What follows is a transcript of a debate that was held in Toronto in November of 2010 between the former British Prime Minister Tony Blair and the columnist for Vanity Fair Christopher Hitchens; title debate: "Faith is a Force benign or malignant? " A few words of background, if you like: Tony Blair has made his much publicized "conversion" to Catholicism, a flagship of the latter stage of his career (a clever move image, then driven by ambition for the presidency of the European Council - as has already been written).
Christopher Hitchens considers himself a neo-atheist, for what that means (perhaps to distinguish themselves from the "paleo-atheists"? Enlightenment as David Hume or the Baron d'Holbach?), And is the author of the book God Is Not Great ( 2007).
However, for anyone familiar with strong opinions, both Blair and Hitchens, in the field of international geopolitics, and everyone knows what these positions match their (the sacred necessity of attacking Iraq in 2003, admiration for the neocon administration under President George W. Bush, the minimization of waterboarding, and many others), it is difficult not to see this as a lively debate a sort of traveling circus (the debate was repeated with the same script in several other cities, including London), organized by two shrewd Marple cachet to cash a hearty good-natured butt of consumer jokes in public about their respective beliefs in matters of faith (the only point on which seem to be formally disagree), and taking the attention of their lives no doubt many viewers - called the idea of \u200b\u200b"quality" evoked by the brand Blair & Hitchens - thanks to their undeniable qualities of public speakers.
That said, the debate is still enjoyable, as it provides interesting insights. Good reading.
Christopher Hitchens: Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. Many thanks to the family Munk, major philanthropists, for making this possible. Seven minutes, ladies and gentlemen, to lay the foundations of the topic of religion and philosophy leaves me little time to congratulate my distinguished opponent, indeed, perhaps take the opportunity to do so later!
I think that three and a half minutes for metaphysics and three and a half minutes for the material world will not be excessive, and I have a text, I have a text that was written (as I have no intention to make use of religious texts of known extremists and fanatics) Cardinal Newman - recently beatified, with the insistence of Mr. Blair, and soon to be canonized. A man whose Anglican Apology led many to reconsider [their faith], brought many people within the Catholic Church and is rightly considered a great Christian thinker. My text is taken dall'Apologia.
"The Catholic Church," said Cardinal Newman, "would prefer that the sun and the moon fell from the sky, the earth collapsed and that the many millions on it perish in extreme agony, rather than a single soul - I do not say it was lost - but that commit even a venial sin, deliberately lied or stole a single penny without justification. "
You have to admit that it is very well written, but for me, and this is my argument, what we have here - and certainly not taken from a corrupt source - it is precisely a distillation of all that is twisted and immoral in the minds of the faith : its essential fanaticism, his account of human beings as raw material, and his fantasy of purity.
accept the concept of a creator, and a project, makes us all the objects in a cruel experiment in which we are made sick, and we are instructed to heal. I repeat: creati malati, con l'ordine di diventare sani. E su di noi, con il cómpito di supervisionare ciò, sarebbe stata installata una dittatura celestiale, una sorta di Corea del Nord divina, avida ed esigente. Avida di acritiche parole di lodi dall'alba al tramonto e rapida a punire i peccati originali che essa stessa, amorevolmente, ci donò per cominciare.
Ad ogni modo, non sia mai detto che non è offerta una cura, una salvezza. Eccome, la redenzione viene promessa alla modica spesa della resa di tutte le nostre facoltà critiche.
La religione, si potrebbe... si deve dire, dovrebbe ammettere di fare delle affermazioni piuttosto straordinarie; ma, nonostante io sia convinto che per [dimostrare] delle affermazioni straordinarie are necessary extraordinary evidence, rather boldly, even it does not provide evidence to support its claims, ordinary and extraordinary supernatural.
So you might start wondering - and I also ask my opponent, as well as for you, when thinking about how to vote [1] - is probably good for the world to appeal to our gullibility and our skepticism? It maybe good for the world to worship a deity that is one part in wars, as in human affairs? Or appeal to our fear and our guilt, is probably good for the world? In our fear, our fear of death, is perhaps well to call?
Preach the guilt and shame for the act sex and sexual relationships, is perhaps good for the world? And above all, ask yourself, are all these concerns of this religion should be concerned (as I believe he is doing)? Terrorize children with images of hell and eternal punishment, not only for themselves but also for their parents and all those who love. And perhaps worst of all, consider the woman as a lower creation: everything is perhaps a good thing? And can you show me a religion that did it? We say that certain books of myths and legends, written by men and primitive, are actually a code revealed and divine, not created by man.
