K£vin,
As I see it ... Bush, Blair, and Howard are primarily pragmatists.
(Many humanists are mere pragmatists too). Their decisions are often unwise and erroneous. They are often wise, too (which many are often too cynical to acknowledge).

Are they Christian? A Christian is one who trusts in Christ, amidst many wrong decisions. Whether they do that, I do not know, personally.

I have never had to function as an international politician. How hard would that be?.
They are leaders of countries which seem noble enough. But how noble are we all?

Number one priority, for people and leaders, seems to be the protection of "the economy".
Christian teaching is to share what you have. We could all take a review of that one.

Certainly, the US seems to have adopted a mandate to act as global policeman.
What would the globe look like if they didn't?
When Statehood is mixed with a half-baked 'pseudo-messianic mandate' it can prove a dangerous cocktail.

Some more questions for you:
Do the actions of Bush, Blair, Howard invalidate Jesus teaching?
Do the failures of Christians generally, invalidate the teaching received?

Is the development of a "just war theory", to restrain evil, a negation of Jesus teaching?
(I don't think so. I think the Allied response to Hitler was necessary, for example).

Is protection of people vulnerable to explosion, part of the action of genuine love?
Perhaps we all need to do some "just war" theology!
Perhaps more importantly, our decisions need to flow from a trust in Christ.

TRTL, you say "if we go too far in limiting any faith, the secular view becomes a faith in itself."

But there is absolutely no need to "believe" in the absence of something. Since by definition it does not exist, there is no requirement to express any opinion at all, so non-belief cannot in itself constitute a faith.

The tooth fairy, father christmas, the easter bunny, the golem, all exist only in an individual's fantasy world. They do not exist outside these imaginary universes, so there is absolutely no need for anyone to ascribe their actual non-existence to a need to have faith in their non-existence.

Having agreed with you that there is no point in actively preventing people from holding their delusions, I cannot accept that in order to maintain an unwillingness to be complicit in their belief that there actually is a bogeyman under the bed, I should be required to adopt this as a faith.

Should someone actually introduce me to a bearded, apple-cheeked old man who spends Christmas Eve flying round the world behind a bunch of reindeer doling out presents, I shall be the very first to shake him by the hand and admit to having been wrong. In the meantime, it doesn't require any "faith" on my part to reject the concept entirely.

It might be a case in today's world as Socrates once said:
Out with the Gods and in with the Good.

The twisted sort of God that George W's American right-wing followers now seem to believe in, might make us agree with Socratic philosophy.

Maybe it is what the world needs so much of today, using Socratic reasoning as a balance with religous faith, replacing Biblical folklore with just plain commonsense.

Fair point Pericles - my comparison of secularism in terms of being a 'faith' as it were relates primarily to the concept of tolerance - religions are notorious for treating other faiths with disdain: is this not the way of the atheist?

The point I'm making is that I couldn't agree more that religion is foolishness, but that's just my view, and if I was to be too firm or aggressive in forcing my view, my tolerance approach would rival that of the religous groups.

One small quote,love thy neighbour?has it got any meaning?,if it has then more people should give it a try,or change it to read show tolerance to all human beings,and somehow,it may replace,race colour and creed,now is that not CHARITY?,if IGNORANCE can be overcome,what a WONDERFUL WORLD THIS WILL BE

Somehow I thought you might say the things you have tennyson's_one_far-off_divine_event. Where I do agree with you is that the actions, thoughts and often erroneous teachings of 'struggling' Christians do not invalidate the teachings of Christ. Where I take exception to Bush, Blair et al ( and I suppose you on this occasion) is that they try to justify their megalomania as being something inherently Christian. Personally, I do not believe for a second that Christ himself would sign up to a ‘just war’ theory – to me, such a teaching/belief represents a complete antithesis to the lived example of his own life, and I do not believe anything he is supposed to have said would advocate such a doctrine either.

Whilst Bush and Blair may choose to call some ‘unthinking’ Christians to arms to fight their very ‘unjust war’ – their actions and words seem to echo more, your sentiments regarding Islam:

“The Qur’an contains commands to kill and fight (literally, "try to kill"). Most are found in the second (verses 190, 191, 193, 244), fourth (vv. 76, 84, 89, 91) and ninth (vv. 5, 12, 14, 29, 36, 123) suras. The Arabic verbs in all of these verses are related to the verb “qatala” which means “to kill”. Allah loves those who kill in his way (Q.61.4). “

rather than anything you could find about or from Jesus in the gospels.

Whilst some may believe they are protecting people and therefore doing right by killing others (and I can understand why this could potentially be seen as noble too, by many), this is not what Christ would have done and therefore people [Bush and Blair] should not undertake such actions in his name.

In the case of Iraq especially, how can you claim they were protecting people (more than 100,000 people dead) – they are unquestionably the aggressors – which is why the majority of the Western world consider this to be an unjust war.