|
|
|
date: Fri, 30 May 2008 13:48:44 GMT,
group: uk.philosophy.humanism
back
Tony Blair aims to unleash religion as a force for unification, not extremism
Tony Blair aims to unleash religion as a force for unification, not
extremism
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
at 0:15 on May 30, 2008, EDT.
By Jered Stuffco, THE CANADIAN PRESS
TORONTO - While fundamentalists can use religion to create cultural
divisions and breed extremism, Tony Blair is calling on world leaders to
"get faith in action" and unleash shared moral values as a force for peace
and positive change.
"Religious values can inform globalization and make it more humane," Blair
said Thursday at a fundraising dinner for the Women's College Hospital in
Toronto.
The call to action comes as Blair, a former Anglican who converted to
Catholicism earlier this year, launches his Faith Foundation in New York on
Friday, a new project aiming to build bridges between religions through
dialogue and humanitarian work.
"Show (religion) doing something good" and it can be a powerful force, said
the former British prime minister, who added communities in Africa beset by
malaria could be better served through faith-based outreach.
At turns introspective and humorous, Blair also spoke about global forces,
like the emerging economies of China and India, and the need for western
democracies to react to an inevitable eastward shift of political and
economic power.
"A strong relationship (with China) is essential," Blair, adding that
Beijing plans to build more power stations in the next few years than all of
Europe has since the Second World War.
"All the time, the world is changing so rapidly - anyone who stands still
gets left behind."
Monumental shifts are also playing out at home, and Blair said governments
in Europe and North America shouldn't shy away from "big reforms" and
finding new ways of providing social services such as health care and
education.
For example, he pointed to public-private partnerships as a way to deliver
consumer-based health care at a time when "monolithic public services" have
become expensive and unwieldy.
Rather than an abandonment of our principles, though, Blair said adapting is
"a way of making our way of life relevant."
Blair should know.
He brought Britain's Labour party back into power after years in the
political wilderness by abandoning many of it founding principles.
Blair also reformed, sometimes painfully, Britain's health care system
during his decade at 10 Downing St.
While Blair's tenure as prime minister was marked by a controversial
decision to send British troops into Iraq, he now works as a Middle East
peace envoy, navigating the disparate political goals of the Europe, the
United Nations, Russia and the U.S.
"I've got an interesting line of accountability," he told a crowd of several
hundred who paid $750-per-plate for the evening.
But if anyone can walk the political tightrope, it's Blair.
He presided over the Good Friday Agreement in April 1998, which essentially
ended years of hostilities between the British government and the Irish
Republican Army.
"It was definitely one of those things people thought couldn't be done,"
said Blair, adding a solution also exists for the Palestinian-Israeli
conflict.
"It's either a two-state solution or a one state solution, in which case,
it's going to be a big fight," he said, adding leaders should work for the
latter.
"Without a solution between Israel and Palestine, there won't be peace in
the world, so we'd better get it done."
©The Canadian Press, 2008
date: Fri, 30 May 2008 13:48:44 GMT
author: graham
|
Re: Tony Blair aims to unleash religion as a force for unification,
not extremism
On May 30, 2:48 pm, "graham" wrote:
> Tony Blair aims to unleash religion as a force for unification, not
> extremism
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> at 0:15 on May 30, 2008, EDT.
> By Jered Stuffco, THE CANADIAN PRESS
> TORONTO - While fundamentalists can use religion to create cultural
> divisions and breed extremism, Tony Blair is calling on world leaders to
> "get faith in action" and unleash shared moral values as a force for peace
> and positive change.
Why not get the unfaithful in action as well? They share many moral
values
with the faithful.
> "Religious values can inform globalization and make it more humane," Blair
> said Thursday at a fundraising dinner for the Women's College Hospital in
> Toronto.
Notice how the spin-meister works! he's shifted from talking about
"moral values" to "religious values" without a bye or leave.
> "I've got an interesting line of accountability," he told a crowd of several
> hundred who paid $750-per-plate for the evening.
You can buy most of th ebook sof great philosophers for less than $40,
many are free on the internet. Strange wold when people would pay so
much to hear the potted ideas of this mediocre thinker.
> He presided over the Good Friday Agreement in April 1998, which essentially
> ended years of hostilities between the British government and the Irish
> Republican Army.
He was lucky. The time was ripe for this agreement. It just needed the
great leader not to do something really stupid. Something he mangaged,
for once.
> "It was definitely one of those things people thought couldn't be done,"
> said Blair, adding a solution also exists for the Palestinian-Israeli
> conflict.
Which people were that? The few things Blair is really good at are
spin, hair styling, and blowing his own horn.
