home
RSS
My Take: 10 dos and don'ts for religion and democracy
In France, a woman protests the country's recently adopted ban on burqas in public.
November 11th, 2011
09:38 AM ET

My Take: 10 dos and don'ts for religion and democracy

Editor's Note: Tony Blair, Prime Minister of the United Kingdom from 1997 to 2007, is founder and patron of the Tony Blair Faith Foundation. He gave a speech in Italy on Friday on why the protection of religious freedom should be a priority for all democracies.

By Tony Blair, Special to CNN

1. DO have democracy-friendly religion and religion-friendly democracies.

2. DON’T think you understand democracy if you think it’s only about elections: it’s about a culture and mindset which includes freedom of thought, freedom of expression, political and religious pluralism, and human rights.

3. DO maintain equality of treatment for different religions within the law as a core element of the secular state.

4. DON’T duck difficult conflicts involving religious and secular ideas: discuss them openly.

5. DON’T rush to legislation to solve religious conflict; instead seek first to resolve it by discussion and accommodations.

6. DON’T allow religious schools to opt out of the same national standards and core curriculum that you expect of everyone else.

7. DO listen to religious voices on social, political and economic issues, and allow people to justify their views on explicitly religious grounds if they want.

8. DO insist on religious leaders making their case by reasoned argument not by bald assertion or authoritarian claims. Insist on that for atheists and secular leaders too.

9. DO NOT allow religious voices to have dominance in the public sphere if they cannot achieve majority support through democratic means.

10. DO ensure, whether the overwhelming democratic choice is either an atheist state or one dominant religion, that the voices of religious minorities and those who have no faith are protected.

Remember that none of us are qualified to state with certainty the will of God – so humility, openness to others, and interfaith dialogue are all essential for a healthy society.

The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Tony Blair.

- CNN Belief Blog

Filed under: Opinion • Politics

soundoff (382 Responses)
  1. johndenton46

    DON'T join in with a bunch of zionist neocons who want to rule the world.

    November 11, 2011 at 4:17 pm |
  2. Chuck

    Bravo, Mr. Blair, bravo!

    November 11, 2011 at 3:57 pm |
    • David in Cincinnati

      Chuck didn't notice what happened over the past decade.

      November 11, 2011 at 6:51 pm |
  3. tony

    Religion is best explained by "Roman Catholic Church welcomes 21st Century incredible liar and mass murderer for oil riches, Tony Blair"

    November 11, 2011 at 3:50 pm |
    • Nietzsche

      Give it a rest you moron.

      November 11, 2011 at 3:55 pm |
  4. Zee

    It is quite strange that most people come to senses when they have lost all the power!

    November 11, 2011 at 3:48 pm |
  5. CNNReader

    Here are the actual dos and donts of Tony Blair....Do everything Jews asked you to do..for money......
    do kill innocent muslims for money power...
    do lie all the time
    do keep a straight face
    dont ever say no to killing muslims
    dont ever say no to jews
    dont ever tell the truth
    path to success goes over a graveyard of innocent muslims

    November 11, 2011 at 3:45 pm |
    • Pedro

      There is no getting around the fact that not all muslims are innocent. Was Bin Laden an innocent muslim? Are the talibans innocent in their actions towards both their own people and the West? It would be hypocrite to deny it.

      November 11, 2011 at 5:09 pm |
  6. Bo

    @ Bob, I'm at the library, I've have been trying to copy and paste, but for some reason it doesn't work, and now I've used up my time. I'll have to try this some other time. I may have to type it all out. And it is kind'a long.

    November 11, 2011 at 3:30 pm |
    • Huh?

      So you still haven't found the reply button...pathetic.

      November 11, 2011 at 3:32 pm |
  7. ddblah

    Like all.

    November 11, 2011 at 3:29 pm |
  8. PJ

    Who really cares what Bush's Poodle thinks?

    November 11, 2011 at 3:21 pm |
  9. Robert

    Muslim countries, please take note!!!! Especially with regards to #2, democracy is impossible without equal treatment of ALL faiths under the rule of law.

    November 11, 2011 at 3:15 pm |
  10. HeavenSent

    Dr. Zeuss, what part of Jesus' truth do you refuse to comprehend?

