Skip to Main Content (access key 1)
Skip to Search (access key 2)
Skip to Search GO (access key 3)
Skip to comments (access key 4)
Skip to navigation (access key 5)
Skip to top of page (access key 6)
Thursday, April 2, 2009 | Reason : Commentary | print version Print | Comments |

Document The Tony Blair Foundation

by Richard Dawkins

Reposted from
http://www.newstatesman.com/religion/2009/04/tony-blair-faith-children

bl

Dear Person of Faith


Basically, I write as fundraiser for the wonderful new Tony Blair Foundation, whose aim is “to promote respect and understanding about the world’s major religions and show how faith is a powerful force for good in the modern world”. I would like to touch base with you on six key points from the recent New Statesman piece by Tony (as he likes to be called by everybody, of all faiths – or indeed of none, for that’s how tuned in he is!).

“My faith has always been an important part of my politics”

Yes indeed, although Tony modestly kept shtum about it when he was PM. As he said, to shout his faith from the rooftops might have been interpreted as claiming moral superiority over those with no faith (and therefore no morals, of course). Also, some might have objected to their PM taking advice from voices only he could hear; but hey, reality is so last year compared with private revelation, isn’t it? What else, other than shared faith, could have brought Tony together with his friend and comrade-in-arms, George “Mission Accomplished” Bush, in their life-saving and humanitarian intervention in Iraq?

Admittedly, there are one or two problems remaining to be ironed out there, but all the more reason for people of different faiths – Christian and Muslim, Sunni and Shia – to join together in meaningful dialogue to seek common ground, just as Catholics and Protestants have done, so heart-warmingly, throughout European history. It is these great benefits of faith that the Tony Blair Foundation seeks to promote.

“We are focusing on five main projects initially, working with partners in the six main faiths”

Yes I know, I know, it’s a pity we had to limit ourselves to six. But we do have boundless respect for other faiths, all of which, in their colourful variety, enrich human lives.

In a very real sense, we have much to learn from Zoroastrianism and Jainism. And from Mormonism, though Cherie says we need to go easy on the polygamy and the sacred underpants!! Then again, we mustn’t forget the ancient and rich Olympian and Norse traditions – although our modern blue-skies thinking out of the box has pushed the envelope on shock-and-awe tactics, and put Zeus’s thunderbolts and Thor’s hammer in the shade!!! We hope, in Phase 2 of our Five-Year Plan, to embrace Scientology and Druidic Mistletoe Worship, which, in a very real sense, have something to teach us all. In Phase 3, our firm commitment to Diversity will lead us to source new networking partnership opportunities with the many hundreds of African tribal religions. Sacrificing goats may present problems with the RSPCA, but we hope to persuade them to adjust their priorities to take proper account of religious sensibilities.

“We are working across religious divides towards a common goal – ending the scandal of deaths from malaria”

Plus, of course, we mustn’t forget the countless deaths from Aids. This is where we can learn from the Pope’s inspiring vision, expounded recently on his visit to Africa. Drawing on his reserves of scientific and medical knowledge – informed and deepened by the Values that only faith can bring – His Holiness explained that the scourge of Aids is made worse, not better, by condoms. His advocacy of abstinence may have dismayed some medical experts (and the same goes for his deeply and sincerely held opposition to stem-cell research). But surely to goodness we must find room for a diverse range of opinions. All opinions, after all, are equally valid, and there are many ways of knowing, spiritual as well as factual. That, at the end of the day, is what the Foundation is all about.

“We have established Face to Faith, an interfaith schools programme to counter intolerance and extremism”

The great thing is to foster diversity, as Tony himself said in 2002, when challenged by a (rather intolerant!!!!) MP about a school in Gateshead teaching children that the world is only 6,000 years old. Of course you may think, as Tony himself happens to, that the true age of the world is 4.6 billion years.

But – excuse me – in this multicultural world, we must find room to tolerate – and indeed actively foster – all opinions: the more diverse, the better. We are looking to set up video-conferencing dialogues to brainstorm our differences. By the way, that Gateshead school ticked lots of boxes when it came to GCSE results, which just goes to show.


