…and this is a 
Tonight, Tony Blair and Christopher Hitchens will debate on whether religion is a force for good. I'd love to hear Hitchens on that subject, but Blair? That's almost as comical as having Hitchens debate Bush on the subject. The newspapers are relying on two tools to promote the event. Hype:
Together, Tony Blair and Christopher Hitchens are two of the great British thinkers on religion.
Wait, Blair…isn't he the simpering me-too former prime minister who was our American lackey in the UK? The one who converted to Catholicism, an act that clearly marks him as mentally deficient? Hmmm.
Oh, well. The second tool is the online poll:
Is religion a force for good in the world?
Yes 17%
No 83%
They haven't even had the debate yet and Hitchens is already winning!
Comments
Posted by: greame
|
November 26, 2010 10:20 AM
I was so disappointed when the tickets for this were sold out within about 10 seconds. I'll have to settle for watching a stream online.
Posted by: Ryan
|
November 26, 2010 10:22 AM
Hitchens vs. Blair? Seriously? Am I missing something as an American here? Does Blair have any reputation as a great theologian in the UK that we're not aware of here in the US? Because from where I sit this debate hardly seems fair. It's like Albert Einstein debating Yahoo Serious on physics.
Posted by: kaylakaze
|
November 26, 2010 10:23 AM
Wow! That poll result is BEFORE pharyngulation.
Posted by: Zeno
|
November 26, 2010 10:26 AM
As an Anglican, Blair used to be part of "Catholicism lite," a dilute form of Romanism that was more cognizant of human frailty (thanks to Henry VIII). For some reason he decided to go for the hard stuff. Do more people notice when you kiss the pope's ring than when you bow to the archbishop of Canterbury?
Posted by: John Sven
|
November 26, 2010 10:27 AM
C-SPAN2 has Hitchens Debate on right now!!!!!! Its a replay of his 9/7/10 debate.
Posted by: Biddy
|
November 26, 2010 10:30 AM
If you are stuck in Guelph without tickets and still want to catch the action make your way to the University of Guelph campus (MacK 115). Your friendly atheist/secular student group Atheos is hosting a live screening.
Posted by: cnocspeireag
|
November 26, 2010 10:36 AM
In the UK vernacular, you could say that the newspapers were relying on one tool to promote the event (guess which one).
Posted by: Pinkydead
|
November 26, 2010 10:37 AM
That's not fair.
Tony Blair probably would have been one of Britain's great prime ministers if he hadn't decided to get a lobotomy half way through his tenure.
Posted by: Tom
|
November 26, 2010 10:39 AM
TB a great British thinker on religion?
Well if you have to pick one that's religious he must come near the top of that pile.
He was always banging on about the third way - when there were two mutually incompatible positions he'd come up with a third which was incompatible with both. Good at selling invisible weapons of mass destruction.
Posted by: One Fly
|
November 26, 2010 10:40 AM
I thought they hung this guy Blair. He needs to be hung first and then he can speak from on high so everyone knows how correct he is once again.
GO TEAM HITCHENS!!
Posted by: The Pick Man
|
November 26, 2010 10:40 AM
Does anybody have a link for an online stream?
Posted by: the.atheocrat
|
November 26, 2010 10:44 AM
Blair may not have a reputation as a theologian, but on his day he's an astute debater, and he will have done his homework for this event. I remember some pretty powerful argument from Blair in the UK House of Commons, despite being on shaky ground. Expect an intelligent, former lawyer, streetwise politician's performance from Blair. He's no Dubya, lacky or not - this guy's got considerable intellect. I hope Christopher Hitchens is feeling good, and gives him a good thrashing, all the same!
Posted by: greame
|
November 26, 2010 10:47 AM
@11
Munk Debates is offering a stream for $4.99
Posted by: SEF
|
November 26, 2010 10:49 AM
Only if Hitchens is being counted twice.
