>> republican national committee chairman, michael stehle is running for a second term, and he faced his four declared challengers in a debate today.

>> next, a conversation with former supreme court justices, sandra o connor and david soute souter. this is about an hour and 10

minutes. >> on behalf of my foundation colleagues and colleague director, i'd like to thank all of you for coming this evening. we count on your support, and if you are not already, i encourage you to become a member of the library. please visit our website jfklibrary.org for more informationment i want to express particular thanks to the friends and institutions who make this possible. bank of america which is our lead sponsor of the kennedy library forum series, boston capitol, institute, and the boston foundation along with our other sponsors. this forum will be broadcast on the wgbh forum network, and c-span. we are honored to have retired supreme court justices with us here to discuss their shared

passion, the importance of civic education. david recalls when he was a boy, he learned the lessons of democracy and the functions of the three branches of government at new england town meetings. he's called those meetings the most radical exercise of american democracy that you can fine. it didn't matter if someone were rich or poor, young or old, sensible or foolish, these meetings were gonch -- governed by fairness. today when two-thirds of americans can't name the three branches of government, education is needed by judges who stand up by individual rights against the popular will. justice o'connor is even blunter. [laughter] one in seven americans know john

roberts is chief justice of the supreme court, but two-thirds can name at least one judge on american idol, it's time to reeducate the american public. [laughter] she was born in texas and spent our childhood in arizona. she received her ba before settle in arizona with her husband. in 1974 she ran successfully for trial judge, a position she held until she was appointed to the arizona court of appeals and nominated to the supreme court in 1981 by ronald reagan and confirmed tohe u. senate 99-0. it made her the first female in our nation's history to serve on the highest court. justice o'connor retired --

[applause] justice o'connor retired from the court in 2005 and has been known to refer to herself as just an unemployed koa girl. [laughter] but as our moderator wrote in the "new york times," she basically lives in airplanes traveling the country in support of her causes. i'll read a newspaper article that shows that commitment. in september, she visited wrigley field in chicago to attend a cubs game wearing a royal blue cubs jacket, she delivered the gameall the umpires in t field and then visited the broadcast booth delivering the following commentary. i never thought i would see the day when we stop teaching civics in government. it could be boring how they teach it, but it's an important function of the schools.

then she interrupted herself, oh, big hit out there. [laughter] you have to love a supreme court justice who jumps in to give the play-by-play at a cubs game. [laughter] david was born in massachusetts receiving his ba and law degree from harvard university and was a road scholar at oxford before settling in new hampshire serving as attorney general and on the state's supreme court and no , nominated to the u.s. supreme court in 1990 by president george hw bush. our moderator also wrote about him. just after he announced retirement, she called him perfectly suited to his job. his polite persistent questions of lawyers before the court display his mastery of the case at hand and cases relevant to it. far from being out of touch from

the modern world, he has simply refused to surrender to its control over aspects of his own life of biking, sailing, spending times with friends and studying history. he is doing things he loves and also very occasionally speaking out about some very important issues. he spoke out about the modes of interpretation. "washington post" columnist called the speech remarkable, one which should be the shock heard around the country. our moderator tonight, lin dray greenhouse is one of the foremost authorities on the supreme court. she won the pulitzer prize in 1988. she now teaches at yale law school. in the recent "new york times"

about the three former justices, she noted that, "their shared capacity for blunt talk. tonight's speakers she says they have the need to go on concurring vets, each in a public position to help the public understand more about how a supreme court justice thinks as well as about the supreme court itself, its processes, and its challenges. with that in mind, please join me in welcoming justice sandra day o'connor, david souter, and our moderator, linda greenhouse. [applause] >> well, thank you. it's a personal thrill to be here really here in the kennedy library on the 50th anniversary

of his election. i was a young teenager at that time, and i have to say that he did inspire my own interest in public affairs in the public lives of the country, and i remember my friends and i in school hung on to every development in the campaign and the start up in the new administration, and that's a deliberate segue into our topic tonight which is civic education deficit in the country's schools, and it kind of makes me wonder whether the same energy and enthusiasm which i and my 12 and 13-year-old friends in 1960 approaches what was going on in the country based on some knowledge of what we had been taught in public school, whether that still exists today, so i

will just start off by asking both of you since you have made this really a project of your careers, what motivated you to choose this topic as something you are really devoting yourself to? >> we started public schools in this country in the early 1800s on the basis of arguments that we had an obligation to teach our young people how our government worked so they could be part of making it work in the future. that was the whole idea, the justification for getting public schools in this country, and i went to school, there weren't any on the ranch, so i was packed off to my grandmother in el paso, and went to school there, and i had a lot of

civics, but it was largely texas. i got so tired that i never want to hear another word, but i mean, it was just endless. >> remember the alamo doesn't help either. >> no, no, we were in al pass sew, not san antonio. [laughter] anyway, we had a lot of civics in my day, and i guess i just thought that's what schools were supposed to do, and i was stunned to learn that half the states no longer make civics in government a requirement. no longer. we had a lot of concern about what young people were learning, and i can understand why some of it was getting boring. the leading textbook for civics

was 790 pages long. you can't give that to a young person and expect them to read it and absorb it. it just doesn't happen. we needed a little help, and that's how i got involved. >> right, and you recruited your colleague. >> oh, yes, she got me into this. [laughter] no, really, she did. i didn't have any sense of what was going on in civics teaching in the united states. i remembered mine, but five to six years ago, justice o'connor convened a conference in washington -- excuse me -- to address the threats to jew disht independence which was snowballing at the time, and the most significant thing or the most shocking thing that i think i learned the first day that we were there was this statistic that you already heard this evening that depending on who does the measuring, only about

two-thirds at best, 60% of the people in the united states can name three branches of government. they are simply unaware of a tripod scheme of government and separation of powers. well, the implication of that for judicial independence is that if one does not know about three branches of government and the distinctive obligation of each branch, then talking about judicial independence makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. independence why? independence from what? independence for what reason? you get absolutely nowhere because there is not a common basis in knowledge for this course. and when i and others left that meeting, w realized that, yeah, we had a lot to worry about on a tax on judicial independence,

but we had a broader problem to worry about in the united states, and i have only become more convinced that it is a serious problem, not a kind of chicken little problem or a reflection of the dinosaurs for the way government was taught when we were kids, but my awakening started at that conference on judicial independence. >> now, there's one other little part of the story that was disturbing, i thought. american high school students were tested along with those of about 20 other nations a few years ago, and they were -- they came in near the bottom of the 0 nations in -- 20 nations in scores in math and science, and it was so frightening that our then president said we have to do something. well, you know what that means, money. federal money.

they put together federal money to give to schools based on good test scores in those schools for math and science and they tossed in reading. >> you're talking about the no child left behind? >> yeah, you've heard of that. that was the program. no doubt a good thing, but the problem was it turned out that because none of the federal munches given to teach civics or american history or government, the schools started dropping it, and half of the states today no longer make civics in government a requirement for high school. only three states in the united states require it for middle school. i mean, we're in bad shape, and we need to do something. >> well, you are doing something. >> well, yes, we are. >> on the relevance of no child

left behind today i think is indicated by what justice o'connor said. we got a kind of testing culture in america's schools which is all of the good on subjects of science, reading, and math which are being tested. the effectiveness, i don't know, but the objective is obviously okay. the trouble ask that as everyone says schools have a tendency to teach to the test, and if finances or educational ratings or other sort of measures of decency and excellence are going to be tied to the tests on these three subjects, the natural human tepid sigh is that -- tendency is that everything else gets short tipped. we have to be sure no child left bind is the source of the problem because the american schools started dropping teaching of civics as we

remember it back, i think, around 1970. there was a series of conclusions drawn by educators to the effect that teaching civics had no effect, in fact, on what young adult people ended up knowing bouts their -- about their government. this seems counterintuitive, but that was the theory, and that's why civics started getting dropped. the problem with no child left behind for those who want to revitalize civics education is you got to find some room in the school today to fit it in, and your competitor is in effect no child left behind in the subjects which are getting tested. that subjects and ultimately pragmatic solution, and that is you got to start testing on civics. >> right. >> the only good news i guess it

there isn't an absolute tension between fulfilling no child left behind and finding the time for civics. the fact is a lot, for example, of the material that can be used for the, we'll call it the reading segment of no child left behind, can be civic reading. there's a way tonfiltrat no child ft behind with some civics, so it's not an absolute opposition, but the problem has got to be, i think, faced of how you provide an incentive to the school administrations and the school districts to work this in, and i use the reference to administration advisedly because one thing i learned just from

being on a group in new hampshire that is trying to beef things up up there is that the civics teachers are out there, and they are dying to teach, and i happen to have met some both on the grade school level and high school level, and they are ready to go. we do not have a problem among conversion with teachers, and what we got to do is find a way to find room in a finite school day to get this done, and as i said, at the end of the line, we got to have -- people don't like to use the word testing anymore, but accountability. we got to get a civics test squeezed back in. >> and you're directly involved in a curriculum reform effort in new hampshire? >> yeah. >> tell us a little bit about that. >> i'm a onny come late --

jonny come lately to it in a way. it's a new hampshire supreme court society which is somewhat a historical society of the new hampshire supreme court, but a society that wants to have some public relevance beyond even the teaching of history, and it took up as a project before actually before i had retired, a review of new hampshire curriculum practice, and the question is is there something useful we can do, and that process of examination as i said, i joined up when i left for washington, and i have at this point a fairly good sense of what is going on in new hampshire schools, and i said i met teachers, met a bunch of kids in some classes i've gone to, so -- and i think, by the way, to just not leave the subject hanging,

what a group like mine can do, and what i suspect a group like mine can probably do in most statings is not convince teachers they ought to teach situations. that's there, or at least in the new hampshire experience, we don't have to sell the on that. what we have to do is provide in effect the whole teaching apparatus, an incentive to make room for this, and the second thing we got to do is provide them with some materials to teach from. there simply is not readily available standardized universally accepted textbooks of the sort i think i remember because there is no testing. new hampshire like most states dropped testing from civics, and we've also got to provide, if we can do it and raise some money

to do it, a kind of continuing education scheme for the teachers of civics to get them together very much like what the supreme court of the united states historical society does for teachers of constitutional history, and give them some beefed up education of their own which they are dying to have, and so that's where i think we can do something useful, and my guess is that what is missing in new hampshire and what would be accepted by the edational systems in new hampshire is probably going to be true in most states. >> so the effort would bto model best practices that could be exported? >> well, i got another idea. >> i'm sure you do. [laughter] >> well -- >> you understand why we write concurring opinions now. [laughter]