“Children of one faith and culture will have the chance to interact with children of another, getting a real sense of each other’s lived experience”

Cool! And, thanks to Tony’s policy of putting as many children as possible in faith schools where they can’t befriend kids from other backgrounds, the need for this interaction and mutual understanding has never been so strong. You see how it all hangs together? Sheer genius!

So strongly do we support the principle that children should be sent to schools which will identify them with their parents’ beliefs, that we think there is a real opportunity here to broaden it out. In Phase 2, we look to facilitate separate schools for Postmodernist children, Leavisite children and Saussurian Structuralist children. And in Phase 3 we shall roll out yet more separate schools, for Keynesian children, Monetarist children and even neo-Marxist children.

“We are working with the Coexist Foundation and Cambridge University to develop the concept of Abraham House”

I always think it’s so important to coexist, don’t you agree, with our brothers and sisters of the other Abrahamic faiths. Of course we have our differences – I mean, who doesn’t, basically? But we must all learn mutual respect. For example, we need to understand and sympathise with the deep hurt and offence that a man can feel if we insult his traditional beliefs by trying to stop him beating his wife, or setting fire to his daughter or cutting off her clitoris (and please don’t let’s hear any racist or Islamophobic objections to these important expressions of faith). We shall support the introduction of sharia courts, but on a strictly voluntary basis – only for those whose husbands and fathers freely choose it.

“The Blair Foundation will work to leverage mutual respect and understanding between seemingly incompatible faith traditions”

After all, despite our differences, we do have one important thing in common: all of us in the faith communities hold firm beliefs in the total absence of evidence, which leaves us free to believe anything we like. So, at the very least, we can be united in claiming a privileged role for all these private beliefs in the formulation of public policy.

I hope this letter will have shown you some of the reasons why you might consider supporting Tony’s Foundation. Because hey, let’s face it, a world without religion doesn’t have a prayer. With so many of the world’s problems caused by religion, what better solution could there possibly be than to promote yet more of it?

Comments 1 - 50 of 356 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1. Comment #359117 by Ishruul on April 2, 2009 at 7:22 am

 avatarI take it that's an April's Fool prank.

Other Comments by Ishruul

2. Comment #359119 by CaptainMandate on April 2, 2009 at 7:28 am

 avatarNice work!

Other Comments by CaptainMandate

3. Comment #359120 by Bitchfinder General on April 2, 2009 at 7:32 am

That's a pretty good rendering of Mr Tony's writing style there, kudos!

Other Comments by Bitchfinder General

4. Comment #359121 by Tyler Durden on April 2, 2009 at 7:32 am

 avatarAnd now Tony is a Middle East envoy.

It has success written all over it.

Other Comments by Tyler Durden

5. Comment #359122 by hungarianelephant on April 2, 2009 at 7:35 am

 avatarPersonally I thought Blair was a tit back in 1994. It's good that this is now a nearly universal opinion.

However, it has to be remembered that his electoral opponents were:
(1) John Major
(2) William Hague
(3) Michael Howard

This is tremendous parody. Add in some random stuttering and soundbites and you'd be hard pressed to distinguish it from the real thing.

Other Comments by hungarianelephant

6. Comment #359123 by PJG on April 2, 2009 at 7:43 am

 avatarVery good Richard.



“The Blair Foundation will work to leverage mutual respect and understanding between seemingly incompatible faith traditions”

Was the use of the word "seemingly" just to make the above sentence more PC? Tony really doesn't seem very good at recognising no-win situations does he?

Other Comments by PJG

7. Comment #359124 by Shane McKee on April 2, 2009 at 7:45 am

 avatarNote to the Pope -
"Hey, you're overlapping on my magisterium! How dare you?"

Other Comments by Shane McKee

8. Comment #359125 by AllanW on April 2, 2009 at 7:47 am

 avatarBravo, Richard. Bliar and Darth Ratzinger skewered in one week; just goes to show what you can do when not encumbered by all that time spent 'larnin' and teachifying' as a day job.

I'm really looking forward to the next few years and the books you are writing. Good on yer!

Other Comments by AllanW

9. Comment #359126 by Philip1978 on April 2, 2009 at 7:48 am

 avatarhungarianelephant

I rather thought Hague was good - especially as a commons debater where he roasted Blair over the coals each week.

I agree with you on the others though, not the world's greatest opponents!