    Christ wasn't born on December 25th (it was circa September 29th). However, Christ did enter the world on or about December 25th (the approx. date of His conception in Mary's womb). The Messiah from God, Jesus the Christ, entered this world at that time. “He hath done this” (Psalms 22:31)—all that Jesus Christ has done for us Christians, and that the Lord God had made it so.

    Matthew 1:18-25

    18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to [en-gaged to marry] Joseph, before they came together [before se-x-ual in-ter-co-urse], she was found with child [pre-g-nant] of the Holy Ghost.
    19 Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a publick example [to not embarrass her publically with a perceived in-fid-elity], was minded to put her away [divorce] privily [privately, instead of telling the whole town that she was pr-egnant and not by him].
    20 But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that [Jesus] which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.
    21 And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins ["Jesus" is the Greek word for the Hebrew name, Jehoshua' (Joshua); and Joshua in Hebrew means "Jehovah the Savior." Thus this Jesus ("Jehovah the Savior") was "God with us" (Emmanuel)].
    22 Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying,
    23 Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel [fulfilling Isaiah 7:14], which being interpreted [translated] is, God with us.
    24 Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife [he married her]:
    25 And knew her not [NO se-x-ual in-ter-co-urse] till [until after] she had brought forth [delivered, bore] her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.

    Amen.

    November 11, 2011 at 2:49 pm |
    • warmesTghosT

      Could you point me to a single historical text outside the Bible that references that an Arabic Jew named Yeshua ever existed?

      Do any records exist anywhere of his birth, ministry, deeds or death, outside of the Bible?

      Are there any contemporaneous works of literature that substantiate even for a moment that anyone named Jesus the Christ even ever existed?

      No?

      Thanks then. Thanks but no thanks.

      November 11, 2011 at 3:05 pm |
    • Tom

      warmesTghosT, ever heard of Josephus the historian?

      November 11, 2011 at 3:17 pm |
    • warmesTghosT

      I have, Tom.

      He was born after Jesus died, and therefore is not a credible witness. If you have any others I will debunk them as well.

      November 11, 2011 at 3:25 pm |
    • Fookin' Prawn

      Your approach in every single post is so incredibly offputting that I have to wonder whether you're actually trying to scare people off.

      November 11, 2011 at 3:33 pm |
    • HeavenSent

      warmesTghosT, you babbled the following nonsense "Could you point me to a single historical text outside the Bible that references that an Arabic Jew named Yeshua ever existed?

      Do any records exist anywhere of his birth, ministry, deeds or death, outside of the Bible?

      Are there any contemporaneous works of literature that substantiate even for a moment that anyone named Jesus the Christ even ever existed?

      No?

      Thanks then. Thanks but no thanks."

      Answer: Read the Jewish Talmud (then shove it in your waste basket), they prove Jesus existed just by the hatred they have for Him throughout their hate filled manifesto.

      Amen.

      November 11, 2011 at 3:43 pm |
    • GodPot

      @HS – Boy, you sure put him in his place using a book that wasn't written for at least 200 years after Jesus supposedly lived during a time of a major Christian movement that contemporary Jew's vehemently rejected (and still do)...

      Too bad he was asking for exactly the opposite of what you provided.

      November 11, 2011 at 3:56 pm |
    • warmesTghosT

      Thanks for responding to my "babble", HeavenSent!

      From what cursory examination I'm able to put in currently, it seems that Jesus (Yeshu/a) was not mentioned in the original Babylonian Talmud but only in the "Baraitha" and "Tosefta", which are considered appendices or supplements to the Talmud. Further, these additions are not credited as being added any earlier than 70 CE, a full 37 years after the purported death of your messiah. It seems that the ancient Jews were (rightly) alarmed by the burgeoning spread of Christianity and appended some aspersions toward it into their texts.

      Also, I said "historical" text. That excludes all religious works.

      November 11, 2011 at 3:58 pm |
    • warmesTghosT

      Ha! Good catch GodPot. I had thought the Talmud was older than it is! The source I referred to is evidently incorrect, as the Talmud was written between 200 and 500 CE and my source claimed its' supplements were written around 70 CE.

      So, more hearsay. I'm still waiting for credible evidence.

      November 11, 2011 at 4:01 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Isn't it telling that HS's new favorite word is "babble"? It's second only to "mizzy".

      What a freakin' moron.

