Hitchens apparent winner in religion debate

[DJ Droood]

Atheist argued with former British PM Blair
Last Updated: Saturday, November 27, 2010 | 1:15 AM ET
CBC News

Atheist Christopher Hitchens seemed to get the best of it in a debate over religion with former British prime minister and Roman Catholic convert Tony Blair.

The two men disputed religion in Toronto Friday night at the Munk Debates before a sold-out crowd of 2,600 — scalpers outside were asking as much as $500 a ticket — as thousands more watched online.

Blair argued for the proposition that religion is a force for good, while Hitchens was against it.

Preliminary results on the Munk website said 68 per cent of the votes backed Hitchens and 32 per cent Blair.

Both men gained about 10 percentage points from the pre-debate standings, when 21 per cent were undecided.

Hitchens argued that religion is divisive and causes conflicts or makes them worse.

Blair conceded that "horrific acts of evil" have been committed in the name of religion, but said people like Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot, who opposed religion, had been evil, too. "I agree in a world without religion, that the religious fanatics may be gone, but I ask you: Would fanaticism be gone?"

Blair pointed to the Northern Ireland peace process as an example of different religions working for peace.

Hitchens replied that 400 years of religious warfare in Ireland entailed "people killing each other's children depending on what kind of Christian they were."

"To terrify children with the image of hell … to consider women an inferior creation. Is that good for the world?" Hitchens said.

Blair said bigotry and prejudice are not "wholly owned subsidiaries" of religion. But he said the hardest argument he faced was the assertion that evil done in the name of religion is based in scripture.

The ancient religious texts contain many ideas that now appear "very strange and outdated," he said, but religions must be seen as a whole.

Hitchens, a columnist for Vanity Fair, wrote a book in 2007 called God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything, which sharply criticized organized religion.

Blair started the Tony Blair Faith Foundation two years ago to promote understanding between religions.

Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2010/11/ ... z16XE4gPly

[Nicholaas]

Hitchens is a treat to watch. Even when he's drunk as a skunk and barely audible, he can still dismantle any apologist's argument with ease and poise.

[cursuswalker]

Blair got hitch-slapped LOL

[echoe]

I don't know... I have to hand it to Blair too, he was right on target when he asked if, while religious fanatics would no longer have a relgion to hide behind, would having no religions stop fanaticism.

I've seen within families, where all are the same religion, that have deep breaks between parents and children because one or both of the parents prescribed and demanded adherence to their choices of a life career forced upon a child or more than one child. The child was stripped of individuality, of his/her own choices. Then the parents disown the child that has broken the "code." That indicates fanatacism without religious friction.

I've travelled much in a lifetime, and watched as people will instantaneously (without knowing each other) debate on who is the better person, by incredible virtues such as straight hair vs. curly hair (Puerto Rican argument) living on the West side vs. the East side (name any city in the world, but this is a frequent argument in Morocco) skin color, birth origins, financial status, royal status, etc., each of these things makes someone feel "better" than the other in so many cases.

I always shake my head in sadness, seeing that the value of the person was lost in the shuffle of desperation for supremacy. Indeed, I've been subject to quite a bit of dual notions when talking with people. I try to explore cultures and learn from each person I meet, and many have immediately pasted me on to a billboard of "beauty" which is highly superficial and even more highly embarrassing to me, it's an accordance that denies my intelligence and quest for knowledge. It's an accordance that denies my life experiences. And on the flip side of that coin, I've experienced very rigid discrimination because I'm also both blind and deaf, again, a dismissal of me, the person, as a whole. Again a loss of opportunity to gain value from the meeting.

Fanaticism would not stop. Religion is a manner within which fanatics are able to easily find a scapegoat reason for their behavior. And unfortunately, that would be true in all relgions and anti-relgions, even atheism, even druidism. There will always be persons who use the logic and twist it to their advantage. Lordy, I've grown too old. I remember when I believed that no one would manipulate things, because they surely must realize that manipulation, in the end, only costs the very dreams they've been chasing. Oh well, we all must learn in our own manner, right?

I gave this debate a point to each side.

[wolf560]

Blair conceded that "horrific acts of evil" have been committed in the name of religion... "I agree in a world without religion, that the religious fanatics may be gone, but I ask you: Would fanaticism be gone?"

Hmm..... interesting thought here....

The fanaticism in the Middle East is largely based upon the Quran; without it and the Hadithas (and of course all the rest) I think it would manifest itself in some other form.

I believe that the people there would merely supplant the current fanaticism with another equally mindless and deadly belief based upon tribal values wherein the warlords would maintain power through the use of the sword (and its modern equivalent; the Kalishnokov).

