Via Ophelia I was unfortunate enough to find this piece of drivel written by British ex-PM Tony Blair, entitled Without God's Truth at its centre, no community can fulfil its potential. Really? “No community can fulfil its potential”? None? I guess the Danes and the Swedes must be pretty unfulfilled, then. Oh wait, no they’re not!
But Blair doesn’t need facts, or even a valid argument. See how he starts by invoking something he thinks we can all agree on - the recent financial crisis:
The limits to individualism are in one sense plain. We only need to contemplate the financial crisis to understand that the pursuit of maximum short-term profit, without proper regard to the communal good, is a mistake and leads to neither profit nor good.
A reasonable point to make. Arguments could be made for this point or against it, and we could certainly compare their merits and decide if the pursuit of maximum short-term profit was to blame or not. But Blair isn’t going this route. Instead, the waffle starts:
Yet, at a deeper level, the case against a purely individualistic or materialistic philosophy has to be made. Young people today have access to technology, to opportunity, to experiences good and bad on a scale my generation never knew and my father's generation would find fantastical, like something out of science fiction.
“Yet, at a deeper level…”? What does that even mean? What “level” is he talking about? Deeper than what? Measured how? Why does this case have to be made? What does modern technology have to do with it? Will Blair tell us? Of course not. His argument has no explanation (nor logic or evidence), just assertion:
The danger is clear: that pursuit of pleasure becomes an end in itself. It is here that faith can step in, can show us a proper sense of duty to others, responsibility for the world around us, and can lead us to, as the Holy Father calls it, caritas in veritate.
Of course – this is where faith can step in. Obviously. Because what we need is obviously to believe in more things that are not backed by evidence. That’s the ticket. Accepting more things without a shred of evidence, or even in the teeth of evidence, is just what we need now. After all, it worked so well in the past. Note that Blair has shown absolutely no connection between this and the financial crisis he started his article with.
After the experience of fascism, Soviet Communism or viewing life in North Korea or the cultural revolution in China, it is easier for us to grasp the dangers of a too-powerful state.
Agreed. Also, religiously controlled Iran, Saudi Arabia, The Taliban, Sudan... And don’t forget, Hitler was religiously inspired. No dangers of a too-powerful state there, no siree. Phew, good job that faith “stepped in” to prevent the dangers of a too-powerful state. Caritas in Veritate (Charity in Truth) my ass.
Of course, the regimes of Soviet Communism, China or North Korea were/are not exactly bastions of rationality and critical thinking either. They were/are quasi religious regimes based largely on faith (no evidence their systems worked). They just required faith in something else, not the things Tony Blair has faith in, so that was the bad faith, not the good faith, right Tony? Right.
But I would argue that even the concept of community has its limitations. We use the word in two senses: one to distinguish it from government, to emphasise civic society if you like; the other sense is just to describe the general community of public opinion. In politics, of course, especially in a democracy, "the people" are the boss; public opinion is to be courted and if not surrendered to, as (sic) least managed.
“The people" are the boss”? Funny, I didn’t think the people of Britain supported the war in Iraq. In what sense were the people “the boss” when that decision was being made? But at least Blair admits that the only thing politicians have to do is manage public opinion, not actually, you know, listen to it in any way. Otherwise known as spin.
Of course, Blair is saving up for his big finish, where faith and belief in god is the only thing that can save us:
It is here that Faith enlarges and enriches the idea of community. The recent Papal Encyclical is a remarkable document in many respects. It repays reading and re-reading. But one strand throughout it is a strong rejoinder to the notion of relativism, to the description of the human condition in society as just some amoral negotiation or set of compromises with modernity; or even just obedience to the majority opinion. Not that it is anti-technology or anti-modern; or indeed anti-democratic. But it widens and deepens the relationship between individuals and the community in which they live. It puts God's Truth at the centre of it. In one passage, it describes humanism devoid of faith as "inhuman humanism": "Without God, man neither knows which way to go, nor even understands who he is."
