Faith: Why Tony Blair Is Right, And So Dangerously Wrong
Page 1 of 1
Faith: Why Tony Blair Is Right, And So Dangerously Wrong
On Sunday, Former British Prime Minister Tony Blair wrote an opinion piece for British newspaper The Observer.
In it, he asserts that the wars of the 21st century are "less likely to be the product of extreme political ideology - like those of the 20th century - but they could easily be fought around the questions of cultural or religious difference".
Absolutely.
Moreover, he goes on to write that not only are many acts of terrorism perpetrated in the name of religion, but that there is "no doubt" that this unwelcome phenomenon is "growing, not abating".
It is difficult to argue with this analysis, and it is refreshing to see someone who has such strong faith accept, publicly - albeit perhaps a little late in the day - that there is a very dark side to religion.
Mr. Blair's suggested response to this rising challenge is greater religious tolerance. 'Tolerance' is a word that, generally speaking, has positive connotations with which we would all, ideally, like to be associated.
The problem is, that when it comes to religion, 'tolerance' will only exacerbate the problem that the former Prime Minister so rightly identifies. And this is what makes it so dangerous.
Adherents of faith and atheists alike agree that religion is a matter of belief; that much is common ground.
But, intellectually speaking, that is where it starts to get very difficult.
Because for as long as we tolerate points of view founded not on evidence, objectivity and justice but instead on 'belief', then logically we are bound to afford all 'beliefs' the same level of 'tolerance'.
We cannot pick and choose which beliefs we are prepared to tolerate: they all derive their 'authority' from the same, unsubstantiable source. One either tolerates belief, or not. It is binary. To suggest otherwise necessarily implies the assertion of a highly subjective, value judgment as to which unsubstantiable point of view has more merit.
At first glance, this might appear relatively easy. If we needed to we could probably, at a pinch, all convince ourselves that, ridiculous as they may seem, when compared to the extremist nuts, the views of, say, the Anglican Church are relatively benign in terms of their impact on broader society (although it is worth noting that this is an organization that has long since enjoyed a protection enshrined in law to continue - breathtakingly - to get away with not promoting certain folk just because they happen to have vaginas and not penises).
But if the basis for these views is simple assertion of belief - "it is so because my religion tells me it is so" - then all assertions of belief, no matter how appallingly they manifest, are intellectually the same. The Flying Spaghetti Monster is no more or less credible than, say, the Father, The Son and The Holy Ghost. To suggest otherwise is, ultimately, an indefensible position for anyone who believes in equality, reason and the rule of law: and the extremists know it.
In giving oxygen to one, we are - consciously or otherwise - therefore giving oxygen to all.
And so if Mr. Blair's wars of the future are to be avoided, what is needed is not more tolerance, but less.
We need to stop tolerating any organization, person or body, that seeks to rely on simple 'belief' to give credence to any particular viewpoint.
It is perhaps counter-intuitive and superficially distasteful, but the logic is inescapable: where religion is concerned it is a wholesale, uniform and consistent intolerance that is required.
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/nick-jefferson/faith-why-tony-blair-is-r_b_4685853.html
Interesting article, what do others think?
In it, he asserts that the wars of the 21st century are "less likely to be the product of extreme political ideology - like those of the 20th century - but they could easily be fought around the questions of cultural or religious difference".
Absolutely.
Moreover, he goes on to write that not only are many acts of terrorism perpetrated in the name of religion, but that there is "no doubt" that this unwelcome phenomenon is "growing, not abating".
It is difficult to argue with this analysis, and it is refreshing to see someone who has such strong faith accept, publicly - albeit perhaps a little late in the day - that there is a very dark side to religion.
Mr. Blair's suggested response to this rising challenge is greater religious tolerance. 'Tolerance' is a word that, generally speaking, has positive connotations with which we would all, ideally, like to be associated.
The problem is, that when it comes to religion, 'tolerance' will only exacerbate the problem that the former Prime Minister so rightly identifies. And this is what makes it so dangerous.
Adherents of faith and atheists alike agree that religion is a matter of belief; that much is common ground.
But, intellectually speaking, that is where it starts to get very difficult.
Because for as long as we tolerate points of view founded not on evidence, objectivity and justice but instead on 'belief', then logically we are bound to afford all 'beliefs' the same level of 'tolerance'.
