form part of their decision making.
Apparently Sharon would like that people that do not share her own beliefs would not be active in public life and that seem a touch intolerant to me.
Casimiro, Gijon, Spain
Charlie, Bangor,
You cannot explain how something as simple as the Big Bang came from nothing, but you don't have any problem with the much more difficult problem of how something as sophisticated as a god came from nothing? That doesn't make sense.
The fact that you personally cannot understand the Big Bang tell us nothing about how it happened, and certainly does not prove that it was a god, it merely demonstrates your own ignorance of physics.
Greg Lorriman,
Richard Dawkins merely states that it is very unlikely that there is a god, he never states absolute certainty, perhaps you should find out what he REALLY believes, and why, before you call him mad!
A Clark, Liverpool,
An interesting article, but ironically the aspect of it that I will remember is the fact that Matthew, a very intelligent man and an oxbridge graduate, did not take Mrs Thatcher's response as the major and minor premises of a classic syllogism intended to prove that she believes in the afterlife.
Another example of a syllogism would be
Major premise: All cats like to drink milk
Minor premise: Humphrey was a cat
Conclusion: therefore Humphrey liked to drink milk. QED.
In this case the logic which Mrs T intended the lady to follow is crystal clear
Major premise: Christians believe in the afterlife
Minor premise: Mrs Thatcher is a Christian
Conclusion: Mrs Thatcher believes in the afterlife. QED.
Either Matthew missed the logic which Mrs T intended the lady to follow, or he noted that it would be valid or false depending on whether a silent "All" or "Some" was understood to go before "Christians" and thought Mrs Thatcher was trying to trick the lady. Either way - Ouch!
Chris Whiteside, Whitehaven, Cumbria
Mike Poulsen : " How can any parent actively encourage something in a child that they believe is wrong?"
He didn't claim to believe that Roman Catholics are wrong, nor even claim that he believes that God doesn't exist (a strict atheist). He claimed to not believe: to lack belief.
As an agnostic he must give the benefit of the doubt. It is probably why he was able to marry his wife in the first place. He may even know the rational basis of faith: that God proves himself directly to the individual.
The mad atheists, like Dawkins, are those that say they are atheist but claim unbelief (which means they are agnostic by OED definitions) while then forcefully condemning belief in God, betraying that they actually do believe that there is no God; by OED definitions they are indeed genuine atheists. Since it is impossible to know that God doesn't exist this means these guys are totally barmy: they believe something they can't know. Even a chicken is more rational than that.
Greg Lorriman, Leatherhead, UK
I feel extremely lucky that I am a believer after searching thru
mountains of scientific data and theories, and trying to get my head around the fact that the universe was created 14 billion years ago from absolutely nothing. My faith is now stronger than it has ever been in my life. If all Nick Clegg has got to live for is the Liberal Party then" my God "help him. Somehow I feel, like a million others he will have a change of heart on his deathbed. Although he doesn't realise it yet, we ain't the most intelligent or powerful force in the universe.
Charlie, Bangor , N.Wales
As long as they leave their religious beliefs in their private lives and don't try to force them on the population through laws etc then I'm not bothered who or what our leaders believe in.
Sharon, Lancashire,
Though I am a practicing Episcopalian, frankly I do not care whether a political figure believes in a higher being or not or attends services regularly or not at all. What I care about is his or her intellectual rigor, his or her desire to improve the lot of the common man and improve the conditions of his or her country. That is all one can expect and all one should hope for. To insist that a political figure dramatically express believe in God under whatever ecumenical guise is really asking too much.
Mitchell Owens, Brooklyn, New York, USA
To my mind no British prime minister could ever be considered a Christian in any meaningful sense of the term. Call me naive but I thought to be a Christian you have to more or less follow and promote the teachings of Jesus. Politicians, and especially the more powerful ones, simply do not do this. Jesus clearly advocated pacifism as a central tenet to Christianity: "If someone strikes you on one cheek, turn to him the other also." No prime minster could ever lead the country on a pacifistic platform - Tony Blair supports the nuclear deterent for crying out loud. What would Jesus have thought about that? Either such politicians are liars when they profess such beliefs, or are opportunistic hypocrites of the highest order, or they are unable to logically determine that some political and religious beliefs are inherently unreconcilable, which makes them feeble-minded.