> "It's either a two-state solution or a one state solution, in which case,
> it's going to be a big fight," he said, adding leaders should work for the
> latter.
I'd be choking on the meal by now, having just paid $750 for such
platitudes.
> "Without a solution between Israel and Palestine, there won't be peace in
> the world, so we'd better get it done."
I wonder if he's still got the soiled sheets he used in Balmoral? He
and his sad wife probably rut on them weekly.
Sorry for leaving you with that image :-)
date: Sat, 31 May 2008 06:31:02 -0700 (PDT)
author: Paul Grieg
|
Re: Tony Blair aims to unleash religion as a force for unification,
not extremism
On May 31, 3:31 pm, Paul Grieg wrote:
>
>
> Which people were that? The few things Blair is really good at are
> spin, hair styling, and blowing his own horn.
>
I'm not sure that he is good at 'spin', it isn't supposed to be a
matter of simply brazen-faced lying, it's supposed to be a little bit
more subtle than that.
date: Sat, 31 May 2008 06:35:36 -0700 (PDT)
author: Peter Brooks
|
Re: Tony Blair aims to unleash religion as a force for unification,
not extremism
On May 31, 2:35 pm, Peter Brooks wrote:
> On May 31, 3:31 pm, Paul Grieg wrote:
>
> > Which people were that? The few things Blair is really good at are
> > spin, hair styling, and blowing his own horn.
>
> I'm not sure that he is good at 'spin', it isn't supposed to be a
> matter of simply brazen-faced lying, it's supposed to be a little bit
> more subtle than that.
Point taken, I'll amend that sentence to "The only two things Blair is
good at are brazen-faced lying and blowing his own horn". The good
hair styling is in the past.
date: Sat, 31 May 2008 06:50:45 -0700 (PDT)
author: Paul Grieg
|
Re: Tony Blair aims to unleash religion as a force for unification, not extremism
"Paul Grieg" wrote in message
news:df2d6507-935b-4bee-a85e-3164cc929144@l64g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> On May 31, 2:35 pm, Peter Brooks wrote:
>> On May 31, 3:31 pm, Paul Grieg wrote:
>>
>> > Which people were that? The few things Blair is really good at are
>> > spin, hair styling, and blowing his own horn.
>>
>> I'm not sure that he is good at 'spin', it isn't supposed to be a
>> matter of simply brazen-faced lying, it's supposed to be a little bit
>> more subtle than that.
>
> Point taken, I'll amend that sentence to "The only two things Blair is
> good at are brazen-faced lying and blowing his own horn". The good
> hair styling is in the past.
He's at it again already:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/7427809.stm
The last sentence says it all!
date: Sat, 31 May 2008 14:14:02 GMT
author: graham
|
Re: Tony Blair aims to unleash religion as a force for unification,
not extremism
On May 31, 4:14 pm, "graham" wrote:
>
> > Point taken, I'll amend that sentence to "The only two things Blair is
> > good at are brazen-faced lying and blowing his own horn". The good
> > hair styling is in the past.
>
> He's at it again already:http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/7427809.stm
>
> The last sentence says it all!
>
Yes. It is unfortunate too that a man guilty of launching an illegal
war is likely to spent the rest of his life pretending to be a human
being instead of in prison.
date: Sat, 31 May 2008 08:15:43 -0700 (PDT)
author: Peter Brooks
|
Re: Tony Blair aims to unleash religion as a force for unification, not extremism
"Paul Grieg" wrote in message
news:092ed1eb-d8b1-4740-b26c-c3c3d7881936@j22g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
[snip]
> ... without a bye or leave.
Presumably that is a mondegreen of "without a by-your-leave", but it does
not seem to make any sense. What did you imagine it means?
date: Sun, 01 Jun 2008 04:07:37 GMT
author: Philip
|
Re: Tony Blair aims to unleash religion as a force for unification,
not extremism
On Jun 1, 6:07 am, "Philip" wrote:
> "Paul Grieg" wrote in message
>
> news:092ed1eb-d8b1-4740-b26c-c3c3d7881936@j22g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> [snip]
>
> > ... without a bye or leave.
>
> Presumably that is a mondegreen of "without a by-your-leave", but it does
> not seem to make any sense. What did you imagine it means?
>
Yes, I it must be a mondegreen as there is no obvious way a
typographical error could get there.
