"Blair v. Hitchens: Is religion a force for good or ill?"

Excerpts:

"One is a devout Catholic and former prime minister who sees religion as a civilizing force. The other is a prominent atheist, author and journalist who believes that surrendering reason to faith is dangerous."

"The statesman and the polemicist are in Toronto for the semi-annual Munk Debate on Friday evening. They will square off on the contentious topic of whether religion is a force for good in the world.

"In advance of the debate, the two men sat down with The Globe and Mail to discuss their views."

"Tickets for the much-anticipated Hitchens-Blair face-off to be held at Roy Thomson Hall sold out in less than three hours, a record for the venue. But the debate, which starts at 7 p.m. ET, can be watched through a live video stream at www.munkdebates.com/debates at a cost of $4.99."

More online at http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/blair-v-hitchens-is-religion-a-force-for-good-or-ill/article1814270/

I hope Hitch feels well enough to perform with flair against Blair.

The Hitch recently debated William Dembski and if you are interested in hearing it, it can be found at: http://friendlyatheist.com/2010/11/20/audio-from-the-hitchensdembski-debate/

I have not yet listened to this debate and I can't verify the sound quality of it.

The Anglican Church exists solely because an English king wanted a divorce LOL.

So Blair decided he wanted to rejoin the Catholic mother church, which seems quite logical when you understand England's history.

But what is there really to debate?

Of course religion can be a force for good. Unfortunately, too often it hasn't been.

Glo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The Anglican Church exists solely because an
> English king wanted a divorce LOL.
>
> So Blair decided he wanted to rejoin the Catholic
> mother church, which seems quite logical when you
> understand England's history.
>
> But what is there really to debate?
>
> Of course religion can be a force for good.
> Unfortunately, too often it hasn't been.

Well, that's not quite what happened. It was a part of it. There was favouritism shown to the King of Spain by the then Pope (I think HE was granted a divorce, but King Henry wasn't. Something like that.

Henry used to be tight with the Pope. He was declared Defender of the Faith by the Pope, after all...

Henry VIII was granted the title of Defensor Fidei by the pope because he wrote a book/treatise which was favorable toward Catholicism in his youth.

However, when Henry wanted to divorce Catherine of Aragon in order to marry Ann Boleyn, the pope refused to grant the divorce.

So Henry and his kingdom broke away from the Catholic church and Henry made himself head of the church of England too.

Glo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Henry VIII was granted the title of Defensor Fidei
> by the pope because he wrote a book/treatise which
> was favorable toward Catholicism in his youth.
>
> However, when Henry wanted to divorce Catherine
> of Aragon in order to marry Ann Boleyn, the pope
> refused to grant the divorce.
>
> So Henry and his kingdom broke away from the
> Catholic church and Henry made himself head of the
> church of England too.

There were other advantage besides getting Anne Boleyn in breaking from the church, namely increased power and money. Henry didn't have to answer to anyone and he dissolved the monasteries and got their money. That played a part too. Besides, Henry died claiming to be a Catholic although the pope didn't agree. Elizabeth founded the Anglican church.

I gotta give 'em both D's in my Cabbie history class for that one...

I can't credit Phony Tony Blair with one sincere bone in his body. He cares only for money, and the rewards of serving his masters.

hello Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I can't credit Phony Tony Blair with one sincere
> bone in his body. He cares only for money, and the
> rewards of serving his masters.

I interviewed Tony Blair in person, once. He came over as a very nice, sincere person. Didn't kick my spidey sense off. ;o))

so he didn't "sex up a dodgy dossier" in front of you? :)

hello Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> so he didn't "sex up a dodgy dossier" in front of
> you? :)

I think this was pre-dossier days, as it happens.

But I also met his wife and was surprised how attractive she is in real life. Her photos do NOT do her justice at all... ;o))

...at least Hitch is anti-torture, so I'd upgrade his grade to a C-.



As to the debate itself, Hitch might not have it all his way. Parliament and the British media have done wonders for Blair's skills, especially since he has had to defend the indefensible.

Should be a good show. Blair is no A. McGrath but he's an improvement over the likes of Chopra and the like.