The answer is not a world without religion leaving chaos for everyone to exist in.
But rather a world where a single religion could reign supreme in conjunction with a just set of laws upheld by an unconnected/ disinterested governmental body. Rules in place that would not interfere but would instead delineate, support an even enough set of guidelines allowing for diversity to occur without dogmatic heavy-handed responses being allowed.

Simply put a governmental system that was separate from the religious hierarchy.
A non-dogmatic but clearly defined set of religious beliefs.
A evenly balanced yet non-conformist set of societal laws.
A people all shown a life where (most) things being equal they had a good chance at a normal life without someone twisting any of the existing laws and rules so as to profit insubstantially on the sweat of another's work.

[echoe]

that leads me to the foundations of communism. It's interesting how so many govermental forms are based on systems which, if unabused, would work to almost utopian standards. The Iroquois federations were democratic to a fault, but could they have sustained millions in that way? Communism would truly lay all equal in terms of what they received or the work output they gave, democracy would allow each person to represent their own needs and wants, Republics would have a true representative of the needs and wants of the people they represent, dictatorships would quell the naysayers to keep the populations in an even daily emotional understanding, royalty would do what is needed to nurture the population.

There is, and always will be, at least one who sees a way or seeks a way to manipulate and/or take advantage of those pure belief systems, not realizing that in the end, it tears down the entire fabric and thus their own.

Communism lacked the insight of individuality, democracy ends with majority rule and minority oustings, republics have representatives who ignore the needs of those they represent and put forth their own agenda, dictators quell all to deny all, except themselves and keep a society under extreme duress, royalty will self-indulge without thought to those needing leadership, and some idiot somewhere will attack another group causing others to retaliate, or to help the group attacked or attacking.

OOH! which leads me to the question then if religion is basically an establishment of rules and rituals to follow, why isn't goverment thus a type of religion? We must obey the laws of our nations, and treat each other a certain way, as well as "worship" a head representative (a president, a prime minister, a king, a pope, a tribal leader,etc.) we have to bow to some, kiss the rings of others, speak reverently of others, if words of threat are perceived, jail ensues... why then isn't government considered a kind of religion?

[wolf560]

OOH! which leads me to the question then if religion is basically an establishment of rules and rituals to follow, why then isn't government considered a kind of religion?

That is called a "Theocracy" (look to Iran and the Vatican for modern examples of that system gone awry)...Religion has no place in ruling anymore than politics has any place in religion. When we see a crossing of this line we usually see the most abuses of power
Again---Look to The Ayatollah, The Pope, for examples.....

My perfect "ideal" is the much romanticized Celtic Tribal Druid-led system of Brehon Laws.
Fir Flatheman "Truth of Sovereignity" was not that those who rules were always truthful so much that they HAD to be truthful and would be removed if caught in a lie. Druids were considered "above and outside" the law and thus (supposedly) had no ties that could be exploited (again supposedly). Every free person in the tribe had an equal vote in what the tribe felt important. Everyone was expected to participate in what the tribe held in high esteem. Druids were the glue that held the society together in that they were the source of knowledge and advice for everyone. Brithims and Brehons dispensed justice even unto nobility, Filidecht kept the songs of history alive, doctors, surgeons, medics, priests, bards, metal smiths, and many others were the Aes Dana of society.

A fully balanced society with a firm set of rules that were above and outside of anyones ability to change or twist. Religion, Leadership, and social mores were in the hands of the most respected body of knowledge the Celts (or anyone nearby) could imagine....

...and that body of knowledge was personified by The Druids.....

[echoe]

I could see that type of tribal system. Native Americans also utilized that. But it would be necessary to keep it on a small scale. Full democracy would not be possible if you introduced a million to each tribe, as minority voices would be drummed out. In a smaller setting, it'd be far more possible to listen to all the sides of an argument without discounting the one person who might be most affected by a change or rules.

I wasn't talking about theocracy. I was asking why government isn't regarded as a type of religion, the other way around, not religious government. Does that make sense? Each goverment subscribes to rituals, common practices and cultural beliefs. I had a debate with a French friend over the banning of veils in France. She informed me that it was blatant religious practice and thus forced others to confront it. I asked if she was allowed to wear crosses (most French are Catholic) and she said "yes, but under clothing." To which I asked why it wasn't banned? Hidden doesn't make a person less relgious, possibly more insidious and being outward about your religions didn't necessarily make a person confrontational. In fact the women wearing the velis in France are anything BUT confrontational. They're subservient to their men, their religion and to a dislike of anyone looking upon their beauty, they don't WANT people looking at them, but because they are different, they're being drummed out. How is that not a "religious" practice? Drumming out the different and forcing conformity to a culture? The Jews have been ousted by numerous world governments (won't discuss how they do it to the Palestinians now, history sure doesn't teach everyone.) The U.S. is having huge upheavals in religious talks and understandings, and oversight by government doesn't necessarily mean acceptance of all, nor does it absolve government of acting "religiously" or in a cultural manner, I believe the distinction is somewhat blurred by goverments. The very rules by which they act determine a kind of religion: induction of the newly elected and teaching them the ways of meeting with the "elders," members being made head of divisions that they're deemed for which to have superior knowledge, celebration days marked by the government, the head of government following traditions of dress, manners of speech, education habits. leaders of churches, or religions act in the same manner as governments. They prescribe behaviors and rules upon their followers. They prescribe teachings that are not to be questioned, (as does government when you're placed under arrest for disobeying a law or rule.) or you can be ousted from the church. When your life involves national importance, both governments and churches will step in to "guide" you or contain any individuality you might express. (this I have experienced in a very painful personal way.

