Comments on: Tony Blair on Faith and Globalization

By: Richard Irvine

Richard Irvine — Mon, 29 Sep 2008 00:20:47 +0000

I think the main thing this shows is that Universities like marketing gimmicks, which is what this is. The chances of Blair having something profound to say are about the same as my hens laying golden eggs – anybody who’d read a sample of his speeches, interviews, etc could have told you that. Sure, he’s done a lot to cause people from a particular religious group to feel alienated, and joined another religious group in an act of breathtaking double-facedness considering how contrary to the teaching of that religious group he ran during his time in office. So he himself is an interesting case study in ‘faith’ as it plays out on the global stage. But I can think of thousands of people better qualified to talk on this topic. Why are they not asked to give a lecture course, and Blair is? Because it’s a nice bit of publicity for Yale. I just hope that this came out of the advertising budget rather than the budget for teaching on the subjects of religion or globalisation.

By: Yale anthro student

Yale anthro student — Sun, 28 Sep 2008 17:23:15 +0000

The course has been presented to Yale in a very top-down sort of way. For one thing, Blair clearly sees globalization as inevitable and religious dogma as a parochial force (therefore implicitly premodern, given the inevitability of globalization). The implied message to students is something like: only if you, young leaders, take it upon yourselves to engage in rational, moderate interfaith dialogue will our world move forward.

I applied for the class on a whim, because I figured that a class for which they considered me qualified (my coursework has focused on globalization) might be a class worth taking. I didn’t get in and given the top-down, rationalistic bias of the course I’m sure that’s a good thing.

By: Fred

Fred — Sun, 28 Sep 2008 16:53:14 +0000

I don’t know what it is with politicians, in general, but most don’t seem to have anything new or insightful to say. I think the political process is much at fault. For the most part, politicians are legislators-pushing bills through to make new laws, and the intricacies of gaining support and modifying legislation to appeal to a wide body consumes so much of their energies. Platitudes (bites, etc, that play well to the base)are the end result. We are having a federal election in Canada at this moment, and not one of the parties is coming up with anything new, interesting, or sends a ruch of blood through your veins. It’s all aimed at targeted audiences, and hopefully (from a party’s point of view)shredding the opposing parties votes. If you ever listen to past politicians talk (Mulroney, Chretien in Canada) all you get is insights into political manouvering, polls and strategies for parilmentary debates. So I’m not too surprised by Blair’s sort of blandness of globalization etc; however, I would be interested in what Blair has to say on how to make the political process work in terms of globalization etc.

By: Yoni

Yoni — Sun, 28 Sep 2008 16:28:07 +0000

LOL: “We can break down faith to three parts when we describe it objectively in our world.”

Wow, Blair’s portion was so bad it could have been spoken by Sarah Palin. I do think, however, that Volf looked like he had something to contribute, but held himself back to remain in the background to Blair’s high-profile rep.

All in all, a hilarious 39 minutes.