In a BBC profile of the Philippines, where the government has been battling communist insurgents for decades, and where well over 100,000 people have died in the struggle with the mostly Muslim inhabitants who are seeking to create an independent Islamic state in the large southern island of Mindanao, the concluding two paragraphs read as follows:
The Philippines has the highest birth rate in Asia, and forecasters say the population could double within three decades.
Governments generally avoid taking strong measures to curb the birth rate for fear of antagonising the Catholic Church, which opposes artificial methods of contraception.
Yet Tony Blair (one time Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, now religious huckster), in an Op Ed in today’s Guardian, “Faith and Globalisation in the Philippines Hidden Civil War“, suggests that his Foundation (The Tony Blair Faith Foundation*) is going to help the people of the Philippines come together in mutual understanding. What is needed, he thinks — and he announces, in today’s Op Ed, that what is needed in this country, which is still waging the second oldest civil war in the world (or “tragic dispute”, as Blair calls it), after the Sudan, is “faith-based programmes that promote peaceful coexistence.”
Here’s what the Tony Blair Faith Foundation will do in its two-pronged attack on the problem:
The foundation will be working closely with the government on two levels. In the first place we will be working with the ministry of education to bring our “Face to Faith” programme into Filipino public schools. This programme will provide the next generation of Filipino leaders with the opportunity to learn essential communication skills while also gaining greater understanding of interfaith dialogue and the role of religion in the world.
Second, we will work with the commission for higher education, the office of the peace process and a consortium of universities in the foundation’s Faith and Globalisation initiative.
Now, I would be the last to suggest that trying to bring about some kind of understanding and amity between competing religious groups is unimportant. But has it never occurred to him that one of the most urgent needs of this country is an effective programme to control the birth-rate?
The BBC profile of the Philippines says that:
Although it once boasted one of the region’s best-performing economies, the Philippines is saddled with a large national debt and tens of millions of people live in poverty.
Tens of millions live in poverty! And not one word from Tony Blair about coming to grips with the high birth-rate — which may reasonably be thought to be a significant part of the problem. And not one word either that his newly adopted Roman Catholicism, which dominates the country, is an enormous road block to development, because of its ridiculous opposition to birth control.
Blair recognises that religion is part of the problem. As he says:
But we cannot hope to establish peace without accepting that religion is part of the problem, and therefore must become part of the solution.
But not one word about birth control? Am I the only one who sees the wilful blindness here? A country with the highest birth-rate in Asia, a staggering national debt, millions living in poverty, civil war, and the only thing Blair can think of is bringing his faith-based initiatives to bear on the problem of the relationship between religions. Bring the people together so that they can understand each other’s faith commitments! Give the children a good religious upbringing where they can learn, not only about their own faith, but about the faith of others. Bring them up in a world stuffed full with religions and their claims and counterclaims. This must be the answer!
The mind simply reels at the stupendous empty spaces between Blair’s ears! Did it never occur to him — not even once? — that religion’s being such a large part of the problem indicates that perhaps faith-based initiatives are not what is needed? Might it not be better to lessen the hold that religion has over the minds of so many, so that people can, at last, tackle the problems of overpopulation and disease without having to watch what they say, lest they offend some religion or other, or trample on sacred ground? Can he not see that religion, being part of the problem, may simply rule it out as being part of the solution?
Religions are totalising forms of life. That is, they seek to control every aspect of a person’s life, whether in bed, in the office, in the community, in one’s moments of solitude. That is why, wherever and whenever religion is in the ascendent, individual autonomy is considered thoughtless wilfulness, and severe restrictions are placed on the right of people to live and think as they please. Outward shows of allegiance to and respect for the dominant religion are demanded, and minority religious expression is curbed and marginalised, and the pressure to convert to the majority religion increases. In order to achieve the supposedly “perfect” society, what the religious think of as relativism turns into monotonism. There is one right answer to every question, and for the good of all this answer must be enforced.
In Blair’s rosy-eyed view of what his faith-based initiative can do for the Philippines, he does not mention, not once, the strenuous opposition that the Catholic Church in the Philippines has mounted against sex education in the schools. According to a BBC report:
Senior bishops believe the task of telling children about sex and relationships should be up to parents, not teachers, and that teaching sex education in schools, especially to young children, could have unintended consequences.
