Christopher Hitchens to debate Tony Blair!

Wacker

One is a prominent atheist, the other a devout Roman Catholic. Both share mutual admiration for each other, but for a few hours next month, they will be adversaries, facing off over the contentious topic of religion.

Renowned author and journalist Christopher Hitchens and former British prime minister Tony Blair will share a stage for the sixth semi-annual Munk Debates this November.

“We have asked Mr. Blair and Mr. Hitchens to wrestle with the more immediate question facing developed and developing nations: Is religion a force for peace or conflict in the modern world?” he explained.

The official resolution, “Be it resolved, religion is a force of good for the world,” is close to the hearts of both debaters.

Arguing for the resolution, Mr. Blair said: “Understanding religion and people of faith is an essential part of understanding our increasingly globalized world.”

“The good that people of faith all over the world do every day, motivated by their religion, cannot be underestimated and should never be ignored. But there are a lot of misconceptions out there about religion.

“Challenging the myths that are born out of the actions and words of a controversial few is incredibly important,” added Mr. Blair, who has served as the Quartet’s special envoy to the Middle East, and recently released his bestselling memoir, A Journey: My Political Life.

Religion has figured more prominently in the former prime minister’s life since he left office. Two years ago, he launched the Tony Blair Faith Foundation, which promotes “respect and understanding” among the world’s three major religions.

Mr. Hitchens, in contrast, has renewed his beliefs in atheism since being diagnosed with esophageal cancer earlier this year. His most recent bestselling books, God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything, and Hitch-22: A Memoir, argue religion is a false promise that fosters apathy.

Speaking from his home in Washington where he is undergoing chemotherapy, he said religious people tend to claim moral authority on ethical issues which is often false.

While he respects many of the political decisions Mr. Blair made while he was in office, including international interventions in the Balkans, Sierra Leone and Iraq, he says he’s confounded by Mr. Blair’s recent public embrace of religiosity.

“He couldn’t do it while he was prime minister, but he went ‘over to Rome’ as soon as he could. Very bizarrely he did this at one of the most conservative times for the Catholic Church, under one of the most conservative Popes,” he said.

“I’ve never had the chance to sit down on talk it through with him … It’s not like I’m going to be arguing with [U.S. televangelist] Pat Robertson. Mr. Blair’s a much more complex person than that,” he added.

Mr. Blair, for his part, said he was “delighted that I’ll be putting my argument across in the Munk Debates … discussing a subject that is of utmost importance to world affairs.

“Christopher, for whom I have great respect, promises to be a formidable opponent,” he said.

While previous debaters have included heavy hitters such as special envoy Richard Holbrooke and HIV/AIDS UN special envoy Stephen Lewis, this fall’s debaters are generating international buzz.

“There is interest from all over the world,” said Peter Munk, who created the debates through the Aurea Foundation, a Canadian charity he established with his wife, Melanie, in 2006.

“This is going to be a heated, stimulating and informative debate on a subject as current as it gets,” he said.

The Munk Debates are open to the public. The debate will take place on Friday, Nov. 26, at Roy Thomson Hall in Toronto at 7 p.m. with a free public reception to follow. Tickets go on sale 11 a.m. on Oct. 14.

Live streaming will be available at www.munkdebates.com

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/hitchens-blair-to-debate-role-of-faith/article1752752/

Two things immediately leap out at me regarding this:

1. It's fantastic that Christopher Hitchens is still well enough to participate in such debates. Especially as Tony Blair will be no pushover.
2. How refreshing it must be for BOTH OF THEM to not have to worry about being attacked for supporting the Iraq War!

I cannot wait to see this.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

lol

I can't imagine hitchens being worried at all about being attacked for his support of the war. I still think it was wrong, but i've not seen anyone who's bested him in a debate about it.

Dades

Of all people, Ryan Tubridy grilled Blair about the Iraq War a couple of weeks ago... twas a bit embarrassing nonetheless.