Religion causes good people to do wrongdoing, and intelligent people to say stupid things. We were given a baby in hand, maybe your first reaction would be to think: "Nice, almost perfect, and now soon pass me a sharp stone to his genitals, so I can do the work of the Lord"? No.
As rightly said, the great physicist Stephen Weinberg [2]: "the ordinary moral universe, the better people will do the best they are capable of, and make the worst of the worst people are capable of. But if you want to bring good people to do evil things, then there is no need of religion.
I still have one minute and 57 seconds to explain why I think this is clearly evident in our material world. I want to ask Tony, since it is here, and as the geographical region where it is trying to make peace is the site of the nacita monotesimo, which should be expected as resplendent peace and love. Everybody in the civilized world is more or less in agreement - as well as Arabs, Jews and the international community - that there should be enough room for two states and two peoples in the same strip of land: I think on this we are more or less all agree. Because we are not able to obtain it, neither we nor the UN nor the United States or the Quartet, or the PLO or the Israeli parliament, why? Why are the "party of God" have a veto on the issue, and everyone knows that this is true. Because of the divine promises that were made about this area, there will never be peace or compromise. There will be however misery, shame and tyranny, people who kill children of other people because of ancient books, caves and relics, and who I will say that all this is good for the world? This is just the example that I had on hand. Have you recently looked at the possibility - we talked about how frightened the children - what would happen if messianic fanatics should get their hands on a weapon apocalyptic? We're about to find out, while we observe the Islamic Republic of Iran, allied with the party of God, do rehearsal for this. Have you recently had a look at the revival of tsarism in Putin's Russia, where the black-clad Orthodox religious leadership rests on an increasingly xenophobic regime, tyrannical, imperialist and expansionist? [3]
Have you recently had a look to the teachings in Africa - and their consequences - by a Church that says, "AIDS will also be evil, but not as much as condoms? This is exactly ...
I remain more seconds, ladies and gentlemen, I did my best. Believe me, I still have the other [to speak].
TONY BLAIR: First of all, let me say that is a real pleasure to be with you all tonight, be back here in Toronto. In particular, it is a privilege and an honor to be with Christopher Hitchens in this debate. Let me say first that I did not I would consider the leader of North Korea as an icon for religion, as I delight to know. I will address my
seven points in seven minutes: a seven biblical. The first is this: it is certainly true that people can commit horrific acts in the name of religion. It is also true that people make extraordinary works of the common good, inspired by religion. Almost half of the health system in Africa is administered by organizations of faith, saving millions of lives. A quarter of all care for HIV / AIDS is provided by Catholic organizations. There is a fantastic work done by Muslim and Jewish groups. There are thousands of religious organizations in Canada who care for the mentally ill, disabled, disadvantaged and dispossessed. And here in Toronto, not even a mile away, there is a shelter run by a nonprofit organization, an association of Christian charity for young homeless people in Canada.
So the proposition that religion is pure poison is unsustainable. It can be destructive, but it can also create a deep well of compassion, as it often does.
The second point is that people are inspired to do good by what I would call the essence of faith that, apart from the doctrines and rituals specific to each faith, is the simple belief common to all religions, [to] serve and love God through service and love for other beings humans, as evidenced by the teachings of Jesus' life - a life of love, selflessness and sacrifice - the meaning of the Torah. It was Rabbi Hillel who defied a day, as is known, from a detractor who said he would convert to the religion if [the rabbi] FOSE was able to recite the entire Torah on one foot remaining, put on a leg, and said, 'Do unto others as you would have them to you. This is the Torah: the rest is commentary. Now go 'and converted. "
The message of the prophet Mohammed - to save one life is like saving all humanity - the pursuit of altruism Hindu, the Buddhist concept of Kuruni, which subjugates the selfish desire in favor of aid to others, the insistence of to Sikhs respect towards people of other religions. In my opinion, this is the true face of faith. And the values \u200b\u200bderived from this essence to many people have a benign structure, positive and progressive to the effect that live their lives. Stimulate the impulse to do good, to regulate the propensity to be selfish and wicked.
