Blairophobia
Chris Wright tries to decipher Tony Blair’s Iraq policy and can’t help but fear that bigger forces are at work…
when will we see you again? | effect with(out) cause | higher powers | one
When will we see you again?
Angry voices have been calling for Blair’s departure for years, and they have been growing louder as the disastrous consequences of the Iraq war have unfolded. He’s held on so long that it is hard to imagine politics without him, but his reign really is coming to an end soon. How will Rory Bremner cope? His impression of Cameron is dire. How will we cope? We are the Blair generation, after all. However much we have grown to hate him, I have a feeling we’ll miss him when he’s gone.
But is this hatred reasonable? There is something very wrongheaded about anti-Blair indignation over Iraq: right from the beginning, it has been misplaced. The story goes that Blair deceived both parliament and the nation in order to dupe us into a terrible act of Western imperialism. But what was the motive for this deception? What is it, exactly, about Blair’s politics or personality that suggested this disastrous course of action to him? It’s all very well to be angry, to want Blair out, but if we don’t know the answer to this question then we are liable to put someone who would have made the same decision in his place. Blair has a special skill for acting (that is, for telling lies) and a willingness to use these skills for political ends. But politicians that aren’t slick don’t succeed because we don’t vote for them. What is evident but unutterable is that there may very well be circumstances in which to lie is the best course of action. This is clearly true in life, so why not in politics?
Effect with(out) cause
God knows what sword of Damocles hung over Blair’s neck when he made the decision to support America. Bush could easily have threatened Blair in some way or another, or perhaps the prospect of America ravaging the Middle East alone was just too awful to bear. Maybe he actually believed that Iraq posed a threat – stranger things have happened. Whatever the case may be, the idea that Blair was convinced by neocon rhetoric on the axis of evil 
is completely implausible. Some people don’t even bother to think about the motive before they complain about the crime: they just imagine Blair as an evil demon who stands personally to gain from stealing Iraqi oil, or something to that effect.
This frenzied hatred of our Prime Minister is completely irrational. More than once have members of a Question Time audience used the words Blair, Bush and Hitler in the same sentence. In the disturbed heads of sections of the voting public, the decision to help a superpower remove a despot has become equivalent to the Holocaust. Blairophobia is what happens when we don’t want to investigate the real causes of what goes wrong in our society and the wider world – usually because to do so would require too much effort and might bring unpalatable truths to light. To make a scapegoat out of someone or some group is to absolve oneself of culpability. We blame the government for not doing more to help the developing world, but if they took action that made us noticeably worse off there would be an outcry. We complain that politicians are doing nothing about climate change, but a move to make air travel more expensive would not be popular.
Much of this displacement of responsibility is due to the fact that radical politics is now impossible to take seriously. If ca
pitalism is the problem but socialism is a joke, then we have to find something else to blame. Similarly, if American intervention in the Middle East is ultimately a response to fears about a looming energy crisis, then in principle we are furious at the war criminals responsible for this amoral brutality, but in practice we want our electricity as cheap as possible. Should we admit this to ourselves? No, let’s just call for Bush and Blair to go, or be impeached, or stand trial, or burn in Hell with Hitler.
Higher powers
If, though, we can retain one piece of wisdom from now unfashionable leftist thinking of the past, let’s remember the Marxist concept of a grand narrative. Marx’s theory of history entailed that what really matters is wide economic and social movements, not individuals. If we see Blair, or any individual, as responsible for Iraq, we ignore the larger forces at work. It is not only oil that makes the Middle-East the focus of so much American attention: the Middle East has to be the centre of the world, because it is the spiritual home of American Evangelism.
If you want to understand how the mess made over Iraq was allowed to happen, don’t look to Blair or even to Bush for answers – turn on the God Channel. When Israel was bombing Lebanon last summer, the God Channel presented special prayers for the Jewish people in their time of trouble. No prayers for the Lebanese, of course. Judaism is, according to the God Channel, the wife of Christianity. The marriage has been a difficult one over the centuries, but through conflict each spouse has grown closer to the other. This grand narrative runs from a Jewish crowd’s choice to crucify Christ through to Shakespeare’s Shylock and on to the Holocaust and the creation of Israel.
Unfortunately, alliance between two friends all too o
ften depends on the shadow of an external enemy. The clash of civilisations is an idea that has been actively fostered by the Bush administration. Bush himself may not be educated enough to understand the historical resonance of the word ‘crusade’ that he has repeatedly used to describe American intervention in the Middle-East, but his speech-writers presumably are. American money and weapons have been put to use by the Israelis against neighbouring Muslim countries for half a century. What are the Americans buying? For one thing, the politically powerful Christian right are now happy in the knowledge that the place they read about in the Bible is in safe, America-friendly, non-Muslim hands. The God Channel has its global broadcast station at the foot of Mount Zion in Jerusalem, from where it reaches a quarter of a billion souls – a state of affairs, as their website boasts, that only God could have arranged.
One
If it hadn’t been for this ideologically clumsy, hate-saturated, unconditional support for Israel, there would be no threat from Islamic fundamentalist terrorism today. There would have been no Islamic revolution in Iran and no threat of Iranian nuclear development. There would have been no Hamas, no Hezbollah, no Al-Qaeda. Muslims living in Britain would have had much better r
elations with their neighbours, so we would not have had to read about multiculturalism and the BNP. Countless lives would have been saved, not least those lost every day in the current mess in Iraq.
We cannot take back the past, but we can denounce the religious fundamentalism – Christian, Jewish and Muslim – that fuels this fire, and which is still rife across the world. In our very own intellectual community here in Durh
am, the Christian Union’s One Hope week advocated the belief that Jesus is the one true light to a packed Fonteyn Ball Room. This is a belief without conditions, without compromises: it is incompatible with a healthy attitude to international affairs. It seems likely that not a few people in that room who took that idea seriously fall into the category of those who blame Blair for Iraq. Like most of us, they find it easier to be indignant about others than to scrutinise their own beliefs.
The angry voices will have their moment of triumph in the near future. Blair will soon be gone, but the God Channel will continue to broadcast its poison from Mount Zion, Al-Qaeda will continue its campaign of hate and the death-toll in Iraq will continue to rise.
You've replaced the irrational hatred of Blair/Bush with an irrational hatred of the state of Isreal. Blame the BNP and Islamophobia on Isreal? I don't think so.
You've replaced the irrational hatred of Blair/Bush with an irrational hatred of the state of Isreal. Blame the BNP and Islamophobia on Isreal? I don't think so.
You've replaced the irrational hatred of Blair/Bush with an irrational hatred of the state of Isreal. Blame the BNP and Islamophobia on Isreal? I don't think so.
Some good points well made – Blair does face a near impossible task everyday, we should perhaps be more impressed that he has lasted 2terms in power.
Some good points well made – Blair does face a near impossible task everyday, we should perhaps be more impressed that he has lasted 2terms in power.