>> that's right. i think young people today like to spend time in front of computer screens and videos, and in fact, they step on the average, 40 hours a week doing that, if you can believe it. that's more time than they spend with parents or in school, and so i think we have to capture some of that, and i've been organizing a program to do that and to put the material for civics education in a series of games that kids can play on computers, and believe me, they love it, and if you want to look at it, and if any teacher wants to look at it, it's

www.icivics.org. it's fabulous. >> i have heard other people say this too. >> >> justice souter doesn't actually have a computer. [laughter] >> that's why i said other people. [laughter] >> it's on the website and it's engaging. it has guides so people can use it as real material. i went on to one about the judicial system, and it's a series of actual supreme court cases where there's ways that you click on various arguments and students are asked to pick the best argument to support such and such a proposition, and it's really, i found myself really getting into it. >> it's really a success i think and can be except do you know what the worst bureaucracy in our country is today? it's the schools.

they are in 50 states. there is not one state in that state who can tell the schools what to do and they have to do it, not once. we are organized with sprit individual school districts. we have close to, you know, many hundreds in my little state of arizona, and so to get something like this conveyed to all of schools means you have to contact each one, and it's kind of a nightmare. that's what we're running into with my program is how do you get everybody acquainted, so i have chair people now in 49 of the 50 states. now, whether they'll succeed in contacting all the schools remains to be seen. maybe you can volunteer. let me hear from you. [laughter] >> how closely have you been involved in actually doing the gaming and the deciding what needs to be done?

>> well, i've actually sat with some and previewed some and made suggestions on some. i mean, i've not -- we have experts like mcarthur genius awarted winners who are better at doing this, but i have participated in some to figure out what we ought to do or not do. >> justice souter talked about the impact of the deficit in knowledge about the courts, and obviously, that's one thing, but are there other particular deficits you've noticed in talking to people or followed this issue? >> in all? >> yeah. >> oh, it's total. to start with, they don't know their three branches of government, and if if they do, what's the course work? what do they do? who is in charge? how do they approach cases? in the case of congress, they don't know how things happen, and you have --

>> i don't either. [laughter] >> well, not many do, i guess. [laughter] >> it'll trickle down somewhere. >> anyway, we know what's supposed to happen. [laughter] well, there's a lot to teach and learn. >> thing really, you know, things have really changed again from the time when we were kids. when i say things have changed, not merely the dropping of teaching, but the resulting deficit. one of the difficulties at least that i've found in trying to put this all in perspective that we have much better studies about what's going on today than what was going on 50 years ago. people were not making the same surveys, or at least i have not run into them. i was impressed with one summary

that went through a detailed summary. the cioneonclusdrawn from it were dwn for anducator in the field in the following way. he said that the numbers seem to show that the degree of civic and drodder political knowledge on behalf of a high school graduate in the mid-90s was e qif lant to that -- equivalent to that of a high school dropout in the 1940s, and the degree again a college graduate in the 90s was about at the level of a high school graduate in the 1940s. ifif anything can be said about

that is bear in mind during this same period of time the growth in the availability of higher education was explosive, and yet in effect what we said is that the level of collegiate knowledge dropped to high school, and high school dropped to dropout. something really bad has happened. >> in preparing for this, i've kind of cast a wide net and tried to find some other resources out there just to get a sense of how broadly this problem is recognized, and actually there's a lot going on. >> oh, yeah. >> i noticed richard weighed in on this and set up an initiative which is the curricular development program. i looked at that website, and then on the judicial system in

maine, a coalition of the federal and state judges are organized as the maine counsel and started a program of video interviews. .. who are more or less approachable and can be sort of understood on a human level.

i wonder looking at the supreme court for instant, we seem to be in aea where a numberoand king he cour may be a ite more accessible. and you both and around long enough to see that as a trend. this was the something that was so true when both of you became judges. i'd be interested in your reflection on whether there's anything that that the supreme court itself, either institutionally for individual justices can do to address this. >> well, it was interesting because i'm not in washington d.c. of the time anymore, just now and then. and they recently with bayer and i sat in the courtroom to watch an oral argument. and i sat there and looked up at the bench. nine divisions.

and it is absolutely incredible. on the far right was a woman. ooh, boom, boom. on the far left was a woman, three of them. it was incredible. and that took 191 years to get first. and we are moving a little more rapidly now. i was pretty impressed. >> why, look at this repair. i love the diversity. [laughter] [applause] >> so, things are happening. so it is track weights from what you said from the court being able to model. >> well, i just think the image that americans over half of the court has to change a little bit when they look updater and see what i thought. i thought that was a prety big

change. >>f course, not too many peopleetthe chance -- >> you know, everybody has districts of the court. >> here we are and sees an ncc and has a dog in that fight. why don't you bring the cou into the ling roomof america. >> a fight which i he c-span loses. [laughter] >> well, we don't want to go off on that. looking at the election this fall, some of the judicial issues, for instance, what happened in iowa, where sitting judges were thrown out in a retention election. >> okay, now that is another subject on which i'd be fine to be hopeful. how we select state court judges.

and this is a really important topic. and it seems to me that many of the tape me to consider some changes. when we started out, the framers of the constitution ot dizzy d designed a feder time and theyame to the judicial brch, they povded thejudges would be appoint b the president with the advice and consent of the senate. no election of the judges, right? no election. and the original 13 states all have similar systems. i mean, closely related to that. no election. now, a few years went by and all of a sudden we have andrew jackson and he sat down in new orleans it was good, but he thought we would elect her

estate judges. he was the one who went all through the house and. the first state to do that was georgia. a bunch of others followed suit. and now what do we have? we have a hodgepodge. and many states -- and in about 20 still a popular election of the ste court judges. and that means campaign contribution. they run for office, who disseminate? the lawyers who appear before them. some of the claims that appear before them. there was that case -- caperton from west virginia. a judge found against nancy cole something from a 50 million or something of the sort. and chairman wanted that judgment but they made kyl orton

and west virginia. west virginia the two bulbs of courts. nancy cole wanted to appeal to the spring quarter. that plane. the five-member court and there was going to be an election at the next general election. one member of the court had to run for office. well, nancy coles chairman gave the man about $3 million to help with this election campaign and a little state of west virginia. and guess what? e. one. you know, big surprise. and then the case was heard in somebody on the other side said to be reelected just if, maybe should recuse yourself. no, i can be fair. so he heard the case. and the decision did not -- he voted to overturn the judgment

with the participation of this new elect to judge. anthe otherside file a petition with the u. suprme cot, saying we were denied due process here. i'm also a hard thing to make. i'm glad it wasn't sitting on the court for that case. it's tough. but the courts ultimately decide if i was correct. there was a due process. and that means that states are going to have to be a little more careful about how they organize their courts and that was the right signal to send. in many states still have their election of judges and that's not a good idea. i would like to see more states adopt what we call a merit selection system, where there is a bipartisan citizens commission

foreign that will receive applications from people who want to be a judge, review them, interview the people, make recommendations to the governor who can appoint from the list of recommended people. and then typically induces them, they will serve for something like six years and then have to stand for retention election. and they can be ousted. and that is what happened in iowa. they are supreme court is a merit selection system court and three the judges were up for retention election. the court had decided the case involving a gay marriage law and it irritated when voters and they campaigned against the judges put the retention and the majority of the voters voted them out. they said no, we don't want to keep them.

so that was a big signal. >> outcome i wanted to ask about that because the so-called cherry plan, the merit selection and retention that iowa has had them held up for years by you and others as the preferable way to go. and of course what happened in iowa, i mean, yes some voters didn't like the outcome of the same sex marriage case, but more to the point outside groups came in to use the election to teach an election. a lot of people spend a lot of money. judges running for retention i've never encountered anything like that. >> and they didn't do much in response. >> it raises the question in the states of very aggressive, many vacant, judicial campaigns, whether this seriously and still holds up as a civic improvement.