This sounds great, though expect a rhetoric attack.

amacachi

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar wrote: »

lol

I can't imagine hitchens being worried at all about being attacked for his support of the war. I still think it was wrong, but i've not seen anyone who's bested him in a debate about it.

I assume Wacker meant "worried" as in derailment as much as anything else, seems to be a nice OMG-look-over-there tool that people often use against Hitchens.


This should be a cracker, just such a pity it's in Canada rather than Europe somewhere, may well have headed over for it.

Dave!

"Mr. Hitchens, in contrast, has renewed his beliefs in atheism..."

*shudder*

This should be good anyways

MagicMarker

Yeah, if this had been in England I probably would have tried to head over.

Stupid Canadia!! :mad:

pH

It could be terrific,and I think Hitch as every right to do this, but at the back of my mind is a niggling doubt, why would Blair (who I have very little love for) want to debate a dying man on religion, seems like a lose-lose situation for him?

vinchick

Maybe to try and get him to convert, who knows! God loves a tryer.

Dades

vinchick wrote: »

God loves a tryer.

If only that were true!

Galvasean

The topic is: "Is religion a force for peace or conflict in the modern world?"
Sounds vaguely familiar to anyone familiar with the Intelligence Squared debates.

PeterIanStaker

Dades wrote: »

Of all people, Ryan Tubridy grilled Blair about the Iraq War a couple of weeks ago.

to be fair, Dades, Tubridy couldnt grill a sausage, he's not exactly Jeremy Paxman. I didn't see it but I imagine he got an easy ride as if he were Biffo.

amacachi

PeterIanStaker wrote: »

to be fair, Dades, Tubridy couldnt grill a sausage, he's not exactly Jeremy Paxman. I didn't see it but I imagine he got an easy ride as if he were Biffo.

Tubridy went very easy on him for the first 75% then tried to step it up a gear and Blair just ran rings around him.

Zillah

Tubridy is a big feckin eijit and I don't know who let him on the telly.

That is all.

robindch

Zillah wrote: »

Tubridy is a big feckin eijit

I beg to disagree. Tubridy is a small feckin eejit.

amacachi

Dades

amacachi wrote: »

Tubridy went very easy on him for the first 75% then tried to step it up a gear and Blair just ran rings around him.

Aye, that was the way of it. Tubridy did try to go bad cop on Blair's ass - but ended up repeating the same question over and over despite Blair having already given his answer. To be fair Blair's answer was a politician's answer, but simply repeating the question over and over was cringe-worthy.

Back on-topic, I'm disappointed with the topic of the debate. Whats wrong with a good old fashioned "Is Your God Made up?" style debate, I ask?


The question "Is religion a force for peace or conflict in the modern world?" implies the answer is actually one or the actual, rather then both.

dlofnep

Big fan of Hitchens. I hope his health has improved.

stevejazzx

robindch wrote: »

I beg to disagree. Tubridy is a small feckin eejit.

I would disagree again; Turbidys physical dimensions aside, his eejit-osity is truly of mammoth proportions.

The Mad Hatter

Date's been announced. It's on the 26th of November.

amacachi

Bump, tomorrow night. ^_^

Dave!

suuhhhweeeeettttttttt

aidan24326

Should be interesting, though I find the debate topic a little weak. Religion can be a force for good or evil, depending on how it's applied. That could mean, annoyingly, a one all draw rather than the smarmy Blair getting the pounding his hypocritical ass deserves.

MagicMarker

Will this be streamed online?

virmilitaris

Wacker wrote: »

[*]It's fantastic that Christopher Hitchens is still well enough to participate in such debates. Especially as Tony Blair will be no pushover.

Honestly I can't see anything but Hitchens ripping him apart.

Dades

MagicMarker wrote: »

Will this be streamed online?

Slacker.

amacachi

****sake, I'll wait for the Rip.

amacachi

virmilitaris wrote: »

Honestly I can't see anything but Hitchens ripping him apart.

Blair is the slipperiest bastard I've ever come across tbh. But given the subject matter I also can't see anything but The Hitch fcuking him up.

MagicMarker

Dades wrote: »

Slacker.