Some good points well made – Blair does face a near impossible task everyday, we should perhaps be more impressed that he has lasted 2terms in power.
Do you really think that if all the religions, or even just religious fundamentalism, in the world were somehow wiped out, that people wouldn't find a new excuse? Religion isn't the cause, it's the symptom.
Do you really think that if all the religions, or even just religious fundamentalism, in the world were somehow wiped out, that people wouldn't find a new excuse? Religion isn't the cause, it's the symptom.
Do you really think that if all the religions, or even just religious fundamentalism, in the world were somehow wiped out, that people wouldn't find a new excuse? Religion isn't the cause, it's the symptom.
Emma,
I'm not convinced that if religion or religious fundamentalism were wiped out we'd see peace. I'm absolutely convinced that we'd see peace tomorrow if we wiped out faith. Believing things without or in spite of evidence leads people into Christianity, Islam, Stalinism, Nazism and just about every dangerous movement on the planet. If we don't submit our beliefs to rational enquiry we're going to get dangerous beliefs. If the people holding these beliefs are in the White House, we're going to be led into deluded wars.
'What are the Americans buying? For one thing, the politically powerful Christian right are now happy in the knowledge that the place they read about in the Bible is in safe, America-friendly, non-Muslim hands.'
…how about this as an alternative explanation? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Zionism
Emma,
I'm not convinced that if religion or religious fundamentalism were wiped out we'd see peace. I'm absolutely convinced that we'd see peace tomorrow if we wiped out faith. Believing things without or in spite of evidence leads people into Christianity, Islam, Stalinism, Nazism and just about every dangerous movement on the planet. If we don't submit our beliefs to rational enquiry we're going to get dangerous beliefs. If the people holding these beliefs are in the White House, we're going to be led into deluded wars.
'What are the Americans buying? For one thing, the politically powerful Christian right are now happy in the knowledge that the place they read about in the Bible is in safe, America-friendly, non-Muslim hands.'
…how about this as an alternative explanation? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Zionism
Emma,
I'm not convinced that if religion or religious fundamentalism were wiped out we'd see peace. I'm absolutely convinced that we'd see peace tomorrow if we wiped out faith. Believing things without or in spite of evidence leads people into Christianity, Islam, Stalinism, Nazism and just about every dangerous movement on the planet. If we don't submit our beliefs to rational enquiry we're going to get dangerous beliefs. If the people holding these beliefs are in the White House, we're going to be led into deluded wars.
'What are the Americans buying? For one thing, the politically powerful Christian right are now happy in the knowledge that the place they read about in the Bible is in safe, America-friendly, non-Muslim hands.'
…how about this as an alternative explanation? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Zionism
To anonymous – You can't take Islamophobia out of context from the rise of dangerous Muslim extremism, so yes I think the rise of the BNP has some causal link to the Israel-Palastine conflict. That isn't to say Israelis or their supporters are responsible for this evil, though, and it certainly doesn't mean that I hate Isreal. Mao couldn't have killed millions of people without oxygen, but oxygen is not responsible for their deaths. Only the BNP need take responsibility for what the BNP do, but it's worth understanding the history all the same.
To Emma/John – As to understanding history, thanks for the link on Zionism. Whatever form faith takes, it is in its nature to be absolute. So when two faiths clash resolution is impossible. In a global world, faith is therefore a danger. Full stop.
To anonymous – You can't take Islamophobia out of context from the rise of dangerous Muslim extremism, so yes I think the rise of the BNP has some causal link to the Israel-Palastine conflict. That isn't to say Israelis or their supporters are responsible for this evil, though, and it certainly doesn't mean that I hate Isreal. Mao couldn't have killed millions of people without oxygen, but oxygen is not responsible for their deaths. Only the BNP need take responsibility for what the BNP do, but it's worth understanding the history all the same.
To Emma/John – As to understanding history, thanks for the link on Zionism. Whatever form faith takes, it is in its nature to be absolute. So when two faiths clash resolution is impossible. In a global world, faith is therefore a danger. Full stop.
To anonymous – You can't take Islamophobia out of context from the rise of dangerous Muslim extremism, so yes I think the rise of the BNP has some causal link to the Israel-Palastine conflict. That isn't to say Israelis or their supporters are responsible for this evil, though, and it certainly doesn't mean that I hate Isreal. Mao couldn't have killed millions of people without oxygen, but oxygen is not responsible for their deaths. Only the BNP need take responsibility for what the BNP do, but it's worth understanding the history all the same.
To Emma/John – As to understanding history, thanks for the link on Zionism. Whatever form faith takes, it is in its nature to be absolute. So when two faiths clash resolution is impossible. In a global world, faith is therefore a danger. Full stop.
Ok. You have faith that of we get rid of faith everything will be fine. A moment's rational thought will show you that faith is inevitable, it is part of the human condition. That's why we have Christians, muslims, and political parties. Furthermore, arguing that faith leads to Nazism is a bit like saying marijuana leads to heroin. Yes, it does, if you're an idiot or the conditions are right. Faith also leads to human endeavour.Self interest doesn't account for it.
Faith isn't necessarily a bad thing, just because it motivates bad people to do bad things or is used as an excuse. Your article seems to presuppose that people are decent at heart, and faith leads them astray, which is of course a flawed assumption because we don't have a universal definition of decent or good.
Faith is stupid belief. We can agree on that. But how are you going to stop people being stupid?
Ok. You have faith that of we get rid of faith everything will be fine. A moment's rational thought will show you that faith is inevitable, it is part of the human condition. That's why we have Christians, muslims, and political parties. Furthermore, arguing that faith leads to Nazism is a bit like saying marijuana leads to heroin. Yes, it does, if you're an idiot or the conditions are right. Faith also leads to human endeavour.Self interest doesn't account for it.
Faith isn't necessarily a bad thing, just because it motivates bad people to do bad things or is used as an excuse. Your article seems to presuppose that people are decent at heart, and faith leads them astray, which is of course a flawed assumption because we don't have a universal definition of decent or good.
Faith is stupid belief. We can agree on that. But how are you going to stop people being stupid?
Ok. You have faith that of we get rid of faith everything will be fine. A moment's rational thought will show you that faith is inevitable, it is part of the human condition. That's why we have Christians, muslims, and political parties. Furthermore, arguing that faith leads to Nazism is a bit like saying marijuana leads to heroin. Yes, it does, if you're an idiot or the conditions are right. Faith also leads to human endeavour.Self interest doesn't account for it.
Faith isn't necessarily a bad thing, just because it motivates bad people to do bad things or is used as an excuse. Your article seems to presuppose that people are decent at heart, and faith leads them astray, which is of course a flawed assumption because we don't have a universal definition of decent or good.
Faith is stupid belief. We can agree on that. But how are you going to stop people being stupid?
Emma: I agree that faith seems inevitable, and now I think about it I'm not entirely sure that once we get rid of faith everything will be fine – not all wars are ideological, of course, some are fought for food, oil and suchlike.