And faith defined in this way is not only faith as relief times of need, although it may be, nor a relic of tradition without reflection, much less a piece of superstition, or an explanation of biology. Rather, it responds to a deep spiritual need, something we feel and we feel instinctively. It is a spiritual presence bigger, more important and meaningful to us, individually, whose power is separate from ours and that even if the wonders of the world are increasing, leads us to kneel in humility, instead of full strut pride.
If faith is seen in this light, science and religion are no longer incompatible with a view to fighting against each other, until such time as la fredda ragione estinguerà le fiamme fanatiche della religione. Al contrario: la scienza ci istruisce su com'è e come funziona il mondo fisico, mentre la fede ci istruisce sullo scopo a cui porta questa conoscenza, i valori che dovrebbero pilotarne l'uso e i limiti di ciò che possono fare la scienza e la tecnologia per rendere più ricca la nostra vita – non dal punto di vista materiale, ma da quello spirituale.
E allora immaginatelo davvero un mondo senza religione: non solo senza luoghi di culto, senza preghiere o scritture, ma anche senza uomini o donne propensi a mostrare perdono - per via della loro fede del dedicare la loro vita ad altri - dove altrimenti non ne mostrerebbero, [senza persone] che, guidate dalla loro fede a credere che anche i più deboli e indifesi hanno dei diritti, si sentissero in dovere di difenderli.
E certo, sono d'accordo, in un mondo senza religione i fanatici religiosi non esisterebbero. Ma vi domando: anche il fanatismo smetterebbe di esistere? E poi vi chiedo di tenere a mente che l'immaginare una simile visione del mondo non è nuova. Il ventesimo secolo porta le cicatrici di visioni che avevano precisamente questa immagine nel loro cuore, e che ci regalarono Hitler, Stalin e Pol Pot. In questa visione, l'obbedienza alla volontà era per i deboli: era la volontà dell'uomo che doveva dominare.
Così, mentre non nego per un istante che la religione possa essere una forza maligna, affermo anche che laddove questo è the case, it is essentially a perversion of faith, and at least assert that religion can also be a benign force, and that, where this is the case, it is because he is faithful to what I believe to be the very essence of faith, and I say that a world without religion would be a small world, spiritually, morally and emotionally.
So, I know very well that you can give examples - as rightly Christopher - in which people have used religion to commit terrible acts that have made the world a worse place. But I ask you not to judge all people of faith as these people mentioned above, any more than there would put a judge basing policy su pessimi politici. O il giornalismo su pessimi giornalisti.
La domanda [del dibattito] è: pur con tutte le cose che non vanno per quanto riguarda la religione, è possibile che vi sia in essa anche qualcosa che aiuti il mondo a essere migliore, e le persone a fare del bene? La mia risposta è sì. Grazie.
CHRISTOPHER HITCHENS : Bene, d'accordo. In tutta onestà, nessuno qui si è messo a dire che la religione debba – o che sia destinata a – sparire dal mondo: tutto quello che sto dicendo è che sarebbe meglio se ci fosse molto più di ciò che si può definire una “ondata di laicità”. Per logica, se Tony avesse ragione, la mia situazione sarebbe better - not much, but slightly - if I was a Wahabi Muslim, or perhaps a Jehovah's Witness, rather than bask in the simple secularism, as obviously I do.
What I'm saying is that what we need is much more and much less of one another. I knew it was coming the moment when he would come out of the speech of charities and charity: this is something that I take very seriously because it is the case, ladies and gentlemen, today we are the first generation to really know what is the remedy for poverty. This has eluded us for many, many years. The cure for poverty has a name, in reality power is called women.
If you give women more control over their pace of play, if you give them more say in the liberated from animal-breeding cycles in which nature and some religious doctrines condemn them, and if you throw them a handful of seeds, and maybe even loans, the LEVELS of everything in that village - not only the existence but also the health and education - will increase. Try it in Bangladesh and Bolivia. Works every time. Tell me one religion that promotes this idea, or that I have ever promoted. Anywhere in the world you turn your gaze from women trying to rimuonvere strains of ignorance, disease, and stupidity, the main obstacle is invariably represented by the clergy.
Besides, if we grant this, and that the various Catholic associations of charity, I would say, I hope they work very well in Africa: If I were a member of a church that has always preached that AIDS is not as bad as condoms , I would send some money to Africa to put a good conscience. I say this not to make a joke: if you want to laugh, it means that I was wrong. Will not bring back the millions of people who died a horrible death because of that conviction, which continues even now.
