The Nirmukta Freethought Community

Via Pharyngula comes this speech by Tony Blair on religion. The full article is behind the Times paywall, but we have this classic quote that I thought would be interesting to discuss fallacy-wise:

"Those who scorn God and those who do violence in God's name, both represent views of religion. But both offer no hope for faith in the twenty first century."

Here's what I could come up with:

1) He assumes that "faith" is something good and worth striving for - begging the question?

2) He sets up two extremes - one being the absence of faith i.e. atheism, and the other being extreme religion that leads to violence - and suggests that the middle path between them is the best one: appeal to moderation.

PS: "those who do violence in God's name" - oh the irony.

Good find, and great dissection! (Although I can't say about the 'Begging the Question' either way).
The irony is sad and funny at the same time!

Nice analysis, unsorted.

Blair is certainly 'Begging the Question', but I think the stronger argument of the two is your second one- the false compromise. Blair's also resorting to the fallacy known as speaking gibberish.

When he says: "But both offer no hope for faith in the twenty first century"", what hell does he mean? It's just a bunch of words strung together to emotionally affect believers.