>> it does. it does. and arizona has this. and i watch the progress they are. it doesn't mean you can't have a problem. you can. but to do so much better than the alternative. you can't imagine. but it kills me that you have to beware and is there something like what happened in iowa, those who are hoping to be retained better be good and better do some immune response. >> so they need campaign committees and contributions. >> at there will be an effort to undersea them. >> so you're back in the soup. >> not a site because you could over the hump and go back to where it was. it's not going to happen every time. >> just a dry leaf between that sort of problem what we were talking about earlier, i mean, do you think that if the public has a better understanding of the role of the judiciary truce, some kind of education that this

sort of thing could be mitigated in the money click or as an hard enough that is just kind of overwhelmed? >> occasionally there will be a hot issue. and our country tends to turn on abortion or gay marriage and voters can get pretty excited about some of those issues. >> you were a state judge for years. now you are appointed. >> i was a pointed, yeah. >> without a retention election. so new hampshire's plain old -- >> essentially it is the federal system except there's a mandatory retirement. so i didn't have to face that. but i agree with justice o'connor that if you're going to happen the system, try to have the missouri plan. that's the best way. you still can't at least are

along the way a little bit. the missouri plan and then any retention elections is intentioned but the sort of fundamental unders and dean that animates an appoint to set some with life for long-term appointment. that is the understanding that when the heat is on, they tend to do the wrong thing. we get excited. our judgment evaporate. and that is why you want a branch of government, which has reference to principles that are going to endure beyond the heat of the moment to say wait a minute, you just violated your own rules. and if you cannot have a branch of government with the power to do that and what the incentive

to do it, knowing that those who make the declaration will not be turned on on the street the next morning, you in fact are compromising the very concept behind the rule of law and the rule of endure in the. so that the fundamental problem, even under a missouri plan. the development that has exacerbated the problem is the development of money and judicial election, which has ended truth than exacerbated by the recent development in the law, which took place after both justice o'connor and my departures which we have expressed opinions earlier to the effect that corporations could not be limited and the kind of expanded yours they make for political purposes. and if that were not significant

exacerbation, that combined with the legal avenues now for disguising the sources of the contributions that makes for a very general threat of political integrity any particular went to the judiciary. how does one respond -- how does the judiciary respond to that? you can't do anything about it. but there is one authority that the judiciary has got to start again abusing. because they assume the occasion of going to arise. think back for a second to justice o'connor's reference to the west virginia election case. the reason i keep them one way was easy to focus for the reason the issue could easily be focused with because it was a

matter of public record with a $3 million came from. it came from the president or the chairman i think he said that the company, which is appealing the very large verdict against it. what does a litigant to now in a state that elected judges went in effect, as a matter of federal law, limits are up on what corporations can do. and in fact there are avenues for contributions which do not disclose the ultimate source of the money. it seems to me i know what i would do if i were a litigant in that kind of a situation. i would require -- i would demand in the name of due process disclosure of all sources of contributions to the judges on that court before which i was going to appe and an analys of the sorces if in ct the main source was or

ght b oaque. and i think it's inevitable that this is going to come. i don't know really if anything that the deacons can do in the name of due process should and must they willing to take chances sort of just being a fish getting shot at and a bow and they don't know who is hiring. i think this has got to come. >> where this is leading me think given the current supreme court majority's view of the first amendment is the clash between the first amendment and due process. >> which are right. you know, this oversimplifies a little bit the law. most of the constitutional issues that come before the supreme court of the united states are not questions of

should we apply this print pull out that logically ought to be applied, but rather questions of should we apply this principle that might apply or the principle that might apply? the essence of support decision-making by a court like the supreme court of the united states is in the reasoning that selects the print up all that is going to predominate in a given case. rentable decision-making isn't simply being logical. it is being reasonable and select team from among legitimately competing principles. and that's to say, linda, we are going see that between the current view of first amendment rights and an enduring view of due process. >> so the question of whether

the current majority is going to follow the logic on the path they set out right over a cliff is what you're saying. >> you have to ask then. [laughter] seriously though, the process they have followed in the recent cases simply has not encountered the issue that we're talking about here. bear in mind that the same supreme court that decided citizens united is also the supreme court, one personnel change is different. from a court, well at this point, two differences. it's the same court that decided the west virginia contribution case. saved by the court which is quite clearly and robustly espouse those principles.

this isn't that nondepressed escort any more than it's a non-first amendment court. >> justice kennedy in the majority both those cases. >> so, this is a court which is not shown at all shy of confronting either due process or first amendment issues tonight no reason to believe it's going to be shy about being candid about how you resolve the tension when that tension gets to them. >> just on a personal level it occurs to me, listening to you, what is it like having been on the court for a good chunk of time to watch them? obviously you feel a mistake was made as citizens united. what does that feel like? if you only fight them at the conference table, maybe i could've made a difference.

it must be a strange feeling to be on the outside looking in. >> the outcome of you have accept the fact that people are going to be serving there for different periods of time. you're not going to be there forever and other people may disagree with some of the things you have believed. so you just can't approach it in the standpoint that you will never be disappointed or concerned. it's very possible you will. >> there is one possibly radical answer to your question. i have this joke about the young and the old gore talking at the end of the day and the young psychiatrist looks exhausted and the older guy looks as fresh as it did then the cost. the young doctor says, you know, how can you seem so fresh? how can you stand listening to these patients all day long?

everything is wrong. you sit there listening to them. why does that get to you? the docto say here's the secret, who listens? last night and maye -- that may be one answer for retired supreme court justices. who watches? that has not been the solution that either of us have followed. >> i think you are feeling a little bit liberated. >> not liberated from, but liberated two. i have no desire in one way to leave the supreme court. i've loved my colleagues. i like the work that i was doing. there were days when that which thinks it turned out differently. but i still love the court and just about everybody in that building. but i feel liberated to do things that i couldn't do on

that court. it is confining and time in discussion and there were other things that i wanted to do while i was still in a condition to do them. so i'm liberated to do things, that within the liberated from things that i didn't like. >> that's a better way to put it. i know people in the audience have been writing down questions and this may be a good time to turn to some of them if there are any. >> do we have some questions? >> and munich tunnel has a set of them. and i'm sure will collect more.

great, okay. >> you have some man that is trying to hand you something. >> okay. do you think any of the decline and use the fm for civics results from the change in the rhetoric of the purpose of government? that is today the focus is much more on privatization, enabling the free market. so i guess that means we don't hear much talk about the higher purposes of government may be. there's a lack of liberation. >> i don't think that's one inhering out there. i think the fact you have young people who weren't learning anything about it. and so, it's not a next acted that there's not much much discussion or concerned. >> yeah, i was at the same

thing. it can come historical perspective here. this decline started 40 years ago. and i hope i'm not going on a limb here. i don't think it was around until 1990 and into the 90s that people begin to say something is going wrong here. and the unfortunate state of public rhetoric in the united states had not reached anything like today's characteristics at that time. and i've also -- i alluded a moment to go to the fact that i had seen a good many civics teachers in the last year and i've seen some of the kids that they teach. and i'll just give you two examples. i listened to a fourth-grade class from one of the new hampshire towns visiting the state house one day and i happen to be around.

and that town have to be blessed with teachers on the fourth-grade who had themselves enthusiasm for teaching. and you know, the kids were a bunch of winners. i listened to the governor asng aqueson to find out how much they knew. ose kid knew more about cih grae than i knew inhe fourth-grade. and you know, arms were going onto the shoulder sockets trying to answer the questions. and i visited a combined couple of high school css in my on to ain, they were blessed with a couple of teacrs who are real smart. and they work on how. so i don't have any reason to believe that the livable state of public rhetoric in the united states is going to be itself a

roadblock to educational reform. >> no, i agree. here is a question that is is may be somewhat related. is the decline in the teaching of civics related to a general decline in educational standards, somewhat argued that a 1935 high school diploma is equipment to a 2010-degree? >> well, i think there is a decline. i would share some of that concerned. i think that an earlier period in our history, a great deal more was learned in the early grades bended today. and we've just kind of diluted it as we've gone along. >> i'm going to take a pass on that. i don't know enough to answer that question. >> here's a question. is it reasonable to think that states as divergent as massachusetts and texas can be brought to teach a common civics curriculum?