Richard

This is an excellent parody and very close to the mark indeed.

I love this idea of bringing all these people of all faiths together - I am sure they would all get only like a house on fire!

:)

Other Comments by Philip1978

10. Comment #359127 by tvictor on April 2, 2009 at 7:50 am

 avatarBrilliant

Other Comments by tvictor

11. Comment #359128 by suffolkthinker on April 2, 2009 at 7:52 am

We are working across religious divides towards a common goal – ending the scandal of deaths from malariaIf that is one of your goals why not instead learn more about the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation? That shows how much canbe done without resorting to appeals to "faith".

I rather suspect Bill and Melinda have put rather more of their personal fortune into it than Tony has into his foundation.

Other Comments by suffolkthinker

12. Comment #359131 by hungarianelephant on April 2, 2009 at 8:03 am

 avatar9. Comment #359126 by Philip1978

I also quite liked Hague, and he was brilliant in the Commons, but you never got to see that on the evening news. He tended to come across as the captain of the Sixth Form Debating Society. But he was leading a right rabble of a party. He had quite a few sensible things to say - for example he was the first frontbencher to come out in favour of same sex marriage - but it always managed to get lost in a lot of street corner shouting. Not very electable. Even if you could persuade people to vote for a baldy.

He's mellowed quite a lot since. Hague or Miliband as Foreign Sec. Hmm. Let me see ...

Other Comments by hungarianelephant

13. Comment #359132 by JonLynnHarvey on April 2, 2009 at 8:04 am

I think the problem is a bit more subtle than this.
The foundation's mission statement reads

But religious faith can also be used to divide. We have seen throughout history and today we still see how it can be distorted to fan the flames of hatred and extremism.


Now, I agree that religion can be benign. But how does one adjudicate between what constitutes the real coin of the realm and what Blair calls "distortions"?
I am a grad student in religious studies. I have more or less concluded that about 90 percent of religion is crap (as I think Isaac Asimov once said of science-fiction). Academic religion scholars pay most of their attention to the other 10 percent. (I remain quite impressed with much of Buddhism and the liberal edge of Christianity.)
But advocates of the more humane and healthy (and flexible-minded) forms of religion don't have much beyond intuitive hunches as to why their non-toxic piety should be regarded as in some sense true, beyond appeal to moral standards that come from outside religion as a kind of mutual common ground of humanity.
William James decided to be a religious pragmatist as opposed (I suppose) to a religious realist. After writing "The Varieties of Religious Experience" in which he distinguishes healthy-minded religiosity from morbid religiosity, he concluded that there was some sort of something behind the forms of religion that produced better results. This is at least a better option that relativism in which you just say everyone is entitled to their subjective truth, because everyone's personal narrative is equally valid.
Still, William James viewpoint requires that fideistic leap to betting on things unseen. Not everyone is willing to make that.
I wish no ill to the Blair Foundation, but given TB's coziness with George Bush, I don't really trust his judgment as to what is benign or not.

Other Comments by JonLynnHarvey

14. Comment #359134 by irate_atheist on April 2, 2009 at 8:20 am

 avatarIf you gave Blair an enema, you could bury him in a matchbox.

Other Comments by irate_atheist

15. Comment #359136 by Fuzzy Duck on April 2, 2009 at 8:24 am

 avatarIngenious work, Dr. Dawkins.

Other Comments by Fuzzy Duck

16. Comment #359137 by Clapton_is_God on April 2, 2009 at 8:25 am

 avatarAre you sure you're not Pat Condell's scriptwriter. I can just hear him reading it out - brilliant.

CiG

Other Comments by Clapton_is_God

17. Comment #359138 by Philip1978 on April 2, 2009 at 8:25 am

 avatarJonLynnHarvey

I wish no ill to the Blair Foundation


I wish every ill to the Blair foundation if it is going to be using "faith" as its basis of its ideas - reason and logic is evidently missing from Blair's agenda


Richard got it so right when he said this

With so many of the world’s problems caused by religion, what better solution could there possibly be than to promote yet more of it?


Other Comments by Philip1978

18. Comment #359144 by mixmastergaz on April 2, 2009 at 8:40 am

 avatarFunny but chilling. Almost a candidate for Poe's law.