Posted by: Aliasalpha
|
November 26, 2010 10:55 AM
Maybe its just my twisted brain but kissing the pope's ring always sounds obscene. I was going to make a joke about felching but it might actually be true... Or a heavyweight bout between the incredible hulk and progeria-girlPosted by: Iain Walker
|
November 26, 2010 10:59 AM
Pinkydead (#8):
I doubt it. The obsession with government-by-media and the ad hoc managerial tinkering approach to reform would have doomed his premiership to also-ran status even if 9/11 hadn't brought out the latent messiah-complex.
Posted by: lamanga2004
|
November 26, 2010 10:59 AM
My contempt for Bliar is immeasurable. I hope Hitchens buries him and pulls no punches.
Posted by: Rey Fox, Bird Caller Guy
|
November 26, 2010 11:17 AM
In America, they organize debates on religion and put a well-known and loved pastor or some such up against some boo-hiss sciencey type and soothe the church-goers afterwards.
In Britain, they put a well-known and irascible intellectual atheist up against some flaky former PM that no one likes.
Are there any job openings over there? Does it really rain all the time?
Posted by: Fred Price, The Cantankerous Cephalopod
|
November 26, 2010 11:18 AM
wow Hitchens is on a roll at the moment, maybe one in ,ondon sometime soonish???
preferably over the summer, then i will definately be free to wallow in the laughability that will ensue if this pattern of Hicthens v. random theistic dumbass (Dumbski, Blair) continues.
Posted by: Moggie
|
November 26, 2010 11:20 AM
Without even checking the URL, I knew that that could only have been written outside the UK.
Posted by: jroeuk
|
November 26, 2010 11:31 AM
Blair's an 'expert' on religion in public policy rather than religion by itself. While Prime Minister he went to war against elements of one religion, introduced laws saying you couldn't offend that same and other religions, and let all manner of religious lunatics run state-funded schools with little to no independent supervision. Now he has some foundation that promotes integrating religion into society and is trying to solve a particularly knotty religious problem in the Levant. So, yeah, he's got a lot to answer for...
Posted by: erpease
|
November 26, 2010 11:36 AM
Blair has two great advantages over Bush junior in this matter. He is intelligent (wise is a different matter) and he can talk extremely well in public. The sparring should be entertaining assuming Hitchens is physically up to it.
I'm not sure I would call either of them great British thinkers on religion (prominent thinkers are another matter). Blair does have the Tony Blair Faith Foundation which is where his prominence in this matter comes from. I suspect also the most here are aware of his October 2009 Georgetown speech with his comments about people who scorn god offering no hope.
Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/hairychris444#96384
|
November 26, 2010 11:43 AM
Sigh, I won't watch this because hearing Blair for more then 0.5 seconds makes me want to do violence. Still, they'll have to scrape him off the walls if Hitch doesn't go easy on him for the Iraq War v2.0 shenannigans.
Blair has a somewhat messianic streak running through him, and has always spoken as such. If this is a true debate, not canned talking points, I want him to be publically humiliated. Nothing else will suffice.
Posted by: CunningLingus
|
November 26, 2010 11:45 AM
Well I decided to subscribe to the live stream even though it will be midnight here in the UK when the debate begins.
Perhaps the evisceration of Blair will be all the sweeter while watching live, and I certainly want to see as many debates as possible with the Hitch.
Posted by: wanderinweeta
|
November 26, 2010 11:48 AM
Why do they always call us "avowed" atheists?
Posted by: frank sellout
|
November 26, 2010 11:49 AM
Got tickets to this event in Toronto, (it's not in Britian #18), it's going to be great. And knowing what Toronto is like these days it will most likely be a partisan Hitchens crowd. A lot of people here want to see Hitchens.
Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawnSwAMGq8UNbaUabvVNuuUoyCJXWdvACl4
|
November 26, 2010 11:55 AM
Look at it now!
3% pro religion and 97% against!
Posted by: Zeno
|
November 26, 2010 12:07 PM
Well, Weeta, it's preferable to the usual alternative, which is "admitted" atheist.
Posted by: Jolo5309
|
November 26, 2010 12:14 PM
Which is politer than the other alternative "militant atheist"
Posted by: Moggie
|
November 26, 2010 12:19 PM
Here's hoping for some shoe-throwing action.
