- Original Home Page
- All Contents of Site – Index
- Listen to Joan Bakewell Interview of Tony Blair (’Belief’, Radio 3, Good Friday, 7th April, 2009)
- Listen to Christopher Landau on Blair’s Faith Foundation (BBC Radio 4, 14th April, 8:00pm) AND BBC page on introduction to the ‘Faith Foundation’ programme
Comment at end
17th April, 2009
MY GOD’S BIGGER THAN YOUR GOD (AGAIN?)
See my earlier post on Monotheism
Are YOU religious? If so, have you ever wondered about the monotheistic acceptance of One God for All?
Has it ever crossed your mind that this concept IS questionable to the intellectually free? Or does your religion forbid such liberal thinking?
[My Google search today, for "One-ness of God", came with 200,000 links. Jump here to see the first 10.]
Tony Blair has recently said a few things on religion which have aroused widespread interest. His mention of the Pope and ‘entrenched views’ on homosexuality raised the hackles of many in the mainstream press and in the Catholic Church, and got Blair widely criticised. Of course, he is criticised by the disappointed for still breathing. (On that point this is funny. He now wants a “dying room”! So that might be compensation for some.)
But his questioning of the Catholic approach to homosexuality is small beer compared to this:
Asked – “Do we all worship the same God?” – he replied – “I don’t know”
This statement is earth-shattering coming from the “inclusive religionist” Blair. And yet it seems to have been completely ignored by the mainstream press. WHY? You tell me. I can only imagine that they hope that by ignoring Mr Blair he may go away, even if he is one of the few posing the BIG questions. The alternative – that they are intimidated at the thought of upsetting some religious people – surely not!?
Coming at the end of an interview on Good Friday with Joan Bakewell, this was the only question he found difficult.
Put simply, and you can listen here (until today, Friday 17th), or read the entire transcript here, (as put together exclusively for this site by one of my regular commenters), he now seems to have serious doubts about the Abrahamic One-Ness of God. That is noteworthy, now that Mr Blair seems to have been elevated to the position of uppermost religious world politician. With his Faith Foundation and ongoing Middle East Envoy work, both of which are dealing betwixt and between religions, you’d think he would NOT be drawing attention to any personal doubts in this matter.
Yet doubt he clearly has. If not, he would just have said, “Yes, of course, ALL religions worship the same God”.
Even to someone who has not been touched by the recognition that there is a God this is still quite remarkable. I wouldn’t say I don’t believe in God, as I’ve always thought that the literal assumption behind “not believing in God” is that there is a God, whom one can/cannot, may/may not believe in. So “not believing in God” is for many of us a non-sequitur.
As for the existence of God – I still tend to the conclusion that agnosticism is probably the only intellectually rigorous position, given the evidence or lack of. But that’s a whole different argument. I am a Christian secularist, and not at all “militant”.
Mr Blair’s uncertainty on ‘OneNess’ is remarkable because for those who DO accept that a God exists, isn’t it this very ‘oneness’ that has kept religions away from one anothers’ throats for centuries? Without it, where are we? Back to “My God’s bigger than YOUR God” times, as I referred to here recently?
[Aside - this site on the use of language in Islam is enlightening. Remember, we are often told that it is translation that is the problem as far as western interpretation of Islam is concerned.]
But back to Blair’s recent religious “outspeaks”
The “same God?” query is not the ONLY noteworthy thing he has said recently. There was this too:
“The Battle About Islam” - a few weeks ago, in the Philippines.
“There is essentially one battle going on, and it is a battle about Islam.”
Here again the mainstream British press hardly noticed. That was remiss of them, possibly even intentionally remiss. These mainly secularist/atheist/non-religious types as well as some traditional catholics were too busy competing to see who could write the nastiest crit on Blair’s “attack of the Pope” – for instance here (Telegraph, with its hangers/floggers/beheaders commenters). By the way, the rightist Telegraph as well as the leftist Guardian has clearly been infiltrated by certain bloodthirsty types. We Brits of long-standing NEVER talk of beheading people, even politicians. It’s just not British, y’know, chaps. We’ll hang ‘em and flog ‘em etc, and even that’s just speaking figuratively since we do not DO corporal or capital punishment. But “behead”? NEVER.
