This appeared in greater detail in yesterday's Globe I believe, but this nugget from the Canadian Press more succinctly outlines an upcoming debate on a topic that's been battered to death many times on CP...
It's said politics and religion aren't polite topics for discussion, but former British prime minister Tony Blair will play the advocate for faith next month at a debate in Toronto.
Taking the opposing side will be journalist and author Christopher Hitchens, an atheist with cancer of the esophagus.
Organizers say the topic for debate on Nov. 26 is not whether God exists, but whether religion is a force for peace or conflict in the world.
Also check out munkdebates for more hype and details.
Personally, I just see this debate as having the potential to polarize, particularly given Blair's involvement. On the other hand, I'd love to see a couple of comedians have a go at it instead - maybe Russell Peters v. Billy Connolly?
Any Torontonians planning to go?
The Following User Says Thank You to flylock shox For This Useful Post:
To be honest, I'm STRONGLY considering paying for the PPV.
Hitchens is one of the most clever, witty and logical thinkers in the world. I think he is the living embodiment of the "Tortured genius".
That said, it's kind of an unbalanced exchange. Tony Blair got tricked into going to war by a guy that was almost offed by a pretzel. (Just playing, I'm a big Tony Blair fan).
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to WilsonFourTwo For This Useful Post:
First thought, wtf thought he was not far from the deathbed.
But wow, this should be interesting as Hitchens has regularly blasted Blair for his faith schools agenda and plenty of other political decisions. But Hitchens supports the war in Iraq/Afghanistan so I doubt he'll take Blair to account for that.
Don't underestimate the skills of Blair a seasoned political star in his own right, to debate strongly against hitchens.
If you guys haven't seen it the Intelligence squared debates did "Is the Catholic church a force for good in this world," with Hitchens and Stephen Fry absolutely massacring the other side in a great debate.
You can find the debate easily enough on youtube, but if you don't watch the whole thing do check out Stephen Fry's opening statements which are almost poetry.
__________________ Allskonar fyrir Aumingja!!
The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to Thor For This Useful Post:
Don't underestimate the skills of Blair a seasoned political star in his own right, to debate strongly against hitchens.
If you guys haven't seen it the Intelligence squared debates did "Is the Catholic church a force for good in this world," with Hitchens and Stephen Fry absolutely massacring the other side in a great debate.
Wow, I was thinking I'd half watch Fry's comments but ended up watching the whole debate - actually watching it, not just having it on in the background. That was one lopsided affair.
I'm still not 100% convinced that the RCC is not a force for good in the utilitarian sense, but that's because I don't know the equation for how many orphans you have to save for every homosexual you exclude. Or how many Africans you need to feed to balance out the ones you let rot of AIDS because condoms are immoral.
Also that bit during the questions regarding moral relativism destroyed me. At 9:05.
The I^2 debates were over before they started. The rhetorical ability for the athiest side was far superior than the Religious side. The topic could have been monkeys are better than beavers and the outcome would have been the same.
Blair is a much more skilled orator and he also doesn't have the handicap of representing a particular church so he can say things like in the past the church screwed up but it also did these things. Those representing a church directly have to be much more careful in what they say. (this is one of the issues with the church.)
I will wait for some one to put in on U-Tube to watch it.
I used to be a big fan of Hitchens but lost a ton of respect for the man after he supported the Iraq war.
For me the position one takes doesn't make me respect them more or less.
More important is how they justify their position and that their position and their actions are not opposed to each other. To me one of the biggest issues in american politics right now is exactly what you posted above. When someone has a differing opinion they aren't repsected and are villified for it.
He could have just continued to criticise Bush and his policies, paroting all the talking points of no WMDs, etc... against the Iraq war.
But, instead his stance (in short) on Iraq was/is that when you weigh all that happened in Iraq the removal of Saddam Hussein tilts the scales towards the "good" side.
That showed me that he isn't just another lefty-ideologue but someone whose opinion worthy of consideration. Whether I agree with him or not.
For me the position one takes doesn't make me respect them more or less.
More important is how they justify their position and that their position and their actions are not opposed to each other. To me one of the biggest issues in american politics right now is exactly what you posted above. When someone has a differing opinion they aren't repsected and are villified for it.
Except his argument didn't make sense. I have no problem with a differing opinion. My beliefs and Hitchens' were pretty much lock-stock until Iraqi Freedom 2 Electra Buga-loo went down. It was pretty obvious to anyone that paid attention, that Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and friends where spinning a tale and Hitchens fell for it.
Quote:
Well I am not sure why you can't follow.
He could have just continued to criticise Bush and his policies, paroting all the talking points of no WMDs, etc... against the Iraq war.
But, instead his stance (in short) on Iraq was/is that when you weigh all that happened in Iraq the removal of Saddam Hussein tilts the scales towards the "good" side.
That showed me that he isn't just another lefty-ideologue but someone whose opinion worthy of consideration. Whether I agree with him or not.
Not sure if you've noticed yet, but most of those talking points were right. Iraq didn't WMD's and wasn't involved with 9-11, combine that with you equating any dissension to war with the term lefty, kind of weakens your argument.
It has been way too soon to determine if the removel of Saddam was good or bad for that region. What we do know is that the US has spent way to high of a price for Saddam's scalp. Not to mention the fact that drawing attention away from Afganistan aided in Osama's escape. A real life terrorist.
Which makes me think that invading Iraq wasn't the best idea for the US.
I do think Saddam was a crazy Mo-fo who was an evil e, but his posturing in a twisted way, keep that region somewhat stable and Iran in check.
Except his argument didn't make sense. I have no problem with a differing opinion. My beliefs and Hitchens' were pretty much lock-stock until Iraqi Freedom 2 Electra Buga-loo went down. It was pretty obvious to anyone that paid attention, that Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and friends where spinning a tale and Hitchens fell for it.
Not sure if you've noticed yet, but most of those talking points were right. Iraq didn't WMD's and wasn't involved with 9-11, combine that with you equating any dissension to war with the term lefty, kind of weakens your argument.
It has been way too soon to determine if the removel of Saddam was good or bad for that region. What we do know is that the US has spent way to high of a price for Saddam's scalp. Not to mention the fact that drawing attention away from Afganistan aided in Osama's escape. A real life terrorist.
Which makes me think that invading Iraq wasn't the best idea for the US.
I do think Saddam was a crazy Mo-fo who was an evil e, but his posturing in a twisted way, keep that region somewhat stable and Iran in check.
Ok. So you disagree with him on Iraq. I disagree with him on religion.
The point is, I feel his opinion is never based on ideology but on sober consideration. He is driven by intellect and not ideology IMO. That is why I have more respect for him.
The Following User Says Thank You to HOZ For This Useful Post:
Ok. So you disagree with him on Iraq. I disagree with him on religion.
The point is, I feel his opinion is never based on ideology but on sober consideration. He is driven by intellect and not ideology IMO. That is why I have more respect for him.
The Hitchens-Blair Debate
consideration. He is driven by intellect and not ideology IMO. That is why I have more respect for him.