'Arguing that faith leads to Nazism is a bit like saying marijuana leads to heroin. Yes, it does, if you're an idiot or the conditions are right.' No, it's more like arguing that both of them are drugs. No-one's saying that faith 'leads to' Nazism, just that Nazism is another form of faith (or at least a belief that requires faith to sustain).
Faith is just an attachment to a belief saying that you're prepared to hold it in the face of any possible evidence. The problem isn't that people are stupid – it's that people are happy being stupid, and people are taught that stupidity's a virtue.
Emma: I agree that faith seems inevitable, and now I think about it I'm not entirely sure that once we get rid of faith everything will be fine – not all wars are ideological, of course, some are fought for food, oil and suchlike.
'Arguing that faith leads to Nazism is a bit like saying marijuana leads to heroin. Yes, it does, if you're an idiot or the conditions are right.' No, it's more like arguing that both of them are drugs. No-one's saying that faith 'leads to' Nazism, just that Nazism is another form of faith (or at least a belief that requires faith to sustain).
Faith is just an attachment to a belief saying that you're prepared to hold it in the face of any possible evidence. The problem isn't that people are stupid – it's that people are happy being stupid, and people are taught that stupidity's a virtue.
Emma: I agree that faith seems inevitable, and now I think about it I'm not entirely sure that once we get rid of faith everything will be fine – not all wars are ideological, of course, some are fought for food, oil and suchlike.
'Arguing that faith leads to Nazism is a bit like saying marijuana leads to heroin. Yes, it does, if you're an idiot or the conditions are right.' No, it's more like arguing that both of them are drugs. No-one's saying that faith 'leads to' Nazism, just that Nazism is another form of faith (or at least a belief that requires faith to sustain).
Faith is just an attachment to a belief saying that you're prepared to hold it in the face of any possible evidence. The problem isn't that people are stupid – it's that people are happy being stupid, and people are taught that stupidity's a virtue.
John
"If we don't submit our beliefs to rational enquiry we're going to get dangerous beliefs."
Faith in the rational is also dangerous. What's the difference between Islam/Christianity/Rational enquiry? They are all explanative grand narratives that human beings have invented. The signifier "atom" was invented by us. These are our rules/ our conceptualisations. No one elses. They are not true. And if they are, we made them true. This monstrous crucial "I" that we apply to ourselves- "I" is bullshit. We should be aware of this.
Creationism has just as much validity as evolution. Evolution is more subtle sure but it's still made up. Evolution some might say is easier. The easy way of explaining the world.
You talk of "evidence" aswell. 2+2=4. NO IT DOESNT! What is 2? Two is something made up. And why should 2 of 2 make 4? Arbitrary demarcations that simplify the world. Free yourself from 2+2=4, open yourself up to other "faiths" and the world becomes much more fun-
-You have faith in human beings. Don't! Most of us are bastards!!!!
John
"If we don't submit our beliefs to rational enquiry we're going to get dangerous beliefs."
Faith in the rational is also dangerous. What's the difference between Islam/Christianity/Rational enquiry? They are all explanative grand narratives that human beings have invented. The signifier "atom" was invented by us. These are our rules/ our conceptualisations. No one elses. They are not true. And if they are, we made them true. This monstrous crucial "I" that we apply to ourselves- "I" is bullshit. We should be aware of this.
Creationism has just as much validity as evolution. Evolution is more subtle sure but it's still made up. Evolution some might say is easier. The easy way of explaining the world.
You talk of "evidence" aswell. 2+2=4. NO IT DOESNT! What is 2? Two is something made up. And why should 2 of 2 make 4? Arbitrary demarcations that simplify the world. Free yourself from 2+2=4, open yourself up to other "faiths" and the world becomes much more fun-
-You have faith in human beings. Don't! Most of us are bastards!!!!
John
"If we don't submit our beliefs to rational enquiry we're going to get dangerous beliefs."
Faith in the rational is also dangerous. What's the difference between Islam/Christianity/Rational enquiry? They are all explanative grand narratives that human beings have invented. The signifier "atom" was invented by us. These are our rules/ our conceptualisations. No one elses. They are not true. And if they are, we made them true. This monstrous crucial "I" that we apply to ourselves- "I" is bullshit. We should be aware of this.
Creationism has just as much validity as evolution. Evolution is more subtle sure but it's still made up. Evolution some might say is easier. The easy way of explaining the world.
You talk of "evidence" aswell. 2+2=4. NO IT DOESNT! What is 2? Two is something made up. And why should 2 of 2 make 4? Arbitrary demarcations that simplify the world. Free yourself from 2+2=4, open yourself up to other "faiths" and the world becomes much more fun-
-You have faith in human beings. Don't! Most of us are bastards!!!!
D,
whilst your comments regarding the relativity of all narratives and conceptual systems (I shy away from the term "arbitrariness"; in this case it would be misapplied) certainly holds some resonance, collapsing all belief systems to faith is a gross inaccuracy.
Faith contrasts with belief, as John rightly pointed out, in that one maintains a notion in which one has faith in spite of any possible evidence that could be given against it. On the other hand, to hold a belief about something is to be continually open to revision in the light of occurent novel information which is salient to the topic about which you hold that belief. Truth just doesn't come in to the picture, and holding a foundationalist position with regards to truth is not necessary for either faith or belief. Truth thus put aside, it cannot be claimed that believing-behaviours and having-faith-behaviours collapse into one another. They differ fundamentally in the attitude taken by the subject towards the content of the attitude.
John/Emma,
wether or not the removal of all fundamentalism (religious or otherwise) would bring about world peace is, as your debate highlights, a difficult question, given that we could only satisfactorily answer it if all fundamentalism was removed and we could examine the consequences. Unlikely. I doubt all human (global or individual) conflict is based on fundamentalism, but it seems completely contrary to all appearance to suggest that none of it is. Therefore, the removal of fundamentalism would bring about desirable outcomes for the majority, and so, as John suggests, shying away from fundamentalist thought seems a reasonable and positive step.
Emma, as for stopping people being stupid, I would suggest that we continue the most likely eternal struggle for higher standards of education available to ever greater numbers of people. It seems fairly uncontroversial to claim that today there is far less faith based fanaticism than six hundred years ago…
Chris,
your article raises an important point, that perhaps it is facile and hasty to lay the blame for something like the Iraq war at the feet of one or two individuals. However, surely there is an essential place in politics for accountability. An argument that is analagous to the one you give here could be used to defend Hitler from being called to account for events in Nazi Germany. Certainly grander factors are at work, but still, leaders, as individuals, take on the burden of accountability. To disallow the calling to account of politicians for their actions (which does seem a worrying trend in modern politics) appears to me to be singularly sinister and wrong-headed, not to mention dangerous.
D,
whilst your comments regarding the relativity of all narratives and conceptual systems (I shy away from the term "arbitrariness"; in this case it would be misapplied) certainly holds some resonance, collapsing all belief systems to faith is a gross inaccuracy.
