Discussion by: catphil
Tony Blair, writing in the Observer (26 Jan), said that religious extremism has become the biggest source of conflict around the world.
Referring to wars and violent confrontations in places like Syria, Iraq, Nigeria, Central African Republic and the Philippines, Blair argued that "there is one thing self-evidently in common: the acts of terrorism are perpetrated by people motivated by an abuse of religion. It is a perversion of faith."
He says: "The battles of this century are less likely to be the product of extreme political ideology, like those of the 20th century – but they could easily be fought around the questions of cultural or religious difference."
The promotion of religious tolerance, both within and between countries, Blair stated, will be key to fostering peaceful outcomes around the world in the 21st century.
Although not a fan of Blair, I think he may have a point this time. But would not the promotion of secularism (science and reason!) be even more effective? To the extent that the number and influence of “faith-believers” and of active promoters (pastors, imams, etc…) – each propagating their own brand of competing faith – is reduced, there would surely be less occasion for the alleged “perversion” or “abuse” of the various faiths concerned.