(AP Photo/Reed Saxon)
In a speech delivered earlier this week at Georgetown University in Washington, DC, former British prime minister Tony Blair cast atheists and violent religious extremists in the same light, as enemies whom people of faith must "confront."
The larger theme of the speech dealt with building budges between faiths, to "deeply" respect those of differing religions "beyond tolerance or acceptance." Unfortunately, for Blair, atheists do not warrant even that.
Blair stated that people of faith "face an aggressive secular attack from without" and "the threat of extremism from within," and went further in making a rhetorical equivalency between nonbelievers and those who inflict harm and death in the name of their religion, saying:
These challenges are not for Muslims alone or Christians or Jews, Hindus or Buddhists for that matter. They are challenges for all people of faith. Those who scorn God and those who do violence in God’s name, both represent views of religion. But both offer no hope for faith in the twenty first century. The best hope for faith in the twenty first century is that we confront all of this together.
Blair never says outright in this address that atheists or atheist activists are just as bad as, say, Al Qaeda, but even giving him the benefit of the doubt, the very fact that he would place secularism and religiously motivated violence in the same context is astounding, offensive, and shows an incredible lack of depth of thinking--not to mention revealing a level of animosity toward nonbelievers on the part of Blair that I am surprised to find exists.
It is also rather ironic that he would cast this blanket aspersion against secularist activists (I say "activists" because I can only assume he may not feel as strongly about casual or closeted atheists), when the point of his speech is to encourage heightened levels of tolerance and respect between religious communities, almost to the point, it seems to me, of fetishism for Blair. "Love your neighbor as yourself," Blair reminded his audience, forgetting that atheists are neighbors, too.
He also emphasizes how faith changes lives "for the better" and that believers (specifically, Abrahamic monotheists) must "show why humanity is not made poorer by faith, but immeasurably enriched." But, as is often the case, never in his speech makes any claims as to how this is so. If it is the aforementioned "love thy neighbor" section, then clearly the lesson is not fully learned by the speaker himself.
Finally, Blair never bemoans atheists by name, but "those who scorn God." If we're to take this wording literally, then it becomes less offensive, and simply puzzling. Atheists do not "scorn" God, because there isn't a God there to scorn. I don't know, then, what percentage of the world population wastes its energy actively dissing or working against a deity they believe exists, but it can't be sizable enough or constitute enough of a public nuisance to warrant mention by a former prime minister or equation with religious terrorists.
But of course, he means outspoken, public atheists, those who demand their right to be heard and demand the right to criticize beliefs on their merits. This, to Blair, is an offense so terrible that it needs to be invoked in the same breath as deluded mass murderers, slaughtering innocent civilians in religious ecstasy. This is perhaps the most troublesome and most firmly-fixed obstacle that the modern atheist faces: those for whom "belief in belief" is so strong that, in their eyes, Richard Dawkins and Osama bin Laden are in the same out-group.
This entry owes a hat tip to Vjack's posting at Atheist Nexus.
NOTE: This artcile originally used the word "equates" in the headline, which I have changed to "groups." Realizing that Blair never specifically makes a perfect equivalency between atheism and religious violence, I thought this was a fairer word to use.
Related Secularism Examiner Articles:
- Parade of the fanatical ignoramuses: Racism and rage on the right
- A Christian finds empathy among the atheists
- Southern Christian Leadership Conference: Some people are more equal than others
Comments
Tony is an "out" and lets keep him and his party that way.
As a non-believer, I do not scorn god, as the article points out, I cannot scorn something for which there is no evidence it exists. However, I do scorn Blair and his warmongering ways for, as the father of a dead solider just pointed out, has the blood of hundreds of civilians and military personnel on his hands. (If this war is so just, why is his own son not serving in Iraq? Because he is willing to sacrifice other people's sons and daughters to further his political career but never his own – see George Bush Senior)
The belief that peaceful non-believers as the same as violent religious fanatics is not difficult to understand when your mindset is as self-serving as Blair's. By casting his opponents as the same as his enemies he can dismiss their arguments in the same way he dismisses his enemies' actions.
Strange how so many politians don't kow the difference between atheism and secularism.
Since it is the LACK of secularism in muslim states that is causing all the problems for the christians and the jews.
But he refers to "Those who scorn God" rather than "secularists". Are you misrepresenting him?
There's a lot wrong with Blair and the stuff he says, but you're confusing contrast with equating. Just saying something in the same sentence doesn't mean you think that they are the same.
He says that they are both 'views of God', on a spectrum of views of God, and that he personally wants us all to reject both of them. That doesn't mean that he doesn't love atheists as you accuse him of, nor does it mean that he thinks that pacificist atheists are as bad as violent religious extremists. It just means that he has a different hope for faith in the 21st century. That is, he doesn't want to see it die out (as many atheists would), nor does he want to see it be used as an excuse for violence.
How is any of that controversial? All this fake offence does is make me doubt your reading comprehension skills.