Posted by: Dr No
|
November 26, 2010 12:28 PM
The Blair-Hitch project?
Posted by: jack.rawlinson
|
November 26, 2010 12:30 PM
97% to 3%, now.
Well Pharyngulated, team!
Posted by: flamingwitch
|
November 26, 2010 12:32 PM
Huh, first time I didn't really have to shake my head and breath deeply reading just the first page of comments on that article. I am amazed. Also amazed at how Hitch just keeps on going, I'd probably just laze around the house all day if I had cancer. I really hope his treatment works.
Posted by: Randy
|
November 26, 2010 12:45 PM
Just read this quote from TB on the link in PZ's post:
"“In terms of how people live together, how we minimize the prospects of conflict and maximize the prospects of peace, the place of religion in our society today is essential. … I think religion could be, in an era of globalization, a civilizing force.”
Seems to me TB has it all backwards. Shouldn't this quote read "In terms of how people live together, how we maximize the prospects of conflict and minimize the prospects of peace, the place of religion in our society today is essential ... I think religon could be, in an era of globalization, a destablizing force."
By the way, TB is as good a representative for the religious side of this debate as any other believer they could offer up. They are all equally irrational. I'll probably watch so I can hear Hitch. Wish there were some kind of mute function that could discriminate between the two so I wouldn't have to listen to Blair's pablum.
Posted by: wanderinweeta
|
November 26, 2010 12:45 PM
I admit that I'm an atheist. (Although the appropriate word would be "acknowledge". "Admit" implies guilt.) And there have been times you could call me militant. But I never took any vows, nor do I know any atheist who did. Who or what would you vow to? And what would be the content of the vow?
"I vow to always stay true to atheism, so help me nothing"? Doesn't sound quite right.
Posted by: Hypatia's Daughter
|
November 26, 2010 12:54 PM
Oooh! Ooooh! Can I be an AAMa (Admitted, Avowed Militant atheist),too?? Pretty Please!!
Posted by: Patty
|
November 26, 2010 12:55 PM
I don't understand. Since when is Tony Blair an authority on anything other than succumbing to powers pretending to be greater than he?
An expert on religion??? I think not!
Posted by: Romeo Vitelli
|
November 26, 2010 1:12 PM
What is the point of these kind of debates? It's not as if anything is going to be proven either way and each side is going to proclaim a victory afterward. Ultimately, it's simply a matter of deciding who is the better speaker (and, of course, it's going to be Hitchens since Blair is just an over-the-hill ex-politician). Is this purely a PR effort?
Posted by: JC
|
November 26, 2010 1:14 PM
Is irrationality a force for good in the world?
What percent would answer yes?
Posted by: Glen Davidson
|
November 26, 2010 1:15 PM
I doubt Blair will do well against Hitchens, but he almost has to do better than Dembski did. He was pathetic.
Blair, at least, can almost certainly distance himself from "divine commands" to commit genocide, although I seriously question his ability to explain why such evil is in "God's word" at all.
Btw, the question is not only whether or not religion is a force for good, but what people might take from religion in extreme circumstances. The Bible's commands to kill, rape, and enslave really are detoxified in most of the present populace, but what happens in some apocalyptic scenario? Divine sanction to be unspeakably cruel might be welcome and "obviously true" when getting the edge over the next tribe is at stake.
Glen Davidson
Posted by: mwtb.myopenid.com
|
November 26, 2010 2:01 PM
Whether or not Tony Blair is a great mover and shaker in theology circles is a bit beside the point. He's a proven public speaker and very capable of swaying an audience.
He's also far from above hiding his true convictions if it suits his purposes. When he was UK PM most people had no clue that he was a fervent god-botherer. There isn't the same taste for religion in politics in the UK that there is in the US and so he made sure not to bring that part of his thinking to the forefront. Not that it was hard to find if you dug a little into his commentary or into his choices for the cabinet, but the average Joe just wants the headlines.
