Happening to
Tony Blair seems very confused.
In an interview published in the Church of England Newspaper , Mr Blair said: “Sometimes I think we as Christians are more sensitive than we should be although I say that as someone who when I was in office, although I was perfectly open about my Christianity, nonetheless kept it within certain boundaries that were restricted in terms of what I said publicly. The position of prime minister puts you in a unique category. But in general terms in British society there is a risk that people see faith as a personal eccentricity.”
But if faith is not in some sense ‘a personal eccentricity’ then why did Blair keep his Christianity ‘within certain boundaries’? If Christianity is a perfectly ordinary set of beliefs, with no hint of the irrational or the illusory or the wishful about them, then why is there any need for boundaries that are restricted in terms of what a PM says publicly? In other words, is not the perceived need for boundaries there because ‘faith’ is what it is – is belief in the absence of or in defiance of evidence? Yet Blair dances around that rather obvious fact.
“I hope and believe that stories of people not being allowed to express their Christianity are exceptional or the result of individual ludicrous decisions. My view is that people should be proud of their Christianity and able to express it as they wish.” He admitted that conflict is “inevitable” between traditional religions and the new liberal doctrine of human rights. But he went on: “The real test of a religion is whether in an age of aggressive secularism it has the confidence to go out and make its case by persuasion.” Mr Blair disclosed, however, that while prime minister he believed equality and diversity were more important than religion in the case of the Catholic adoption agencies, who failed in their bid to be exempted from laws requiring them to consider homosexual couples as potential parents. “I happen to take the gay rights position,” he said.
Does he really mean he simply ‘happens’ to take the gay rights position? Is he saying he doesn’t take it for reasons? Is he saying it’s not a principled view but just a quirk or a matter of taste, as if gay rights were butterscotch or plaid or Mozart? He is saying that, whether he would stand by it or not – that is, he put it that way in order to skirt the obvious problem that his position is the opposite of the Catholic church’s position and yet he is now a Catholic. He attempted to duck the issue by using a weasel word. He did that presumably because he doesn’t want to address the fact that the Church he just joined has bad nasty retrograde views on various human rights. This is not impressive. It’s also decidedly distasteful in the context of a snide remark about ‘aggressive secularism.’ If it weren’t for ‘aggressive secularism’ we wouldn’t have gay rights, and if it weren’t for aggressive theocracy we wouldn’t keep having to fight rearguard actions against the enemies of gay rights and women’s rights and rights to free thought and speech. It is unbecoming for a Labour recently-ex Prime Minister to blow that off with a ‘happen to.’
I think Blair was accidentally being truthful. The gay rights position has no more rational justification than the Catholic faith, his reasons for taking either position would sound exactly the same.
I’m sorry Kees, will you please stop being an ass. Whatever the rational justification may be, Blair is now a catholic. He decided to become one. He made all the promises. For him to say, “I happen to take the gay rights position,” is a way of wiggle out of something that could be very embarrassing for him. He has himself set up a religious foundation. He has represented himself as a Catholic Christian. He doesn’t get just to ‘happen’ to hold a certain position. He either holds it for reasons, which go against the religious beliefs that he has just recently adopted, or he is trying to make it look as though there is no real contradiction here, because, well, gee, he just happens to hold those views. It hs absolutely nothing to do whether you think or don’t think that any particular view has rational justification. Blair is not accidentally being truthful; he’s being truthful in a patently deceiving way.
Ophelia, do you think you could get Jeremy to get that neat ‘preview’ feature that is set up at the talking philosophy blog. It’s great, and it would have avoided a couple of issues with my last post!
When he was in office – he tried to hide the fact that he was strongly courting Catholicism by keeping it (for yonks) within the boundaries of the family.
His usage of the Christianity word is like a two pronged fork, which is used by him to root the one true Catholic faith soil.
The Abrahamic Lord beds both Anglicanism and Catholicism and laps up the supposed beauty of both.
With a mindset like his – it would not shock me if he was secretly trying to create some form of schism.
We Christians are more sensitive than we should be. V.V.true.’ I was perfectly open about my Christianity.’ Not true but weird. ‘I happen to take the gay rights position.’ Weirder.
Also, scruntinising a Blair interview is silly. Instead, let yourself be uplifted his sincerity and obvious moral purpose. His Prime Ministership may be a testament to the mountains of licit and illicit drugs we smoke, snort and swallow.
In my naivete, I had thought that maybe, just maybe, Kees was not a troll. His comment here proves I was mistaken. Mea culpa, mea maxima culpa.