Faith contrasts with belief, as John rightly pointed out, in that one maintains a notion in which one has faith in spite of any possible evidence that could be given against it. On the other hand, to hold a belief about something is to be continually open to revision in the light of occurent novel information which is salient to the topic about which you hold that belief. Truth just doesn't come in to the picture, and holding a foundationalist position with regards to truth is not necessary for either faith or belief. Truth thus put aside, it cannot be claimed that believing-behaviours and having-faith-behaviours collapse into one another. They differ fundamentally in the attitude taken by the subject towards the content of the attitude.
John/Emma,
wether or not the removal of all fundamentalism (religious or otherwise) would bring about world peace is, as your debate highlights, a difficult question, given that we could only satisfactorily answer it if all fundamentalism was removed and we could examine the consequences. Unlikely. I doubt all human (global or individual) conflict is based on fundamentalism, but it seems completely contrary to all appearance to suggest that none of it is. Therefore, the removal of fundamentalism would bring about desirable outcomes for the majority, and so, as John suggests, shying away from fundamentalist thought seems a reasonable and positive step.
Emma, as for stopping people being stupid, I would suggest that we continue the most likely eternal struggle for higher standards of education available to ever greater numbers of people. It seems fairly uncontroversial to claim that today there is far less faith based fanaticism than six hundred years ago…
Chris,
your article raises an important point, that perhaps it is facile and hasty to lay the blame for something like the Iraq war at the feet of one or two individuals. However, surely there is an essential place in politics for accountability. An argument that is analagous to the one you give here could be used to defend Hitler from being called to account for events in Nazi Germany. Certainly grander factors are at work, but still, leaders, as individuals, take on the burden of accountability. To disallow the calling to account of politicians for their actions (which does seem a worrying trend in modern politics) appears to me to be singularly sinister and wrong-headed, not to mention dangerous.
D,
whilst your comments regarding the relativity of all narratives and conceptual systems (I shy away from the term "arbitrariness"; in this case it would be misapplied) certainly holds some resonance, collapsing all belief systems to faith is a gross inaccuracy.
Faith contrasts with belief, as John rightly pointed out, in that one maintains a notion in which one has faith in spite of any possible evidence that could be given against it. On the other hand, to hold a belief about something is to be continually open to revision in the light of occurent novel information which is salient to the topic about which you hold that belief. Truth just doesn't come in to the picture, and holding a foundationalist position with regards to truth is not necessary for either faith or belief. Truth thus put aside, it cannot be claimed that believing-behaviours and having-faith-behaviours collapse into one another. They differ fundamentally in the attitude taken by the subject towards the content of the attitude.
John/Emma,
wether or not the removal of all fundamentalism (religious or otherwise) would bring about world peace is, as your debate highlights, a difficult question, given that we could only satisfactorily answer it if all fundamentalism was removed and we could examine the consequences. Unlikely. I doubt all human (global or individual) conflict is based on fundamentalism, but it seems completely contrary to all appearance to suggest that none of it is. Therefore, the removal of fundamentalism would bring about desirable outcomes for the majority, and so, as John suggests, shying away from fundamentalist thought seems a reasonable and positive step.
Emma, as for stopping people being stupid, I would suggest that we continue the most likely eternal struggle for higher standards of education available to ever greater numbers of people. It seems fairly uncontroversial to claim that today there is far less faith based fanaticism than six hundred years ago…
Chris,
your article raises an important point, that perhaps it is facile and hasty to lay the blame for something like the Iraq war at the feet of one or two individuals. However, surely there is an essential place in politics for accountability. An argument that is analagous to the one you give here could be used to defend Hitler from being called to account for events in Nazi Germany. Certainly grander factors are at work, but still, leaders, as individuals, take on the burden of accountability. To disallow the calling to account of politicians for their actions (which does seem a worrying trend in modern politics) appears to me to be singularly sinister and wrong-headed, not to mention dangerous.
Alex, the comparison to Hitler and Nazi Germany doesn't really work because there is a direct line of deliberate accountability for the killing which can be traced straight back to him. It's not as if he said "Perhaps we could rough a couple of Jews up" and then things got out of hand at a local level. Chris is right – the outcome of the war is affecting our judgement of its causes, as if Blair and Bush sat down at a table and planned for the deaths of X number of civilians, X number of soldiers and X number of attacks against the west in retaliation. It is a disaster beyond reckoning, but this facile explanation for it from the anti-war on both sides of the political spectrum is getting tedious and distorting the truth of why it all happened in the first place.
Alex, the comparison to Hitler and Nazi Germany doesn't really work because there is a direct line of deliberate accountability for the killing which can be traced straight back to him. It's not as if he said "Perhaps we could rough a couple of Jews up" and then things got out of hand at a local level. Chris is right – the outcome of the war is affecting our judgement of its causes, as if Blair and Bush sat down at a table and planned for the deaths of X number of civilians, X number of soldiers and X number of attacks against the west in retaliation. It is a disaster beyond reckoning, but this facile explanation for it from the anti-war on both sides of the political spectrum is getting tedious and distorting the truth of why it all happened in the first place.
Alex, the comparison to Hitler and Nazi Germany doesn't really work because there is a direct line of deliberate accountability for the killing which can be traced straight back to him. It's not as if he said "Perhaps we could rough a couple of Jews up" and then things got out of hand at a local level. Chris is right – the outcome of the war is affecting our judgement of its causes, as if Blair and Bush sat down at a table and planned for the deaths of X number of civilians, X number of soldiers and X number of attacks against the west in retaliation. It is a disaster beyond reckoning, but this facile explanation for it from the anti-war on both sides of the political spectrum is getting tedious and distorting the truth of why it all happened in the first place.
Zaki,
are you suggesting there's no direct line of accountability to Western leaders for the Iraq war? As far as I remember, during the period where what course of action was to be taken with regards to Iraq, pretty much every study I heard about predicted huge civilian casualties (the milatry losses, on the British side at least, have been fairly low considering the duration and scope of the conflict), as well as a rise in anti-Western feeling that would fuel terrorism. To suggest Bush and Blair are not accountable on the ground that they had no way of knowing what results the war would have is absurd.
I hope you aren't suggesting a "facile" explanation was being proposed in my comment – I directly said that Chris has a point, but that accountability must not be disposed of. In fact, I don't think I attempted to offer an explanation at all, but rather maintained that explanations aside, it is imperative that leaderships be held accountable for their actions.
Zaki,
are you suggesting there's no direct line of accountability to Western leaders for the Iraq war? As far as I remember, during the period where what course of action was to be taken with regards to Iraq, pretty much every study I heard about predicted huge civilian casualties (the milatry losses, on the British side at least, have been fairly low considering the duration and scope of the conflict), as well as a rise in anti-Western feeling that would fuel terrorism. To suggest Bush and Blair are not accountable on the ground that they had no way of knowing what results the war would have is absurd.