We cannot pick and choose which beliefs we are prepared to tolerate: they all derive their 'authority' from the same, unsubstantiable source. One either tolerates belief, or not. It is binary. To suggest otherwise necessarily implies the assertion of a highly subjective, value judgment as to which unsubstantiable point of view has more merit.
At first glance, this might appear relatively easy. If we needed to we could probably, at a pinch, all convince ourselves that, ridiculous as they may seem, when compared to the extremist nuts, the views of, say, the Anglican Church are relatively benign in terms of their impact on broader society (although it is worth noting that this is an organization that has long since enjoyed a protection enshrined in law to continue - breathtakingly - to get away with not promoting certain folk just because they happen to have vaginas and not penises).
But if the basis for these views is simple assertion of belief - "it is so because my religion tells me it is so" - then all assertions of belief, no matter how appallingly they manifest, are intellectually the same. The Flying Spaghetti Monster is no more or less credible than, say, the Father, The Son and The Holy Ghost. To suggest otherwise is, ultimately, an indefensible position for anyone who believes in equality, reason and the rule of law: and the extremists know it.
In giving oxygen to one, we are - consciously or otherwise - therefore giving oxygen to all.
And so if Mr. Blair's wars of the future are to be avoided, what is needed is not more tolerance, but less.
We need to stop tolerating any organization, person or body, that seeks to rely on simple 'belief' to give credence to any particular viewpoint.
It is perhaps counter-intuitive and superficially distasteful, but the logic is inescapable: where religion is concerned it is a wholesale, uniform and consistent intolerance that is required.
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/nick-jefferson/faith-why-tony-blair-is-r_b_4685853.html
Interesting article, what do others think?
Guest- Guest
Re: Faith: Why Tony Blair Is Right, And So Dangerously Wrong
throughout history leaders have used "God wills it" to go around conquering other nations, it's men who make wars, for selfish reasons not God.
Guest- Guest
Re: Faith: Why Tony Blair Is Right, And So Dangerously Wrong
I think the key words are uniform and consistant. And that intolerance does NOT need to take the form of conflict, it can be sufficient to say...do what you will in YOUR sphere of influence...but dont bring it here....
Guest- Guest
Re: Faith: Why Tony Blair Is Right, And So Dangerously Wrong
grumpy old git wrote:I think the key words are uniform and consistant. And that intolerance does NOT need to take the form of conflict, it can be sufficient to say...do what you will in YOUR sphere of influence...but dont bring it here....
with some people just backing down leads them to take more liberties, this can be seen throughout europe as islam spreads.
Guest- Guest
Re: Faith: Why Tony Blair Is Right, And So Dangerously Wrong
PhilDidge wrote:On Sunday, Former British Prime Minister Tony Blair wrote an opinion piece for British newspaper The Observer.
In it, he asserts that the wars of the 21st century are "less likely to be the product of extreme political ideology - like those of the 20th century - but they could easily be fought around the questions of cultural or religious difference".
Absolutely.
Moreover, he goes on to write that not only are many acts of terrorism perpetrated in the name of religion, but that there is "no doubt" that this unwelcome phenomenon is "growing, not abating".
It is difficult to argue with this analysis, and it is refreshing to see someone who has such strong faith accept, publicly - albeit perhaps a little late in the day - that there is a very dark side to religion.
Mr. Blair's suggested response to this rising challenge is greater religious tolerance. 'Tolerance' is a word that, generally speaking, has positive connotations with which we would all, ideally, like to be associated.
The problem is, that when it comes to religion, 'tolerance' will only exacerbate the problem that the former Prime Minister so rightly identifies. And this is what makes it so dangerous.
Adherents of faith and atheists alike agree that religion is a matter of belief; that much is common ground.
But, intellectually speaking, that is where it starts to get very difficult.
Because for as long as we tolerate points of view founded not on evidence, objectivity and justice but instead on 'belief', then logically we are bound to afford all 'beliefs' the same level of 'tolerance'.
We cannot pick and choose which beliefs we are prepared to tolerate: they all derive their 'authority' from the same, unsubstantiable source. One either tolerates belief, or not. It is binary. To suggest otherwise necessarily implies the assertion of a highly subjective, value judgment as to which unsubstantiable point of view has more merit.
At first glance, this might appear relatively easy. If we needed to we could probably, at a pinch, all convince ourselves that, ridiculous as they may seem, when compared to the extremist nuts, the views of, say, the Anglican Church are relatively benign in terms of their impact on broader society (although it is worth noting that this is an organization that has long since enjoyed a protection enshrined in law to continue - breathtakingly - to get away with not promoting certain folk just because they happen to have vaginas and not penises).
