« Gender as a nonnegotiable gift | Main | New York City as the Babylon of Libertarian paternalists »

Saturday, 13 November 2010



The FIRST difference, and there are countless - Bush and Blair do NOT kill their own people.

Want another difference? OK, neither Bush nor Blair belong to a religion which is directed to "kill the unbeliever".

Another difference? Bush and Blair believe in democracy. REAL democracy.

Another difference? Bush and Blair believe in religious inclusivity at home and overseas.

Amanutjob would happily lock up or perhaps even kill you, me and any kufar, non-muslim or muslim, who didn't subscribe to HIS worldview.

Apart from that, you're right. What's the difference?

Christelle Nadia

Hum, you are making distinctions without differences for your point is simply that Bush and Blair are better because they are not Ahmadinejad. You seem to believe that some human lives have greater values than others and that some forms of extremism are acceptable if they don't make you feel uncomfortable. That's all well and good, but you are neither persuasive nor rational for your sole point is that you like Blair and really resent the idea that he might have something in common with Ahmadinejad. My point is precisely that because I refuse to let my feelings limit my reason, I cannot make a difference between moralism and fundamentalism especially when the argument of the moralist and the fundamentalist is that the goal of their political choices is to accomplish moral aims. The point is NOT that Bush and Blair = Ahmadinejad, but that as Ahmadinejad, they are too obsessed with God and the idea that their politics is following its/her/his wishes. That's what a little thing called nuance enables people to do.

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo

My book

Blog Widget by LinkWithin

En Français



My french blog feed

site meter

Creative Common License

  • Creative Commons License
    This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 2.5 License.