“Children are fragile creatures. The [education] department should be very, very careful not to teach children about matters they will imitate the following day,” said Monsignor Pedro Quitorio, a spokesman for the highly influential Catholic Bishops Conference.
He also said he did not agree with the view that a high birth rate traps people in poverty.
“He also said he did not agree …” He may not agree, but is it plausible to suppose that this disagreement is based on anything more than church dogma? And yet, into this situation, Blair thinks introducing a faith-based initiative in the schools will be particularly helpful. Unless he is prepared to accept the harm that his church is doing in so much of the world by its totally unrealistic notion of what sex is, and what it is for, then faith-based anything is the last thing the Philippines needs. What they need is someone who can think clearly, not someone whose mind is packed with the woolly-mindedness of religion.
_____________________
*Did Blair never read Jesus’ warning not to let the right hand know what the left is doing? Or the other one about those who seek recognition for their good deeds in this world. “They have already received their reward,” he told his disciples.
““Children are fragile creatures. The [education] department should be very, very careful not to teach children about matters they will imitate the following day,” said Monsignor Pedro Quitorio, a spokesman for the highly influential Catholic Bishops Conference.”
That is just about the best statement ever, now all he needs to do is relate it to religious teaching.
Blair sez:
But we cannot hope to establish peace without accepting that religion is part of the problem, and therefore must become part of the solution.
Let try this:
But we cannot hope to establish health without accepting that small pox is part of the problem, and therefore must become part of the solution.
Hmm, perhaps the thing to do is the eradicate religion just like we did small pox.
And in the catering to superannuated pedophiles department:
Senior bishops believe the task of telling children about sex and relationships should be up to parents, not teachers, and that teaching sex education in schools, especially to young children, could have unintended consequences.
For example, they could learn enough about human sexuality to avoid getting raped by a catholic priest.
‘This programme will provide the next generation of Filipino leaders with the opportunity to learn essential communication skills while also gaining greater understanding of interfaith dialogue and the role of religion in the world.’
Surely, the most appalling thing about this is the sheer blind, unweening arrogance of it – an arrogance that derives from Britain’s colonialist history, coupled here with catholic self-righteousness; who the devil is Blair that he – or his foundation that it – is in a position to tell Asians how they should behave?
The “religion and science compatibility industry” ignores the continuing incompatibility – that overpopulation and poverty are not related, that condom use does not reduce HIV infection, that sex education does not reduce unwanted pregnancy and sexually transmitted disease, that homosexuality is a disorder. This is just the RCC, the so-called moderate faction claimed to accept evolution. If their modern views are this anti-science, then how can we believe that they were ever pro-science? The only thing we can conclude is they accept science so long as it doesn’t conflict with dogma, but compatible – hardly.
Tony Blair seems to be saying things with two voices, which makes me wonder sometimes if he is in fact a wily political realist and pragmatist, in other words, a moderate of the purest kind. And so he’s perfectly happy to on the one hand promote the secular values of liberal or social democracy–even prepared to go to war and force them on others–while on the other hand promote the opposite values of faith and religion.
But, the values he’s promoting, whether democracy or religious are empty values, and not his real concern. His real agenda is his romantic kind of socialism and social justice. And the only way he can get anything done is to join with the faithful.
I wonder sometimes if Tony Blair is actually an ally, a kind of secret double agent prepared to pretend to be a believer in order to create reform and eliminate extremism. We actually share many of his goals, and yet, he appears to be in the enemy camp. It’s like he’s in two Trojan horses–the one of his own creation, his dream of social justice and the one he’s not aware of, the catholic church’s thirst for power.
You can explain the Church’s behaviour most easily in terms of evolutionary psychology in two ways. One is sadomasochism and the other antisex.
Humans are predatory animals and like cats torturing mice or dogs tearing up sheep for the fun of it, we love to see others suffer. It’s an adaptation that evolved and made us the top and eventually the only hominid. Sadism is easy to explain but masochism is more complex. Humans are cruel animals but we’re also social animals and that means a hierarchy. For an alpha to dominate there must also evolve a willingness to submit– and to feel pleasure in that submission– otherwise the alphas victims would just run away or otherwise fail to cooperate. Social order becomes impossible. The RCC has just elevated these social animal instincts to a divine status.
I credit my Catholic education with curing me of religion. I recoiled from the whole cult of sacred suffering– the idea that god sends suffering as a precious gift.