I would rather hear a word of apology from the religious to regard this particular point, if it was offered [by someone], otherwise I will judge accused of bad religious people taking the example of their worst representatives. And this is not implemented, as Tony says, in the name of religion: it is a direct precept, practice and discipline of religion, is not it true, sir, in this case? I think you'll see that it is. But perhaps you will say, okay, Mormons will tell you the same thing: "You may well think it is a bit 'crazy belief that Joseph Smith found a new Bible, buried in upstate New York, but you should see our missionaries in action. " Maybe, but this sends me into raptures. I would prefer that there were no Mormons, honestly, neither missionaries nor Joseph Smith.
also give Hamas and Hezbollah, both of which will tell you, as do non-stop, "Look at our works of charity. Without us, Effendi, where would the poor of Gaza and Lebanon? "And they are right: they do many works of charity. It's nothing compared to the damage that cause, but it's still a lot.
are familiar even to me the teachings of Rabbi Hilel, I also know from where the plagiarized his story, if you had access to the material first-hand: the injunction not to do to others what you would consider abhorrent if done to you, is in [inaudible] of Confucius, if we want to place [historically]. But it is also in the heart of every person in this audience. That's for sure. There must be a divine permission to know what is right and what is wrong, we do not need them to be administered tablets of the law, ten at a time, under pain of death, we might have a moral sense. No, we have our own reasoning, moral persuasion and our ability Socratic: we do not need a dictatorship to tell us what is right and what is wrong. And this is all my time, thank you. [4]
( the description here )
[1] At the end of the debate, was asked the audience to vote for the most convincing argument.
[2] Not random, but diplomatically correct, in my opinion, the quote Stephen Weinberg, strategically placed just after a critique of circumcision. Intelligent pre-emptive defense against possible accusations of anti-Semitism - which appear not to be missed in the past.
[3] Iran and Russia: the great Satan. There is now no longer any doubt, there are still records that even Hitchens considers sacred: those produced by the PNAC .
[4] After their introductions to each of the participants were given four minutes to respond.
The entire video can be viewed here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ddsz9XBhrYA
For a transcript (albeit with several errors):
http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/the-staggers/2010/11/christopher-hitchens-tony-blair
Christopher Hitchens considers himself a neo-atheist, for what that means (perhaps to distinguish themselves from the "paleo-atheists"? Enlightenment as David Hume or the Baron d'Holbach?), And is the author of the book God Is Not Great ( 2007).
However, for anyone familiar with strong opinions, both Blair and Hitchens, in the field of international geopolitics, and everyone knows what these positions match their (the sacred necessity of attacking Iraq in 2003, admiration for the neocon administration under President George W. Bush, the minimization of waterboarding, and many others), it is difficult not to see this as a lively debate a sort of traveling circus (the debate was repeated with the same script in several other cities, including London), organized by two shrewd Marple cachet to cash a hearty good-natured butt of consumer jokes in public about their respective beliefs in matters of faith (the only point on which seem to be formally disagree), and taking the attention of their lives no doubt many viewers - called the idea of \u200b\u200b"quality" evoked by the brand Blair & Hitchens - thanks to their undeniable qualities of public speakers.
That said, the debate is still enjoyable, as it provides interesting insights. Good reading.
Christopher Hitchens: Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. Many thanks to the family Munk, major philanthropists, for making this possible. Seven minutes, ladies and gentlemen, to lay the foundations of the topic of religion and philosophy leaves me little time to congratulate my distinguished opponent, indeed, perhaps take the opportunity to do so later!
I think that three and a half minutes for metaphysics and three and a half minutes for the material world will not be excessive, and I have a text, I have a text that was written (as I have no intention to make use of religious texts of known extremists and fanatics) Cardinal Newman - recently beatified, with the insistence of Mr. Blair, and soon to be canonized. A man whose Anglican Apology led many to reconsider [their faith], brought many people within the Catholic Church and is rightly considered a great Christian thinker. My text is taken dall'Apologia.
