Blair's Christianity, Socialism and the Iraq War

ihasa · 01-21-2011, 07:45 PM

Taken from one of the nauseating 'faith' programmes the BBC has to deliver as part of it's 'public service' remit. Does having a strong faith, and framing things in terms of 'good and evil' increase the likelihood of war? If you convince yourself that 'god is on your side' you can feel justified in anything can't you?

[YT]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Av-ks1SA8PE&feature=related[/YT]
[YT]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KQLTp7w6F9E&feature=related[/YT]

stevewig · 01-22-2011, 07:30 AM

Originally posted by ihasa

Taken from one of the nauseating 'faith' programmes the BBC has to deliver as part of it's 'public service' remit. Does having a strong faith, and framing things in terms of 'good and evil' increase the likelihood of war? If you convince yourself that 'god is on your side' you can feel justified in anything can't you?

I believe that this is an extremely cynical way to judge anybody (i.e. by their religious views, or because they are religious - or even by the lack of these attributes).

It boils down to that awful habit used so often today in politics all over the world of pulling somebody down that you don't like by any means possible. This is also character assassination in my opinion.

Personally I have no strong views, either way, of Tony Blair. He was certainly a good friend of the US and I believe that he did what he thought was the right thing to do for his country and history will judge him on his actions.

He is a only a human being - just like any other leader - and therefore subject to all the same failings that you yourself are.

Anybody (even yourself), chosen by his/her peers for a leadership position can only do the same thing - the best you can do based upon all of your attributes. If you have no belief in a religion, or a strong belief in a religion, both will be a factor in your decision making process.

We chose our leaders - and then we proceed to knock them down mercilessly using all means at our disposal and without any concern for the truth of the criticisms. Having made our mind up, we ignore the positive attributes and concentrate on and exaggerate anything that has the appearance of being a negative. The same thing happened to Obama. The same thing is happening to Blair and it doesn't end there by any means. This is almost like mob rule and it certainly makes a mockery of the word democracy.

GeneV · 01-22-2011, 02:50 PM

Originally posted by stevewig

Personally I have no strong views, either way, of Tony Blair. He was certainly a good friend of the US ....

The phrase that comes to mind is "friends don't let friends drive drunk...." In retrospect, we may have come out better with more friends like France. Otherwise I mostly agree with the sentiments expressed in that post.

reeftool · 01-22-2011, 05:46 PM

Originally posted by stevewig

I believe that this is an extremely cynical way to judge anybody (i.e. by their religious views, or because they are religious - or even by the lack of these attributes).

It boils down to that awful habit used so often today in politics all over the world of pulling somebody down that you don't like by any means possible. This is also character assassination in my opinion.

Personally I have no strong views, either way, of Tony Blair. He was certainly a good friend of the US and I believe that he did what he thought was the right thing to do for his country and history will judge him on his actions.

He is a only a human being - just like any other leader - and therefore subject to all the same failings that you yourself are.

Anybody (even yourself), chosen by his/her peers for a leadership position can only do the same thing - the best you can do based upon all of your attributes. If you have no belief in a religion, or a strong belief in a religion, both will be a factor in your decision making process.

We chose our leaders - and then we proceed to knock them down mercilessly using all means at our disposal and without any concern for the truth of the criticisms. Having made our mind up, we ignore the positive attributes and concentrate on and exaggerate anything that has the appearance of being a negative. The same thing happened to Obama. The same thing is happening to Blair and it doesn't end there by any means. This is almost like mob rule and it certainly makes a mockery of the word democracy.

I agree with you. The reporter is implying that his religious views are the reason he sent troops into Iraq. While there are Christians who supported the decision to invade Iraq, there were just as many who opposed it. As for his faith influencing decisions he made, why is that wrong? Everyone has some sort of guiding philosophy that influences their decisions whether religious or not. A person with no moral standard is unfit to lead.

