I found this site today and came to explore.   I was preoccupied.   Someone in particular was on my mind and ironically Chris your blog talked about that same person.   
 
I didn't know whether I was happy to see more evidence of my own belief that he is a dangerous man, a war criminal and a person who came to represent only deceit.   It isn't as if more evidence is needed.   The reason he was on my mind?   I had learned he was now a member of the Catholic Church.  
 
I believe no one is perfect, that we all have faults, that judging others is often unwise and I think the "Let those without sin cast the first stone." bit is excellent advice.   I don't believe Catholics are any better than anyone else, I just happen to be one, and I respect the beliefs of others.  Disunity between those who all claim to believe in God flies in the face of the whole message and makes a mockery of it.   I believe we all make mistakes but the God I know forgives when I am genuinely sorry.   
 
When the Herald announced recently that Blair was to be received into the church some time soon I knew real panic.   I wrote at that point to the Vatican.  (As yet I have received no acknowledgement.)   I said I felt I had a right to judge Blair, we all did, and that by ignoring his part in the illegal invasion of Iraq the church was leaving itself, and its existing members, wide open to accusations of hypocrisy and much, much more.  When you illegally bomb a country and kill so many people, it makes it a war crime.   So when a church then welcomes one of the architects of all of that with open arms there is something wrong.
 
In the New Testament especially leaders of countries are reminded of the huge responsibilities they have.   For all people are God's people and we know what happened to tens of thousands in Iraq when Blair took this country into an illegal invasion of another sovereign country which wasn't attacking us.   We know what happened after he walked away from the Security Council and the democratic route simply because, under the democratic process, he would have lost the vote for war that he wanted so badly.   International Law was set aside and defied.   Pope John Paul condemned the illegal invasion and daily prayed for the dead and the dying as the bombs fell and pleaded for an end to all of it.  The lust for power, for control was disguised by using lies.   Lies Blair told to the people of this country, to Parliament, about weapons of mass destruction, lies that hounded Dr David Kelly to his terrible death.   And even after Blair's lies were exposed, he still said he had been right.   When we marched and said no, no and no again we were called unpatriotic and worse! 
 
The tide of racism Blair helped to unleash on the world leaves us at a point where we are now in a country which has redefined the word "terrorist" as "Muslim" or "follower of Islam".   (Why is it that because we use sophisticated weapons, which do considerably more damage than crude suicide bombs and kill tens of thousands more, and because we attack in an organised, seemingly "official", manner, do we neatly sidestep the fact that our actions are no different from those of the terrorist?)   It doesn't matter that we broke the Law by going into Iraq, it doesn't matter that we have supported Israel's "right" to terrorise the people of Palestine or Lebanon as they see fit because it isn't about what is right or lawful.   It is about being more powerful than anyone else and power was Blair's drug in the days when his spokesperson Campbell claimed with his usual smugness that "We don't do God."   There is a part in the bible where it says that those who truly serve God will be known "by their fruits."   Blair's actions say quite clearly who his "master" was.   It wasn't God.  
 
To Blair himself I will say this, the high heid yins might welcome you, many ordinary Catholics do not and today many of us are ashamed that our church has done this.   Some may even be considering finding a new church.   You have not uttered as much as a  "Oh by the way I have seen the light over Iraq, over all the people who died appalling deaths through my lies and my blind devotion to the power-mad control freak in the White House.  My name is Tony Blair and I am a War Criminal and I am desperately sorry."    We cannot welcome you with open arms when we know what you did.   We cannot defend those in our church who made this decision and lacked the courage to say no to you.   Forgiveness is indeed a wonderful thing, but generally the wrong doing is acknowledged first.  If that's the way it is for us, it should be no different for you.   
 
So even if the hierarchy in the church publicly welcome Blair, as many of them did over the weekend, for many existing Catholics another phrase came to mind. It is one lots of ordinary people, of all religions and none, used a few years back, ironically, in response to Blair's illegal proposals regarding Iraq.  And so as we listen to the Murphy O'Connors and the rest welcoming this celebrity convert into our church we will utter once again, "NOT IN MY NAME!""   I believe with all my heart that God will possibly be nodding his own head emphatically in agreement with us.  

Jo--I am a Catholic and like you have the gravest reservations about Blair's reception into the Church. I will not reject the Church however as to reject the Church would be to reject Christ my Lord and Saviour. Blair has also voted for abortion,another wicked crime. He must have privately rejected that position, as it is againt the teachings of the Church and of Scripture.(Before I formed you in the womb I knew you,and before you were born I consecrated you-Jerimiah 1.5) Don't worry about the Vatican not replying. Here in Argyll it is a standing joke. You write to the Vatican and it eventually tells you to contact your local Bishop. So you write to Ian Murray the Bishop of Argyll and the Isles and he writes back telling you--to write to the Vatican!

The aggression againt Iraq will I think haunt us forever.

