The former Prime Minister Tony Blair avoided talking about his religious views while in office for fear of being labelled a nutter, he has revealed in an interview for the BBC.

Of course he was thought by many to be a nutter, and still is thought of as such. He was, and is, also seen by critics as being a control freak and Bush’s poodle, as well as self-righteous to the extreme. But is he any more right to assume his religious beliefs would mark him in that way than he was to join hands with the US and commit our nation to the attack on Iraq? Is religion an issue, or is it the way in which religion can sometimes distort perceptions of reality and lead to injustice?

I have long believed that a person of any faith seeking political office, and being open about it, has the potential to convey many reassuring qualities to the public unless, of course, that person is a fundamentalist or their views don’t allow for the diversity of society on matters such as gay and women’s rights. Or there’s a public prejudice for no good reason. For example, for me personally, a hardline Catholic might well be a problem; a relatively free-thinking Catholic, no problem whatsoever. It’s the difference between considering God’s advice, and thinking you’re controlled by God and under specific instruction to do as you’re told.

But it’s when someone gets elected to a position of power and only then either references the Divine as being involved in his or her decision-making process, or is later found to be religious through exposure rather than honest revelation, it’s then that I start to feel a bit worried. And Mr Blair is the kind who worries me, as does his pal Dubya. Then, with regard to Blair, the worry comes after the fact. But in politics, what’s past is past is rarely the maxim that can be used; the same applies to what’s done is done.

The repercussions of Mr Blair’s decisions while in office will be felt for a very long time, not least of all by Iraqis and the families of those brave, often lamentably young and promising soldiers who have died so far in that distant country. In the case of Tony’s Texan friend, we knew what the world was getting when he first stole the Presidency to provide us with the most depressing start to the new millennium. We didn’t have to wait until he was legitimately elected next time round to know the chimp thought he had a hotline to God. And his God doesn’t seem to be a very nice one.

In the US, people like that can inexplicably gain power, and it is true that such a man would not, over here in mainland Britain, be elected to the highest political office in the land. But we do have people of faith in political power, at both local and national level; some of those are inevitably going to be hardline bigots while others more liberal. We just don’t install religious hardliners, fanatics or extremists directly into Number 10.

There is a but. And it’s a biggie. We don’t, as yet, as far as I know, have any Pagan MPs but we are likely to have at least a few people of Pagan faiths elected to roles across the political spectrum within our local authorities. Whether they feel they can be open from the start is, I guess, dependent not on their willingness to be honest but on the public perception. If you really do think you’re going to be unfairly treated, mocked and, well, the victim of a witch-hunt, then no, you’re not going to reveal you are a Pagan. And Pagan is the word to use, if ever; on the other hand, Witch remains a sure-fire word to get you losing your election deposit. We’ve still got some way to go there. We don’t burn Witches any more; we just malign them and push them to the outer edges of society.

Faith is one of those things that impacts on so many aspects of life, it’s important to be open if you can. It can colour views on foreign and domestic policies, affect legislation on single parents and disability rights—to name but two examples. For that reason, I would rather see someone in power whose faith is liberal, which does not inherently mean undisciplined—far from it—than someone whose faith tells them to take away the rights and ability to choose of others. That person can be whatever—Christian, Buddhist, Muslim. Or Pagan.

Yet, for most people, Pagan has the biggest question mark of all over it. This is due, in no small part, to a tiny number of publicity-hungry people who don brown dressing gowns and wizard hats and announce to the media that they’re going to do a spell to invoke the Abominable Snowman from on top of Mount Everest. Or some such lunacy. Yes, we have our own fundamentalists. Of a kind. But even they, while turning our faith—faiths, really, in the plural, to be accurate and clearly inclusive— into a joke for others, tend to be welcoming of diversity and they never, ever want to ban other people’s religions. Or bomb anyone. But as a consequence of their comparatively benign behaviour, all Pagans and Witches are further press-ganged into the ranks of the insane and dangerous. The only thing ‘dangerous’ about us is our desire to live in a world in which everyone treats everyone else, and our planet, with the utmost respect and courtesy while recognising they have a right to hold their own opinions. For those who thrive on power-play, divisive behaviour, and conflict, that’s enough to condemn us on false trumped-up charges. It’s always been the way.

Mr Blair may not have been so politically successful had the relationship between his beliefs and his actions in office been better known, suggested Sir Menzies Campbell, former Liberal Democrat leader. ‘The public might have been less willing to give him the triumph of three consecutive general election victories if they’d known the extent to which ethical values would overshadow pragmatism,’ he said.

It is in these words that Mr Campbell gets to the core question we have every right to expect an answer, not that we will ever get one: just how much did Mr Blair’s religious views, and how he connected his inner world of faith to the outer world, impact on his decisions? We already know Bush believes God has always been on the side of America. He’s not alone as an American in thinking that. But did Blair believe God—his God, not mine, maybe not yours—was on the side of Britain?

A former US Air Force pilot claims to have touched a UFO while a former governor of Arizona wants the US government to ’stop perpetuating the myth that all UFOs can be explained away in down-to-earth, conventional terms’.