[laughter] >> good question. i think it's possible, but you may have a hard time uncertain principles, like how should you organize the courts? and massachusetts, you don't have the popular election of judges in the state. you've got a pretty decent system and there are long-term appointments. and in texas, you know, i was born there and i've spent time in texas. and if you're a lawyer and you have a pile, the first thing you have to do is go do some research on the judge and try to find out how much money the judge has been given by whom took it alike did. there are few records and sometimes you can find out some of that. that's what you have to do. and then you have to meet or exceed that they're not going to get a fair hearing and the judges are around. it's pretty sick. now why would you want a system

like that? and i've been to texas to talk to them in the legislature to see if they would be motivated, propose a change in their system. no, thank you. we like it. >> it's hard to think that the texas railroad commissioner who ever makes those curriculum would include in the curriculum any criticism of that system. >> there's lots of decent teachers handling students, tanks. but i don't think their judicial system is ideal. >> just going to the application for civics teaching, i am guessing that one of the things that i'm going to see, that we are going to see if the efforts to beef up teaching in our respective states begins to pay off as a contrast between the teaching materials of our day

and the teaching materials that are going to be used in the future. i remember the book in the ninth grade, the blue civics book. and it was pablum they got a lot of basic factual material on the page and we left it didn't do much with them there had. the notion i think of a generally acceptable textbook of that for today on a national level is and teak. my guess is we're not going to see such a boat. what we are going to see is i think a combination of what is going on in those schools that are teaching physics today. and that is an awful lot of that material is getting downloaded and is then getting exchanged teachers to teachers.

there is the decentralization of type going on. and i would be very surprised at that particular decentralization trend is going to change. >> here is the question. how can we get schools to reconsider including civics in their curricula when they say the army didn't have enough time or money to teach math and literacy well and the questioner works that discovery justice is civics education organization here in boston. she poses a financial question. >> atari. but that's what i ended deduced about a program that can be used by kids on their, that the above and are having fun and they're going to learn from. now that's one way to help get around it and i'm excited about that. >> i think there are two questions to answer. one is the fundamental value answer and the other is the part

that how to do a dance here. a fundamental value answer is something that i guess has been lost from the discourse or the consciousness. and people like us to people who take up this cause in other states have simply got to keep stating it and they've got to keep pushing it. and it's basically this. in the aftermath -- the famous quotation, and the aftermath of the 1787, benjamin franklin was asked what kind of government the constitution would give us. and his famous answer was and will give you a republic if you can keep it. republics can be lost. jefferson made a remark that a people both free and ignorant has never been seen and never will be.

there has got to be a component of knowledge and understanding if democracy is going to survive. and went to third in the nation do not know the basics of the structure of their government, when it is paid out of 10 people, adults and the united states cannot ask questions which are appropriate school children come of of them are getting to the point of franklin and chuck or send source of worry. if ever we were in a position of worry, it is a greater worry today than at any other time in our lives. there has been no time in my life or our lives in which the degree of frustration with government and dissatisfaction with government has been as great and as volatile as it is

today. the responses to that frustration -- a frustration by the way which i think probably everyone on this platform also shares. the responses to the frutration they have no been merely political responses. but these bums out and bring in someone new. the responses have included suggestions for structural change. you've heard the suggestions for a constitutional amendment. they go even so far as modification of the 14th amendment. when that kind of possibility is being routed around the public discourse, we've got to be very, very worried about the inability of the majority of the population to understand the structure of what we have so much follows the location of

responsibility within the quality and against which has to be measured any proposals of change. the proposals for change of which most moral and political questions are not or cannot intelligently be looked at as simply a question, would it be a good idea to to these invariably whether or not they are recognized, these invariably are questions, is this proposal from them which would be better than that or that which we have? the fundamental nature of these rural and social political questions is compared with what? and if you don't know, if the vast majority of the policy does not know what we have now, it's

impossible to expect and inform them of a definition informed judgment and be proud today of a proposals of change. and that is why it is not chicken little to say we've got something to be worried about seriously rate down about the continuity comes to schmoke government as we know it in the united states. the pragmatic how to do it answer the question is, we've got those of us who are beating the drum link is and who weren't commissioned the one i'm on a new hampshire have got to be very proud to go in helping people who would like to do the right thing for him the way to do it. i mentioned one sort of mitigation of the conflict between the testing scheme in the non-test subjects and that is get the non-testing subject worked into the reading curriculum, which is a tested

subject. i personally think and i think most educators think that in order really to -- to compete with the pressure for testing, if it persists, you're going to have to have some testing and civics. we used to have it. a preservative in most states. >> we don't know. and i'm over trying to put some changes in the no child left behind and congress is not going to apparently entertain that. >> well, no. i shouldn't say no because i don't know. but many people are going to make it to prompt argument. it got to make the argument clear on why this is not funny, wait we have got something to worry about in the united states of america. and then we've got to be pregnant to say okay, if you want to do what we're pushing for, get testing back on the state level.

get this reading material and the no child left behind or even consider cutting back on some other things that they not be as fundamental to the political stability of the united states for civic education. >> so just to make sure i understand the basis of the urgent need that you're speaking from, it's not that the people who are coming up with these ideas are lacking in civic knowledge. it is the population of the whole, lacking and it is vulnerable to a kind of manipulation. >> we don't have a broad basis for critical judgment in the united states today, when two thirds of the population to about the fundamental structure of the government. >> question, what do you believe are the three most important pieces of knowledge that american students should possess a better government?

you can come up with three between you. >> you go ahead. [laughter] >> you know, i would start with how it is organized, what are the three branches? have is over, how do citizens get to know about them and participate? i mean, do you are the fundamentals we hope would be taught in the classroom. >> yeah, i agree. no at least the basic structure, three branches. to have an idea of what those three branches do. i listen to fourth-grade classes who can it do those two kinds of questions fairly well. so it's not an overly ambitious agenda. and i guess the third thing i would hope people would know about government is illustrated

by a story that a friend of mine told me was a lawyer in new hampshire in a very close friend of mine. and he was visiting some new hampshire school on monday that 10 or 15 years ago. and the subject of the exclusionary rule in criminal cases came out. the rule is that if evidence is illegally seized from a seized in violation of constitutional standard, it may not be used by the government in any case against the chief criminal defendant. and some kid in the class, junior high or high school probably said the question why should they suffer by letting some criminal go free because the warrant officer to get a warrant? and my friend said his response to the kid was because you are

next. and if there is anyone fundamental print the bull for good government, it is the principle behind the exclusionary rule and other constitutional limitations. and ultimately it is the golden rule. treat others the way you want to be treated, with the corollary that if you don't come you're not going to be treated that way either. if you have to erase everything in the name this constitution, let's say the right constitution as opposed to the structural cost to shannon, you could leave one thing. the one thing i was pleased to be the equal protection clause. we are in this together and we are all going to be treated the same way. if that were understood, i'll take my chances on substantive outcomes. and that is -- that is the

fundamental lesson, i think, from behind government powers that are limited both structurally and for the sake of individual liberty. so that would be my third lesson. and not put it in the terms of you are next. >> well put. no further question can type it seriously. so i'm going to thank you both for being willing to do this and talk to the idea. [applause] conemaugh [applause] [inaudible conversations]

>> republican national committee chairman michael steele is running for a second term and faces for declared challengers in a debate today. moderated by grover norquist of americans for tax reform and the daily colors tucker carlson, we'll show you the debate tonight at eight eastern on a competing network, c-span. >> the 112 congress convenes on wednesday at noon eastern time the 242 republicans

>> for these children, our children and for all of america's children, the house will come to order. [cheers and applause] >> now a debate on the social effects of religion with former british prime minister, tony blair and author, christopher hitchens.

from toronto, this is just under an hour and 15 minutes. become welcome to toronto, canada for them up-to-date on religion and association with the bbc and intelligence wares. i rudyard griffiths and it's my privilege to be your moderator tonight. i want to begin by welcoming the world wide audience for the british broadcasting corporation , some 240 million people that will have access to this debate could be pc world service, bbc online news and bbc world news. it's just a fabulous opportunity to bring this debate to a truly global audience. i also want to welcome the tens of thousands of people watching this debate live and archived on both debates.com. it's terrific that they are part of this conversation, too. i also want to turn my attention to this hall, the spectacular will come the lucky 2700 people

who are here in the flesh to listen to this debate tonight. let it be said that on this day, thanks to the generosity of eager and melanie mock, that canada and is largest city, toronto, is truly a part of of the global conversation. [applause] now, the moment we have all been waiting for. we have our motion before us the resolved, religion is a force for good in the world. all we need is our debaters here, center stage. ladies and gentlemen, please welcome mr. tony blair and mr. christopher hitchens. hot back [applause]

[applause] [applause] >> tony blair with the prime minister of the united kingdom from 1997 to 2007. among its many international rules today, he is the quartet representatives in the middle east, working with the u.n., the u.s., russia and e.u. to try and secure a lasting peace in the region. after leaving politics, mr. blair converted to catholicism and he launched to tony blair face foundation, a global initiative to promote respect and understanding among the world's major religions.

many of us in this room have read his recent si memoir, a journey, my political life. christopher hitchens is a author, journalist and atheist. his regular "vanity fair" column as prolific speeches and essays are essential reading for anyone and everyone can learn about global affairs. christer has a number of best-selling books, too. obviously "god is not great," how religion poisons everything. as his recently published memoir, hitch 22. christopher was recently diagnosed with a topical cancer and as such we are doubly grateful that he and his family have joined us tonight. ladies and gentlemen, your debaters. [applause]

before getting our debate underway, let me just briefly brought down how the next hour and a half will unfold. each debater has been given seven minutes for their opening remarks for and against the motion. next, mr. hitchens and mr. blair will confront each other head-on such as pete through two rounds of formal rebuttals. we'll then bring you, the audience into this debate through what questions all of you received it question card. at any time in the debate, so that i'll come to pass it down the aisle for collection. i'll also be taking questions from audience numbers on the stage, some of the younger audience members here. those questions will be asked directly to mr. blair and mr. hitchens. we'll also be bring in our online audience through a series of questions, too. the debate will conclude with short five minute closing statement and a second audience

vote on the motion. but before i call upon our debaters for their opening statements, let's find out how the 2700 people in this body and voted as they came into the hall. we're going to get those numbers up on the screen now. 22% of you in favor to motion. fifty-seven opposed. and fully 21% if you are decided. now, we also, as you know, ask you a second question tonight. we has to come depending on what you hear during the debate, are you open to changing your vote? look at those numbers to please. wow. 75% of this audience, three quarters could change their vote, depending what you hear in the next hour and a half. ladies and gentlemen, we clearly have a debate on our hands.

