Tony Blair told an audience member at a debate yesterday that his religious beliefs did not play a role in his decision to support the US invasion of Iraq – but the votes went 2-1 the way of his opponent, Christopher Hitchens.
The former prime minister said it was true that “people commit horrific acts of evil in the name of religion”. But Mr Blair, who converted to Catholicism in 2007, said it was also true that religion inspires acts of extraordinary good.
And he said it was important not to condemn all people of religious faith because of the “bigotry or prejudice shown by some”.
“And he said religion may promise salvation but the price was the “surrender of your critical faculties”.
Typical Hitchens.
Well, having “critical faculties” implies intellect, and if you are “religious”, to Hitchens that means you have no “critical faculties” and probably not a whole lot of intellect, either. I believe this “debate” took place in Toronto, so I wonder how Drs. Seitz and Radner would have addressed such a statement, as they have no “critical faculties”; or possibly intellect because of their religion. (DUH) :-/
Hitchens can be so extreme that probably a lot of people want to ignore him or write him off, but I think insane statements like the above should be addressed. I’d like to see the PhD’s writing here, among others, address it.
One certainly does not have to have intellect to have faith, but that does not mean that those who have faith have no intellect or ability to critically analyze something. I would say that my religion means much to me, and it is one of the many things that colors my ‘critical analyses”. Without it, I think I would be a worse analyst, because one resource for analysis would be nonexistent or taken away.
It will be sad, but I wonder if, when Hitchens finally has to meet his Maker, he’ll refer to Him as “dumb”.
Blair did a very poor job. There is a big difference between religion and faith. Hitchens comes across as someone who is bitter and would have benefited greatly knowing the Christian faith in a time of his terminal illness. He reminds me of Saul before his conversion. I pray that he will have a different Christian encounter before his time comes and will find the comfort he is missing.
Tony Blair as the defender of faith? Words fail me.
I like Blair, but he has never been an intellectual heavy weight.
The question being debated was: “be it resolved, religion is a force for good in the world.” How utterly silly. I would have hoped that Mr. Blair were serious enough about his faith to recognize the flawed premise and decline to participate.
And of course, the Canadian media, esp. the CBC, are happy to do their part in making Christianity look like the loser in any debate.
I think a second round should logically be in order in which the following is debated, “be it resolved, atheism is a force for good in the world.”
RE: “Hitchens defeats Blair in Canadian religion debate . . . ”
[b]NO![/b]
[b]Horrors![/b]
If Blair cannot defeat Hitchens [i]than who can stand before him[/i]??
[What a popcorn movie, as they say.]
Why would any one bother to debate Hitchins? This is like trying to convince a hungry wolf that carrion is inedible. Larry