"The Catholic Church," said Cardinal Newman, "would prefer that the sun and the moon fell from the sky, the earth collapsed and that the many millions on it perish in extreme agony, rather than a single soul - I do not say it was lost - but that commit even a venial sin, deliberately lied or stole a single penny without justification. "
You have to admit that it is very well written, but for me, and this is my argument, what we have here - and certainly not taken from a corrupt source - it is precisely a distillation of all that is twisted and immoral in the minds of the faith : its essential fanaticism, his account of human beings as raw material, and his fantasy of purity.
accept the concept of a creator, and a project, makes us all the objects in a cruel experiment in which we are made sick, and we are instructed to heal. I repeat: creati malati, con l'ordine di diventare sani. E su di noi, con il cómpito di supervisionare ciò, sarebbe stata installata una dittatura celestiale, una sorta di Corea del Nord divina, avida ed esigente. Avida di acritiche parole di lodi dall'alba al tramonto e rapida a punire i peccati originali che essa stessa, amorevolmente, ci donò per cominciare.
Ad ogni modo, non sia mai detto che non è offerta una cura, una salvezza. Eccome, la redenzione viene promessa alla modica spesa della resa di tutte le nostre facoltà critiche.
La religione, si potrebbe... si deve dire, dovrebbe ammettere di fare delle affermazioni piuttosto straordinarie; ma, nonostante io sia convinto che per [dimostrare] delle affermazioni straordinarie are necessary extraordinary evidence, rather boldly, even it does not provide evidence to support its claims, ordinary and extraordinary supernatural.
So you might start wondering - and I also ask my opponent, as well as for you, when thinking about how to vote [1] - is probably good for the world to appeal to our gullibility and our skepticism? It maybe good for the world to worship a deity that is one part in wars, as in human affairs? Or appeal to our fear and our guilt, is probably good for the world? In our fear, our fear of death, is perhaps well to call?
Preach the guilt and shame for the act sex and sexual relationships, is perhaps good for the world? And above all, ask yourself, are all these concerns of this religion should be concerned (as I believe he is doing)? Terrorize children with images of hell and eternal punishment, not only for themselves but also for their parents and all those who love. And perhaps worst of all, consider the woman as a lower creation: everything is perhaps a good thing? And can you show me a religion that did it? We say that certain books of myths and legends, written by men and primitive, are actually a code revealed and divine, not created by man.
Religion causes good people to do wrongdoing, and intelligent people to say stupid things. We were given a baby in hand, maybe your first reaction would be to think: "Nice, almost perfect, and now soon pass me a sharp stone to his genitals, so I can do the work of the Lord"? No.
As rightly said, the great physicist Stephen Weinberg [2]: "the ordinary moral universe, the better people will do the best they are capable of, and make the worst of the worst people are capable of. But if you want to bring good people to do evil things, then there is no need of religion.
I still have one minute and 57 seconds to explain why I think this is clearly evident in our material world. I want to ask Tony, since it is here, and as the geographical region where it is trying to make peace is the site of the nacita monotesimo, which should be expected as resplendent peace and love. Everybody in the civilized world is more or less in agreement - as well as Arabs, Jews and the international community - that there should be enough room for two states and two peoples in the same strip of land: I think on this we are more or less all agree. Because we are not able to obtain it, neither we nor the UN nor the United States or the Quartet, or the PLO or the Israeli parliament, why? Why are the "party of God" have a veto on the issue, and everyone knows that this is true. Because of the divine promises that were made about this area, there will never be peace or compromise. There will be however misery, shame and tyranny, people who kill children of other people because of ancient books, caves and relics, and who I will say that all this is good for the world? This is just the example that I had on hand. Have you recently looked at the possibility - we talked about how frightened the children - what would happen if messianic fanatics should get their hands on a weapon apocalyptic? We're about to find out, while we observe the Islamic Republic of Iran, allied with the party of God, do rehearsal for this. Have you recently had a look at the revival of tsarism in Putin's Russia, where the black-clad Orthodox religious leadership rests on an increasingly xenophobic regime, tyrannical, imperialist and expansionist? [3]
Have you recently had a look to the teachings in Africa - and their consequences - by a Church that says, "AIDS will also be evil, but not as much as condoms? This is exactly ...
I remain more seconds, ladies and gentlemen, I did my best. Believe me, I still have the other [to speak].