I'll be interested to see what parts of recent history get a mention. Blair's most questionable actions obviously surround Iraq, but Hitchens' own views wouldn't seem to permit playing that card.
Posted by: P_Smith
|
November 26, 2010 2:04 PM
About the only positive thing that can be said about Blair's tenure as British PM is that he didn't find a way to screw up the peace negotiations between the British and Irish which John Major began.
.
Posted by: Thomathy
|
November 26, 2010 2:20 PM
I was so upset when I found out that I wouldn't be able to attend due to those with faster hands.
Blair will be pummelled. I mean Blair!? Well, at least I know I'll only be missing a live Hitchens lecture.
Posted by: greame
|
November 26, 2010 2:48 PM
@38
Well, the way I see it, it is a good chance for people who may not know (or care) much about the subject to get some more information. I had certainly considered myself an athiest for years before I took an active intrest in the subject. And I think even if one person takes an intrest, even just one person sees Blair get demolished, that will be one more active voice for our Godless Heathen club.
Posted by: Stonyground
|
November 26, 2010 2:58 PM
I see Blair as an intellectual lightweight but a fast talker. He also has this thing of being 100% confident that he is right, no matter how wrong he is, which he uses to run rings around even people who actually have the facts on their side. I can't really see that working on Hitch though.
Posted by: Flea
|
November 26, 2010 3:46 PM
I was not aware Hitchens had double personality...Posted by: christophe-thill.myopenid.com
|
November 26, 2010 4:23 PM
I don't think Tony Blair is familiar with the notion of "a force for good". Therefore, he is not qualified to debate.
Posted by: Molly, NYC
|
November 26, 2010 4:28 PM
Hope they vacuum the stage before the debate; because Hitchins is going to wipe the floor with Blair's sorry ass.
Posted by: HertfordshireChris
|
November 26, 2010 5:34 PM
I am sure that if Blair's fixation on religion was in the open, rather than hidden for political self-interest, the protests about the plans to go to war with Iraq would have faced very much more opposition - and seen as what it was - a crusade driven by religious fervour rather than facts. For many here in the UK he is now totally discredited - and we despair when people in the US treat him as representing anything.
Posted by: David Marjanović
|
November 26, 2010 6:10 PM
Posted by: David Marjanović
|
November 26, 2010 6:25 PM
No. Only when there's no fog.
</Asterix reference>
Posted by: Kirk
|
November 26, 2010 6:25 PM
I'm not a big US flag waver, and generally think that the US, given all its resources and natural advantages, ought to do better than it does much of the time.
But having said that, the quotation is simply wrong (even if you allow the author to count Blair as a thinker on religion). Hitchens announced a long time ago that he had gotten US citizenship.
Cristopher Hitchens is a great US citizen thinker on religion. Makes me proud to be 'merican.
Posted by: mwtb.myopenid.com
|
November 26, 2010 6:35 PM
Hitchens has dual citizenship, so it's not incorrect to refer to him as British.
Posted by: Samantha Vimes
|
November 26, 2010 6:39 PM
FWIW, I think 'avowed' atheists means the writers are implying, "Yeah, there's a bunch of you out there reading this who don't really believe the bearded sky-man stuff, but you haven't really dealt with the fact that you are an atheist. This guy has! He's public and unashamed of it. Don't you want to hear what he has to say and start thinking harder?"
Posted by: Jessie
|
November 26, 2010 7:10 PM
Can anyone tell me if this has started please as I can't seem to log in to it?
Posted by: Snikkers
|
November 26, 2010 7:12 PM
Jessie, they said they were 15 minutes late about 10 minutes ago.
Posted by: Jessie
|
November 26, 2010 7:17 PM
Many thanks for that. I'll keep trying then as I haven't missed anything.
Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere
|
November 26, 2010 7:21 PM
By that logic, Ken Ham makes you ashamed to be one? ;)Posted by: CunningLingus
|
November 26, 2010 7:45 PM
Awesome opening By Hitchens ... Blair is harping on about charity !