Hmmm … you should read The (Torygraph) Telegraph forewarned in future!
And there this at US News, God & Country. You’d think he’d prefer NOT to upset American Roman Catholics.
[Explanation? We need to remember that many of the press are pursuing unfinished business; after all Blair is still a free man.]
For a long time, after 9/11, according to Mr Blair, only Islamic radicalists had any problems. THEY were the enemy of ‘true’ Islam as well as the enemy of the rest of us. See clip from 2006 party conference video – ”this terrorism isn’t our fault …”
Now ISLAM has the problem. Well, many of us in the blogosphere have been saying this for some time.
Meanwhile the Pope himself has been told to define his position on Islam before he visits the Middle East. You might recall British Muslim Anjem Choudary saying in September 2006 that the Pope must die. Well, of course ! His Holiness had the audacity to quote someone else’s words on Islam. Tchh … tchh …
Excerpt:
‘The pontiff yesterday apologised for causing offence during a lecture last week. Quoting a medieval emperor, his words were taken to mean that he called the prophet Mohammed “evil and inhuman”.
He [the Pope] insisted he was “deeply sorry” but his humbling words did not go far enough to silence all his critics or quell the violence and anger he has triggered. ‘
Sensitive crowd. Wonder what they’ll make of Blair’s difficulty with the one-ness of God.
The relevent excerpt from the Bakewell interview with Tony Blair:
BAKEWELL: Do all religions worship the same God?
BLAIR: Now that’s a very good question. Mmmm … I’d have to think about that and how to answer it really. I think one interesting question is, certainly for the Abrahamic faiths. There is so much common heritage and history. I actually read the Old Testament, the New Testament the Koran virtually every day. And if you read the Koran what is fascinating is to see the Old Testament stories and indeed the gospel stories but retold in the koran. Do we all worship the same God? I think these are real difficult questions and I’m not sure that they’re not questions that are too difficult for me to answer. But I do believe that there is a common space that most religions congregate upon, whether that is the space that you define that is inhabited by their God I don’t know. I think that is a difficult question. Let me put your question to myself in a different way – do I believe that a Muslim who lives a good life and does good things and is a model citizen, an example to others. Do I believe that that person is capable of salvation … yes. So does that mean we worship the same God? … I don’t know.
Through his Faith Foundation, an organisation for which I applaud him, you would certainly expect Mr Blair to stick rigidly to the Abrahamic One-Ness of God. But, no … he says ‘the question is too difficult for him to answer’.
“Too difficult”? No certainty, Mr Blair?
Some might say that hesitation is a first. For me, it’s a start.
He finally seems to be operating in an eyes-open mode, for which I, for one, am enormously grateful. Eyes open to the evidence. There might yet be room in this religious century/millennium for those who, through no fault of their own, feel unaware, untouched, unmoved, perhaps not chosen … by God.
BLAIR’S EU AMBITIONS?
Anthony Seldon in this Telegraph article by Gordon Rayner on the Blairs’ earning power since he left office:
‘At the beginning of this year, when I last spoke to Blair’s biographer, Anthony Seldon, about rumours that Blair was interested in the [EU] presidency, Prof Seldon dismissed the suggestion out of hand, saying the former premier had no appetite for European bureaucracy.
Since then, however, he has revised his opinion.
“I now think he might well want to do it,” Dr Seldon told me from his study at Wellington College. “My sense is that he is finding it harder to operate as a freelance diplomat than he thought it would be. It’s harder to get influence without an official position, and with each passing month his contacts and his inside knowledge decline, his name declines – he is a declining asset. So it may make more sense to him to come inside an office that has a standing and operate from there.