But if the basis for these views is simple assertion of belief - "it is so because my religion tells me it is so" - then all assertions of belief, no matter how appallingly they manifest, are intellectually the same. The Flying Spaghetti Monster is no more or less credible than, say, the Father, The Son and The Holy Ghost. To suggest otherwise is, ultimately, an indefensible position for anyone who believes in equality, reason and the rule of law: and the extremists know it.
In giving oxygen to one, we are - consciously or otherwise - therefore giving oxygen to all.
And so if Mr. Blair's wars of the future are to be avoided, what is needed is not more tolerance, but less.
We need to stop tolerating any organization, person or body, that seeks to rely on simple 'belief' to give credence to any particular viewpoint.
It is perhaps counter-intuitive and superficially distasteful, but the logic is inescapable: where religion is concerned it is a wholesale, uniform and consistent intolerance that is required.
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/nick-jefferson/faith-why-tony-blair-is-r_b_4685853.html
Interesting article, what do others think?
I think there needs to be a clear divide between belief and actions.
Tolerate any and all belief but do not use belief as an excuse for action.
Guest- Guest
Re: Faith: Why Tony Blair Is Right, And So Dangerously Wrong
certain beliefs take a mile when you give them an inch of tolerance.
Guest- Guest
Similar topics
» Tony Blair
» Tony Blair can fuck off
» Tony Blair must explain IRA 'comfort letter' deals, say MPs
» IRA victims plan to sue Tony Blair over Libya 'conniving'
» Was Tony Blair The Worst Prime Minister Of England?
» Tony Blair can fuck off
» Tony Blair must explain IRA 'comfort letter' deals, say MPs
» IRA victims plan to sue Tony Blair over Libya 'conniving'
» Was Tony Blair The Worst Prime Minister Of England?
Page 1 of 1
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
Sat Mar 18, 2023 12:28 pm by Ben Reilly
» TOTAL MADNESS Great British Railway Journeys among shows flagged by counter terror scheme ‘for encouraging far-right sympathies
Wed Feb 22, 2023 5:14 pm by Tommy Monk
» Interesting COVID figures
Tue Feb 21, 2023 5:00 am by Tommy Monk
» HAPPY CHRISTMAS.
Sun Jan 01, 2023 7:33 pm by Tommy Monk
» The Fight Over Climate Change is Over (The Greenies Won!)
Thu Dec 15, 2022 3:59 pm by Tommy Monk
» Trump supporter murders wife, kills family dog, shoots daughter
Mon Dec 12, 2022 1:21 am by 'Wolfie
» Quill
Thu Oct 20, 2022 10:28 pm by Tommy Monk
» Algerian Woman under investigation for torture and murder of French girl, 12, whose body was found in plastic case in Paris
Thu Oct 20, 2022 10:04 pm by Tommy Monk
» Wind turbines cool down the Earth (edited with better video link)
Sun Oct 16, 2022 9:19 am by Ben Reilly
» Saying goodbye to our Queen.
Sun Sep 25, 2022 9:02 pm by Maddog
» PHEW.
Sat Sep 17, 2022 6:33 pm by Syl
» And here's some more enrichment...
Thu Sep 15, 2022 3:46 pm by Ben Reilly
» John F Kennedy Assassination
Thu Sep 15, 2022 3:40 pm by Ben Reilly
» Where is everyone lately...?
Thu Sep 15, 2022 3:33 pm by Ben Reilly
» London violence over the weekend...
Mon Sep 05, 2022 2:19 pm by Tommy Monk
» Why should anyone believe anything that Mo Farah says...!?
Wed Jul 13, 2022 1:44 am by Tommy Monk
» Liverpool Labour defends mayor role poll after turnout was only 3% and they say they will push ahead with the option that was least preferred!!!
Mon Jul 11, 2022 1:11 pm by Tommy Monk
» Labour leader Keir Stammer can't answer the simple question of whether a woman has a penis or not...
Mon Jul 11, 2022 3:58 am by Tommy Monk
» More evidence of remoaners still trying to overturn Brexit... and this is a conservative MP who should be drummed out of the party and out of parliament!
Sun Jul 10, 2022 10:50 pm by Tommy Monk
» R Kelly 30 years, Ghislaine Maxwell 20 years... but here in UK...
Fri Jul 08, 2022 5:31 pm by Original Quill