and remember, we will pull the audience again at the end of our proceedings to find out which of these two debaters was able to win by swaying us with the power of their arguments. well, time has come for free remarks at christopher hitchens, as we've agreed, you will begin first with your opening statement. >> thank you, ladies and gentlemen. can you make very much family for making this possible. seven minute, ladies and gentlemen for the argument between religion and philosophy leaves me hardly time to praise my distinguished opponent. i might have to seize a later chance of doing that. [laughter] i think three and a half minute and three and half of the material word won't be excessive. and i have a text. another tax and it is from -- a

religious text from a known extremist or fanatic. it's from cardinal newman. recently, prime minister blair's urging on his way to canonization, and its use apologia made many people join the catholic church and who i consider a great christian thinker. the catholic church said newman, holds up better for the sun and moon to drop from having, for the earth to fail and for the many millions on it to die in extremist agony that one so i will not say will be lost but should commit wendy nelson should tell one in truth or should steal one's heart without excuse. it's beautifully phrased, ladies and gentlemen. but to me it is my proposition . what we have here and pick from

new main source is the distillation of precisely what is twisted and tomorrow in the faith mentality. it's essential fanaticism and it's considered a station of the human being is from material and its fantasy of. he peered want to send a creation of the plan, it makes those objects in a cruel experiment, whereby we are created sick and commanded to be well. i'll repeat that. created sick and then order to be well. and over us to supervise this is in store the celestial to leadership, a kind of divine north korea. [laughter] greedy, exigent, more than exigent chemically defined critical praise from dawn till dusk and swift to punish the original sense with which you so

tenderly gives us in the very first place. last back however, let me once say there is no cure. salvation is offered. redemption and deepest promise at the low price as the surrender of your critical faculties. [laughter] religion, it might be said, must be said with have to admit, make extraordinary claims, but i would maintain that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence was daringly provides that even ordinary evidence for its extraordinary supernatural claims that therefore, we might begin by asking and asking my opponent as well as you. if it could otherworld to appeal to our credulity and notorious skepticism? is it good for the world to worship a deity to take sides in wars in human affairs? to appeal to art fair in kilts

come as good for the world? to our chair, a tear of death, is it good to feel? to preach guilt and shame about the acts and relationship is is good for the world? are these really religious responsibilities? to terrify children with the image of how an eternal punishment conscious of themselves, but parents and those they love unsourced to consider women and inferior creation, is that good for the world? and can you name the religion that is not ..? to insist that we are created in unevolved in the face of all the evidence. the certain books of legend and myth, man-made and primitive are revealed, not man incurred. religion for says these people to do unkind things. also make the intelligent people

say things. handed a small baby for the first time, is your first reaction think beautiful, almost perfect. do please hand me bishops are in shun a tale been do the work of the lord? no. it is as the great physicist very kindly put it in the ordinary moral universe, the good will do the best they can. the worst would be the worst they can. but if you want to make good people do wicked things, you'll need religion. now i've gotten a one minutes and 57 seconds to say why i think this is very self-evident in our material world. let me ask him again because he feared and because the place where he is seeking peace is the birthplace of monarchism. seem my think is initially filled with resurgence and live in peace. everyone was civilized world has roughly agreed, including the majority of arabs in the

international community that there should be enough room for two stakes for two people of the same land and i think where the ref agreement on that. why can't we get it? the u.n. can't get it, the court taking care. the israeli parliament can't get it. why can't they get it? because the parties have a veto on it and everybody knows that this is true. because of the divine promises made about this territory, there will never be peace. they will never be compromised. there wants to be misery, and tyranny and people would kill each other's children for books and caves and relics. and who is going to say that this is good for the world? and that is just the example near us to have. have you looked lately at the possibility that we use to discuss his children in fear? what will happen when messianic fanatics get hold of in a public equipping? we're about to find that out as we watch the islamic republic of iran and its party of god allies

make precisely this. have you looked lately at the revival of czarism and kuchen's russia, with a black hooded readership of russian orthodoxy is draped over an increasingly xenophobic tyrannical expansionist and aggressive regime? have you looked lately at the teaching in africa, the consequences of a church that says idiots may be wicked, but not as wicked as. i've done my best. believe me, i have more. [laughter] [applause] >> christopher, thank you for starting our debate. mr. blair come your opening remarks. >> first of all, it's a real pleasure to be revealed this

evening from a journey back in toronto. it's a particular privilege and honor to be with christopher in this debate pits on the first lesage in that regard the leader of north korea as the root religious icon you'll be delighted to know. i'm going to make the biblical number seven -- seven points in my seven minutes. the first is this, it is undoubtedly true that people commit terrific acts. it is also undoubtedly true that people do at that extraordinary common good, inspired by religion. almost half of health care in africa is delivered by faith-based organizations, saving millions of lives. a quarter of worldwide hiv/aids care is provided by catholic organizations. there is the fantastic work of muslim and jewish relief organizations. there are in canada thousands of religious organizations that

care for the mentally ill or disabled or disadvantaged were destitute. and here in toronto, barely one in the house ostrander's a shelter run by kevin house, the christian charity for homeless youth in canada. so the proposition that religion is not an unadulterated poison is unsustainable. it can be destroyed to. it can also create a deep well of compassion and peered consecutive people are inspired to do such good by what i would say is that to us in such a comer which is why wordwrap turn particular to each faith, a basic relief, to all faith in serving and loving god through serving and loving your fellow human beings. as witnessed by the life and teaching of jesus, one of the sacrificing the needs of tora do

was read by was once famously challenged by someone who said they would convert to religion if they could recite the whole torah standing on what you. he stood on one leg as i do unto others as you would have them do unto you. ..

>> nor a relic of unthinking traditions still less a piece of superstition or an explanation of biology. they answer a profound journey something we feel. this is a spiritual presence, bigger, more important, more meaningful than just us alone. it has its own power separate from our power and even as the world multiplies, it makes us bow in humility and not swagger in pride. science and religion are not incompatible destined to fight each other until the cool reason of science extinguishes the flames of religion. rather science educates us on the physical world how it functions and faith educates to which knowledge is put, the

limits of what science and technology can do, not to make our lives materially richer, but rather richer in spirit. so, imagine indeed a world without religious faith, not just no place of worship, place of prayer or scripture, but no men or women because of their faith dedicating their lives to others showing forgiveness where otherwise they wouldn't, believing through that faith that even the most weakest and they have a duty to defend them. yes, i agree in a world without religion, the religious fanatics may be gone, but i ask you, with that gone and then realize that such an imagine vision of a world without religion is not in fact new. the 0th searching -- the 20th century was a century

scared by visions that had precisely that imagining in their vision and at their heart and give us hitler and stalin. in this vision, a vision to the will of god was for the weak. it was a will of man that should dominate. i do not deny for a moment that religion can't be a force for evil, but i claim to where it is, it is based essentially on a progression of faith, and i assert that at least religion can also be a force for good and where it is, that is true to what i believe is the essence of faith, and i say that a world without religious faith would be spiritually, morally, and emotionally diminished, so i know very well that you can

point and quite rightly point to examples of where people used religion to do things # that are terrible, and it has made the world a worse place, but i ask you not to judge all people of religious faith. by those people anymore than we would judge politics. [laughter] with bad politicians. [laughter] or indeed journalists by indeed bad journalists. the question is along with all the things that are wrong with religion, is there also something within it that helps the world to be better and people to do good? i would submit there is. thank you. [applause]

>> well, tony, your training in parliament had you just perfectly landing that on the 7 minute mark. ladies and gentlemen, we're moving into our rebuttal rounds, and i'd like the audience to get engaged, to applaud when they hear something that the debaters say they like, and also to help me enforce our time limit. when you see that clock ticking down, applaud, and that will move us through this in an orderly fashion. [laughter] so, chris, it's your opportunity to respond to mr. blair. >> there's two rounds and you have the opportunity to go back and forth, and yes, four minutes for each speaker within each of the rounds if that's not confusing. >> i have four minutes? >> yes, you're good. [laughter] >> then hold your applause for heaven's sake. [laughter] well, now, no one is arguing

that religion should or will die out of the world, and i'm arguing it would be better for a great deal more of an outbreak of secularism. i would be slightly better off, not much, but being a muslim or a shia muslim or a jehova's witness. what we need a a great -- what we need is a great deal more of one and less of the second. i knew it would come up, charity. i take this seriously because we know, ladies and gentlemen, as it happens, we're the first generation of people who do really what the cure for poverty is that has been with people for a long, long time. the cure for poverty has a name. it's called the empowerment of women. [applause]

if you, if you give women some control over the rate at which they reproduce, take them off the animal cycle of reproduction which some nature and religion doctrine condemns them and put the floor of everything in the village, not just education, but health and optimism will increase. it works all the time. name me one religion that stands for that or ever has. wherever you look in the world and you try to remove the shackles of ignorance from women, it's the collar sigh that stands in the way. [applause] now, if you're going to grant this to catholic charities which i hope are doing a lot of work in after africa, if i was a member of a church that preached aids were not as bad as condoms,

by would be putting attention in africa too, i must say. [laughter] i'm not trying to be funny. if i'm starting to be funny, you misunderstood me. it won't bring back the millions of people who died. i would like to share a policy on that. i would be accused of judging them by the worst of them. this is not done so wrongly in the name of religion. it's a direct precept practiced enforceable discipline of religion, is it not, sir, in this case? i think you'll find it is. [applause] all right, the mormons tell you the same. you think it is cracked that they found another bible buried in upstate new york, but see our missionaries in action. i'm not impressed. [laughter] i would rather have no mormons