Hmmm... 2pm. I won't be able to watch

Don't suppose one of you fine atheists would be able to work your magic and stick it up on youtube?

amacachi

12AM Saturday no? Check a map of timezones. :pac:

MagicMarker

amacachi wrote: »

12AM Saturday no? Check a map of timezones. :pac:

Me confusey

The debate will be broadcast live on the Internet in streaming video starting at 7:00 pm EST on Friday, November 26

That's tomorrow at 2pm is it not?

amacachi

MagicMarker wrote: »

That's tomorrow at 2pm is it not?

We're 5-8 hours ahead of the US and Canada, I think we're 5 ahead of Toronto so add 5 to 7 and it's 12 tomorrow night. Same as how American sports are always on late here when it's the evening over there.

Rowley Birkin QC

Local time in Toronto is 10:43 AM (EST)
Local time here is 15:43 PM (GMT)

19:00 PM (EST) = 00:00 (GMT)

dlofnep

Looking forward to this!

MagicMarker

My bad, I used to live in Canada so I'm used to doing it the other way:)

keppler

id put hard cash on that Blair brings up the hag in the white rag

sponsoredwalk

What luck clicking onto the front page of A&A randomly!

Anyone have a link for where it's streamed?

I am almost certain Hitchens will go extremely easy on Blair, we'll see some
fawning on his part for Blair over Iraq & pats on the back for the weapons
of mass destruction shenanigans. Even if the debate is on religion I bet
this is going to happen, here & now you see my proclamations - may they
be true let it be cast in stone that I am the one true leader of the
Frumjohnians whose wrath ye shall encumbernate upon for impure thoughts!

MagicMarker

I didn't watch this last night because I knew i'd be asleep halfway through and because I noticed that the website archives it's debates.

So I just clicked onto the site and to watch it the debate costs only $2.99. I saved $2.

eblistic

MagicMarker wrote: »

I didn't watch this last night because I knew i'd be asleep halfway through and because I noticed that the website archives it's debates.

So I just clicked onto the site and to watch it the debate costs only $2.99. I saved $2.

Having stumped up and stayed up, I have to say, I was slightly disappointed. Might not have been if I'd saved €2 and watched in my own good time!

bnt

There's a full transcript on the New Statesman website, here. I've just started reading Hitch's introductory statement, but thought I should mention it here since he starts by quoting Cardinal Newman, and I'm sitting in the Newman Building at UCD right now. :cool:

My text from the Apologia.
"The Catholic church holds it better for the sun and moon to drop from heaven, for the earth to fail and for all the many millions on it to die in extremist agony than one soul ... should tell one wilful untruth or should steal one farthing without excuse."
You'll have to say it's beautifully phrased, but to me, and this is my proposition, what we have here, and picked from no mean source, is a distillation of precisely what is twisted and immoral in the faith mentality. Its essential fanaticism, it's consideration of the human being as raw material, and its fantasy of purity.
Once you assume a creator and a plan, it makes us objects, in a cruel experiment, whereby we are created sick, and commanded to be well. I'll repeat that. Created sick, and then ordered to be well. And over us, to supervise this, is installed a celestial dictatorship, a kind of divine North Korea. Greedy, exigent, greedy for uncritical phrase from dawn until dusk and swift to punish the original since with which it so tenderly gifted us in the very first place.

ColmDawson

It's on YouTube now.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IpMPFu3mMPA

Edit: Blair's already mentioned Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot. FFFFFFFUUUUUUUUUUUU-

Pushtrak

Part 1 is just an introduction. I've made a playlist with the rest of it, just watching part 2 of it now. http://www.youtube.com/user/Pushtrak?feature=mhum#p/c/8582A8C63D45C164

As a side note, any suggestions on one last playlist to throw in there? I've been trying to compile brilliant videos on the channel playlists, but I'm all out of ideas with the last one.

The Mad Hatter

One of the best religion debates I've seen. Even though I didn't find Blair's arguments convincing (or even new), he at least delivered them well. Though if he had to wheel out the Einstein trope, though, I wish he wouldn't have waited until after Hitchens finished.