I do like Richard when the gloves are off; he's so much more persuasive than Hitchens who, I suspect, gets too many people's backs up to be really effective (don't get me wrong; I think 'God is not Great' is a fine book, but then I would think that wouldn't I£ Richard does the 'outreach' stuff much better).

Edit: Bloody hell! I see my question marks are no longer transubstantiating into apostrophes and have now become pound signs! Perhaps this means I've changed my denomination! I'd ask what other posters think, but I fear English readers may think I'm giving them a bill.

Other Comments by mixmastergaz

19. Comment #359146 by elementz on April 2, 2009 at 8:43 am

 avatarBrilliant, once again!!!

Other Comments by elementz

20. Comment #359148 by skepticato on April 2, 2009 at 8:52 am

 avatarThanks Richard. That was hilarious!

Other Comments by skepticato

21. Comment #359149 by God fearing Atheist on April 2, 2009 at 8:53 am

 avatarSmirk

Other Comments by God fearing Atheist

22. Comment #359150 by ridelo on April 2, 2009 at 8:53 am

 avatarSomebody has to say it: "I prefer The Blair Witch Project."

Other Comments by ridelo

23. Comment #359154 by mordacious1 on April 2, 2009 at 8:56 am

 avatarWhat unites the Abrahamic faiths is greed and the desire to control people's lives. Greed is good! Most people need to be controlled or god knows what they're capable of. So kudos to Blair for realizing this and with Richard's support I'm sure we will be back in the Middle Ages in no time.;)

Other Comments by mordacious1

24. Comment #359155 by GBile on April 2, 2009 at 8:56 am

 avatarI think this is not lighthearted mockery , in the spirit of april 1, but I sense that Richard is really angry. Of course this the right sentiment to have, when confronted with abominations like the Tony Blair foundation.

Faith schools should end!

Other Comments by GBile

25. Comment #359156 by Mark Jones on April 2, 2009 at 8:56 am

 avatarWonderfully oleaginous.

Other Comments by Mark Jones

26. Comment #359158 by lordpasternack on April 2, 2009 at 9:03 am

 avatarIt's not "Aids" - it's AIDS. Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome. It has nothing etymologically to do with the word "aid". It is an acronym.

Sorry - I just hate that...

[/pedant]

Other Comments by lordpasternack

27. Comment #359164 by friendlypig on April 2, 2009 at 9:12 am

 avatarOn a recent tv programme, about her Catholicism, Cherie Blair stated that like most Catholics she and her husband used contraception, otherwise they would have had more children than they wanted.

I would like to see Tony Blair do a piece to camera explaining how his and his wife's choice of contraception were at one with the Catholic dogma.

I feel there would be an ex-communication in the air.

Other Comments by friendlypig

28. Comment #359165 by rod-the-farmer on April 2, 2009 at 9:12 am

 avatarI agree. AIDS. But yes, the piece is rather funny. I wonder about the tone. It might be considered....strident ?

Other Comments by rod-the-farmer

29. Comment #359174 by Dragon Slayer on April 2, 2009 at 9:20 am

when i first heard about the tony blair faith foundation i wrote my own article on it because i was so outraged by it.

glad to see dawkins has taken it on as well

good job richard

Other Comments by Dragon Slayer

30. Comment #359181 by Vaal on April 2, 2009 at 9:28 am

 avatarYou would have thought that Blair, after being so involved with the N.Ireland peace process, would have been an implacable foe of faith schools. Why on earth would you want the children of a country segregated by the faith of their parents? How short-sighted, divisive and myopic a vision is that? What a destructive policy for the willful segregation of our society.

I was very pleasantly surprised when I came to England as a 14 year old from N.Ireland, that children here did not identify at all with the bigotry of the religious divides. Never, thankfully, as a youngster in England, did I hear other children identifying themselves by their religion, unlike today, tragically.

What a fool Blair is. No wonder he kept his religiousity under wraps when he was electioneering.

Other Comments by Vaal

31. Comment #359184 by DalaiDrivel on April 2, 2009 at 9:29 am

 avatarAh,

But the best part is yet to come, as in when the religulous believe him, a la Ed Current.