If we compare, why don't we consider government to be religion?

[wolf560]

I could see that type of tribal system. Native Americans also utilized that. But it would be necessary to keep it on a small scale. Full democracy would not be possible if you introduced a million to each tribe, as minority voices would be drummed out.

I was asking why government isn't regarded as a type of religion, the other way around, not religious government. Each goverment subscribes to rituals, common practices and cultural beliefs.

I had a debate with a French friend over the banning of veils in France. She informed me that it was blatant religious practice and thus forced others to confront it.

Lotta questions here.... so I will enumerate and answer separately

1. Small scale -vs- Large scale--->
Possible only if the rules are well thought out and supported equally somehow. Some say that the Druids were of each tribe but answered (somehow) to a higher authority within themselves. This unfortunately edges on the thought of a "United Nations" which scares some people worldwide for some reason. Consider this however, the tribes that Caesar confronted were 200-300 thousand strong at any given point. The system worked quite well with them and they seemed very comfortable with it until the very end. So if it can work with 250,000 people I submit that it could work with 4 times that number just as easily.

2. Government as a type of religion--->
I still don't believe this is workable as a "religion" is something that exists to regulate and support the belief and worship of a Deity and the practices that are necessary for that Deities existence within society. There are many social necessities that both religious and political activities require, although they are done for a variety of dissimilar reasons.

3. Veils on women being allowed--->
I just came back from 8 years in both Iraq and Afghanistan so I have a VERY biased view of this. I saw far too many women that were used as bomb vest carriers and used the fact that they were women and therefore were not supposed to have been searched. Stupid Taliban (and equally stupid Al Qaeda) operatives thought they could use this to undermine everything but only undermined the populations belief in the terrorists in the end. Still the idea of a person that looks like a modern Ninja just does not set well with me. It is not the fact that their religion says this or that, it is a tribal Haditha that actually tells a woman whether or not they are supposed to wear the Veil in whatever fashion they are supposed to. They wear it for a variety of reasons but almost all of them will remove it within moments of takeoff from any Muslim world. I observed a line normally 20 women long (or longer) lined up for the planes lavatory so they could change out of their ridiculous clothing. Of course the reverse was usually true a the plane came within and hour of landing back in the country of choice (usually Kuwait or Saudi Arabia in my experience).

Consider me jaded I suppose, but a veil is not mandatory and the searching of someone requires they remove it so......oh well thats swell.... too bad so sad....

I applaud France and Australia in taking a hard stance towards them and I hope that in time it will be a ground swell as more and more countries adopt a similar attitude.


Out of the deepest respect for thoughts and questions here.....
What would your position on "government being considered a religion" be?
What would be the reason for this?
Every postulation has to have a reason for its separate existence, what would government being considered a religion do?

[DJ Droood]

I applaud France and Australia in taking a hard stance towards them and I hope that in time it will be a ground swell as more and more countries adopt a similar

I am proud to live in a country that still allows women to wear whatever they want, even if i find it personally objectionable. I've never been to Iraq, but the veiled women I sometimes see in our south-end Walmart don't really frighten me that much....not as much as the fact that I am shopping in a Walmart.

[wolf560]

Unfortunately we now live in a world where anyone can drop chemicals and bomb materials in cars and airports and other such public places. The Muslim extremist is by far (again unfortunately) the most common factor in those abuses to good society.

I hope with everything in my heart that it will get better, but I feel with everything in my head that it will only get worse. Who would have thought that Sweden would have been the target of Muslim extremists a decade ago?
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/15/world/europe/15sweden.html

Now even that peaceful country has to contend with the ignorance that is Islamic extremism.

Give me a better way to control these attacks..... and the Veils can stay.
But you show me a person that hides their face and I have to think "Why?"

Headwrap is perfectly OK to me, but if it covers the face entirely so we cannot see who it is beneath it and I have to say "Nope, I'm outta here".

I am not saying anyone has to agree with me and I certainly am not advocating that everyone follow me.... I just dont like the hidden nature of it all...

[echoe]

Okay! thank you! Now I understand where you're coming from.