I hope you aren't suggesting a "facile" explanation was being proposed in my comment – I directly said that Chris has a point, but that accountability must not be disposed of. In fact, I don't think I attempted to offer an explanation at all, but rather maintained that explanations aside, it is imperative that leaderships be held accountable for their actions.
Zaki,
are you suggesting there's no direct line of accountability to Western leaders for the Iraq war? As far as I remember, during the period where what course of action was to be taken with regards to Iraq, pretty much every study I heard about predicted huge civilian casualties (the milatry losses, on the British side at least, have been fairly low considering the duration and scope of the conflict), as well as a rise in anti-Western feeling that would fuel terrorism. To suggest Bush and Blair are not accountable on the ground that they had no way of knowing what results the war would have is absurd.
I hope you aren't suggesting a "facile" explanation was being proposed in my comment – I directly said that Chris has a point, but that accountability must not be disposed of. In fact, I don't think I attempted to offer an explanation at all, but rather maintained that explanations aside, it is imperative that leaderships be held accountable for their actions.
No I'm not accusing you of putting forward a facile explanation. Of course there should be a path to responsibility but to make the jump from Blair and Bush's responsibility to Hitler's responsibillity for the Holocaust is misguided. Almost certainly there were predictions of the number of civilian casualties but there must have been reasons why the war went ahead despite this. It is not enough to put it down to Blair being some modern-day dictator, because he isn't. The problem is we are starting from, and using our disgust of, the result – the war in Iraq being a catastrophe – and working backwards to explain why Blair went to war in the first place. If it had been a success, would our perceptions of Blair be different today?
No I'm not accusing you of putting forward a facile explanation. Of course there should be a path to responsibility but to make the jump from Blair and Bush's responsibility to Hitler's responsibillity for the Holocaust is misguided. Almost certainly there were predictions of the number of civilian casualties but there must have been reasons why the war went ahead despite this. It is not enough to put it down to Blair being some modern-day dictator, because he isn't. The problem is we are starting from, and using our disgust of, the result – the war in Iraq being a catastrophe – and working backwards to explain why Blair went to war in the first place. If it had been a success, would our perceptions of Blair be different today?
No I'm not accusing you of putting forward a facile explanation. Of course there should be a path to responsibility but to make the jump from Blair and Bush's responsibility to Hitler's responsibillity for the Holocaust is misguided. Almost certainly there were predictions of the number of civilian casualties but there must have been reasons why the war went ahead despite this. It is not enough to put it down to Blair being some modern-day dictator, because he isn't. The problem is we are starting from, and using our disgust of, the result – the war in Iraq being a catastrophe – and working backwards to explain why Blair went to war in the first place. If it had been a success, would our perceptions of Blair be different today?
Zaki,
I wasn't analogising Blair to Hitler, but rather pointing out that if we accept the argument that individuals cannot be held to account for large historical events as these are driven by grander forces beyond individual control in the case of Iraq, parity of reasoning demands we adopt it universally, which seems to have the consequence that we do not hold Hitler, Abraham Lincoln, Cleopatra or any other individual leader accountable for events which occur in their period of power, good, bad or frankly uninteresting. Some people may be perfectly happy with such a consequence, I find it unsettling.
Zaki,
I wasn't analogising Blair to Hitler, but rather pointing out that if we accept the argument that individuals cannot be held to account for large historical events as these are driven by grander forces beyond individual control in the case of Iraq, parity of reasoning demands we adopt it universally, which seems to have the consequence that we do not hold Hitler, Abraham Lincoln, Cleopatra or any other individual leader accountable for events which occur in their period of power, good, bad or frankly uninteresting. Some people may be perfectly happy with such a consequence, I find it unsettling.
Zaki,
I wasn't analogising Blair to Hitler, but rather pointing out that if we accept the argument that individuals cannot be held to account for large historical events as these are driven by grander forces beyond individual control in the case of Iraq, parity of reasoning demands we adopt it universally, which seems to have the consequence that we do not hold Hitler, Abraham Lincoln, Cleopatra or any other individual leader accountable for events which occur in their period of power, good, bad or frankly uninteresting. Some people may be perfectly happy with such a consequence, I find it unsettling.
To D – I think you've had a serious overdose of postmodernism. Just because language and concepts are invented by us, that doesn't mean that the things they are about are invented by us. To conclude from generic perspectivism, or whatever you would call your philosophy, that 'creationsim is just as valid as evolution' is as good as saying let's just stop talking now, since any idea is as good as any other idea. Why bother reading articles and commenting on them? Why bother thinking the door is on your left not your right? They're all just human abstractions, after all.
To Alex C and Zaki – I agree, of course, that leaders should be held to account. My article criticised the Bush administration (though I think it's worth remembering that Bush is really just the front man of this group of people) – and, if I were an American, I'd have voted Bush out. The importance of the Christian right is not about why America went to war, so much as why Bush got away with taking America to war. and that movement should therefore be recognised as dangerous. Blair didn't have Zionism on his side, so he talked of weapons of mass destruction instead. But why did Blair want us to go to war? I don't know, but I don't see anything about him which would make that a reasonable thing to do, so I infer that he was driven by something which cannot be state in public (like pressure from America). That is why I sympathise with him, and do not join the chorus of those who would hold him responsible.
To D – I think you've had a serious overdose of postmodernism. Just because language and concepts are invented by us, that doesn't mean that the things they are about are invented by us. To conclude from generic perspectivism, or whatever you would call your philosophy, that 'creationsim is just as valid as evolution' is as good as saying let's just stop talking now, since any idea is as good as any other idea. Why bother reading articles and commenting on them? Why bother thinking the door is on your left not your right? They're all just human abstractions, after all.
To Alex C and Zaki – I agree, of course, that leaders should be held to account. My article criticised the Bush administration (though I think it's worth remembering that Bush is really just the front man of this group of people) – and, if I were an American, I'd have voted Bush out. The importance of the Christian right is not about why America went to war, so much as why Bush got away with taking America to war. and that movement should therefore be recognised as dangerous. Blair didn't have Zionism on his side, so he talked of weapons of mass destruction instead. But why did Blair want us to go to war? I don't know, but I don't see anything about him which would make that a reasonable thing to do, so I infer that he was driven by something which cannot be state in public (like pressure from America). That is why I sympathise with him, and do not join the chorus of those who would hold him responsible.
To D – I think you've had a serious overdose of postmodernism. Just because language and concepts are invented by us, that doesn't mean that the things they are about are invented by us. To conclude from generic perspectivism, or whatever you would call your philosophy, that 'creationsim is just as valid as evolution' is as good as saying let's just stop talking now, since any idea is as good as any other idea. Why bother reading articles and commenting on them? Why bother thinking the door is on your left not your right? They're all just human abstractions, after all.