Whiners. Blair takes a ‘gay rights position’ because he believes it would be unjust not to, the way the dominantly secular country, Party and public debate has gone. He now chooses to keep that principled position despite his choice for ‘irrationalism’, and downplay it with British stiff upper lip avoidance language.
He still supports equal rights for gays, and all you can do is criticise because he doesn’t come out in condemnation? Pfft.
I don’t think anyone wants Blair to come out in condemnation. I think what we would like is for Blair to stand up for what he really believes. He really believes that the Roman Catholic Church is wrong. He should say so. That would be the honest thing to do. Given his stature, it would also help a lot of people to withstand the violence of the Vatican.
“because he doesn’t come out in condemnation”
Because he whines about ‘aggressive secularists’ while he’s at it. And because it’s a stupid thing to say. And because the papering over of the tension is pathetic. And because denial is not grownup.
Whiner yourself. And pfft, too.
Oh and because he shouldn’t have become a Catholic in the first place.
“Shouldn’t”
Under the general principle of freedom of (and from) religion, that “shouldn’t” is perhaps inoperative. Believing crap is the prerogative of every free person, and they pay the costs that come with it.
“and because the papering over the tension is pathetic. And because denial is not grownup.”
THAT is just flat right.
Oh give me a break, Chrisp; don’t take a leaf from the troll. Of course the ‘shouldn’t’ isn’t inoperative. Freedom of religion doesn’t mandate approval, obviously; ‘shouldn’t’ merely expresses disapproval. Don’t be so damn silly. Of course believing crap is the prerogative of every free person, and I’m not encroaching on anyone’s freedom by saying people shouldn’t believe crap. Furthermore, people who believe crap are not necessarily the only ones who pay the costs that come with it.
“The gay rights position has no more rational justification than the Catholic faith”
“Gay rights” presupposes equality under the law, which is merely the *absence* of a set of truth claims that cannot be justified under your epistemology. It argues, as you do, that those truth claims are illusory and so should not affect people. “The Catholic faith” presupposes a miraculous and complex series of events. There is no rational (sic) reason to equate the two, and to do so requires privileging Catholicism’s truth claims. As usual, you side with the oppressor in any given context. Why is that?
Your decision to invoke the concept of “rationality” is also a mystery. It implies a hierarchy of enculturated ways of knowing about which you are seeking to prove a value claim against the value claims of others.
Well, it seems that Mr Blair has no belief in any sort of secularism:
http://www.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/3413921/blair-did-god-a-lot-more-and-a-lot-earlier-than-the-press-realised.thtml
(sorry for the long linky thing)
Now, having become a disciple of a certain commenter here at B&W, I am off to squash some babies, and there is nothing wrong with that!
I think Blair’s claim that he happens to take a gay rights position is probably accurate. I don’t think any of his beliefs are based on reason or evidence – he just happens to have them and that’s it.
And what about your own beliefs Jakob?
Kees: don’t you have some children to barbecue? Or maybe a Nazi Party to join (there are plenty of gays you could bash). Because there is no right or wrong, just the whimsy of the moment.
What about your beliefs, Kees? So far the only “argument” you’ve given for your position is a ghastly non sequitur.
As far as I can see there is only one gay rights position, and that is that gays should not have rights.
The alternative position is that humans should have rights, regardless of secondary characteristics. If anyone wants to abridge those rights they should put forward a rational argument and defend it in open debate. That is not a ‘gay rights position’, it’s a human rights position.
I have the right to walk into a pub and order six Tequilla Slammers (Bog forbid)but I can see the reasoning behind arguing that an eight year old should not have that right. I have the right to drive at 70 mph on a public highway, but I can see the argument that a blind person or a child should not have that right. It’s not a moral position, it’s rational.
I have the right to establish a relationship with a consenting adult without let or hindrance from others. That is asking no more than a guillemot considers normal. If someone wants to argue that a particular sub-class of consenting adult humans (by whomever defined) should be excluded from that right, then the onus is on them to present a rational case. So far I have not seen such a case presented convincingly. I have seen it presented passionately, hysterically and foaming at the mouthly, but never rationally.
To say that one has an obligation to behave with basic decency towards fellow humans, and that fellow humans have a right to be treated decently is a moral stance. Kees seems to be arguing that, without god, that stance is spurious. It’s been a while since I read ‘The Sea Wolf’ but it does bring Wolf Larsen’s rantings to mind. Kees says he is an atheist, but why should we believe him, since he feels no need to be honest? His arguments sound very like the standard ‘Atheists are incapable of morality’ jive we have heard a hundred times.
I have a moral sense. It evolved. It is, necessarily, imperfect. But I am prepared to defend rationally the consequences of that evolved moral sense, without which we would not have a social system.