TONY BLAIR: First of all, let me say that is a real pleasure to be with you all tonight, be back here in Toronto. In particular, it is a privilege and an honor to be with Christopher Hitchens in this debate. Let me say first that I did not I would consider the leader of North Korea as an icon for religion, as I delight to know. I will address my
seven points in seven minutes: a seven biblical. The first is this: it is certainly true that people can commit horrific acts in the name of religion. It is also true that people make extraordinary works of the common good, inspired by religion. Almost half of the health system in Africa is administered by organizations of faith, saving millions of lives. A quarter of all care for HIV / AIDS is provided by Catholic organizations. There is a fantastic work done by Muslim and Jewish groups. There are thousands of religious organizations in Canada who care for the mentally ill, disabled, disadvantaged and dispossessed. And here in Toronto, not even a mile away, there is a shelter run by a nonprofit organization, an association of Christian charity for young homeless people in Canada.
So the proposition that religion is pure poison is unsustainable. It can be destructive, but it can also create a deep well of compassion, as it often does.
The second point is that people are inspired to do good by what I would call the essence of faith that, apart from the doctrines and rituals specific to each faith, is the simple belief common to all religions, [to] serve and love God through service and love for other beings humans, as evidenced by the teachings of Jesus' life - a life of love, selflessness and sacrifice - the meaning of the Torah. It was Rabbi Hillel who defied a day, as is known, from a detractor who said he would convert to the religion if [the rabbi] FOSE was able to recite the entire Torah on one foot remaining, put on a leg, and said, 'Do unto others as you would have them to you. This is the Torah: the rest is commentary. Now go 'and converted. "
The message of the prophet Mohammed - to save one life is like saving all humanity - the pursuit of altruism Hindu, the Buddhist concept of Kuruni, which subjugates the selfish desire in favor of aid to others, the insistence of to Sikhs respect towards people of other religions. In my opinion, this is the true face of faith. And the values \u200b\u200bderived from this essence to many people have a benign structure, positive and progressive to the effect that live their lives. Stimulate the impulse to do good, to regulate the propensity to be selfish and wicked.
And faith defined in this way is not only faith as relief times of need, although it may be, nor a relic of tradition without reflection, much less a piece of superstition, or an explanation of biology. Rather, it responds to a deep spiritual need, something we feel and we feel instinctively. It is a spiritual presence bigger, more important and meaningful to us, individually, whose power is separate from ours and that even if the wonders of the world are increasing, leads us to kneel in humility, instead of full strut pride.
If faith is seen in this light, science and religion are no longer incompatible with a view to fighting against each other, until such time as la fredda ragione estinguerà le fiamme fanatiche della religione. Al contrario: la scienza ci istruisce su com'è e come funziona il mondo fisico, mentre la fede ci istruisce sullo scopo a cui porta questa conoscenza, i valori che dovrebbero pilotarne l'uso e i limiti di ciò che possono fare la scienza e la tecnologia per rendere più ricca la nostra vita – non dal punto di vista materiale, ma da quello spirituale.
E allora immaginatelo davvero un mondo senza religione: non solo senza luoghi di culto, senza preghiere o scritture, ma anche senza uomini o donne propensi a mostrare perdono - per via della loro fede del dedicare la loro vita ad altri - dove altrimenti non ne mostrerebbero, [senza persone] che, guidate dalla loro fede a credere che anche i più deboli e indifesi hanno dei diritti, si sentissero in dovere di difenderli.
E certo, sono d'accordo, in un mondo senza religione i fanatici religiosi non esisterebbero. Ma vi domando: anche il fanatismo smetterebbe di esistere? E poi vi chiedo di tenere a mente che l'immaginare una simile visione del mondo non è nuova. Il ventesimo secolo porta le cicatrici di visioni che avevano precisamente questa immagine nel loro cuore, e che ci regalarono Hitler, Stalin e Pol Pot. In questa visione, l'obbedienza alla volontà era per i deboli: era la volontà dell'uomo che doveva dominare.
Così, mentre non nego per un istante che la religione possa essere una forza maligna, affermo anche che laddove questo è the case, it is essentially a perversion of faith, and at least assert that religion can also be a benign force, and that, where this is the case, it is because he is faithful to what I believe to be the very essence of faith, and I say that a world without religion would be a small world, spiritually, morally and emotionally.
So, I know very well that you can give examples - as rightly Christopher - in which people have used religion to commit terrible acts that have made the world a worse place. But I ask you not to judge all people of faith as these people mentioned above, any more than there would put a judge basing policy su pessimi politici. O il giornalismo su pessimi giornalisti.