Blair’s catholic church had such a strong moral compass that it allowed multiple serial pedophiles to prey on innocent children in church while protecting the predators from the law, and the rape and molestation of thousands of children in over 250 catholic schools for decades. Hey Tony, do those articles I just linked repay reading and re-reading too? Caritas in Veritate.
Faith is such a good moral guidance that one in every 33 women who attend worship services regularly has been the target of sexual advances by a religious leader. In what sense did faith enlarge and enrich the idea of community for those women? Do tell.
Of course, I see it now. The 9/11 hijackers were motivated only by “a purely individualistic or materialistic philosophy” and “pursuit of pleasure.” If only they had had some religious faith instead, all that horror could have been avoided. Yeah, what we need is more faith in the world. How could I possibly have missed this obvious conclusion?
And this twit was Prime Minister?
Mmmm yes, it's normally the other way round, but that's the one thing in recent times that we did first and then the US copied: elect a religious moron as leader and see what happens. Something for us all to be proud of. :-(
Credit where credit is due, though - I'd say Tony has kept his idiocy at admirably low levels, considering the freakish beliefs his wife espouses all the time.
Posted by: Geeb | September 14, 2009 at 01:33 AM
In a democracy the people are the boss, according to the sactimonious Blair. Yes, and, if he had published this level of idiotic drivel BEFORE the general election of 1997, what are the chances that he would have ever been elected? The shining faith-based qualities demonstrated by Blair throughout his premiership were..? I'll go for duplicity, dishonesty, arrogance, selfishness....
Posted by: derek hudson | September 14, 2009 at 02:43 AM
Blair is a tosser, and I'm pleased to say I never voted for him.
Posted by: Big Al | September 14, 2009 at 03:29 AM
A couple of points:
First, Tony Blair is a piece of shit.
Second, I suspect his sudden plunge into the world of faith politicking has various motives. In part, it's probably a carefully chosen ploy to give him a new "identity" rather than being continually associated with that unfortunate business of illegally demolishing and entire country.
Maybe also so that people can explain his pathetic poodling up to Bush as being a result of his "faith" rather than as a result of being a weak-minded quisling opposed to the will and interests of the people.
But also, I suspect he is smart enough to have grasped that he has done something truly evil in invading Iraq and wishes somehow to atone for his sins. (Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe he doesn't feel a thing and is just a rat in a suit.)
But more relevant to this post, indeed, this is typical religious slipperiness, coupled with politician-like obfuscation.
First, he conflates individualistic or materialistic philosophy with pursuit of maximum short-term profit, which he then conflates with pleasure.
The danger is clear: that pursuit of pleasure becomes an end in itself. (Well, why should we pursue pleasure? For the principle of it?)
He then presents faith as the antithesis of the pursuit of maximum short-term profit (i.e. materialism/pleasure/individualism/non-community-mindedness), and that faith can lead us to a proper sense of duty to others, responsibility for the world around us. (This still unconvicted war criminal is a fine one to be lecturing us on this subject.)
Then he suddenly leaps to fascism, then leaps on to his strange admission that public opinion should be managed. Then suddenly he's claiming faith is the antithesis of relativism and amorality.
So "faith" makes us community-minded, but not in a fascist way, or in a democratic way, but in a kind of.....um.......faithful way, I guess. And if only we had all listened to the Holy Pedophile, there wouldn't have been any financial crisis.
Posted by: yakaru | September 14, 2009 at 07:51 AM
He left out the British Empire.
Posted by: Captain Al | September 14, 2009 at 09:07 AM
From the authoritarian arse-hole that dragged us into a ridiculous war by lieing to parliment, covered up war crimes, practically created the survielence state, and advocated giving the police the power to hold people for 40 days with niether charge nor trial? What a hypocritical prick.
Posted by: Ramel | September 14, 2009 at 09:17 AM
Tony Blair's public statements since handing over the UK premiership and becoming a holy roman all seem to be much the same: let's have more faith. It's as if he so desperately wants the "Tony Blair Faith Foundation" to be seen as some kind of earnest authority, when to me it just sounds like the name of a pop group.