I thought that some sense could be made from the use of 'bye', as in
cricket, to mean a let or allowance - so 'leave' would be specific
permission and a 'bye' an allowance by some default.
date: Sat, 31 May 2008 22:03:35 -0700 (PDT)
author: Peter Brooks
|
Re: Tony Blair aims to unleash religion as a force for unification, not extremism
"Peter Brooks" wrote in message
news:54dc242b-17be-46ad-90a0-ad255f833cd3@k13g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>On Jun 1, 6:07 am, "Philip" wrote:
>> "Paul Grieg" wrote in message
>>
>> news:092ed1eb-d8b1-4740-b26c->c3c3d7881936@j22g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>> [snip]
>>
>> > ... without a bye or leave.
>>
>> Presumably that is a mondegreen of "without a by-your-leave", but it does
>> not seem to make any sense. What did you imagine it means?
>>
>Yes, I it must be a mondegreen as there is no obvious way a
>typographical error could get there.
>
>I thought that some sense could be made from the use of 'bye', as in
>cricket, to mean a let or allowance - so 'leave' would be specific
>permission and a 'bye' an allowance by some default.
Except that 'bye', in cricket, does not mean a let or allowance. But I was
more interested in finding out if Paul imagined he knew what he was talking
about.
date: Tue, 03 Jun 2008 01:12:53 GMT
author: Philip
|
Re: Tony Blair aims to unleash religion as a force for unification,
not extremism
On Jun 3, 3:12 am, "Philip" wrote:
> "Peter Brooks" wrote in message
>
> news:54dc242b-17be-46ad-90a0-ad255f833cd3@k13g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> >On Jun 1, 6:07 am, "Philip" wrote:
> >> "Paul Grieg" wrote in message
>
> >>news:092ed1eb-d8b1-4740-b26c->c3c3d7881__BEGIN_MASK_n#9g02mG7!__...__END_MASK_i?a63jfAD$z__@j22g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> >> [snip]
>
> >> > ... without a bye or leave.
>
> >> Presumably that is a mondegreen of "without a by-your-leave", but it does
> >> not seem to make any sense. What did you imagine it means?
>
> >Yes, I it must be a mondegreen as there is no obvious way a
> >typographical error could get there.
>
> >I thought that some sense could be made from the use of 'bye', as in
> >cricket, to mean a let or allowance - so 'leave' would be specific
> >permission and a 'bye' an allowance by some default.
>
> Except that 'bye', in cricket, does not mean a let or allowance. But I was
> more interested in finding out if Paul imagined he knew what he was talking
> about.
>
Well, I believe that it does. The batsman is awarded a run that he has
not scored by batting, he is allowed it (given it as a let) because
the bowler didn't bowl well. I can look up the OED definition if you
like, but I'm pretty sure that that is where it comes from.
Mondegreens usually seem to make some sense, as the name suggests,
though mine have always seemed rather peculiar to me.
date: Mon, 2 Jun 2008 19:12:38 -0700 (PDT)
author: Peter Brooks
|
Re: Tony Blair aims to unleash religion as a force for unification, not extremism
>
>"Peter Brooks" wrote in message
> >news:f665d02d-f510-4770-a96f->db24afa60270@y38g2000hsy.googlegroups.com...
>On Jun 3, 3:12 am, "Philip" wrote:
>>> "Peter Brooks" wrote in message
>.>
>.>
>news:54dc242b-17be-46ad-90a0->>ad255f833cd3@k13g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> >On Jun 1, 6:07 am, "Philip" wrote:
>>> >> "Paul Grieg" wrote in message
>>
>> >>news:092ed1eb-d8b1-4740-b26c->>c3c3d7881__BEGIN_MASK_n#9g02mG7!__...__END_MASK_i?>a63jfAD$z__@j22g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>> >> [snip]
>>
>> >> > ... without a bye or leave.
>>
>> >> Presumably that is a mondegreen of "without a by-your-leave", but it
>> >> does
>> >> not seem to make any sense. What did you imagine it means?
>>
>> >Yes, I it must be a mondegreen as there is no obvious way a
>> >typographical error could get there.
>>
>> >I thought that some sense could be made from the use of 'bye', as in
>> >cricket, to mean a let or allowance - so 'leave' would be specific
>> >permission and a 'bye' an allowance by some default.
>>
>> Except that 'bye', in cricket, does not mean a let or allowance. But I
>> was
>> more interested in finding out if Paul imagined he knew what he was
>> talking
>> about.
>>
>Well, I believe that it does. The batsman is awarded a run that he has
>not scored by batting, he is allowed it (given it as a let) because
>the bowler didn't bowl well. I can look up the OED definition if you
>like, but I'm pretty sure that that is where it comes from.
I like the idea of blaming the bowler for missing the bat!
date: Tue, 03 Jun 2008 22:24:26 GMT
author: Philip
|
Re: Tony Blair aims to unleash religion as a force for unification,
not extremism
On Jun 4, 12:24 am, "Philip" wrote:
> >"Peter Brooks" wrote in message
> > >news:f665d02d-f510-4770-a96f->db24afa60__BEGIN_MASK_n#9g02mG7!__...__END_MASK_i?a63jfAD$z__@y38g2000hsy.googlegroups.com...