ChocolateSauce

Well, I think that was one of Hitchens' best debates. He did better than expected him to (he sometimes goes off on tangents or interrupts his opponent, which isn't good debating style), but Blair was awful. I was expecting more from him tbh. His points were tired and regurgitated.

So I was wondering something, and I'd like to hear Hitchens' opinion on this....if it is good to declare war on a country because it has a brutal dictatorship in place, shouldn't we be liberating Saudi Arabia and North Korea and Iran and Burma and China and Belarus and Sudan and Somalia and so on with military force too?

The Mad Hatter

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

Well, I think that was one of Hitchens' best debates. He did better than expected him to (he sometimes goes off on tangents or interrupts his opponent, which isn't good debating style), but Blair was awful. I was expecting more from him tbh. His points were tired and regurgitated.

So I was wondering something, and I'd like to hear Hitchens' opinion on this....if it is good to declare war on a country because it has a brutal dictatorship in place, shouldn't we be liberating Saudi Arabia and North Korea and Iran and Burma and China and Belarus and Sudan and Somalia and so on with military force too?

He's argued in favour of invading North Korea and Iran. I don't know about the others. I don't agree with his position on Iraq, but he's made the best argument I've heard in defence of it, and he's at least consistent.

Dave!

I also thought this was one of Hitchens' best debates. Great performance from him! Lucid, articulate, witty, funny, etc. Almost Sam Harris-esque

magicbastarder

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

He's argued in favour of invading North Korea and Iran.

speaking of which, i bet there's consternation in the corridors of power in NK over this, and them hiding behind their big ally recently:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-11871641

ChocolateSauce

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

He's argued in favour of invading North Korea and Iran. I don't know about the others. I don't agree with his position on Iraq, but he's made the best argument I've heard in defence of it, and he's at least consistent.

Oh I didn't know that, thanks. Any idea when/where? I'd like to hear his views. I agree with you, his pro-invasion logic is the best I've ever heard. I may not agree with him, but his reasons are genuine and not motivated by self-interest.

The Mad Hatter

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

Oh I didn't know that, thanks. Any idea when/where? I'd like to hear his views. I agree with you, his pro-invasion logic is the best I've ever heard. I may not agree with him, but his reasons are genuine and not mativated by self-interest.

Can't remember where I heard him mention Iran, but I think he mentioned North Korea during the debate with his brother that was posted a while back. (Half the debate was on religion, the other half on Iraq. Christopher won both halves, easily.)

ColmDawson

Was anyone else disappointed with the debate? Not so much the quality of speaking, but the motion? The nature of the motion was such that Blair could rattle off the old "religion does bad things, but look at all the good things it does" stuff, which I find pretty tedious. Debates on the existence of god are have more potential, I think.

keppler

ColmDawson wrote: »

Was anyone else disappointed with the debate? Not so much the quality of speaking, but the motion? The nature of the motion was such that Blair could rattle off the old "religion does bad things, but look at all the good things it does" stuff, which I find pretty tedious. Debates on the existence of god are have more potential, I think.

Yurp, I thought the whole thing was pretty poor to be honest. Blair's speech was well delivered but it appeared to me as if he put no thought into it whatsoever. His arguments were very weak. I lost count how many times he stated that 'yes, some religious people are motivated to do evil but, you cant define all religious people by their actions'
Does anyone else think hitchens went seriously easy on Blair? the final tally of votes was pretty boring too

The Mad Hatter

keppler wrote: »

Yurp, I thought the whole thing was pretty poor to be honest. Blair's speech was well delivered but it appeared to me as if he put no thought into it whatsoever. His arguments were very weak. I lost count how many times he stated that 'yes, some religious people are motivated to do evil but, you cant define all religious people by their actions'
Does anyone else think hitchens went seriously easy on Blair? the final tally of votes was pretty boring too

Haven't heard a new argument in defence of religion in a very long time, and I imagine the same is true of most everyone else here. The best we can hope for is that the old arguments are well-presented, which I think they were in this debate.