Human Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ...at least Hitch is anti-torture, so I'd upgrade
> his grade to a C-.
>
>
>
> As to the debate itself, Hitch might not have it
> all his way. Parliament and the British media
> have done wonders for Blair's skills, especially
> since he has had to defend the indefensible.
>
> Should be a good show. Blair is no A. McGrath but
> he's an improvement over the likes of Chopra and
> the like.

Considering Hitch's position on Iraq, I have a hard time taking him seriously. I know being wrong, IMO, on one thing doesn't mean he is wrong on everything, but I still have hard time respecting him.

...and God knows I fought the good fight at the time.

I didn't lose respect for Hitch because he was wrong about Iraq, many were, I lost respect for him because he was on the front lines with the neo-cons war mongering for that war (and more) and spreading Islamophobia.

Human Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ...and God knows I fought the good fight at the
> time.
>
> I didn't lose respect for Hitch because he was
> wrong about Iraq, many were, I lost respect for
> him because he was on the front lines with the
> neo-cons war mongering for that war (and more) and
> spreading Islamophobia.
That was my point although I was trying not to get too political. He is right up there with a certain VP in my estimation.

Oh yes, the VP....

....well, unlike Hitchens, for very good reasons, he's actually a war criminal.

Ah now, how to make this on topic......

...Monson is to the VP as my SIL is to Hitchens.....

....there we go.

Cheers

Human

Human Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Oh yes, the VP....
>
> ....well, unlike Hitchens, for very good reasons,
> he's actually a war criminal.
>
> Ah now, how to make this on topic......
>
> ...Monson is to the VP as my SIL is to
> Hitchens.....
>
> ....there we go.
>
> Cheers
>
> Human
Okay, the VP is worse because he was in a position to carry out his views. Hitch wasn't, but that doesn't exactly amount to much IMO

I think that a personal opinion on a political issue is vastly different than an opinion that becomes public policy. I'm not defending Hitchens on this point, he was flat out wrong, but we don't know if his views would have been different had he been forced to make public, national decision based on those views.

Tiff Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I think that a personal opinion on a political
> issue is vastly different than an opinion that
> becomes public policy. I'm not defending Hitchens
> on this point, he was flat out wrong, but we don't
> know if his views would have been different had he
> been forced to make public, national decision
> based on those views.

Possibly, but I can only assume that he would act on what he believes.

Incidentally, my "e-mail friendship" with Hardball's Chris Matthews dates to that time (such as it it; I hear back from him once or twice a year on e-mail subjects, and to put this back on topic, I did get big "Thank you's" for detailing Mitt Romney's polygamous ancestry--including Parley P. Pratt--and revealing to him that Glenn Beck was a Mormon, but those are the high points so far). Chris is former Peace Corps volunteer, and like me, he was "paying attention" during Vietnam...

Board long-timer "sìòg" can attest to my fierce opposition to invading Iraq from day one...

On that one, it involved a lot of serendipitous circumstances. "Unilateral United States Military Intervention" was the debate topic my junior year of high school, and Middle East nationalism figured into it because of memories of the Six Day War that were still fresh...

Plus, being a cabdriver put me into contact with a lot of Middle Easterners from Iran, Iraq, Packistan, Palestine, and Afghanistan... I "did business" with the "common folks" from those countries, as opposed to Geo. W. Bush who hobnobbed strictly with Saudi Royalty and probably thought, as a result, that he knew their mindset... I'm guessing this belief fed his delusions of grandiosity as much as anything... In truth, judging from what I've heard about his new book, he probably still believes his own nonsense.

In point of fact, the Saudis are generally hated by most of the citizens of the other countries because of their association with the United States, and Bush's stupid talking point that "they hate us for our freedom" has nothing to do with the dynamics involved. In addition to being "have nots" who hate "haves" they hate us for what they perceive as "our hypocrisy," and their religion gives them a sense of "moral entitlement" that is pretty much analogous with Mormons. Palestinians represented the "underdog" to them, and when we take Israel's side, well, we're in a no-win situation as far as acquiring their loyalties and support...