Such interpreters aren't too concerned with evidence, after all, and evidently this is sophisticated commentary for April Fool's. If evidence of sarcasm flew over my head, I'd be pretty bloody turned off by evidence in general too!

There may be something in that- a vicious circle. The believer ignores evidence, which creates an inability to see the evidence, which creates a dislike for it, which in turn creates further ignorance of it.

Heh, who knows. What really impresses me is that I accomplished that much thinking in the morning without a single cup of coffee!

We shall support the introduction of sharia courts, but on a strictly voluntary basis – only for those whose husbands and fathers freely choose it.


Indeed.

(Edited for perfectionism's sake...*)

Other Comments by DalaiDrivel

32. Comment #359185 by irate_atheist on April 2, 2009 at 9:30 am

 avatar27. Comment #359164 by friendlypig -

See my Comment #359134 by irate_atheist

Other Comments by irate_atheist

33. Comment #359198 by Lucas on April 2, 2009 at 9:46 am

 avatarThank you, lordpasternack. Second time in as many weeks that there has been an article here talking about "Aids".

And nice job, Richard, though the accompanying picture should be you in goofy face with your eyes crossed and wearing a propeller hat instead of the death stare.

Other Comments by Lucas

34. Comment #359201 by arwelroberts on April 2, 2009 at 9:50 am

 avatarThank you Richard for this magnificent parody of faith.

Other Comments by arwelroberts

35. Comment #359203 by Ruggles on April 2, 2009 at 9:51 am

In my view this is an incredibly unhelpful, sarcastic and snide piece.

I’m very sceptical of claims that we can assign blame for the world’s problems to one group of people or one particular phenomenon. “Get rid of religion/republicans/democracts/black people/the jews/hippies and most of the world’s problems will instantly disappear.” Come on!

Reality is much more complex than that.

Other Comments by Ruggles

36. Comment #359204 by Jake Sigren on April 2, 2009 at 9:52 am

 avatarWonderful work RD, it really was right on the money. Reconciling faith with science is an absolutely absurd endeavor but reconciling one faith with another is like the most ridiculous shit I've ever heard. I mean, do they actually think the message of "believe whatever you want to believe" is going to work out well for humanity£ What do we all say when someone comes along saying:

"Believers, make war on the infidels who dwell around you. Deal firmly with them." (Surah 9:121-)

Come on people, these beliefs and faiths are just as wonderful as everyone else's, we have to tolerate their intolerance!

Other Comments by Jake Sigren

37. Comment #359205 by prettygoodformonkeys on April 2, 2009 at 9:52 am

 avatarThoroughly enjoyed this skewering.

Other Comments by prettygoodformonkeys

38. Comment #359208 by hungarianelephant on April 2, 2009 at 9:58 am

 avatar35. Comment #359203 by Ruggles

Straw man, much?

Other Comments by hungarianelephant

39. Comment #359209 by DalaiDrivel on April 2, 2009 at 10:01 am

 avatarRuggles,

I’m very sceptical of claims that we can assign blame for the world’s problems to one group of people or one particular phenomenon.


You've got a red herring there, I think.

With so many of the world’s problems caused by religion, what better solution could there possibly be than to promote yet more of it?


The world's problems are not caused by religion exclusively, nor are all the world's problems, but many of them are, or at least are helped by religion, and that is true.

I'm certain that is the only point Richard is making, and not the one you have brought up.

(*Edited for clarity)

Other Comments by DalaiDrivel

40. Comment #359210 by Jake Sigren on April 2, 2009 at 10:01 am

 avatarComment #359203 by Ruggles
I don't think anyone here would say that getting rid of religious dogmatism would solve all the problems in the world. But it definately would help!!! And you disagree with our endeavor here to promote reason and a need for evidence to justify your thoughts/actions/beliefs£ You don't think this would make the world a better place if more people did this£

PS:(does anyone know why my question marks are being changed into pound signs£ See! There it goes again!)

Other Comments by Jake Sigren

41. Comment #359213 by Kraes85 on April 2, 2009 at 10:07 am

@rod-the-farmer:
I think humourous articles like this may be a very good tactic if Dawkins wants to avoid being labeled strident. I think it's hard to call someone strident if they have made you laugh. Instead, the critic of religion, hopefully, comes across as graceful and dignified, yet with a sense of humour. It may have to do with the rather intimate relationship between truth and comedy.