      November 11, 2011 at 6:03 pm |
    • GodPot

      @Tom – Do you mean is it interesting that HS uses the word "babble" a lot because it's likely the root word comes from the Tower of Babel where the bible claims the languages were confused, much like HS is in every post?

      November 11, 2011 at 6:15 pm |
  11. Rainer Braendlein

    Passage from the above article:

    3. DO maintain equality of treatment for different religions within the law as a core element of the secular state.

    Unquote.

    I am not an adherent of a secular state. The term is a nonsense in itself. Members of present "secular" administrations have certain religious convictions. Nobody is absolutely neutral or can compartmentalize himself, so that he denys his personal religious conviction during he is public service. At the moment in the Western states we have the primacy of economy and capital. Our current politicans have changed their or our countries into big factories. Producing goods and consuming goods has become the center of life of the Westerners. That is a calamity. Can it be the meaning of life to circulate matter? I guess, never in history the Westerners possessed so much goods like today. Goods have become an idol for us. Only performance and effeciency and possessing goods matter. However, even today people still have to die and to forsake their material goods after dwelling some decades on the earth. Can pure existence in material wealth be the meaning of life? Never.

    Equality of treatment of different religion is easy in a society, where religion plays nearly no more role. Look at Turkey. At the moment the boast that they have given back some robbed property to the Christian Church, but they conceal that they have persecuted the Church for centuries and that there are nearly no more Christians in Turkey, because many Christian have been killed by the Turks and displaced. It is easy to be friendly to Mr. Nobody. I will even kiss the "A S S" of Mr. Nobody.

    In fact the new religion is secularism. That means every member of any traditional religion is supposed to subject his previous religion to secularism (striclty speaking, that means to forsake oneselfs previous religion). This is the reign of the so-called Beast, which is predicted by the book of the Revelation of the Bible. Reducing the human being to its basest instincts. This is the new "religon" of secularism. The religion of the Beast.

    November 11, 2011 at 2:08 pm |
  12. SeanNJ

    @RightTurnClyde: Are you retired? A grandparent perhaps?

    November 11, 2011 at 1:59 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      He's a bonehead.

      November 11, 2011 at 6:03 pm |
  13. Verimius

    ALL prophets are false.

    November 11, 2011 at 1:37 pm |
    • GodPot

      That isn't quite accurate. ALL prophets who claim divine inspiration are false.

      A prophet can be anyone who predicts future events which can be done by those who examine the world carefully and see certain trends in humanity which would allow for many accurate predictions as to what might happen next. Infact weathermen are infact a sort of weather prophet.

      November 11, 2011 at 2:00 pm |
    • GodPot

      Need to outfact one of those infacts...

      November 11, 2011 at 2:00 pm |
    • Ammar Khalid

      And the Horn will be blown; and at once from the graves to their Lord they will hasten. (Quran 36:51)

      They will say, "O woe to us! Who has raised us up from our sleeping place?" [The reply will be], "This is what the Most Merciful had promised, and the messengers told the truth." (Quran 36:52)

      November 11, 2011 at 3:10 pm |
    • John Richardson

      @Ammar Yep, perfect example of a false prophet you presented there!

      November 11, 2011 at 4:40 pm |
  14. Bo

    @Bob, I'm sorry, I don't have a reply button on my cell phone, but I will have to go to the library to answer. Give me about an hour.

    November 11, 2011 at 1:35 pm |
  15. The Central Scrutinizer

    Hello....this is the Central Scrutinizer.......again.

    First let me say I agree with ZF – #7 and #8 are contradictory.

    Next, it must be a slow news day.

    Finally, I bid you all a fond farewell. The Central Scrutinizer has other pressing matters to attend to and can no longer linger here. My friends, Greggory Peccary, Father O'blivion, Alien Orifice and The Illinois Enema Bandit will be assisting me as I go forth into the real world to enforce the laws that haven't been passed yet.

    Be good boys and girls and play nice. Love, peace and understanding is the path to happiness. It's been fun.

    November 11, 2011 at 1:35 pm |
    • The Central Scrutinizer

      I am taking Shiek Yerbouti with me too, even though he can be annoying.

      November 11, 2011 at 1:38 pm |
    • The Central Scrutinizer

      And to my friends and you know who you are, I have really enjoyed talking to you. Thank you.

      November 11, 2011 at 1:46 pm |
    • tallulah13

      Do come back to let us know if you find something that looks just like a Telefunken U47 out there..