“His earning power might go down in the time he was doing it, as he would have to give up some of his activities, but people have always made the mistake of thinking he is a man obsessed by money. He is not that kind of person, though he may have acquired the habits of the rich. On a personal level, I don’t think a drop in income would worry him.” ‘
Professor Seldon need only have glanced at this site to understand why Tony Blair wants to do the job. He has always wanted to do this job, in my humble opinion, probably even before it was thought of!
WHERE IS BLAIR COMING FROM, AND WHERE IS HE GOING?
Despite his saying that he has always been “more interested in religion than in politics”, it is as a politician that he is recognised the worldwide, albeit (now) a religious one.
Try this: Put the words, (or variations 0f) “religious” and “political” together with regards to Blair. Despite his post-prime ministerial joy in being able to show that he is a God-fearing man, I’d take a bet that the words invariably fall together with this emphasis:
Religious politician.
He is not – not yet anyway - definable as ‘politically religious’, as are many religious leaders in this world.
With his mind on climate issues, globalisation, sport as the Olympics approach in 2012, to name but three, Blair is more, far more than a politically religiously man.
Perhaps his thoughts on the growing importance of religion to this world, lead inexhorably to forensic examination of the very core of ALL religions. Remember, he is also Professor Blair of Yale.
What better place to start than with his own religion?
Excerpt from BBC article “Tony Blair’s Faith in New Mission”
I’m really, and always have been in a way, more interested in religion than politics,” he tells me.
The concept of an inter-faith foundation pre-dates him becoming leader of the Labour Party or prime minister, he says.
And the launch of the Tony Blair Faith Foundation is a response to him being “really, really committed to finding a way of making religious faith relevant to the modern world”.
Mr Blair says the secular world needs to understand religion, and religions need to understand each other.
“I believe this whole issue to do with inter-faith is absolutely where the 21st Century needs to be in social and cultural terms,” he says.
So I’ve got a very clear strategic sense of it as well. A powerful sense of mission on it. Every bit as powerful as I felt in politics.”
Google Results on The Oneness of God
RELATED
This article asks the question that many throw accusingly at Tony Blair, while already insisiting they KNOW the answers:
Does he actually FEEL that he has “blood on his hands” over Iraq? Is that why he has launched his Faith Foundation? Atonement?
Excerpt:
“I wondered if Tony Blair’s efforts at his Faith Foundation are in any way a result of having a sense of having that blood on his hands and his need to deal with any feelings of guilt.”
It’s always possible, though he insists it was right to “remove Saddam”. It’s likely, since he IS human, that he feels some impulse urging him to show that he is not a war-crazed, anti-Islam, colonialising westerner without TRUE understanding of religion, his own or anyone else’s. This writer DOES at least recognise this:
“I do believe though, that any student of politics or economics who does not factor faith into their thinking is working with incomplete and insufficient data.”
Google Search results on ‘the Oneness of God’
Web results 1-10 of about 200,000 for the one-ness of god. Google Results on The Oneness of God
The Oneness of God: Online text of a book published by David K. Bernard, pastor of New Life United
Pentecostal Church of Austin, Texas. The book teaches modalistic … ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/pentecostal/one-Top.htm – 16k – Similar pages
forces within it have …. The Oneness of Religion · Life, Death, and the Soul …
Writings … This is an excellent book explaining the Oneness of God. …
Oneness of God: The Solution to the Trinitarian Controversy …
You only have to glance at some of these links, without even visiting the websites, to notice that there are inherent contradictions, not least from Islam on the Christian Holy Trinity.
http://www.themedialine.org/news/news_detail.asp?NewsID=24855
Tags: Blair dying room, Christopher Landau Blair Radio 4, monotheism, the oneness of god, Tony Blair, Tony Blair interview Joan Bakewell, too difficult for me, worship same god
July 24, 2009 at 12:29 pm |
[...] Asked “Do we all worship the same God”, Tony Blair says, “too difficult for meR… [...]