over missionaries. both of whom tell you look at our work. without us, where would they be? they are right. they do a great deal of charitable work. nothing compared to the harm they do, but it's a great deal of work all the same. [applause] i also agree with the teachings and know where he got the story from if he had access himself. the injunction not to do to another what would be done to yourself is found by confucius if you want to date it, but it's actually found in the heart of everybody in this room. everybody knows that much. [applause] we don't require devine permission to know right from wrong. we don't need tablets administered to us ten at a time on tablet form, pain of death to

have a moral argument, no -- [applause] we have the reasoning and the morals of socrates and we don't need to be told right from wrong. thank you. [applause] >> in the name of fairness and equity, mr. blair, i'll give you an additional 25 seconds for your first rebuttal. [laughter] >> first of all, i don't think we should think that because you can point to examples of prejudice in the name of religion that bigotry and wrong doing are solely forms of religion. there's plenty of examples of prejudice against women, gay people, against others that come

from outside the world of religion, and to claim that i make is not that everything that church has done in africa is right, but let me tell you one thing it did do, the church is together formed a campaign for the consolation of death, came together, they succeeded, and the first beneficiaries of the cancellation of debt were young girls going to school in africa because for the first time they had free primary education, so i agree, that not everything the church or the religious communities have done around the world is right, but i do say at least accept that there are people doing great work, day in day out, who genuinely are not prejudice or bigoted but are working with people who are afflicted by father and famine and disease and poverty doing it by being inspired by their faith

holsaert, and of course it's the case that not everybody -- [applause] of course it's the case that you do not have to be a person of faith in order to do good work. i've never claimed that. i would never claim that. i know lots of people, many, many people who are not of faith at all, but do fantastic work for their communities and the world. [applause] there are, nonetheless, people who are inspired by their faith to do good. i think of people i meant sometime ago in south africa, nones look -- nuns looking after children with hiv/aids. these are people living alongside people and caring for people inspired by their faith. is it possible to do that without faith? of course. the fact is though that's what motivated them. what i say to you, at least

look, what we shouldn't do is end up in a situation where all right, we have one suicide bomber here, how does it equalize out? that's not a productive way of arguing this, and actually i thought one of the most interesting things that christopher said is that we're not going to drive religion out of the world, and that's true, we're not. actually, i think for people of faith to have debates with those who do not is good, right, healthy, and it's what we should be doing. [applause] i'm not claiming everybody should congregate on my faith. i'm claiming one simple thing. that if we can't drive religion out of the world because many people of faith believe it and believe it very deeply, let's at least see how we do make

religion a force for good, how we do encourage those people of faith who are trying to do good, and how we unit those against those who want to pervert religion and use it as a badge of opportunity against others. [applause] i'm simply finished by saying this. there are many situations where faith has done wrong, but there are many situations in which wrong has been done without religion playing in part in it at all. let us not condemn all people of religious faith because of the bigoty shown by some and at least acknowledge some good has come out of religion, and that

we should celebrate. [applause] >> christopher, your second rebuttal please. >> i have a second one? >> you have a second one. >> oh, my god. an amazing test of audience deterrence. as we progress, ladies and gentlemen, now it's, okay, some religious people have civil rights. [laughter] i think i seem to be bargaining one the greatest statesmen who doubted it. [laughter] not necessarily opposed to that. just to finish on the charity point, i once did a lot of work with a great man and a great photographer. i went to calcutta with him and nearly got rid of polio and

smallpox as a disease of the past except for many religious groups elsewhere, don't go and take the drops, it's a conspiracy, it's against god, it's against god's design. that argument is not new. when smallpox was there, timothy dwight said taking injections was an interference with god's design as well. that's sort of, by the way, you need something like unicef to get work done if you want to eliminate poverty and disease, and for me, my money goes to organizations like frontier, like ox fam who do good in the world for its own sake -- [applause] they don't take --

[applause] they don't take the bible along as people do to haiti all the time. we keep catching them doing it. their money is spent and it's a function of the old thing that was hand in hand. it's the mission ri tradition. they can call it charity if they will, but it doesn't stand a second look, so so much on the doing good except to perhaps since i have you for a few minutes, mr. blair and i give a lot of our years to the labor party and labor movement, and if the promise of religion had been true up to the late 19th century in britain or north america or canada, the good works that were required and those who give charity should be honored, those who receive it should be grateful, two rather revolting ideas in one, i should say, there would be no need for human politics and interaction, we could rely on being enately

good. now, what would intrigue be now. religion can be a good thing after all sometimes we think. not a proposition. what does religion have to do to get that far? i think it has to give up all supernatural claims. [laughter] [applause] it would have to say -- [applause] it would have to say no, you are not to do this under the threat of reward heaven or the terror of punishment, hell. no, we can't offer me miracles. find me a church that says all of that. it would have to give that up. it would have to give up the idea of an eternal authority figure who is judge, jury, and execution near where there is no appeal and is not finished with you even when you died. [laughter] [applause] that's quite a lot for religion

to give up, don't you think? [laughter] if it was, what tony blair would like it to be is an aspect of humanism, an aspect of compassion and the relyizations and knowledge that we are bound up with another and we have responsibilities one to another, and that as i do when i give blood, partly because i don't lose the pint forever, i can always get it back, but there's a since of pleasure to be had in helping a fellow creaturement i think that should be enough. thank you. [applause] >> tony, must feel like the house of commons all over again. [laughter] >> just a little politer. [laughter] >> your final rebuttal please. >> yeah. it all depends, i guess, what your experience of religious

people is. i mean, my experience of the people i was with last weekend in africa, that include deep ri religious people is not actually that they are doing what they're doing because of heaven and hell, but they are doing it for the love of their fellow human beings, and that, i think, is something very fine. they believe and this love of their fellow human beings is bound up with their faith, so it's not something, you know, yes, of course, it is absolutely true. they might decide to do this irrespective of the fact that they have religious faith, but their faith, they feel is an impulse to do that good, and i don't recognize the description of the work that they do in what christopher said. in syria leone where i was you have christians and muslims

working to the to deliver health care in that country. that's religions working together. they are working across faith and divides to do that because they believe their faith em pell -- inspires them to do that. in the abolition of slavery where religious reformers joined with secular reformers to get the abolition of slavery. [applause] let's get away from the ideas that religion created poverty. there are bad things that happened in the world outside of religion, all right? when you look at the 20th century, and you see the great scars of political ideology around views that had absolutely dramatically at their heart fascism, the communism of stalin at their heart with the

eradication of religion, and what i would say to you is get rid of religion, you're not going to get rid of fanaticism or wrong in the world, so the question is -- [applause] the question is how then do we make sense of religious having this vital part in the world today since it is growing and not diminishing? how do we make sense of it, and this is where, yes, there is an obligation on the people of faith to try to join across the faith divide of those of other faiths. that's my organization. we have people of different religious faith. young people team up with each other of different faiths and work together. we have a schools program that allows schools to link up using the technologies so that kids of different faiths can talk to each other across the world, and here's the thing, when they start to talk about their faith,

they don't actually talk in terms of heaven and hell and a god that is an an executioner, but they talk in terms of their basic feeling that love of god can be expressed best in love of neighbor and actions of compassion and help needed by others. [applause] in 2007, you know, religious organizations in the u.s. gave 1.5 times the amount of aid that usaid did, not insignificant. my point is very, very simple. you can list all the faults of religion just like any other profession, but the people of faith, the reasons why they try to do good, and when they do it is because their faith motivates them to do so, and that is is genuinely the proper faith of

faith. [applause] >> well, thank you for the a great start to the debate. the time has now come to involve you the audience here at roy thompson hall. the written questions have been coming in and some passed on to me and the people in the control room. also, we're going to bring on our online audience through questions debated on our discussion boards, and i'm going to take some live questions from some younger audience members here on stage, and in that regard, christopher, we're going to start with a question for you from a young woman who wants to address you personally. tell the audience your name and your question, please. >> i'm -- >> hold on, we need to get the microphone working. try again. >> hello? >> you got it.

