I don't know what Tony Blair's actual views are (He used to be Prime Minister of Britain. But he isn't any more. He has converted to Catholicism–something he waited to do until he left office, for to avoid breaking the law), but he inadvisedly let Michael Gerson explain them. Gerson writes:
But Blair is also critical of an "aggressive secularization," which, he told me, makes it easier to "forget a higher calling than the fulfillment of our own desires." Religious faith, at its best, not only encourages idealism, it provides an explanation and foundation for human rights and dignity, "an inalienable principle, rising above relativism and expediency." This does not "eliminate the painful compromises of political existence," Blair recognizes. But it does mean that "not everything can be considered in a utilitarian way." Blair defends a pluralism without relativism, a tolerance consistent with a belief in religious and moral truth — indeed, a tolerance that arises from within those convictions.
That view–that religious faith "provides an explanation and foundation for human rights" seems to be slightly self-refuting–it suggests that atheists (or for that matter people whose religious views differ from Blair's and Gerson's) cannot explain human rights. It rejects pluralism at the same time that it purports to embrace it. We embrace pluralism, one who affirms this view might say, it's just that you're an amoral or an immoral relativist–which has no place in our pluralistic view.
He might say, of course, certain religious doctrines or faiths are not inconsistent with political and moral and religious pluralism. And that pluralism of the political, moral, and religious variety is not the sole property of any one member of the plural. He might. But he didn't.
jcasey, I don’t think the author of the article went as far as to claim or even suggest that only religious faith provides an explanation and foundation for human rights. The author only suggest that the religious faith provides the best of all explanations. As for pluralism, maybe I don’t understand what exactly you mean by it. But just claiming that one system of belief is better than other does not make you automatically anti-pluralist. Is the Dali Lama anti-pluralist when he claims that Tibetan Buddhism is “the highest and complete form of Buddhism” ?
I can appreciate your claim BN. I think what I claim here is both a little uncharitable and probably very much unclear. If I were to revise and expand I’d say Gerson needs only to make the negative case at the end–his particular religious faith tradition is not inimical to (religious, moral, etc.) pluralism, but rather embraces at a central feature of the doctrine. Gerson’s categorical assertion (which suggests that there are not alternative explanations) coupled with his distorted views of non-metaphysical liberalism (I made that term up–I mean liberalism that does not rest on comprehensive metaphysical claims) makes me want to be uncharitable. The alternative to his particular religious faith (which I stress because other faith traditions may be radically at odds with him–just think of Hagee and Parsely) is not amoral relativism or “utilitarianism.” Gerson ought, in other words, be more charitable to secularism.
Good points. I guess that’s a good way to define pluralism: charity. Not that all ideas have equal value, but all deserve some level of respect and charity.
Wow. That many false dichotomies in one paragraph is simply impressive. The astonishingly stupid kind of impressive.
“aggressive secularization,” makes it easier to “forget a higher calling than the fulfillment of our own desires.”
There are our desires and there are “higher callings” whatever the hell those are. Take your pick, peons.
“Religious faith… provides an explanation and foundation for human rights and dignity…rising above relativism and expediency.””
You got faith or you got relativism, biatches.
“not everything can be considered in a utilitarian way.”
You got yer faith and you got yer utilitarianism. Who’s side you want to be on? Remember, Singer wants to kill old people and retarded people. And old retarded people? You can bet they’re up a brown creek without a paddle.
“Blair defends a pluralism without relativism”
Hie-Ohh!
“a tolerance consistent with a belief in religious and moral truth”
’cause you can’t have tolerance AND belief. At least, not consistently.
“— indeed, a tolerance that arises from within those convictions.”
See what I mean?
Blair is also critical of an “aggressive secularization,” which, he told me, makes it easier to “forget a higher calling than the fulfillment of our own desires.” Religious faith, at its best, not only encourages idealism, it provides an explanation and foundation for human rights and dignity, “an inalienable principle, rising above relativism and expediency.”
“Human rights and Dignity”? ‘s argument can be refuted with one word: Iraq. (I’m sorry, I couldn’t resist.)