> >On Jun 3, 3:12 am, "Philip" wrote:
> >>> "Peter Brooks" wrote in message
> >.>
> >.>
> >news:54dc242b-17be-46ad-90a0->>ad255f833__BEGIN_MASK_n#9g02mG7!__...__END_MASK_i?a63jfAD$z__@k13g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>
> >>> >On Jun 1, 6:07 am, "Philip" wrote:
> >>> >> "Paul Grieg" wrote in message
>
> >> >>news:092ed1eb-d8b1-4740-b26c->>c3c3d7881__BEGIN_MASK_n#9g02mG7!__...__END_MASK_i?>a63jfAD$__BEGIN_MASK_n#9g02mG7!__...__END_MASK_i?a63jfAD$z__@j22g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> >> >> [snip]
>
> >> >> > ... without a bye or leave.
>
> >> >> Presumably that is a mondegreen of "without a by-your-leave", but it> >> >> does
> >> >> not seem to make any sense. What did you imagine it means?
>
> >> >Yes, I it must be a mondegreen as there is no obvious way a
> >> >typographical error could get there.
>
> >> >I thought that some sense could be made from the use of 'bye', as in
> >> >cricket, to mean a let or allowance - so 'leave' would be specific
> >> >permission and a 'bye' an allowance by some default.
>
> >> Except that 'bye', in cricket, does not mean a let or allowance. But I
> >> was
> >> more interested in finding out if Paul imagined he knew what he was
> >> talking
> >> about.
>
> >Well, I believe that it does. The batsman is awarded a run that he has
> >not scored by batting, he is allowed it (given it as a let) because
> >the bowler didn't bowl well. I can look up the OED definition if you
> >like, but I'm pretty sure that that is where it comes from.
>
> I like the idea of blaming the bowler for missing the bat!
>
Mmm. Yes, well, as a very poor bowler, it did seem to me that that was
why they were awarded....
The proper point is, I think, that the bye is awarded because the
batsman hasn't hit the ball, but has still got a run. If the bowler
was bowling well then it wouldn't be a bye, the batsman would be out,
because the ball would have hit the stumps. So the poor bowling isn't
poor because of missing the bat, but because of missing the stumps.
I never imagined that I'd find myself discussing cricket with
anybody...let alone its rules, it was bad enough playing the bloody
game.
date: Wed, 4 Jun 2008 01:01:02 -0700 (PDT)
author: Peter Brooks
|
Re: Tony Blair aims to unleash religion as a force for unification, not extremism
"Peter Brooks" wrote in message
news:b516b400-fc28-46e1-b8e4-375617795f04@2g2000hsn.googlegroups.com...
>On Jun 4, 12:24 am, "Philip" wrote:
>>
>> I like the idea of blaming the bowler for missing the bat!
>>
>Mmm. Yes, well, as a very poor bowler, it did seem to me that that was
>why they were awarded....
>
>The proper point is, I think, that the bye is awarded because the
>batsman hasn't hit the ball, but has still got a run. If the bowler
>was bowling well then it wouldn't be a bye, the batsman would be out,
>because the ball would have hit the stumps. So the poor bowling isn't
>poor because of missing the bat, but because of missing the stumps.
A bye is counted against the wicket-keeper, not the bowler.
date: Sun, 08 Jun 2008 09:51:11 GMT
author: Philip
|
Re: Tony Blair aims to unleash religion as a force for unification,
not extremism
On Jun 8, 11:51 am, "Philip" wrote:
> "Peter Brooks" wrote in message
>
> news:b516b400-fc28-46e1-b8e4-375617795f04@2g2000hsn.googlegroups.com...
>
> >On Jun 4, 12:24 am, "Philip" wrote:
>
> >> I like the idea of blaming the bowler for missing the bat!
>
> >Mmm. Yes, well, as a very poor bowler, it did seem to me that that was
> >why they were awarded....
>
> >The proper point is, I think, that the bye is awarded because the
> >batsman hasn't hit the ball, but has still got a run. If the bowler
> >was bowling well then it wouldn't be a bye, the batsman would be out,
> >because the ball would have hit the stumps. So the poor bowling isn't
> >poor because of missing the bat, but because of missing the stumps.
>
> A bye is counted against the wicket-keeper, not the bowler.
>
Ah, well, we learn something new every day.
date: Sun, 8 Jun 2008 02:55:19 -0700 (PDT)
author: Peter Brooks
|
|
|