James G, London,
Mike in Munich,
The fact that 2879 out of 2880 gods are all man made proves that humans are strongly predisposed to invent gods, so it is a racing certainty that number 2880 is also. What reason would you have to suppose that the other is different in any way?
A Clark, Liverpool,
As long as the leader isn't muslim I don't care what he/she believes in
Phill, The Wirral, England
I believe in God. I have done since the age of 29 when he radically changed my life. I often read the sort of article wot Mr Parris wrote in papers such as the Times. I appreciate how easy it is to see christians as poor deluded wretches but am just amazed that people can seek to discredit a faith which has stood the test of time and produced so many profound and stirring examples of humanity as christianity. Jesus was extremely clear about the reason for his time on earth 2000 years ago: to save the world. You can either believe in him or not. All your articles against christianity will not change the truth one jot. I suspect that for many journalists christians are just easy targets.
tony, worthing,
I'm not sure I follow A Clark's logic here. If I were, for the sake of argument, a carpenter and had made 19 of 20 tables in a room, would this mean that I had made them all? What if it was 99/100? Or 2879/2880? Obviously not all religions can be correct as some make claims to be exclusive. Does this mean that one isn't?
Mike, Munich, Germany
The only way we can get closer to God is by forgiveness and love of our fellow man/woman.
Louis Blanc, Liverpool, UK
An interesting article, the author's biggest mistake is to refer to God in the singular. godchecker.com has information on 2880 gods and godesses (of which many are still believed in), which proves that they are human inventions and not real.
A Clark, Liverpool,
As far as Mr Clegg is concerned, his professed lack of belief is a bigger worry than mere theism. He claims not to believe in God and yet actively encourages his childs Roman Catholicism. How can any parent actively encourage something in a child that they believe is wrong? This presents two possibilities. Either he is so deceitful as not to be trusted as a political leader, or else he actually is a Catholic but believes that this could be a barrier to a successful political life. Either way he has made himself look suspect.
Mike Poulsen, Reading, Berkshire
Hear hear Matthew.
A shame though, that Clegg went on to say he is bringing his children up as catholics. He could easily leave that to his wife and simply present the rational alternative to them as and when the occasion warrents it.
Neil W, Redruth, Cornwall
Sadly people who rise to the top in politics are by definition ego centric and ruthlesly ambitious. Christ on the other hand led by the example of serving others, washing the apostles feet was on such example. It did not get him to the political top, it got him executed.. but then his kingdom is not of this world. Terrible leaders like Stalin Hilter Mao were not Christian or even religious. Tony Blair is not too bad a chap considering.
Henry Smith, Namur, Belgium
Isn't it amazing, it is the 21st century and people still believe in such things as god etc. Also amazing is how the subject brings out the prejudiced in such numbers. Agreat example is the amazingly skewed ccomment on 'gay adoption'. My dislike for Blair is deep and almost unshakable, his faith makes things only clearer. Any PM who says he believes in god etc (unless it is for the public) is immediately unfit, for he or she has remained bound to the dark ages.
Susham, London,
At last a leader with a brain. I might even vote Lib Dem now.
Ian , Thundersly, UK
"Tony Blair a christian? Didn't he legislate that Christian charities be forced to adopt orphans to homosexuals?" gabe, dublin, ireland
No. He insisted that anti-discrimination laws apply to all. It was the churches that shamefully decided to use children as pawns in their power games and attempts to continue using religion as an excuse for bigotry. (And the adoption issue caused many to question why churches were allowed to run them at all given their appalling record of covering up child abuse).