To Alex C and Zaki – I agree, of course, that leaders should be held to account. My article criticised the Bush administration (though I think it's worth remembering that Bush is really just the front man of this group of people) – and, if I were an American, I'd have voted Bush out. The importance of the Christian right is not about why America went to war, so much as why Bush got away with taking America to war. and that movement should therefore be recognised as dangerous. Blair didn't have Zionism on his side, so he talked of weapons of mass destruction instead. But why did Blair want us to go to war? I don't know, but I don't see anything about him which would make that a reasonable thing to do, so I infer that he was driven by something which cannot be state in public (like pressure from America). That is why I sympathise with him, and do not join the chorus of those who would hold him responsible.
'But why did Blair want us to go to war? I don't know, but I don't see anything about him which would make that a reasonable thing to do, so I infer that he was driven by something which cannot be state in public (like pressure from America). That is why I sympathise with him, and do not join the chorus of those who would hold him responsible.'
Peer pressure doesn't get you off the hook for taking drugs. Why should it be a get-out clause for prime ministers who lie to take their country into bloody and expensive wars?
Maybe Bush was being pressured by Cheney. Maybe Rumsfeld was being pressured by Wolfowitz. Maybe Perle was being pressured by his wife. What difference does it make? Who the real architect of this enormous mistake was, is something for history to decide.
(I don't understand, btw, why it's 'implausible' that Blair just bought in to all the neo-con rhetoric. Just because he's one of ours doesn't rule him out from making bad decisions.)
'But why did Blair want us to go to war? I don't know, but I don't see anything about him which would make that a reasonable thing to do, so I infer that he was driven by something which cannot be state in public (like pressure from America). That is why I sympathise with him, and do not join the chorus of those who would hold him responsible.'
Peer pressure doesn't get you off the hook for taking drugs. Why should it be a get-out clause for prime ministers who lie to take their country into bloody and expensive wars?
Maybe Bush was being pressured by Cheney. Maybe Rumsfeld was being pressured by Wolfowitz. Maybe Perle was being pressured by his wife. What difference does it make? Who the real architect of this enormous mistake was, is something for history to decide.
(I don't understand, btw, why it's 'implausible' that Blair just bought in to all the neo-con rhetoric. Just because he's one of ours doesn't rule him out from making bad decisions.)
'But why did Blair want us to go to war? I don't know, but I don't see anything about him which would make that a reasonable thing to do, so I infer that he was driven by something which cannot be state in public (like pressure from America). That is why I sympathise with him, and do not join the chorus of those who would hold him responsible.'
Peer pressure doesn't get you off the hook for taking drugs. Why should it be a get-out clause for prime ministers who lie to take their country into bloody and expensive wars?
Maybe Bush was being pressured by Cheney. Maybe Rumsfeld was being pressured by Wolfowitz. Maybe Perle was being pressured by his wife. What difference does it make? Who the real architect of this enormous mistake was, is something for history to decide.
(I don't understand, btw, why it's 'implausible' that Blair just bought in to all the neo-con rhetoric. Just because he's one of ours doesn't rule him out from making bad decisions.)
PS: Zaki, i think you're right to point out that the outcome of the war is affecting our moral judgement to some extent. It shouldn't – lying to take us into war is morally either right or wrong, surely, independently of how the war turns out.
Still, we apply the principle everywhere else. If you drive drunk, you'll get some points off your licence and a fine. If you drive drunk and kill a child, you go to prison. Outcomes affect moral judgements – at least, real-world moral judgements – just as much as intentions.
PPS: I just read D's post for the first time properly. I can only think of one precedent in literature for someone who 'freed himself from 2+2=4'. As I recall, that sort of business tends to lead to boots that stamp on human faces forever.
PS: Zaki, i think you're right to point out that the outcome of the war is affecting our moral judgement to some extent. It shouldn't – lying to take us into war is morally either right or wrong, surely, independently of how the war turns out.
Still, we apply the principle everywhere else. If you drive drunk, you'll get some points off your licence and a fine. If you drive drunk and kill a child, you go to prison. Outcomes affect moral judgements – at least, real-world moral judgements – just as much as intentions.
PPS: I just read D's post for the first time properly. I can only think of one precedent in literature for someone who 'freed himself from 2+2=4'. As I recall, that sort of business tends to lead to boots that stamp on human faces forever.
PS: Zaki, i think you're right to point out that the outcome of the war is affecting our moral judgement to some extent. It shouldn't – lying to take us into war is morally either right or wrong, surely, independently of how the war turns out.
Still, we apply the principle everywhere else. If you drive drunk, you'll get some points off your licence and a fine. If you drive drunk and kill a child, you go to prison. Outcomes affect moral judgements – at least, real-world moral judgements – just as much as intentions.
PPS: I just read D's post for the first time properly. I can only think of one precedent in literature for someone who 'freed himself from 2+2=4'. As I recall, that sort of business tends to lead to boots that stamp on human faces forever.
John – I'm probably contradicting myself in every direction, since I'm not realy sure if I have a coherent analysis of what happened and why, but I still feel it's unreasonable to blame Blair. As I said in the article, do we think that any other prime minsiter would have acted differently? If so, which one and by which political ideology? Maybe a Liberal Democrat, or Tony Benn, or any number of other principled people – but the thing about principles is that when it comes to voting they cost you nothing. The point I was trying to make about displacement of responsibility is that we all benefit from being wealthy, and being principled would most likely mean we weren't wealthy. Hence I feel there is something inauthentic about the whole notion of shifting responsibility for things like Iraq to politicians.
You compare pressure from America to peer pressure – but that might not be fair. If TB was just cowardly, or didn't have the independence of mind to think beyond the axis-of-evil rhetoric, then that is unforgivable. But if the pressure is more institutional, more along the lines of having to be implicit in the American way of things in order to have power and wealth, then it was our interests that Blair was protecting. And if governents don't deliver strong economies, we get rid of them. So doesn't that transfer responsibility to us? Should we have voted Blair out because he lacked principles, when we only voted him in because he lacked principles?
Maybe liberal capitalism is a mess, as well as Iraq? But, then, socialism is a joke and we all know it doesn't work – so where does that leave us?
John – I'm probably contradicting myself in every direction, since I'm not realy sure if I have a coherent analysis of what happened and why, but I still feel it's unreasonable to blame Blair. As I said in the article, do we think that any other prime minsiter would have acted differently? If so, which one and by which political ideology? Maybe a Liberal Democrat, or Tony Benn, or any number of other principled people – but the thing about principles is that when it comes to voting they cost you nothing. The point I was trying to make about displacement of responsibility is that we all benefit from being wealthy, and being principled would most likely mean we weren't wealthy. Hence I feel there is something inauthentic about the whole notion of shifting responsibility for things like Iraq to politicians.
You compare pressure from America to peer pressure – but that might not be fair. If TB was just cowardly, or didn't have the independence of mind to think beyond the axis-of-evil rhetoric, then that is unforgivable. But if the pressure is more institutional, more along the lines of having to be implicit in the American way of things in order to have power and wealth, then it was our interests that Blair was protecting. And if governents don't deliver strong economies, we get rid of them. So doesn't that transfer responsibility to us? Should we have voted Blair out because he lacked principles, when we only voted him in because he lacked principles?