      November 11, 2011 at 3:12 pm |
  16. Bo

    ========@Reality,======================= why do you insist that Jesus was an illiterate Jew? He could both read and write, (Luke 4:16; John 8:8) and so could His deciples, Peter, James, John, Matthew, Jude, Judas and perhaps the rest of them, and most likely many of the women that followed Him could read and write. According to secular history, Joesph of Armathaea, who gave his sepulchre for Christ's tomb was perhaps the most wealthy man in the whole Jewish ecconomy. He didn't get wealth by being stupid. Do you think he would have given an expensive tomb to a person you discribe as Jesus? ========================================

    November 11, 2011 at 1:30 pm |
    • Reality

      o The illiteracy of the simple preacher man aka Jesus, as per contemporary experts:

      From Professor Bruce Chilton's commentary in his book, Rabbi Jesus, An Intimate Biography,

      "What Luke misses is that Jesus stood in the synagogue as an illiterate m–amzer in his claim to be the Lord's anointed". Note: Luke 4: 16 is a single attestation. No where else in the NT does it say Jesus could read thereby making said passage historically unreliable.

      Professor JD Crossan notes that Jesus was illiterate coming from a landless peasant background, initially a follower of John the Baptist. e.g. The Excavation of Jesus (with Professor Reed), pp 30-31..

      The question of Jesus's literacy has been much discussed in modern scholarship; the Jesus Seminar and others feel references in the Gospels to Jesus reading and writing may well be fictions.

      The only Gospel reference to Jesus writing is John 8:6 in the Pericope Adulterae, widely considered a later addition, where it is not even clear he is forming letters in the dust, and the Greek "εγραφεν" could equally mean he was drawing.

      Luke 2: 41-52, the twelve year old Jesus in the temple- As per Professor Gerd Ludemann in his book, Jesus After 2000 Years, p. 275, " the episode is unhistorical" (again, a single attestaion). See also http://wiki.faithfutures.org/index.php?ti-tle=433_Jesus_at_Twelve

      It is very unfortunate that Jesus was illiterate for it resulted in many gospels and epistles being written years after his death by non-witnesses. This resulted in significant differences in said gospels and epistles and with many embellishments to raise Jesus to the level of a deity to compete with the Roman gods and emperors. See Raymond Brown's book, An Introduction to the New Testament, (Luke 4:16 note on p. 237) for an exhaustive review of the true writers of the gospels and epistles.

      Of course, Muslims believe that Mohammed was also illiterate. This way, they can claim that the only way he could have received the "angelic", koranic passages of death to all infidels and Islamic domination of the globe by any means, was orally since he could not read and write. Google it for verification

      November 11, 2011 at 3:33 pm |
    • HeavenSent

      Bo, I hope you figured out that reality's work is to get people to hate Jesus.

      Amen.

      November 11, 2011 at 3:48 pm |
  17. Jack Beslanwitch

    Thoroughly agree with Tony Blair on his do's and don'ts for religion and democracy. They could be listened to in many likely and unlikely nations, including here in the US unfortunately.

    November 11, 2011 at 1:25 pm |
    • David in Cincinnati

      I wonder why they seem so disjoint from the reality of Tony Blair.

      November 11, 2011 at 6:56 pm |
  18. ZF

    #7 and #8 are contradictory:

    "...allow people to justify their views on explicitly religious grounds if they want" but

    "...insist on religious leaders making their case by reasoned argument not by bald assertion or authoritarian claims."

    What are some religiously-grounded reasons that are NOT assertions or authoritarian claims??

    November 11, 2011 at 1:19 pm |
    • BigJ

      @ZF: I was just starting to think I was the only one who noticed this. Mr. Blair does not seem to understand that religious justifications are inherently appeals to authority.

      November 11, 2011 at 1:25 pm |
    • ben

      @ZF "Life begins at conception and should be protected from that point on" is one example. If that's the entirety of one's argument, that's a "bald assertion". If one's entire argument is "life begins at conception because Buddha told me in a dream" that's an "authoritarian" claim. All moral arguments appeal to some (rational, historical, legal) authority, but that doesn't make them all "authoritarian".