>> okay. i'm a recent graduate from the university of toronto, and my question regards to globalization. this century globalization is bringing to the people divided by wealth, geography, and race. instead of fearing faith, why not embrace the shared values as a way of units human kind? >> great question. [applause] >> that's a good question, but it was a phrase for humanism. i didn't hear anyone say suspect it better if everyone joins a church or other? not a bit of it. common humanism i think is not made particularly easier by the practice of religion, and i'll tell you why. something about religion that is very often in its original form

actually is an expression of exclusivism. this is our god. this is the god who made a covenant with our tribe. you find it all over the place. it's not always as sectarian as judaism was and sometimes still is, but it's not unknown. i mean, it's struck me as slightly absurd, but i can sort of see the point. [laughter] [applause] . it's like the positively sinister that pope benedict wants to restore the catholic church claim they used to make that it's the one true churming and all other forms of christianity are defective, and how this helps to build your future world on cooperation and understanding is not known to me. if you tell me what your religion is, i can tell you what your nationality is. you are not a catholic. you know less than i do, but i

know you're a croat. it is a surrender of reason in favor of faith is a fantastic forced multiplier, a tremendous intensifier i was trying to say of all things that are in fact devicive and up collusive, and that's why its history is sustain -- stained with blood, crimes against womanhood, crimes and silence and all the appalling things they defend themselves on on things i didn't even have time to bring up. [laughter] if you just look at the way the christians love each other in the wars of lebanon you will see that there is no conceivable way that by calling on the supernatural you will achieve anything like your objective of

a common humanism which is i think is right to say our only chance of i won't call it salvation. thank you. [applause] >> tony, there's another question on the stage, someone has an inverse question for you, and it's a great opportunity to you respond to christopher as well. this is a scholar at oxford university. >> thank you, sir. the question i'd like to ask you, mr. blair, if i may, is how do you argue that religious is a force for good in the world that the same faith that bind people and groups also deepen visions and exacerbate conflict. [applause] >> great question. >> to which my answer is they can do and there's have many examples of that, but there's

also one from the northern island peace protest, and in the end churches got together, and the religious leaders of the churches tried to bring about a situation where people reached out across the faith divide, and so what i say to you is this exclusivism is not, you know, this type of excluding other people because they are different, let's just nail the miss here, it's solely the prerogative of religion. i'm afraid this happens in many, many different walks of life. it's not what true religion is about. true religion is not about excluding somebody because they are different. true religion is actually about embracing someone who is different. that is why, you know, in every major religion, this concept of love of neighbor and chris is right, confucius said exactly something similar, and of course jesus said love your neighbor as yourself. if you look at hinduism,

buddhism, the religion of islam, after the death of the profit mohammad, muslim was at the fore front for introducing proper rights for woman for the first time in that part of the world. this is really where the debate comes from. christopher says humanism is enough, and what i say to that is for some people of faith, it isn't enough. they actually believe that there is, indeed, a different and higher power simply than humanity, and that is not about them thinking of heaven and hell in some sort of old-fashioned sense of trying to terrorize people into submission of religion. they think of it about how you fulfill your purpose as a human being in the service of others, and so you know, when we say well, that could be done by humanism, yes, it could, but the fact is for many people, it is

driven by faith faith, and yes, religion deepens the divide in africa, and you can also find examples of where religion has tried to overcome those divides by preaching what is the true message of religion which is one of human compassion and love. [applause] >> let's let you come back on that, but also iraq, a war you supported, religion played an important role arguably in the success of putting together post invasion iraq. >> if i -- i think the two questions were in fact the same, but very well phrased and because i never like to miss a chance on somebody being humorous unintentionally. it's touching for him to say he went to a meeting that bridged the religious divide in northern ireland, but where does the religious divide come from?

[laughter] [applause] 400 years more in my own country of birth of people killing each other's children depending on what kind of christian their were and sending each other's children in rhetoric to hell and making northern ireland a place that is the most remarkable for ignorance of poverty and i would say stupidity too, and for them now to say, maybe we might consider reaching this gap, well, i should bloody well think so. [applause] i don't see how. if they listen to the atheist community in northern ireland which is a real thing and listen to the secular movement there which is a real thing, and i know many people who suffer from it, not excluding being pulled out of a car perhaps by a

catholic or protestant or a jewish atheist, what are you? a jewish protestant? you laugh, but it's not funny when the party of god has a gun in your ear at the same time. that was in britain and still is until recently. in rwanda, do i say there would be no -- savings and loan -- colonialism has made it worse no doubt, but the fact of the matter is rwanda is the most christian country in africa. in fact, by one account it's to say numbers of people in religion to numbers of churches is the most christian country in the world, and the power of genocide at any rate was preached from the pulpits, the pulpits from the catholic church, many of the people we

are still looking for are hiding in the vatican along with a number of other people who should be given up to national justice by the way. [applause] qiet a number of -- quite a number of people, so since tony says people are best of largely nonpracticing, i grant him that much, it's not entirely the fault of religion, but when it's preached from the pulpit like it was, it does tend to make it very, very much worse. thank you. [applause] >> come back on that tony because you were on the search for peace in northern ireland, and you have a different role of faith in that conflict. >> yeah, i work now in rwanda. look, first of all, i think it really would be bizarre to think the conflict in rwanda was a

result of the catholic church. rwanda -- [applause] rwanda is a perfect indicator of what i'm saying. you can put aside religion and still have terrible things happen. this was the worst genocide since the holocaust, and yet it's true. there were members of the catholic church to behaved badly in that context in rue rwanda and there were others who stood up and protected and died alongside people in rwanda. in northern ireland, of course, that's right, but you couldn't ignore the politic of the situation in northern ireland with the relationship between britain going back many, many centuries. [applause] my point is very simple. of course religion has played a role and sometimes a very bad role in these situations, but

not only religion here. what is at the heart of this is we wouldn't dream of condemning all of politics because politics led to hitler or stalin or indeed what has happened in rwanda. let us not condemn the whole religion or say that religion when you look at it as a whole is a force for bad because there are examples of where religion has had bad impact. my, i think, actually rwanda and northern ireland are classic examples and even the middle east peace process. yes, i agree, you can look at the religious issues there, but let's not ignore the political issues either. the reason we don't have an agreement at the moment between palestinians and israelis has not to do with the religious leaders on either side, but the political leaders. it's my branch that has to blame

for that. what i would say is that i actually think that, yes, of course, a lot of these conflicts have religious roots. i think it's possible for religious leaders to play a positive part in resolving those, but in the end, it's for politics and religion to try and work out a way in which religion in a world of globalization that is pushing people together can play a positive rather than negative role, and if we concentrated on that rather than trying to drive religion out which is futile, and concentrate instead on how to get people of different faiths working together, learning from each other, and living with each other, i think it would be a more productive mission. [applause] >> okay, let's -- [applause] >> we like the applauding, so please continue that throughout the debate. let's take a written question. my producers are telling me we

have a written question. we'll get this on the screen. christopher, this is for you to start with. america is one the most religious countries in the world and also one of the most democratic and pluralistic both now and throughout history. how do you explain that seeming paradox? >> religious faith -- relatively simply. the united states has uniquely a constitution that forbids the government to take sides in any religious matter or respond to the church or adopt a form of faith holsaert itself as a result of which anyone who wants to practice their religion in america has to do it as a volunteer. ever since thomas jefferson wrote to the baptists in connecticut during his presidency saying you'll be familiar with the phrase, i'm sure, be rest assured because

they wrote to him ows of fear of prosecution, rest assures there ever be a wall of separation between church and state in the country. we have to defend that wall every day against those who want garbage taught in schools and pseudoscience in the name of christ -- [applause] the wall is the guarantee of the democracy. by the way, for a bonus, can anyone tell me who the baptists in connecticut were prosecuting them? the congregation. well done. that's a small fan-base -- [applause] yes, now and it ducht matter now, but it mattered then. give the congregation enough power and you see how unfurry they look compared to how they

behave now that we have disciplined them. thank you [laughter] . [applause] . >> is it just a case of american exceptionalism or is it a balance that's achieved in america something you see in other parts of the world or a model to be exported globally? >> well, i think what most people want to see is a situation where people of faith are able to speak in the public sphere, but are not able to dictate, and that is a reasonable -- [applause] that is a reasonable balance and i think the most thing people would accept, but i think, you know, what i would say about examples of where you get religious people that are fanatical in the views they want to press on others, you know fanaticism is not a wholly problem of religion i'm afraid. it happens outside of religion too. the question is how do people

who are of good faith and believe in democracy, how do we ensure the people who hold faith holsaert -- faith deeply and are able to participate in society and have the same ability to do that as everyone else and at the same time have to respect the fact that ultimately democracy is about the will of the people, and the will of the people as a whole, and so i think that, you know, most people can get that balance right, and, you know, we are very lucky actually in our countries because we are in a situation where people of different faiths are free to practice their faith as they like, and that is, in my view, an absolutely fundamental part of democracy, and it's something the people of religious faith have to be very clear about and stand up and do, and one of the reasons, you know, for me, i think it's actually important for people of religious faith to

have people like christopher challenge us and say, okay, this is how we see religion, now you get out there and tell us how it's different and where it is different, and how you are going to make it so, and i think that's a positive and good thing. all i ask for is the way people of faith are speaking in the public sphere and people accept that we have a right to do that and that sometimes we do that actually because we believe in the things that we're saying, and we're not trying to change democracy. on the contrary. we just want to be a part of it and our voices are a voice that have a right to be heard alongside the voice of others. [applause] >> well, i think i see christopher writing furiously. come back on that point. >> i think i'd rather give

another chance for a person to ask a question. >> it was on monthdebates.com for the lead up to this evening. on the discussion board many people are saying religion provides a sense of community in modern colts where immersed in a consumer couldture, more often than not living allove of neighbor side fellow citizens who are self-directed than other directed. what do you say about the pure community function of religion? suspect that a valid -- isn't that a valid good? >> it is. i say good luck to it. what i say in my book which is available in fine bookstores everywhere -- [laughter] i propose a pact with the faith holsaertful. -- faithful. i don't mind if my neighbor believes in 15 # gods or none,

he don't break my pocket. i would echo that and say that as long as you don't want your religion taught to my children in school, given a government sub citi, imposed on my by balance, any of these things, that's fine by me. [applause] i would prefer not even to know what it is that you do. [laughter] in that churming -- church of yours. if you force it, i'll consider it a breech of that pact. have your own christmas and do your slaughtering somewhere else and don't mutilate the genitals of your children. [laughter] don't you think that's plausible? i think it is. why is it a vain hope on my