Saying that I "scorn" a nonexistent, invisible sky fairy is just stupid. What I DO scorn are politicians that start wars under false pretenses and then incompetently execute those wars.
I agree with folks who have said that the word "equates" is unfair, and I've changed some wording to reflect that. However, I do think that "those who scorn God" uttered seconds after "aggressive secularism" implies that he is referring to atheists when he talks about God-scorners. As I say in the article, "those who scorn God" are not exactly a threat worth mentioning in a speech from a former prime minister.
As for my reading comprehension skills, well, I doubt them myself sometimes too. Not here though.
"Those who scorn God and those who do violence in God’s name, both represent views of religion. But both offer no hope for faith in the twenty first century."
Atheism offers no hope for faith! That is right! Atheism offers hope for reason. From the belief that mankind can leave aside imaginary voices that command them to wage war against neighbours and against freedoms. Atheism offers faith in mankind and that only men and women can change the world. Not women hating or apathycal gods from our dark past.
"Pray to god you may, but keep on rowing to the shore" Russian fishermen proverb.
> As I say in the article, "those who scorn God" are not exactly a threat worth mentioning in a speech from a former prime minister.
Certainly not a political threat, nor, in any western countries a violent threat, but I would have thought atheists would be pleased to be considered a threat to faith, which is what he's talking about here, in his address to a conference on Muslim-Christian relations, speaking as the founder of the Tony Blair Faith Foundation and a lecturer at Yale on Faith and Globalisation as well as a former prime minister.
It's no more 'scornful' of god to demand evidence of his existance than it is unreasonable to demand proof of the existance of WMD's before killing thousands of people in the belief they are there.
Mr Bliar needs to realize that the threat to his `faith`is not atheism, nor secularism, nor religious extremism it is mainstream Islam - you know, the non-violent kind!!
You can be certain that none of the participants found anything exceptional in Mr. Blair's juxtaposition. While nonbelievers threaten only institutions, they are as dangerous as believers who threaten lives to those responsible for the institutions.
It's always fun to have aspersions cast at me (and my ilk) for having rational scruples by a man so given to political double-dealing no one seems to be able to decide whether he converted to the 'Catholic faith' because he honestly believes a Martin Luther is wrong and wafers can turn into the body of a dead 2,000 Jewish man or because he's triangulating as always and feels it will make it easier to get the support of the Spaniards and the Italians when he makes a big for EU President when the Lisbon treaty gets passed. The man is a soulless nutcase; he wants high office so badly he doesn't care what lies he tells or what messes he makes along the way.
Tony Blair please go away and leave us all alone. Haven't we suffered enough?
This talk by Blair is just so much more politicking for power for religions. He claims an enemy, which, though half made of straw, he'll use to rally the troops to support his position of power.
Tony Blah! - A canting hypocrite! Thank god! I am a non-believer in the twaddle he espouses! <g> This un-indicted war criminal has the cheek to set himself up as having an enriched life through faith. He should be down on his knees begging the forgiveness of those who have lost sons, daughters, fathers, cousins etc etc through his collusion with those other examples of 'faith' - Little Johnny Howard (Australia) and Georgie Bush!
I'm an atheist and I agree with him. We've got lots of intolerant jerks that claim to not believe in God, when their entire arguement rests on disproving him/it/her/whatever rather than just accepting others beliefs as a different form of thought. If you don't believe in God, big friggin deal. If Joe down the street does, woopty-do.
@KradonMoor
Intolerant jerk indeed.
It is, quite often, difficult to walk past a Christian church without being confronted by a virulently-coloured poster telling people like me - atheists - that we're condemned to eternal damnation because we don't share in their particular fairy-tale.
Muslims get even more uppity about atheists, to the point of killing them - something the Christians have grown out of.
So, is it any surprise, then, that atheism has spawned militants like Richard Dawkins?
Pretty much serves you right.
one of the major pillars of communism was atheism. In this sense, atheism has been just as dangerous and violent as other religions.
Not every christian or person who believes in God is violent just like every atheist isn't violent. But when "religion" is taken to an extreme and used in a campaign, then it is violent..both atheists and other religions
@ Ron Graves
I don't think you're telling the truth. I have never, in the (roughly) thirty years of my life as an atheist (still am), ever been told that I was "eternally damned" or any other bit of that nonsense as I walked by a church or cathedral. Never. And I'm a British-American (lived the last 15 years of my life in the southern US, don't see it here either).
@ reader - No, most of us atheists don't consider ourselves a "threat to faith." It's pretty annoying when you read an argument between an atheist and a theist on the internet and the atheist screams all sorts of fodder against the so-called tyrannical regimes of religion and then turns around and calls the theist's beliefs "fairy-tales." Really? Is the age limit to discuss things at 12 years of age now? I'm hitting 35 and all I can say is that I feel as though I've wasted my life arguing with the religious because, when it comes down to it, we're all just looking at the same world through different lenses.
I believe I've made a typo, hitting 35 should be 45. Apologies.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!