It easily matches Pearl Harbour and the invasion of the Sudentland in the annals of infamy. It hatred it has aroused was the reason for the tragic asassination of Benazir Bhutto,whoever was behind it and my money is on Pakistani Security Forces.

I welcome the above comments, particularly those of Alan Clayton whose name I know from his letters to the Herald over the years. My understanding is that Catholics are being put under a lot of pressure not to criticise the hierarchy's decision to admit Blair, but not being a Catholic myself that's not really any of my business. For what it's worth I think the Church has inflicted a serious injury upon itself.

What I am much more concerned about is the continuing carnage in Iraq. Nor am I fooled by the over-hyped suggestions that things are materially better there.

On my very last evening in Baghdad, over twenty years ago now, I promised my friend William that I would never forget him or his beloved Iraq. I never have. They were at war then and they are still at war. I guess William will be dead now, but I have tried to keep my promise. This blog forms part of that pledge. So thanks to the SIC for the privilege and the chance to write it.

First off I'd like to thank Alan for his thoughts on "pressure" on Catholics or the lack of it. I assume therefore that those who carried out pretty awful "ad hominem" attacks on me last week on a Herald blog were speaking for themselves, "unpressured". I did not think for a moment that they spoke for the majority of Catholics who are as concerned for Iraqis as Alan and I are.

This week's Spectator "leader" reflects the "chronological" dilemma of the Iraq imbroglio. My point is a simple one - we have been killing a lot of Iraqis since 1990, about 3 million in all, since Iraq's fleeing soldiers were massacred at Mitlah Ridge then buried while many were still alive. That's as reasonable a baseline date as any other and, I would suggest, a more objective one than 9/11. When Madeleine Albright, Clinton's defence secretary, said in 1996 that 500,000 Iraqi children dead as a result of genocidal sanctions was "a price worth paying" (to "git" Saddam)I knew eaxctly what she meant and the value she/we placed on "Iraqis" lives. That's why picking the arbitrary date (of 9/11), but a milestone along a very long road of killing, as if everything beforehand was hunk-dory is so unhelpful or "ludicrous" to use a favourite Spectator word. Many in the West do it all the time. They do it for a reason which I tried to capture in my piece: to help justify invading Iraq in 2003. And it's why it's so disgusting that Blair's use of this "pivotal" moment, this causal event(9/11, so often seems to be being deployed by Big Clunkin' as well. It is a sophistry that sustains our denial per se about the invasion of Iraq and it's our denial that will forever blacken our name in the world. Why should Scotland share that shame? 'Not in my name' indeed!

One of the pleasures of this blog has been its apparent impact on the wider political discourse in Scotland. By focusing on one particular event - Operation Desert Fox -I hope we may have kept the debate on Iraq alive and meaningful. Rose Gentle's success two days ago in having Gordon's case referred to the Lords is a much bigger and very welcome milestone. Just [sic] a Scottish soldier sent to die!

The Arabic word 'fitna' meaning dislike of civil strife is a powerful force in Arab culture and will help the healing process once the crusaders leave.

And one day, perhaps, those responsible for the illegal invasion of Iraq will be brought to account.

Inshallah, as they say in Iraq, that day will not be too far away. Shakran for all those who have helped to bring it a little closer.

I was present on and off during the "blog" referred to above, on the Herald site, and I chose not to participate in it after I had made my own view about Blair's conversion to Catholicism plain. The blog deteriorated rapidly into sectarian rants by both sides and I find that sort of debate unenjoyable. I don't get the sectarian bit as I have never labelled people in terms of religion.

I hate it when that is done to me. I abandoned the debate as there was just no point. It just shows that this "one Scotland many colours" slogan is simply that and the reality is we have a very long way to go. I am regularly astonished by how quickly sites like that can become poisonous so quickly. I would agree with you Alan that no "pressure" is being exerted on catholics to accept Blair's conversion.

Thank you for the comments you addressed to me earlier in response to my earlier post. It was very thoughtful of you.

George, I agree with you. I think Scotland had a healthier view of the whole Iraq situation, and the right one. We were against it from the beginning here. Alex Salmond opposed it in the Commons, as did Charlie Kennedy for the Liberal Democrats. Robin Cook, although Labour, showed tremendous courage by stating the truth right there in the Commons the night before the vote when he resigned his Cabinet Post.

With the changes we saw in May here there is great hope for the future if already the opposition parties are having to say to Westminster that there really is a need for more power to be devolved. The pressure is definitely on them, even if Brown is resisting and even if Des Browne is ignoring all that is happening here yet calls himself the Scottish Secretary! His comments yesterday about the "immature" approach of the SNP to the nuclear question would have been laughable had they not been so offensive to the many in Scotland who are opposed to more nuclear reactors for good reasons. To be dismissed as immature by someone as out of touch with Scotland as Des Browne is quite something.