His parroting of Pope Benny's ridiculous "encyclical" confirms that he can't have thought anything through - anyone who seriously tries to lay the blame for global warming at the feet of atheists is plainly not thinking straight.
Unfortunately yes. Embarrassing, isn't it?Posted by: PaulJ | September 14, 2009 at 11:05 AM
“Yet, at a deeper level…”? What does that even mean?
"My previous points were shallow" just doesn't have the same ring?
Posted by: Citizen Z | September 14, 2009 at 05:35 PM
"And this twit was Prime Minister?"
Yes, isn't that just hilarious ?
To think that someone with those points of view could actualy be elected ?
Unfortunately history has shown that it happened before and probably will happen more often. As long as people use faith instead of thinking for themselves this will happen again and again. What can you do ? ;)
Posted by: Touro73 | September 14, 2009 at 07:16 PM
"But at least Blair admits that the only thing politicians have to do is manage public opinion, not actually, you know, listen to it in any way. Otherwise known as spin."
I enjoyed your article but I think you need to have a bit more critical thinking about spin.
So spin is basically a derogatory word used for the more cynical side of PR. It was a term that was used primarily by the opposition and right wing press to bash the government at every opportunity. In some instances, it was probably well deserved.
(I'll just point out, I became very disillusioned with Blair and the government, particularly when he revealed how faith had played a part in his decision making about Iraq. Shocked is probably an understatement. I'm no fan here.)
BUT... you need to get real. Spin is a direct consequence of being under such an intense media spotlight. Nowadays, politicians have to justify their actions to the nth degree as they're scrutinised to an almost ridiculous level. Accountability is a good thing providing it's done responsibly, but most of the time the accusations that get thrown around are no better than playground taunts and puerile political point scoring. I see spin as the equivalent of a bullied kid lying to his tormentors to avoid getting a bashing - it's essentially a defense mechanism.
By definition, politicians are real people like you or I (there are of course, some notable exceptions!), and you need to imagine stepping into their shoes for a week so appreciate how pressured their lives must be. The media likes to treat them as celebrities rather than people who might actually want to make a difference to the country, and enjoy building them up to knock them down later to generate revenue from juicy headlines.
Do me a favour... just imagine if there was a team of people, that every time you messed up at work, it was their sole mission to make sure that 61 million people got to hear about it in the worst way possible.
I think you might consider trying to put it in a positive light too.
Posted by: Andy | September 15, 2009 at 01:39 AM
Andy spin is only a response to scrutiny when you're trying to claim Iraq has WMD's and can deploy them within 45 mins.
Posted by: Ramel | September 15, 2009 at 02:19 AM
Sure. There's spin and then there's utter outright lying to the public to justify a war that has no justification.
I should have been more clear that I was referring to the former which has some justification. The latter has none at all and shouldn't even be called spin. That's basically just lying.
Posted by: Andy | September 15, 2009 at 02:27 AM
And these changes are what led to the recent financial crisis, an completely unprecedented event, right? I mean, it's not like we've ever seen a financial bubble before, is it?
We're really very sorry about that. All I can say in defence is that the alternatives on offer weren't exactly great either.
Please, will somebody drag this fucker to The Hague in chains already? I'm sick of listening to him bleat.
Posted by: Dunc | September 16, 2009 at 02:44 AM
The Tony Blair who wrote this article and the Tony Blair who was Prime Minister are two entirely different people. This is a complete repudiation of his government's actions when he was Prime Minister. The article simply invites fisking with responses drawn from the various pieces of legislation they passed, plus the Iraq war. He certainly never espoused views like this while in office.
Frankly, I don't believe Religious Nut Blair. I suspect it's either a ploy (as a previous commenter suggested) to dissociate himself from Prime Minister Blair, or that he's actually gone mad.
Posted by: Colm | September 20, 2009 at 04:39 AM
Gone mad? This is the guy who called Gordon Brown "a safe pair of hands"!
Posted by: Big Al | September 20, 2009 at 04:49 AM