The rebels within Saudi Arabia know this, and it was this sense of alienation--and guilt--that fueled Osama Bin Laden's madness. As evidence, consider the number of Saudis among the Sept. 11th highjackers...

The average Middle Easterner simply will not submit to Wesern Authority; that mindset was forged during the Crusades and continued until the era of British Colonialism (which failed miserably and left us and the United Nations inheriting their morass). We could no more crush the will of those people than this government could crush the Mormons in the latter half of the 19th Century...

That was the lesson we failed to learn from Vietnam...

As for Tony Blair, Matt says he isn't a sociopath, and I don't pretend to follow British politcs that closely. It does occur to me to suggest that he might've been driven by a bit of British nationalism (embarassed by the Crown's loss of its colonial possessions in the last century?), and he may have found the "cowboy appeal" of Bush 43 irresistable...

That's just speculation, however...

SL Cabbie Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Incidentally, my "e-mail friendship" with
> Hardball's Chris Matthews dates to that time (such
> as it it; I hear back from him once or twice a
> year on e-mail subjects, and to put this back on
> topic, I did get big "Thank you's" for detailing
> Mitt Romney's polygamous ancestry--including
> Parley P. Pratt--and revealing to him that Glenn
> Beck was a Mormon, but those are the high points
> so far). Chris is former Peace Corps volunteer,
> and like me, he was "paying attention" during
> Vietnam...
>
> Board long-timer "sìòg" can attest to my fierce
> opposition to invading Iraq from day one...
>
> On that one, it involved a lot of serendipitous
> circumstances. "Unilateral United States Military
> Intervention" was the debate topic my junior year
> of high school, and Middle East nationalism
> figured into it because of memories of the Six Day
> War that were still fresh...
>
> Plus, being a cabdriver put me into contact with a
> lot of Middle Easterners from Iran, Iraq,
> Packistan, Palestine, and Afghanistan... I "did
> business" with the "common folks" from those
> countries, as opposed to Geo. W. Bush who
> hobnobbed strictly with Saudi Royalty and probably
> thought, as a result, that he knew their
> mindset... I'm guessing this belief fed his
> delusions of grandiosity as much as anything... In
> truth, judging from what I've heard about his new
> book, he probably still believes his own
> nonsense.
>
> In point of fact, the Saudis are generally hated
> by most of the citizens of the other countries
> because of their association with the United
> States, and Bush's stupid talking point that "they
> hate us for our freedom" has nothing to do with
> the dynamics involved. In addition to being "have
> nots" who hate "haves" they hate us for what they
> perceive as "our hypocrisy," and their religion
> gives them a sense of "moral entitlement" that is
> pretty much analogous with Mormons. Palestinians
> represented the "underdog" to them, and when we
> take Israel's side, well, we're in a no-win
> situation as far as acquiring their loyalties and
> support...
>
> The rebels within Saudi Arabia know this, and it
> was this sense of alienation--and guilt--that
> fueled Osama Bin Laden's madness. As evidence,
> consider the number of Saudis among the Sept. 11th
> highjackers...
>
> The average Middle Easterner simply will not
> submit to Wesern Authority; that mindset was
> forged during the Crusades and continued until the
> era of British Colonialism (which failed miserably
> and left us and the United Nations inheriting
> their morass). We could no more crush the will of
> those people than this government could crush the
> Mormons in the latter half of the 19th Century...
>
> That was the lesson we failed to learn from
> Vietnam...
>
> As for Tony Blair, Matt says he isn't a sociopath,
> and I don't pretend to follow British politcs that
> closely. It does occur to me to suggest that he
> might've been driven by a bit of British
> nationalism (embarassed by the Crown's loss of its
> colonial possessions in the last century?), and he
> may have found the "cowboy appeal" of Bush 43
> irresistable...
>
> That's just speculation, however...

I never said he wasn't a sociopath. Just that he seemed like a nice bloke when I interviewed him. Mind you, Gordon Brown came over well, too, during that press day...

Human Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ...at least Hitch is anti-torture, so I'd upgrade
> his grade to a C-.
>
>
>
> As to the debate itself, Hitch might not have it
> all his way. Parliament and the British media
> have done wonders for Blair's skills, especially
> since he has had to defend the indefensible.
>
> Should be a good show. Blair is no A. McGrath but
> he's an improvement over the likes of Chopra and
> the like.