Paul Millington, Reading, UK
If George Bush regularly prays for guidance, then either God doesn't exist, or perhaps worse, has a very peculiar sense of humour!
Dick Powel, London,
It'll be interesting to see what happens to Clegg after this. Nothing, I suspect. Hopefully that will help other politicans to accept that they don't have to bang on about their religious beliefs. They're actually quite out of touch on this issue. Most of us don't care.
Redcliffe, London,
If Clegg's honesty is followed through by a Lib Dem promise to wind down and abolish faith schools, he may find a lot of voters switching from Labour to his party. Labour is traditionally a secular, anti-sectarian party, but has recently become detached from its roots on this issue.
William, London,
I respect and admire Nick Clegg for his straightforward answer. Myth and legend is fine as part of our historical tradition but I don't want politicians' actions influenced by irrationality or pandering to so-called faith communities.
James, London,
Elizabeth 1st had it right when she said " I do not seek a window into mens hearts" As the eqivalent of our PM in those times she would have been entitled to go on to say "and what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander".
Clearly our present Queen is a genuine christian .
The political rat pack can think what they like provided they don't frighten the horses
Stephen Green, Correns, France
"I think we should know that only two prime ministers in two centuries have been strong Christians"
I think we should know that unchristian does not imply ungodly.
eugene, heidelberg, germany
Tony Blair a christian? Didn't he legislate that Christian charities be forced to adopt orphans to homosexuals?
gabe, dublin, ireland
The problem with religiously committed politicians is they think that they are doing God's work--and therefore can do no wrong.
(So Mrs T. HAD to be a Christian)
Terence, Sandton, South Africa
There is nothing wrong in believing in any concept or even any particular ideology.
The danger is when that particular ideology or that particular concept is "enforced" to the exclusion of all other alternatives.
In other words when an individual sincerely believes/believed a Deity is guiding him personaly the trouble really begins/began.
Then,of course,other deities or versions thereof are introduced as a "counter attraction"
Never lose sight of the fact that religion is, and always was, a "good little earner"
Peter Bolt, Redditch, UK
It shows how much we all tend to make God into our own image and likeness. It's not easy to be a believer but greatly worth while. The messages of the Christ child are outstanding. We find the Kingdom of Heaven through self forgetfulness- only achievable through God worship.
Father Bryan Storey, Tintagel, UK
While I disagree with the basic premise that drives your beliefs and this article, I appreciate the opportunity to think and reflect upon what you have written. What is interesting and irrational, however, is the exclusivity of faith and reason. This, taken to its logical conclusion, results in the most faithful being the least reasonable-an unempirical conclusion that appeals only to the self-interest of those of lesser faith. What the works of Descartes on the one hand and Nietzche on the other should show is that for some matters two reasonable men can reach two different conclusions, primarily, I believe, because no man has the ability to extricate his heart and soul from his mind. The same reason I believe the subjective analysis and conclusions of this article are dubious at best
John B, Houston, U.S.
Thatcher : " “Christians believe in the after-life, and I am a Christian.†"
Parris : "I'm afraid I took that as a No. Or at least a Don't Know."
Why not take her word for it? After all, no one ever caught her lying.
Or perhaps you can see the hearts of men. Are you God, Mathew? It does rather look as if you indulged in a judgement.
To my mind her "chilling" reply was suited to the occasion: the woman's letter is absurd and betrays a lack of belief: Thatcher replied appropriately.
Greg Lorriman, Leatherhead, UK
I am grateful our ancestors fled Britain and religious persecution.
'Congress shall make no laws respecting the establishment of religion, nor prohibiting the free exercise therof'.
It appears many Brits are fleeing again, though not for religious reasons, but for equally profound reasons.