So, good job, Richard.

Other Comments by Kraes85

42. Comment #359218 by larhule on April 2, 2009 at 10:20 am

 avatarI'd like to see Richard Dawkins debate Christopher Hitchens on the war in Iraq. Too often I hear Dawkins' opinion on the war without much evidence of an understanding of the deeply complex nature of the situation. Hitchens is the most convincing proponent and therefore Dawkins' (and any public supporter) needs to address his points. If he is going to be a public figure with an opinion on this very important matter he should present the same level of evidence that he demands from those when he is debating evolution & religion.

Other Comments by larhule

43. Comment #359219 by Ruggles on April 2, 2009 at 10:21 am

"The world's problems are not caused by religion exclusively, nor are all the world's problems, but many of them are, or at least are helped by religion, and that is true." = DalaiDrivel

How do you know? Who are you to decide on what the world's "problems" are?

There are many decent things arising from religion. The support that the church offers to those unlucky enough to have been born without a loving family is tremendous. The Christian ethic of charity is much more committed than the liberal idea that we should throw money at the problem. Going back to Bradford's Plymouth Plantation, Christians offer their own time and their own home to help those sick and disabled through no fault of their own.

Simply declaring that religion should be banished and removed is a gross and almost fascistic simplification of the issue. The reality of the situation is much more complex. The question of religion is subtle and not one of simple epistemology. As a "refutation" of a narrative by which millions of people give their lives meaning, "the world is demonstrably not 6000 years old" is hopelessly irrelevant.

I submit that the decent and gentle faith of Rowan Williams, and his comportment and character when confronted with these questions, is far more appealing that the snide and strident tone takes in the above article.

The narrative truth that religion provides to people's lives, when moderate, is of much greater importance than the "objective" truth of those narratives. Nietzsche realised a hundred and fifty years ago that, contraty to Dawkins' belief, life is more important than truth. If science suggests that there is no purpose or value in life, wisdom should dictate that we do not want to know that truth.

Humans don't just interface with linear truth in exactly the same way that rocks and metals do. Who here would wish to know the exact date of their own death, or the date of the death of their loved ones?

Other Comments by Ruggles

44. Comment #359220 by Scep on April 2, 2009 at 10:26 am

Hey Ruggles, can you read? And if so are you trying to understand what you read?

Other Comments by Scep

45. Comment #359222 by Cents on April 2, 2009 at 10:30 am

Wonderful stuff. I would love to see and hear RD doing this live ala Youtube Video in the Pat Condell tradition.
This and the G20 summit has made my day.

Other Comments by Cents

46. Comment #359223 by zengardener on April 2, 2009 at 10:32 am

 avatarExcellent piece.

also Ruggles,
it is not the religious people that we want to be rid of. We want to be rid of their delusions. Without such nonsense cluttering up their minds, there is probably a great deal of worth.
Those on this board who were once religious can "testify".

Other Comments by zengardener

47. Comment #359224 by Scep on April 2, 2009 at 10:32 am

Ruggels: “Life is more important than truth. If science suggests that there is no purpose or value in life, wisdom should dictate that we do not want to know that truth”.

You said it all pal, now go fly your kite!

Other Comments by Scep

48. Comment #359225 by hyperdeath on April 2, 2009 at 10:33 am

Thatcher and Major, for all their faults, at least had the decency to retire gracefully. Blair, on the other hand, seems intent on turning himself into this decade's David Icke.

Other Comments by hyperdeath

49. Comment #359226 by WillM on April 2, 2009 at 10:34 am

 avatarReminds me of the Vicar's sermon in Private Eye (certainly the revoltingly over-enthusiastic exclamation marks are familiar!!!!)

Other Comments by WillM

50. Comment #359227 by Ruggles on April 2, 2009 at 10:35 am

Scep,

You didn't answer my question. Would you wish to know the exact date of your death, or the death of your loved ones? If not, life is more important than truth.

Other Comments by Ruggles
Reload Comments | Back to Top


Comment Entry: Please Login

Register a new account

Username:

Password:

This article is reposted from a website that accepts comments.
Why not share your comment on the article there as well? CLICK HERE