Nothing will more surely cause suffering in the greatest number of people than overpopulation. The Church philosophers claim to be rational agents. If a rational agent with a persistent policy gets a consistent result then you can’t argue that that result wasn’t the purpose of the policy. I’m sure that the Catholic toffs must read Thomas Malthus with one hand.
With some exceptions social animals have evolved two separate sex drives, the familiar one that makes you want it for yourself and the other one that makes you become enraged at someone else getting some. The one spreads your genes and the other prevents others doing the same so that your offspring get the resources. The pleasurable contemplation of the one makes us print pornography and the anger generated by the other passes laws against it.
@ #6 Kevin Alexander, I would be a lot more cautious in using evolution in explaining the complexities of the psychology of Catholicism, because I think culture plays a stronger role in controlling human behaviour. What makes Catholicism particularly prone to cruelty is that the elites sacrifice themselves from kin and family, into a life of celibacy. In doing so, their natural inclinations to seek pleasure forms into more twisted directions, involving sexual cruelty and sexual abuse. I think such gelded elites only corrupt a healthy society and parasitically live off it, and that explains why they need to subjugate women above all, into baby machines. I do not believe that we naturally gain pleasure in the suffering of others, but it is a tendency due to our impotence in modern society.
I have also noticed that Catholics tend to infantalilize themselves, so they both behave and become obsessed by children. This tendency seems to cross all over nations and continents, and such immature mental states are probably required in order to sustain the culture. I also notice a similar infantalilization among muslims.
“Can he not see that religion, being part of the problem, may simply rule it out as being part of the solution?”
Just so, as steve hinted above with the smallpox comparison.
It’s such a stupid thing to say – it’s part of the problem therefore must be part of the solution – it’s as if he thinks religion is a naughty child who made a mess in the kitchen and therefore must clean it up. Religion is not like a naughty child making messes, it’s like a shit ideology injecting its poison into everything!
God I despise Blair – relentlessly shilling for the Catholic church. It’s disgusting.
@Egbert I completely agree with you that culture explains the complexity of the forms that human passions take. My point is that the underlying mechanism is fairly simple. In the same way that we are born with a language instinct that then gets culturally expressed in different languages, we are also born with a suite of passions that get expressed by culture in different forms. The Catholic church just took our propensity for sex and violence and for antisex and antiviolence and twisted them into particularly hideous forms.
You make a good point in seeing that Catholics and others infantilize themselves. Humans are neotenous creatures. We don’t just have baby faces, we have baby minds. In most higher animals the parent/infant bond fades as the offspring ages. There’s just less and less oxytocin being released. Even if the parent retains it’s response to cuteness the progeny becomes less cute as it ages. We are one of the exceptions to this rule. There’s a reason why we call our lover baby. Where other animals just f**k and only in season, we love to cuddle and spoon all the time. We have also artificially selected our dogs to do the same thing.
I like the metaphor of the brain as a chinese kitchen. There may be only a dozen or two pots of inherited ingredients but these few are combined to get the hundreds of things on the menu. The dishes that the Catholics serve up taste pretty foul to me but they seem to love them. I guess it’s an acquired taste.
Ophelia (#8). I have to say that I despise Blair too. It’s the way he simpers in a quasi-clerical way that gets me every time. He is a shill for the catholic church, and a particular self-centred one too. The Tony Blair Foundation: how dreadfully camp can you get?!
Tony Blair, or as he is affectionately known in many parts of the UK, Mr B. Liar is also noted for having more faces than the Town Hall clock which, of ocurse, has only 4.
Whilst he struts around larges areas of the globe, in a similar fashion to Mick Jagger – without the music, preaching to one and all about ‘the true religion’ etc etc and totally ignoring birth control, his wife, the redoubtable Cherie struggles as barrister and judge. About five years ago they were both interviewed for a BBC documentary and the question of religion and birth control was raised and, Cherie Blair was asked if she and her recently converted husband practised birth control. Her answer, ‘f course, we don’t want to breed like rabbits’. she went on to sate that everyobdy she knew (and I took it that this was all her RC friends) also practised BC.
It was only a few weeks later that they both visited the Vatican where they had a private audience with the Pope. In view of the publicity caused be the revelation concerning th Blair’s BC habit it is inconceibable that Rome was not aware.
So hypocrites to the fore and do as I say!