Posted by: CunningLingus
|
November 26, 2010 7:48 PM
"Spiritual prescence in humility, science and religion are not incompatible ... Faith educates us " ... Blair is an idiot !
Posted by: CunningLingus
|
November 26, 2010 7:50 PM
EGADS ! ... Blair brought up Stalin, Hitler and Pol Pot ! This guy was Prime Minister of the UK, i'm ashamed that I thought he was better than the Conservatives !
Posted by: Snikkers
|
November 26, 2010 8:08 PM
The ignorance of religious people knows no bounds.
Posted by: chigau (◦_◦)
|
November 26, 2010 8:09 PM
Careful CunningLingus.
Too much serial posting may be a no-no here.
Posted by: CunningLingus
|
November 26, 2010 8:15 PM
I guessed that kiyaroru ... I shall merely enjoy the debate ... cheers.
Posted by: rachel.wilmoth
|
November 26, 2010 8:54 PM
With people like Ken Ham, Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck, etc. running around, we'll take what we can get. ;-)
Posted by: Frank0570618
|
November 26, 2010 9:08 PM
Yeah, there's no need to pharyngulate that poll. The online version of the Globe is an atheist hotbed :)
Posted by: swann.brian
|
November 26, 2010 9:26 PM
Well I've watched a great number of Hitchens debates online but I must rank this one at the top. I'd hoped to be there in person but it sold out far too quickly.
Having signed up for the live broadcast, I'll also apparently have the ability to watch it again.
I thought it refreshingly civilized. No broadside attacks from either podium. Very little obvious rhetoric and a clear win for reason.
Bravo Christopher and may he have many more.
Posted by: CunningLingus
|
November 26, 2010 9:31 PM
Blair came across more as a humanist, and xian apologist, rather than a catholic, I believe he said he was a "lay catholic" at one stage, I have to give Blair credit for being at least civil, but Hitchens still rockulated, even though it was painful to see him looking ill.
Posted by: cousinavi
|
November 26, 2010 9:46 PM
Anyone who has ever debated the man will tell you - the only way to win is not to play. Debating Christopher Hitchens must be like pounding oneself in the forehead with a hammer: it just feels better when you stop. There are a handful who may possess the smarts, and another few with the rhetorical style, but no one plays at both ends of the court like Hitch.
Posted by: Markita Lynda: Healthcare is a damn right
|
November 26, 2010 10:00 PM
Damn, I was out at 9:00 p.m. dropping off The Spawn in Kensington Market. I could have cruised by Roy Thompson Hall to see if the debate was letting out. And I could have had my copy of The Portable Atheist ready to be signed. It's 10:00 p.m. now and everybody is probably long gone, but it's only about 3 km away... Decisions, decisions!
Posted by: Markita Lynda: Healthcare is a damn right
|
November 26, 2010 10:03 PM
Well, 5 km. (I was visualizing Massey Hall--I think my brain has passed its best-before date.) Maybe I should go. If Hitch is propping up the bar in a local hotel, maybe I can buy him a drink.
Posted by: Markita Lynda: Healthcare is a damn right
|
November 26, 2010 10:11 PM
Seventeen minutes ago on Twitter: "Debate was cordial. But sadly, Mr Blair (arguing for relig) was simply no match for Chris Hitchens. Would've been better debate if he was."
"I just watched Christopher Hitchens destroy Tony Blair in a debate about, what else, religion. Hitchens is amazing."
Posted by: Markita Lynda: Healthcare is a damn right
|
November 27, 2010 12:52 AM
I read that tix were going for $300 on the secondary market ("scalping"), ten times the original price. Frank, I'm impressed that you got some: they were sold out in 45 minutes.
I did go down to the venue but everyone had cleared out.
It doesn't rain all the time in the U.K., but it's a good year when the summer comes on a weekend. And if global warming keeps up, the British Isles will lose the ocean current that keeps them warmer than Labrador. Come to Canada instead!
Posted by: Markita Lynda: Healthcare is a damn right
|
November 27, 2010 12:56 AM
Now, is there a recorded podcast?