Maybe liberal capitalism is a mess, as well as Iraq? But, then, socialism is a joke and we all know it doesn't work – so where does that leave us?
John – I'm probably contradicting myself in every direction, since I'm not realy sure if I have a coherent analysis of what happened and why, but I still feel it's unreasonable to blame Blair. As I said in the article, do we think that any other prime minsiter would have acted differently? If so, which one and by which political ideology? Maybe a Liberal Democrat, or Tony Benn, or any number of other principled people – but the thing about principles is that when it comes to voting they cost you nothing. The point I was trying to make about displacement of responsibility is that we all benefit from being wealthy, and being principled would most likely mean we weren't wealthy. Hence I feel there is something inauthentic about the whole notion of shifting responsibility for things like Iraq to politicians.
You compare pressure from America to peer pressure – but that might not be fair. If TB was just cowardly, or didn't have the independence of mind to think beyond the axis-of-evil rhetoric, then that is unforgivable. But if the pressure is more institutional, more along the lines of having to be implicit in the American way of things in order to have power and wealth, then it was our interests that Blair was protecting. And if governents don't deliver strong economies, we get rid of them. So doesn't that transfer responsibility to us? Should we have voted Blair out because he lacked principles, when we only voted him in because he lacked principles?
Maybe liberal capitalism is a mess, as well as Iraq? But, then, socialism is a joke and we all know it doesn't work – so where does that leave us?
The thing is, we don't have a liberal society at the moment. And before anyone says "well it must be liberal if you have the right to say that it's not liberal." a regime that isn't oppressive isn't necessarily liberal, it just isn't actively restraining the physical liberties of its citizens on a vast scale….oh wait.
Well, there aren't thought police anyway. Until they pass that mental health bill, that'll be a bit scary…And the hate crime legislation thing, well…
Anyway, the point is, the liberal capitalism thing is a bit of a misnomer. It's closer to communitarianism.
The thing is, we don't have a liberal society at the moment. And before anyone says "well it must be liberal if you have the right to say that it's not liberal." a regime that isn't oppressive isn't necessarily liberal, it just isn't actively restraining the physical liberties of its citizens on a vast scale….oh wait.
Well, there aren't thought police anyway. Until they pass that mental health bill, that'll be a bit scary…And the hate crime legislation thing, well…
Anyway, the point is, the liberal capitalism thing is a bit of a misnomer. It's closer to communitarianism.
The thing is, we don't have a liberal society at the moment. And before anyone says "well it must be liberal if you have the right to say that it's not liberal." a regime that isn't oppressive isn't necessarily liberal, it just isn't actively restraining the physical liberties of its citizens on a vast scale….oh wait.
Well, there aren't thought police anyway. Until they pass that mental health bill, that'll be a bit scary…And the hate crime legislation thing, well…
Anyway, the point is, the liberal capitalism thing is a bit of a misnomer. It's closer to communitarianism.
I mean, look at the second photo down. Obviously, ID cards are akin to the Holocaust. Tesco clubcards are the first step to fascism. You heard it here first!
I mean, look at the second photo down. Obviously, ID cards are akin to the Holocaust. Tesco clubcards are the first step to fascism. You heard it here first!
I mean, look at the second photo down. Obviously, ID cards are akin to the Holocaust. Tesco clubcards are the first step to fascism. You heard it here first!
Chris, you make some good points about the demonisation of our leaders, but your ignorance concerning religious fundamentalism and its recent history rather undermines your argument.
For starters, I believe the word you are looking for with regard to the most vocal branch of Christianity in the US at the moment is 'evangelicalism', rather than 'evangelism', though any self-respecting follower in the footsteps of evangelical Christians such as William Wilberforce and Dietrich Bonhoeffer would be quite horrified to be tarred with the same brush as the heretical Zionists you are attacking.
The belief system that is unfortunately influential in US politics at the moment is a perverse form of apocalyptic Christian fundamentalism, which, among other things, regards the national security of Israel to be of prime importance in the coming 'end times'. Many prominent members of the 'Christian' Right see the ongoing conflicts in the Middle East as being fulfilments of Biblical prophecies.
However, unpleasant as they are, one cannot in the main blame the fundamentalists for America's support of Israel, simply because they were not a political force in the USA until the 1980s- after, you may care to note, the Iranian revolution. The USA, and Europe, who you seem to have forgotten, managed to support the Jewish state quite independently of the Falwells of their time.
Islamism- by this I mean the equally perverse and heretical version of Islam propagated by men such as bin Laden and his cohorts- is not a reaction against Western powers in the sense that, if we leave it alone, it will go away. It won't. Islamist philosophy, at its root, is remarkably similar to fascism in its desire to eradicate the 'unclean' (the 'infidel') and establish an empire of the 'worthy' over a particular territory it considers to be rightfully its own (in the Islamists' case, that means the restoration of the historic caliphate).
As one ought not to confuse David Cameron with Nick Griffin simply because they are both right-wing, so it is a gross over-reaction, and frankly quite offensive to the thoughtful and intelligent believer, to claim that committed religious faith- which may include the belief that one's own faith is true and others are not- is in any way equivalent to the horror and rank stupidity of fundamentalism.
Sorry about the essay, but I felt it needed to be said.
Chris, you make some good points about the demonisation of our leaders, but your ignorance concerning religious fundamentalism and its recent history rather undermines your argument.
For starters, I believe the word you are looking for with regard to the most vocal branch of Christianity in the US at the moment is 'evangelicalism', rather than 'evangelism', though any self-respecting follower in the footsteps of evangelical Christians such as William Wilberforce and Dietrich Bonhoeffer would be quite horrified to be tarred with the same brush as the heretical Zionists you are attacking.
The belief system that is unfortunately influential in US politics at the moment is a perverse form of apocalyptic Christian fundamentalism, which, among other things, regards the national security of Israel to be of prime importance in the coming 'end times'. Many prominent members of the 'Christian' Right see the ongoing conflicts in the Middle East as being fulfilments of Biblical prophecies.
However, unpleasant as they are, one cannot in the main blame the fundamentalists for America's support of Israel, simply because they were not a political force in the USA until the 1980s- after, you may care to note, the Iranian revolution. The USA, and Europe, who you seem to have forgotten, managed to support the Jewish state quite independently of the Falwells of their time.
Islamism- by this I mean the equally perverse and heretical version of Islam propagated by men such as bin Laden and his cohorts- is not a reaction against Western powers in the sense that, if we leave it alone, it will go away. It won't. Islamist philosophy, at its root, is remarkably similar to fascism in its desire to eradicate the 'unclean' (the 'infidel') and establish an empire of the 'worthy' over a particular territory it considers to be rightfully its own (in the Islamists' case, that means the restoration of the historic caliphate).