Well, in the case of veils then, a headwrap can equally hide explosive devices, as can baggy jeans, as can bathrobes, as can shoes, and that list goes on. Whew. Okay... I was getting nervous. I didn't want to anger anyone, but wanted to understand. So now we have to go back to what the solution is for all of those cases?

Muslims are not the only extremists. We are facing a barrage of school shootings across the U.S. and now even that is seeping into other countries, and this is from white, usually males, none of whom are Muslim. The Una bomber was not Muslim, nor was Timothy McVeigh. So we'd have to back up the magnified camera view to the whole view of the whole picture and restart at solutions. I'm at a loss, truly, but I see some really, REALLY big flaws in the whole TSA screening thing. They particularly target the disabled and humiliate them in ways while not necessarily meaning to, which are still harmful. Denying medical aid during a screening in a separate room, denying the medical flaw at all, making it very difficult for all kinds of different circumstances and touching a child is truly a bad situation to end up in. European countries have had bombings far longer than the U.S. (It had to reach here sometime) and yet they are against the screenings in their airports. I also question the validity of the rules not being applied for mall entrances, for trains, for buses, for entrances to major landmarks, etc. Why just the planes?

So, veils are possibly a problem in that case, but in France, that wasn't how bombings were being done. The women in France were in school. Usually teenage girls who for the first time in their lives were given the opportunity (by law) to study and learn to read, write and be educated. Then they were pushed right back into medieval ages over an argument that they couldn't wear veils that 'distinguished them as different" from the others. The veils in France were not at all attached to the danger of bombings.

I do understand your fear. Trust me. I lived in a very ethnically diverse neighborhood in Grenoble. I loved it, as I learned all kinds of cultures, but the day our entire block was blocked off (and we were all home in that neighborhood of hundreds) by the special police because one of the terrorists (well before the twin towers bombing) was living in our neighborhood, it shook a lot of trust in each other and in our own beliefs that everyone in the neighborhood was for the most part well, neighborly.

But the police did not enter into every apartment. They knew where their guy was and had him pinned. It was scary though, no one was allowed to leave their apartments and we all watched through our closed shutters as the guns (in a place where guns are outlawed) were pulled and the police methodically covered the area. When all of the police cars pulled away (they appeared suddenly, no sirens, just bullhorns and a lot of yelling at the neighbors to not leave their homes) they had a man they put in the back of a van.

I don't know the solutions, but fear isn't the way either. It'll make us jump when we shouldn't.

[wolf560]

I will admit that I battle the thought against the Muslim veil nearly daily here.
We have a rather large community here in North Carolina and I have made a few friends among them. They wear only head wraps and not full veils....

I have no clue how to stop this rampant degradation of modern society and tend to (somewhat) blame the Islamic extremists....

You are correct though.... it is not Islamic extremists but more accurately Extremists of all backgrounds and callings..... and I am completely flummoxed as to how to stop them.

For now, I guess I am willing and happy to go through whatever amount of TSA screening is deemed necessary and appropriate.

Sorry for any previous monologues to the contrary

[echoe]

no sorries necessary... I was doing my best to understand what you meant so that I didn't put you in a category as well. I'm no stranger to doing that either.

As it is, my very best friend on the entire planet is highly anti-Muslim. We go the rounds from time to time, but it never puts the friendship in danger. She's met some of my friends who are Muslim, and remains completely unaware that they are Muslim, from the Muslim countries, yet she adores them because they were so very kind and very intellligent and more. So I chuckle when she asks me about them because it might shake her beliefs (and she doesn't want them shaken, it's something I understand. Her beliefs are what is holding her through some really difficult times in her life.) if I told her they were Muslim.

I sincerely wanted to understand what you were trying to say and I'm super glad that you recognize that extremism isn't necessarily within one particular religion. But you knew that before I came along, I just didn't know you well enough to know that.

And I've come to being glad that I made your acquaintance in the whole dialogue.

[echoe]

OH! by head wraps are you meaning like scarves? That's what they're banning in France, the scarves. That's what they're banning in Australia too. It's getting difficult to have agreement with that.

[wolf560]

I sincerely wanted to understand what you were trying to say and I'm super glad that you recognize that extremism isn't necessarily within one particular religion. And I've come to being glad that I made your acquaintance in the whole dialogue.

I am extremely happy to have made your acquaintance ..!!!

As to the 'Veils', I have seen so many variations that I honestly think there is one for every tribe of a hundred or more. The weirdest one I saw was in Dubai and it was a black silk veil with a cross pattern on the eyes (you could not see a thing, but they could see out). The odd part was that they were wearing a brass mask across that veil that resembled eyebrows a moustache and goatee..!!!!!

Weird Weird Weird..... even the Saudis thought they were "Odd"

[echoe]

Drood, I'd be happy to be your personal shopper. That way you won't have to set foot in another Walmart. LOL