      Back to "life begins as conception": 1) The human zygote formed at conception forms a human being with unique DNA. This being is distinct from the father and distinct from the mother. 2) The only times we've call a "human being" less than a "person" was during slavery & when we considered women less-then-fully-human. I for one don't want to go back to that. 3) The Bible presents mankind as being made in the image of God, therefore each person carries priceless intrinsic value, despite their intellect, education, ethnicity, marketability, or physical beauty. 4) Medical professionals, following the Hippocratic oath since the 5th Century BC, have nearly universally affirmed that killing a fetus is immoral and out-of-bounds. 5) Therefore, "life begins at conception and should be protected from that point on".

      Now, you may not agree with the validity or soundness of this argument, but it's neither a "bald assertion" nor "authoritarian". Mr. Blair's point is that such arguments should be allowed and encouraged in the public sphere as valid means of making moral arguments.

      November 11, 2011 at 2:28 pm |
    • I'm The Best!

      @ Ben
      The problem with someone making a moral argument is because people have different morals based on their society and general upbringing. Some may say it's morally okay to beat your wife while others disagree. Now most everyone would agree that it's not good to do that but my point is moral argument should have no place when making laws.

      But you can always make a case that every person has the potential to make society better or more advanced and bringing harm to another human being should be against the law. This argument is done without any morals added but still got to the more moral outcome. I say unless you can back up a law with facts and logical statements then it shouldn't be considered in a democracy. Even if you think something is morally wrong, it may be morally okay for someone else leading you to remove some of their liberties if you get your law based on your morals passed.

      November 11, 2011 at 2:46 pm |
  19. HotAirAce

    I'm not a Tony Blair fan and hate all religions equally but his list seems reasonable to me. And if HS hates it, it must be good!

    November 11, 2011 at 1:17 pm |
    • RightTurnClyde

      Me too ... good list and good goals..
      DO maintain equality of treatment for different religions (does not mean acquiescence with anything they want whether Moslem women's veils on I'D's or praying 5 times at work .. or handling rattlesnakes in Appalachia or Amish crimes against bearded members or polygamy)
      DON’T duck difficult conflicts involving religious and secular ideas: discuss them openly (well CNN learn from this because you most of all encourage hostile dialog and contemptuous postings).
      DON’T rush to legislation to solve religious conflict (in fact .. don't rush to legislation at ALL - libraries of and it does not improve life)
      DON’T allow religious schools to opt out of the same national standards (yes .. don't politicize schools .. period)
      DO listen to religious voices on social, political and economic issues (don't shout down Christians especially)
      allow people to justify their views (justify .. interesting word)
      DO insist on religious leaders making their case by reasoned argument (no end-times without evidence huh?)
      or authoritarian (preachers often thing they ARE God - especially Moslems)
      Insist on that for atheists and secular leaders too (yes CNN .. get this)
      DO NOT allow religious voices to have dominance in the public sphere (politicians want their vote)
      DO ensure that the voices of religious minorities and those who have no faith are protected (again protected .. again protected)
      Remember that none of us are qualified to state with certainty the will of God (Amen to that)
      humility (hard to achieve among society)
      openness to others (also hard to achieve)
      interfaith dialogue (impossible but worthy)

      all essential for a healthy society (we no longer have a healthy society .. we are in big trouble - and in part because of the foregoing)

      November 11, 2011 at 1:37 pm |
    • Nonimus

      @HotAirAce,
      For the most part, I agree, a decent list. Number 10 is the only one I'd hesitate on.

      November 11, 2011 at 1:55 pm |
    • HeavenSent

      HotAirAce, snooze you loose ... doesn't mean the rest of us want to follow your stupidity. Tony Blair, like the rest of those former politicians are has been hacks that want to make a buck off of everyone cause their greed knows no bounds.

      Amen.

      November 11, 2011 at 2:32 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      HS, are you ever going to figure out the difference between "lose" and "loose"? Here's a hint: You have LOOSE bowels. You lose when you attempt to win a game you don't know how to play.

      November 11, 2011 at 6:05 pm |
    • GodPot

      I think HS may have been refering to the slang term "snooze" which means to wear no belt and let your pants hang very low on your hips, then to manually pull the tip of your genital over the top button and through a belt loop...

      You "snooze" you loose mang...

      November 11, 2011 at 7:06 pm |
    • HotAirAce

      10 is ok as it just says majorities should respect minorities.