Mary Catherine, Elmhurst, US/IL
A more subtle danger is the stance that being 'religious' is an encopassing category that is opposed to that which is usually called 'secularism' or 'atheism', Being religious is modally divergent - A Muslim and a Buddhist stand further apart than the 'religious' and the 'atheistic' or secular, It is a pity that these nuances are not factored in when discussing the issue of atheism in its bearing on public life,
G=Chandrasoma Rajapakse, Colombo, Sri Lanka
'We non-believers'. How very dispiriting that description sounds, This must be a very depressing time of year for you, what with all this celebrating the birth of Jesus going on at the moment.
As well as showing a lack of imagination, Mr Clegg's answer strikes me as being rather illiberal. I can't claim to know any practising liberals but have always imagined them to be a bit more generous with the benefit of the doubt, so to speak.
Me, I like to believe we're all Gods.
Stephen Powers, Worcester Park, GB
Trust Parris to end the Year on a really worthwhile issue!
Clegg has done politics a long overdue service. He answered truthfully, and to the point, one of the trickiest questions that could be asked of a politician.
I believe he has answered correctly for the vast majority of the country, that can't be bothered going on record.
But Parris' best point is that he and so many more, felt that reason was prevailing and the God Nonesense was on its way out.
Now, he and many, many others, are appalled to find that at this late stage in the day, the madness still persists and with absolutely unbelievebly new dangerous ramifications.
The time definitely has come to sniff out religious nuts from the Body Politic.
Your time has gone! You have done nothing but cause war, hatred and bar progress. The idea that you are back to hinder progress for our children and our country doesn't bear thinking about!
Go and good riddance!
John Collins, Florianopolis, Brazil
I'm willing to bet that Clegg has gone from being just another career politician to being one who is, amazingly, honest and with more credibility than Brown or Cameron. The latter two will trot out the least offensive soundbites, designed to appeal to the most voters (i.e. the sort of politician we've become used to).
paul newbold, sheffield, uk
I find this fascinating: twenty years ago it was fashionable to lampoon religion (read 'Christianity') because it was weak and passe, and on the way out.
Now that religions are thrusting their way back into the public sphere (militant Islam, the American political right, faith-based pressure groups) there is a new anxiety among liberals that this thing called religion is going to drag us back into the dark ages.
So poor, unrepresented agnostics and atheists, like the mild-mannered Richard Dawkins, must come out together, wave their placards, an stand up for what they believe! Courage, Brethren!
But this is not a dispute between the religious and the non-religious: first, because we are all 'religious' since we all have some take on the big questions of life; second, because the fault lines fall between those who exercise their faith with a pernicious militancy (one might include Dawkins) and those who seek peace.
Religion has been a peaceable servant of the public realm for decades
Duncan MacLaren, Edinburgh,
Clegg:
A] does not believe in God;
B] stresses (and he wasn't even asked this bit but volunteered it) that even so is ensuring his children are brought up to believe in not only God but the Catholic version thereof.
Where is the 'honest clarity' in that ?
Brown's and Cameron's lying about it ( because they think anyone cares any more which in fact they don't) is more 'honest' than Clegg's position.
Riv, Newcastle,
Regarding Mr Parris' interpretation of the beliefs of former prime ministers, two points might strike the educated reader. The first is that, if he is right, he confirms the cynical manipulation of belief made by so many prime ministers. the second is that he finds his own theo-centric beliefs confirmed. As St thomas Aquinas observed: Quidquid recipitur ad modum recipientis recipitur.
David O'Neill, Stockport, UK
What a beautifully written and reasoned piece, and so good to think a politician answered honestly. I have long thought that short answers like 'yes' and 'no', from our politicians, are too long out of fashion and whoever brings them back could do well.
Alan, Bath, UK
Well said, Mr. Parris. But I wonder if religious observance is now more about identity than faith. I know more than a few renewed Anglicans who are recently more active because of a desire to "stand up and be counted", post 9/11. I'm sure it is the same in other confessions. And identity, of course, is the most politcical cause imaginable. Faith itself is merely a sideshow but a powerful coda for the expression of other allegiances.
John, Norfolk, England