Tony Blair is a Barrister trained in the UK adversarial legal system. They are taught debating skills. It's part of their job.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/26/2010 08:57PM by Makurosu.

You didn't learn a damned thing from the Vietnam conflict.
How pathetic.

I could say more but do not want to distract from the original post.

I'm giving the debate a big "Yawn, Who cares?' We already know what Hitchens thinks because he repeats it ad nauseum.I don't have any need to hear it again. I haven't heard Blair on the subject, but I suspect he'll be pretty predictable too. BTW, I haven't always supported Blair's politics, but he seems like a good guy.I also agree with Matt. He is a trained lawyer and debater and can hold his own.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/26/2010 06:05PM by bona dea.

Oh come on, Bona Dea. I would agree with you wholeheartedly if you were talking of Harris or Dawkins or Dennett or the smarmy spiel-meister Shermer, but I think Hitchens of a different calibre altogether. For example, it's not always clear what Hitchens thinks. He's often ironic (or at least he use to be). And it certainly isn't always clear what he is going to say, like the time in Wisconsin when he basically called for genocide against muslims. That wasn't predicable......then again, drunks are rarely predictable.

Should be a good show.

Human Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Oh come on, Bona Dea. I would agree with you
> wholeheartedly if you were talking of Harris or
> Dawkins or Dennett or the smarmy spiel-meister
> Shermer, but I think Hitchens of a different
> calibre altogether. For example, it's not always
> clear what Hitchens thinks. He's often ironic (or
> at least he use to be). And it certainly isn't
> always clear what he is going to say, like the
> time in Wisconsin when he basically called for
> genocide against muslims. That wasn't
> predicable......then again, drunks are rarely
> predictable.
>
> Should be a good show.

Well, if he gets drunk and makes an ass out of himself, it could be worth watching, but otherwise I'll pass. I do agree that he is more unpredictable and therefore more interesting than the other two. I still don't have a real need to watch the thing though. If anything exciting happens, it will show up on Youtube.

won't change any minds, although the instructor in my column writing course used it as a topic for our columns one week. I predict this will be among the less interesting of the Munk Debates, which are usually quite good.

However, I would have paid money to be able to ask Tony Blair on national radio just whom Jesus would have chosen to kill in the search for non-existent WMDS and whom Jesus would have liked replace the deposed leader of Iraq - the only person capable of keeping the various Iraqi factions from each others throats.

And you don't recall all the various parties who felt there were WMD's including our congress. Oh, boy....time seems to erase the facts of many who refuse to remember them.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/26/2010 08:51PM by honestone.

acerbicobserver Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> won't change any minds, although the instructor in
> my column writing course used it as a topic for
> our columns one week. I predict this will be among
> the less interesting of the Munk Debates, which
> are usually quite good.
>
> However, I would have paid money to be able to ask
> Tony Blair on national radio just whom Jesus
> would have chosen to kill in the search for
> non-existent WMDS and whom Jesus would have liked
> replace the deposed leader of Iraq - the only
> person capable of keeping the various Iraqi
> factions from each others throats.

I wasn't going to get political, but that is where I part with Blair. However, as far as politics goes, Hitchens is even worse in my opinion.See some of the posts above. His views are about as far from mine as is possible.

And Dawkins. I started reading Dawkins to help bolster my understanding of evolution because my background was more in physics. And as I saw him explain about his lack if belief in god, I moved on to hitchens.

Both of them were instrumental to my current views, so I reject anyone saying that they won't change anyone's minds. Plenty of people are looking for answers that make sense, even if they are uncomfortable.

However, while I do have love for Hitchens, he was completely wrong about the Iraq war. That's one of the great reasons to read authors who encourage vigorous debate and opposition.

Blair is a student of Fr. Luigi Giussani, who has had a very large influence over a segment of Catholics (including myself). I look forward to the debate, because anyone who follows Giussani, is not going to be giving the answers I think Hitchens will be expecting. :) For one, there is agreement that reason should not be surrendered.

So, it will be fun. :)