      HeavenScent: you are the world's greatest hater and the world's worst example of a christian. I have no problem saying that the most aggressive atheist has a broader world view and compassion for others, regardless of their beliefs, than you.

      November 11, 2011 at 9:41 pm |
    • HotAirAce

      GodPot, you just made that up right? It's not really something someone (other than HeavenScent?) does, is it?!? Thre are so many ways that could hurt, there's no way I'll try it!! :^{

      November 11, 2011 at 9:46 pm |
    • GodPot

      Total Fabrication 🙂

      November 11, 2011 at 9:57 pm |
    • GodPot

      Which is what will happen to your junk if you try to "snooze"...

      November 11, 2011 at 9:58 pm |
  20. Rainer Braendlein

    Passage from the above article:

    2. DON’T think you understand democracy if you think it’s only about elections: it’s about a culture and mindset which includes freedom of thought, freedom of expression, political and religious pluralism, and human rights.

    Unquote.

    Culture and mindset? I hope, Mr. Blair means Christianity.

    According to the Christian doctrine, which I assume to be true, the natural man is subject of his carnal desires. The natural man has a great longing for power, honour and riches and other bad things. Someone, who is a total subject to these carnal desires cannot be a real democrat at the same time, because democracy means balance between people and not primacy of a single one (or a single group), who want to suppress the others.

    The NSDAP was elected by the majority of the Germans to rule Germany (the Germans did not recognize the wickedness of the Nazis). Now the Islamic En-Nahda was elected by many people of Tunisia and there is high danger that they change Tunisia into an Islamic dictatorship like the NSDAP changed Germany into a National Socialist state. Thus, a society needs to have the power to prohibit anti-democratic parties. Isn't it a nonsense, when a people elects a party, which finally abolishes democracy like the NSDAP did and the En-Nahda will probably do.

    It is the Christian Church, which must raise her voice even against the majority of a people, when tyrants want to seduce whole countries. It is the Christian Church, which has the holy ability to recognize the wicked man and to unmask him. However, societies which have abandoned the Christian faith and where the Christian Church has nearly ceased to exist, will surely become victims of wicked seducers, democratically elected or having seized rule by usurpation.

    The people of Tunisia still believe in the false prophet and thus they are seduced by his wicked disciples. God night Tunisia! Islam is the religion of bloodshed, which yet the elderly said. Islam doesn't dampen the carnal desires of man, but promotes it. In fact Islam is pure demonic paganism, which leads people back to the state of the people of prehistory.

    November 11, 2011 at 1:14 pm |
    • Bob

      Rainer, do try to be more brief.

      Now, you said, "According to the Christian doctrine, which I assume to be true,", your basic assumption is wrong.
      Reference: http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/by_name.html
      Christian doctrine isn't even internally consistent.

      Now, try again. Without the golden shovel in your mouth, this time.

      November 11, 2011 at 1:31 pm |
    • RightTurnClyde

      But actually .. the godless left has already trashed Thanksgiving, Christmas, Easter, the 4th of July (and yet they want all of those as PAID LEAVE for everybody whether or not they are of that faith. (and then they want paid leave for additional "holy days" as well). So actually our culture is suppressed by invading cultures. And that changes everything .. aspirations, values, priorities, practices.

      November 11, 2011 at 1:41 pm |
    • GodPot

      @Rightturn – When did Thanksgiving and July 4th become religious holy days? I know they are national "holidays" but I am pretty sure they are both secular "holidays" and have been sicne their inception.

      November 11, 2011 at 2:05 pm |
    • Dr. Zeuss

      RTC, maybe you want to have another look at how "Christmas" came to be on Dec. 25th. But do keep on loving that Easter Bunny.

      November 11, 2011 at 2:22 pm |
    • warmesTghosT

      Poor, poor persecuted Christians. I feel such sorrow for you.

      *snicker*

      November 11, 2011 at 3:07 pm |
    • Robert

      Thank you for this brilliant analysis. The naysayers can only gnash their teeth.

      November 11, 2011 at 3:17 pm |
1 2 3 4 5 6
Advertisement
About this blog

The CNN Belief Blog covers the faith angles of the day's biggest stories, from breaking news to politics to entertainment, fostering a global conversation about the role of religion and belief in readers' lives. It's edited by CNN's Daniel Burke with contributions from Eric Marrapodi and CNN's worldwide news gathering team.