01-21-2011, 07:45 PM	#1
ihasa Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: West Midlands Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,066	Blair's Christianity, Socialism and the Iraq War Taken from one of the nauseating 'faith' programmes the BBC has to deliver as part of it's 'public service' remit. Does having a strong faith, and framing things in terms of 'good and evil' increase the likelihood of war? If you convince yourself that 'god is on your side' you can feel justified in anything can't you? [YT]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Av-ks1SA8PE&feature=related[/YT] [YT]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KQLTp7w6F9E&feature=related[/YT]

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
just for fun: football (US) socialism	jeffkrol	General Talk	6	12-05-2010 10:08 AM
Architecture A monument to socialism	h0nda	Post Your Photos!	3	09-16-2010 11:11 AM
Sobering assessment of Iraq war	jeffkrol	General Talk	14	09-01-2010 02:53 PM
Socialism Explained	Parallax	General Talk	84	01-06-2010 09:00 AM
Is Christianity a hoax?	Jimfear	General Talk	42	02-02-2009 11:19 AM

01-22-2011, 07:30 AM	#2
stevewig Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2010 Posts: 773	Originally posted by ihasa Taken from one of the nauseating 'faith' programmes the BBC has to deliver as part of it's 'public service' remit. Does having a strong faith, and framing things in terms of 'good and evil' increase the likelihood of war? If you convince yourself that 'god is on your side' you can feel justified in anything can't you? I believe that this is an extremely cynical way to judge anybody (i.e. by their religious views, or because they are religious - or even by the lack of these attributes). It boils down to that awful habit used so often today in politics all over the world of pulling somebody down that you don't like by any means possible. This is also character assassination in my opinion. Personally I have no strong views, either way, of Tony Blair. He was certainly a good friend of the US and I believe that he did what he thought was the right thing to do for his country and history will judge him on his actions. He is a only a human being - just like any other leader - and therefore subject to all the same failings that you yourself are. Anybody (even yourself), chosen by his/her peers for a leadership position can only do the same thing - the best you can do based upon all of your attributes. If you have no belief in a religion, or a strong belief in a religion, both will be a factor in your decision making process. We chose our leaders - and then we proceed to knock them down mercilessly using all means at our disposal and without any concern for the truth of the criticisms. Having made our mind up, we ignore the positive attributes and concentrate on and exaggerate anything that has the appearance of being a negative. The same thing happened to Obama. The same thing is happening to Blair and it doesn't end there by any means. This is almost like mob rule and it certainly makes a mockery of the word democracy.

01-22-2011, 02:50 PM	#3
GeneV Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Albuquerque NM Photos: Albums Posts: 9,830	Originally posted by stevewig Personally I have no strong views, either way, of Tony Blair. He was certainly a good friend of the US .... The phrase that comes to mind is "friends don't let friends drive drunk...." In retrospect, we may have come out better with more friends like France. Otherwise I mostly agree with the sentiments expressed in that post.

01-22-2011, 05:46 PM	#4
reeftool Pentaxian Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Upstate New York Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 9,555	Originally posted by stevewig I believe that this is an extremely cynical way to judge anybody (i.e. by their religious views, or because they are religious - or even by the lack of these attributes). It boils down to that awful habit used so often today in politics all over the world of pulling somebody down that you don't like by any means possible. This is also character assassination in my opinion. Personally I have no strong views, either way, of Tony Blair. He was certainly a good friend of the US and I believe that he did what he thought was the right thing to do for his country and history will judge him on his actions. He is a only a human being - just like any other leader - and therefore subject to all the same failings that you yourself are. Anybody (even yourself), chosen by his/her peers for a leadership position can only do the same thing - the best you can do based upon all of your attributes. If you have no belief in a religion, or a strong belief in a religion, both will be a factor in your decision making process. We chose our leaders - and then we proceed to knock them down mercilessly using all means at our disposal and without any concern for the truth of the criticisms. Having made our mind up, we ignore the positive attributes and concentrate on and exaggerate anything that has the appearance of being a negative. The same thing happened to Obama. The same thing is happening to Blair and it doesn't end there by any means. This is almost like mob rule and it certainly makes a mockery of the word democracy. I agree with you. The reporter is implying that his religious views are the reason he sent troops into Iraq. While there are Christians who supported the decision to invade Iraq, there were just as many who opposed it. As for his faith influencing decisions he made, why is that wrong? Everyone has some sort of guiding philosophy that influences their decisions whether religious or not. A person with no moral standard is unfit to lead.