Posted by: the.atheocrat
|
November 27, 2010 1:41 AM
21% pre-debate undecided, split almost evenly for and against the motion at the end. Hardly a crushing victory for Hitchens, would have been if more of the waverers went his way. Can't say I'm surprised, the Blair critics overlooked his silver tongue and streetwise savvy, he's a pretty strong debater. He wasn't about to come out with any seriously ludicrous claims publicly, even if he believes them in private.
Posted by: Richard Eis
|
November 27, 2010 5:21 AM
Didn't we have this exact same debate and tagline in England. The answer was "NO, OBVIOUSLY" plus Stephen Fry spanked the opposition so hard they probably couldn't sit down for a week.
Posted by: werewolf07
|
November 27, 2010 6:56 AM
@23
"I want him to be publically humiliated. Nothing else will suffice."
Me too.
Posted by: CaptainBlack
|
November 27, 2010 7:02 AM
The implication of Robert Harris's book Ghost is that a former British Prime Minister with a more than a passing resequence to Tony Blair, and/or their spouse was an agent of a US intelligence agency.
I would not mention the above but I had heard a similar rumour about Blair while he was still PM.
CB
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM
|
November 27, 2010 7:13 AM
If you don't like the weather in Britain, wait ten minutes. It'll rain.
Posted by: werewolf07
|
November 27, 2010 7:18 AM
@49
"I am sure that if Blair's fixation on religion was in the open, rather than hidden for political self-interest, the protests about the plans to go to war with Iraq would have faced very much more opposition - and seen as what it was - a crusade driven by religious fervour rather than facts"
Exactly! You have hit the nail on the head.
Blair (the Catholic Christian "Monarch" who must have cherised dreams to be a King himself during the Crusades putting the Muslims to the sword) was conducting a Christian crusade against a Muslim country. This is the way modern Crusades are conducted - Under cover of bringing democracy when in fact it was bringing vast scale destruction of a Muslim country and decimation of a big chunk of the Muslim population.
Posted by: Forbidden Snowflake
|
November 27, 2010 9:17 AM
Richard Eis:
No, the debate you're thinking of was conducted under the tagline "Is the Catholic Church a force for good in the world?". This one was about religion in general.
Posted by: Kirk
|
November 27, 2010 9:53 AM
@53 mwtb
Point taken. I should have checked for dual citizenship before I made that statement.
@58 Kel
To a degree, yes. I think it's not unusual for people to feel an emotional response to the actions of others, to the extent that we feel kinship (used loosely) with them. Hitchens and I have US citizenship and atheism in common, so I feel more associated with him than with Ham.
But looking back on the post I'm not happy with it. I'll try to say it better here. I don't like nationalism in general. There is a strain of nationalism by the christian right in the US that especially bothers me. So I get some satisfaction in knowing that when right wing christians are mindlessly shouting "USA USA", since Hitchens applied for and received US citizenship, they get to include him in their group.
Posted by: Richard Eis
|
November 27, 2010 3:10 PM
#81 You would be amazed how little that distinction matters, to both sides.
Posted by: al
|
November 29, 2010 12:58 AM
I understand that when hearing the word "religion," one automatically feels a tendency to stepping aback and feeling rejection towards it. I am Brazilian and in my country there is a saying: "não se discute futebol, política e religião." "do not discuss soccer, politics and religion." but as time has gone by, I have noticed that we should learn to separate the subject from the person and not consider both as one thing. It is true, they are polemic subjects and the tendency to not find a middle ground is great, but we should try to do our best in all things. Having said that, I try to analyze religion separately from people - otherwise the feelings you have towards a subject get placed on the value of a person and may, in turn, devalue them which is unfair to all involved. I see religion as a "force for good in the world," but what needs to be evaluated are the types of religions that exist and from there make a wise conclusion. For example, if Religion A says "don't kill" and Religion B says "kill," which one will be the most accepted as correct. Of course, I am speaking generally, not specifically on the subject of killing. My point is just to show something logical about how some things in some religions do not show love or value towards others.