La domanda [del dibattito] è: pur con tutte le cose che non vanno per quanto riguarda la religione, è possibile che vi sia in essa anche qualcosa che aiuti il mondo a essere migliore, e le persone a fare del bene? La mia risposta è sì. Grazie.
CHRISTOPHER HITCHENS : Bene, d'accordo. In tutta onestà, nessuno qui si è messo a dire che la religione debba – o che sia destinata a – sparire dal mondo: tutto quello che sto dicendo è che sarebbe meglio se ci fosse molto più di ciò che si può definire una “ondata di laicità”. Per logica, se Tony avesse ragione, la mia situazione sarebbe better - not much, but slightly - if I was a Wahabi Muslim, or perhaps a Jehovah's Witness, rather than bask in the simple secularism, as obviously I do.
What I'm saying is that what we need is much more and much less of one another. I knew it was coming the moment when he would come out of the speech of charities and charity: this is something that I take very seriously because it is the case, ladies and gentlemen, today we are the first generation to really know what is the remedy for poverty. This has eluded us for many, many years. The cure for poverty has a name, in reality power is called women.
If you give women more control over their pace of play, if you give them more say in the liberated from animal-breeding cycles in which nature and some religious doctrines condemn them, and if you throw them a handful of seeds, and maybe even loans, the LEVELS of everything in that village - not only the existence but also the health and education - will increase. Try it in Bangladesh and Bolivia. Works every time. Tell me one religion that promotes this idea, or that I have ever promoted. Anywhere in the world you turn your gaze from women trying to rimuonvere strains of ignorance, disease, and stupidity, the main obstacle is invariably represented by the clergy.
Besides, if we grant this, and that the various Catholic associations of charity, I would say, I hope they work very well in Africa: If I were a member of a church that has always preached that AIDS is not as bad as condoms , I would send some money to Africa to put a good conscience. I say this not to make a joke: if you want to laugh, it means that I was wrong. Will not bring back the millions of people who died a horrible death because of that conviction, which continues even now.
I would rather hear a word of apology from the religious to regard this particular point, if it was offered [by someone], otherwise I will judge accused of bad religious people taking the example of their worst representatives. And this is not implemented, as Tony says, in the name of religion: it is a direct precept, practice and discipline of religion, is not it true, sir, in this case? I think you'll see that it is. But perhaps you will say, okay, Mormons will tell you the same thing: "You may well think it is a bit 'crazy belief that Joseph Smith found a new Bible, buried in upstate New York, but you should see our missionaries in action. " Maybe, but this sends me into raptures. I would prefer that there were no Mormons, honestly, neither missionaries nor Joseph Smith.
also give Hamas and Hezbollah, both of which will tell you, as do non-stop, "Look at our works of charity. Without us, Effendi, where would the poor of Gaza and Lebanon? "And they are right: they do many works of charity. It's nothing compared to the damage that cause, but it's still a lot.
are familiar even to me the teachings of Rabbi Hilel, I also know from where the plagiarized his story, if you had access to the material first-hand: the injunction not to do to others what you would consider abhorrent if done to you, is in [inaudible] of Confucius, if we want to place [historically]. But it is also in the heart of every person in this audience. That's for sure. There must be a divine permission to know what is right and what is wrong, we do not need them to be administered tablets of the law, ten at a time, under pain of death, we might have a moral sense. No, we have our own reasoning, moral persuasion and our ability Socratic: we do not need a dictatorship to tell us what is right and what is wrong. And this is all my time, thank you. [4]
( the description here )
[1] At the end of the debate, was asked the audience to vote for the most convincing argument.
[2] Not random, but diplomatically correct, in my opinion, the quote Stephen Weinberg, strategically placed just after a critique of circumcision. Intelligent pre-emptive defense against possible accusations of anti-Semitism - which appear not to be missed in the past.
[3] Iran and Russia: the great Satan. There is now no longer any doubt, there are still records that even Hitchens considers sacred: those produced by the PNAC .
[4] After their introductions to each of the participants were given four minutes to respond.
The entire video can be viewed here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ddsz9XBhrYA
For a transcript (albeit with several errors):
http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/the-staggers/2010/11/christopher-hitchens-tony-blair
0 comments:
Post a Comment