As one ought not to confuse David Cameron with Nick Griffin simply because they are both right-wing, so it is a gross over-reaction, and frankly quite offensive to the thoughtful and intelligent believer, to claim that committed religious faith- which may include the belief that one's own faith is true and others are not- is in any way equivalent to the horror and rank stupidity of fundamentalism.
Sorry about the essay, but I felt it needed to be said.
Chris, you make some good points about the demonisation of our leaders, but your ignorance concerning religious fundamentalism and its recent history rather undermines your argument.
For starters, I believe the word you are looking for with regard to the most vocal branch of Christianity in the US at the moment is 'evangelicalism', rather than 'evangelism', though any self-respecting follower in the footsteps of evangelical Christians such as William Wilberforce and Dietrich Bonhoeffer would be quite horrified to be tarred with the same brush as the heretical Zionists you are attacking.
The belief system that is unfortunately influential in US politics at the moment is a perverse form of apocalyptic Christian fundamentalism, which, among other things, regards the national security of Israel to be of prime importance in the coming 'end times'. Many prominent members of the 'Christian' Right see the ongoing conflicts in the Middle East as being fulfilments of Biblical prophecies.
However, unpleasant as they are, one cannot in the main blame the fundamentalists for America's support of Israel, simply because they were not a political force in the USA until the 1980s- after, you may care to note, the Iranian revolution. The USA, and Europe, who you seem to have forgotten, managed to support the Jewish state quite independently of the Falwells of their time.
Islamism- by this I mean the equally perverse and heretical version of Islam propagated by men such as bin Laden and his cohorts- is not a reaction against Western powers in the sense that, if we leave it alone, it will go away. It won't. Islamist philosophy, at its root, is remarkably similar to fascism in its desire to eradicate the 'unclean' (the 'infidel') and establish an empire of the 'worthy' over a particular territory it considers to be rightfully its own (in the Islamists' case, that means the restoration of the historic caliphate).
As one ought not to confuse David Cameron with Nick Griffin simply because they are both right-wing, so it is a gross over-reaction, and frankly quite offensive to the thoughtful and intelligent believer, to claim that committed religious faith- which may include the belief that one's own faith is true and others are not- is in any way equivalent to the horror and rank stupidity of fundamentalism.
Sorry about the essay, but I felt it needed to be said.
Thanks Imogen for your post – I found it very interseting and in many ways a valid challenge. You no doubt know more about this than I do, and it was probably arrogant of me to write about what I did not fully understand (a realisation I reached after some of the other comments, too!)
I have heard 'evangelism' used for 'evangelicalism', and more importnatly I have heard these terms used equivalently to fundamentalism, or religious zeal in general. If religious zeal sparked the abolitionist movement, that in itself doesn't make it healthy – politically or personally.
Again, I profess ignorance of historical details, but it seems clear to me that the concept of a Jewish homeland can only ave been based on such zeal – whether Chritistian or Jewish. In a world without such zeal, I presume the creation of Israel wouldn't have happened. The Islamic revolution also wouldn't have happened. Of course, once Israel is a country recognised by the UN there is every reason to support it (whether you are American or European) but I chastised 'ideologically-clumsy support'. This I believe was evident when Israel bombed Lebannon last summer, would you not agree? It seems likely that the American administration would have been more sane on this matter if there weren't a vote to be won among the 'heretical zionists'. So this kinf of fundamentalism is a dangerous political force active in our age, and yet still respectable in circles where TB is condemned as a war criminal. You may not respect it, but I am continually surprised by the fact that there are people in Britain who do – including the many people who watch the British God Channel. If you are a member of DICCU, then have you encountered such people? If so, I hope you disagree with them vocally.
Respectfully, Chris
PS - Apparantly, Cameron isn't so far from Griffin. Before he reinvented himself for a leadership contest, he stood for parliament as a homophobic, anti-immigration, tax-cutting Tory.
Thanks Imogen for your post – I found it very interseting and in many ways a valid challenge. You no doubt know more about this than I do, and it was probably arrogant of me to write about what I did not fully understand (a realisation I reached after some of the other comments, too!)
I have heard 'evangelism' used for 'evangelicalism', and more importnatly I have heard these terms used equivalently to fundamentalism, or religious zeal in general. If religious zeal sparked the abolitionist movement, that in itself doesn't make it healthy – politically or personally.
Again, I profess ignorance of historical details, but it seems clear to me that the concept of a Jewish homeland can only ave been based on such zeal – whether Chritistian or Jewish. In a world without such zeal, I presume the creation of Israel wouldn't have happened. The Islamic revolution also wouldn't have happened. Of course, once Israel is a country recognised by the UN there is every reason to support it (whether you are American or European) but I chastised 'ideologically-clumsy support'. This I believe was evident when Israel bombed Lebannon last summer, would you not agree? It seems likely that the American administration would have been more sane on this matter if there weren't a vote to be won among the 'heretical zionists'. So this kinf of fundamentalism is a dangerous political force active in our age, and yet still respectable in circles where TB is condemned as a war criminal. You may not respect it, but I am continually surprised by the fact that there are people in Britain who do – including the many people who watch the British God Channel. If you are a member of DICCU, then have you encountered such people? If so, I hope you disagree with them vocally.
Respectfully, Chris
PS - Apparantly, Cameron isn't so far from Griffin. Before he reinvented himself for a leadership contest, he stood for parliament as a homophobic, anti-immigration, tax-cutting Tory.
Thanks Imogen for your post – I found it very interseting and in many ways a valid challenge. You no doubt know more about this than I do, and it was probably arrogant of me to write about what I did not fully understand (a realisation I reached after some of the other comments, too!)
I have heard 'evangelism' used for 'evangelicalism', and more importnatly I have heard these terms used equivalently to fundamentalism, or religious zeal in general. If religious zeal sparked the abolitionist movement, that in itself doesn't make it healthy – politically or personally.
Again, I profess ignorance of historical details, but it seems clear to me that the concept of a Jewish homeland can only ave been based on such zeal – whether Chritistian or Jewish. In a world without such zeal, I presume the creation of Israel wouldn't have happened. The Islamic revolution also wouldn't have happened. Of course, once Israel is a country recognised by the UN there is every reason to support it (whether you are American or European) but I chastised 'ideologically-clumsy support'. This I believe was evident when Israel bombed Lebannon last summer, would you not agree? It seems likely that the American administration would have been more sane on this matter if there weren't a vote to be won among the 'heretical zionists'. So this kinf of fundamentalism is a dangerous political force active in our age, and yet still respectable in circles where TB is condemned as a war criminal. You may not respect it, but I am continually surprised by the fact that there are people in Britain who do – including the many people who watch the British God Channel. If you are a member of DICCU, then have you encountered such people? If so, I hope you disagree with them vocally.
Respectfully, Chris
PS - Apparantly, Cameron isn't so far from Griffin. Before he reinvented himself for a leadership contest, he stood for parliament as a homophobic, anti-immigration, tax-cutting Tory.
Leave your response!