Tony Blair and Christopher Hitchens discussed matters of religion as part of the Munk Debates. There was a lot of hype over the event because of the global fame of the two master debaters. Tickets supposedly were selling for $500 on eBay.
There was indeed a lot of potential for interesting debate. These two are true titans in their respective fields. Though they disagree on the debate topic, “Be it resolved, religion is a force for good in the world”, Hitchens was and still is a supporter of the invasion, or liberation, of Iraq. Blair was instrumental in that war, as the United States’s primary (and only significant) partner in the endeavor.
Unfortunately, both sides were underwhelming. Though Hitchens did well (the audience poll declared him the winner), he stuck mostly to the same old arguments we’ve heard from all his debates. There were few specific attacks of Blair’s points (of which he may of only had one; more below). Having such an iconic proponent of religion, a man who created an organization devoted to increasing global sensitivities for people of faith, Hitchens should have been more on the offensive. However, maybe his strategy was to let people watch the circularness of Blair’s argument.
It was Blair’s job to convince us that religion is a force for good in the world. Instead, he preached that the good and evil pretty much balance out, or that they’re immeasurable and therefore shouldn’t be considered side by side. He also himself brought up that religion causes problems, and stressed that religion is capable of fixing those problems….if we work at doing religion right. It really felt to me like Blair had no intention of debating Hitchens, but instead wanted to promote his own organization amongst the already faithful. He seemed to make pleas to the believing public to do better, to do good. He said many times too that for some people religion is an inspiration to do great and good works, but conceded that it wasn’t necessary. So, we’re left thinking, why bother having religion if it’s just going to create problems that it or we then need to fix and it causes both good and bad just as anything else would when wielded by flawed men?
Blair really seemed to make no argument for religion being a force for good. He said that it can be from time to time, but it can also be evil from time to time, that it can cause people to do good things, that it can create divide, that it can help bridge the divides it created. I don’t see how that is a force for good, and Hitchens didn’t pressure him on this. If I were to have a gun in one hand and chocolate in the other, maybe I shoot you or maybe I give you chocolate. Does that make me a force of good? Don’t say no, because I might give you chocolate! Oh, but just so you know, you could get chocolate from someone else too.
There was one excellent point that Blair did make; I highly suggest we try it in the Middle East.