part? why is that? has this pact been on the other side? of course not. it's a mystery to me, and i'll share it with you. if i believed there was a savior or a prophet sent by god that bore my and loved me and wanted the best for me, and if i believed that and possess the means of hope and glory, i think, i don't know, i think i might be happy. [laughter] they say it's the way to happiness. why doesn't it make them happy? [laughter] don't you think it's a perfectly decent question? why doesn't it? because they won't be happy until you believe it too. why is that? because that's what their holy books tell them. now, i'm sorry, it's an awkward saying in the name of religion. do these texts say that until

every knee bows in the name of jesus there will be no -- of course, it is what they think. it isn't just a private belief. it is rather, and i think it always has been, and that's why i'm here, but it's a threat to the idea of a peaceable community and very often a very powerful one, so i think that's the underlying energy that is the friendly agreement between tony and myself. [applause] >> tony, would you like to come back on that topic of religion in community or move on to another question? >> let's move on. >> also on our website, big discussion around the topic of religion and its role in the invasion of iraq. mr. blair, the question is for you. it's about something that many people posted about, something you said once about the

interplay of religion and politics, and to quote you directly you said "what faith can do is not tell you what is right, but give you the strength to do it." the question being what role did faith play in your most important decision as prime minister, the invasion of iraq. >> we can nail this one easily. it was not about religious faith, and one of the things i sometimes say to people is, look, the thing about religion and religious faith, if you're a person of faith, it's your character and defines you in many ways as a human being. it doesn't do the policy decisions i'm afraid. as i used to say to people you don't go into church and look hfn ward right now what's the minimum wage, god? unfortunately, he doesn't tell you the answer. [laughter] even on the major decisions that have to do with war and peace

that i've taken, they were decisionings based on policy, and you may disagree with those decisions, but they were taken because i genuinely believed them to be right. [applause] >> so christopher, the natural follow-up question to you is how do you square the circle or maybe you didn't for your support of the iraq war and let's say the current then president's, george w. bush, in his very public e vocation of faith holsaert in terms of -- faith in terms of his rhetoric. >> i don't remember george bush being under devine order for intervention in iraq. he might not have minded at some point giving that impression, but he wanted to give that impression on everything that he did. [laughter] george bush is someone who with

his predecessor after vaish experiments in faith ended up in his wife's church, the most comfortable place to be. she the is the one who said if you take another drink, i'm leaving and taking the kids. [laughter] it's his way of saying he found jesus and gave up the bottle. [laughter] [applause] we know this to be true. [laughter] now, like like a good methodist, george bush says the following. i've done all i can with this argument and this conflict. from now on, all is in god's hands. that is different i believe, and would have made him a good muslim i believe. [laughter] it's a sinister feeling of being chosen. [laughter] anyway surely what's striking

most to the eye of those who observed the date on what we call liberation of iraq is the unanimous decision of the christian churches, including the president's and the prime minister's choice. they opposed as it had been to the liberation of kuwait in 1991. not the first time in the world that a sickly christian passivity has been preached in the face of fascist dictatorship and across -- [applause] i was very surprised by the number of liberal jews who took the same and if it comes to that, i'm not the arbiter of what's rational in the mind of religious thinker and given the number of muslims put to the sword of the muslim regime, many

flocked to his defense, but i don't expect integrity or consistency from those quarters. [applause] those of us who worked with people, iraqi intellectuals, curdish intelligence and excuse me the -- [inaudible] the iraqi come communist party worked for years to bring down saddam hussein. we have nothing to apologize for. it's those who would have kept a cannibal and a professional sadist in power who would have the explaning to do. thank you. [applause] >> well, i want to be conscious of our time and go to the two of

final on stage questions, and i believe the first one is for mr. blair. student of the monk school of global affairs. introduce yourself and ask your question. >> i'm jonah and my question pertains to something that's come up earlier this evening. religion on beth sides often seen as an obstacle to peace in the middle east, and i was wondering what role you believe faith can play in a positive manner in bringing peace to israelis and palestinians. >> well, i remember a few months back i was in jericho, and when you go out from jericho, they took me up to went to visit the mount of temptation which i think is where they take all the politicians. [laughter] the guide that was showing us, a

palestinian guide, he stopped at one point, and he said this part of the world, he says, moses, jesus, mohammed, why did they all have to come here? [laughter] i sort of said, well, if they hasn't, would everything be fine? he said, probably not. you know, the religious leadership can play a part in this. for example, i don't think you can get a resolution for jerusalem which is a sacred and holy city to all three faiths unless people of faith are willing to find commonground so they are entitled to worship in the way they wish. it's correct that in both israel and palestine you see examples of religious fundamentalism and people doing extreme things as a result of that religion, but i can also tell you that there are

rabbis and people of the muslim faith on the palestinian statewide desperately trying to find commonground on ways of working together. i think part of the issue in the reason for me starting my faith foundation is that we can argue forever the degree to which is happening in the middle east is a result of religion or the result of politics, but one thing is absolutely clear that without those religious faiths playing a positive and constructive role, it's going to be very difficult to reach peace, so my view again, and i think this is in a sense one of the debates that underlying everything we have been saying this evening is if it's correct you're not going to simply drive religion out of the world, the next work on how we make those people of different faiths even though they believe that their own faith is the salvation, how

they can work across the faith divide in order to produce respect and understanding and tolerance because believe it or not, # amongst all the examples of prejudice and bigots that christopher rightly brings examples to, there are people of deep religious faith, jewish, muslim, and christian, who are desperately trying to search for peace and with the right political will supporting that who would play a major part in achieving peace, so i agree the religious has been to one degree created these problems, but actually people of different religious faiths working to the can also be an important part of resolves these problems and it's what we should do and can do and with respect to jerusalem, it's absolutely em -- imperative that we do do.

[applause] >> anything he can do. goes to visit the western wall, sees a man tearing his beard and wailing and failing, watching in faze nation, and the guy breaks, excuse me, i couldn't help notice you are being unusually devout in your addresses to the war to the devine, do you mind if i ask you what you are praying for. he said he was praying that should be peace and mutual love and respect to the people in the area. what do you think? it's like talking to the wall. [laughter] people think talking to walls is actually a form of divine worship, and it's another instance, not that i didn't bring it up, and i don't mind

again, of the difference between tony and myself when he uses his praise in the name of religion or in the name of scriptture authority which is what i mean when i talk about this. no one is going to deny wars of real estate made in the bible, like none other that jehovah himself. that land is promised to human primates over other human primates in response to a divine covenant. do excuse me. i'm sorry, this sometimes happens. when david was prime minister, what he called a secular state, he called in other archaeologists, professional guys, and said go out in the desert and dig up the title deeds to our state. that was the instruction to the

department of ark yowling. they went. they were looking for evidence that moses had been there. they didn't find any because there never had been or never will be any, but you cannot say that the foundational cause, the idea that god intervenes in real estate is inscribed in the text itself. thanks to a foolish decision made in the early christian century not to dump the new testament and start again just with the naserne story, but why do we want to bring the darkness and blood and cultism of the first book along with us? surely we should start again. no, no, we're going with this. that's the responsibility of the christian world too, and need i add that there is no good muslim

who does not say that we can never give up an inch of muslim land. there can be no retreat. it would be a betrayal. it would lead you strait to hell. in other words, yes, yes, they gibber all over them, yes, yes, god awards land, it's just you got the wrong title. [laughter] no. this is what i say religion is a real danger to the survival of civilization and makes this bad now, regional dispute and real proportions of nothingness if it makes that just lethalble consolable and other parties who really openly wish for an apock lippic conclusion to it in the same text that it's the death of us all, the end of humanity, end of the world, end of the all

suffering which is what they secretly want. in is a failure of the parties of god, and it's not something that happens because people misinterpret of the text, but it's because they believe in them. that's the problem. thank you. [applause] .. [applause]

>> this definitely never happens in the house of commons. [laughter] i think the most convincing argument is -- and the argument of faith people have to make is the argument christopher just made which is the bad that is done in the name of religion is in transit playground in the scripture of religion. that is the single most difficult argument and since it's a jury difficult argument i suppose i'd better get an answer to it. [laughter] my answer to it is this, there is a course of that debate that goes on within religion which is the degree to which as it were you look at scripture, abstract from its time and you pick out

individual parts of it. you use those in order to justify whatever you like or whether as i try to do in my opening you actually say what is the essence of that faith and of scripture? and of course then what you realize is yes, of course if you believe as a muslim we should live our lives according to the seventh century jew would have positions but there are massive muslims who completely object that review of islam and instead they say of course the proverb back then was somebody who brought order and stability and actually looked for examples even though we today would want equality for women and many again despite what people say many muslims would agree as well and many muslim women obviously

and back then actually what he did was extraordinary for that time and also, when he looked at christianity, yes of course you can point to issues of that kind that now seem strange and outdated but on the other hand when you take christianity as a whole and ask what it means, what controls people to it, you know, what is it that made as a student come to christianity? it wasn't some of the things christopher was just describing and i understand that there are those who traditions within religion, understand and accept that and i see how people get certain kind of scripture and draw those conclusions from it but it's not what it means to me. it's not the essence of it. the essence is through the life

of jesus christ is a life of land selflessness and that's what it means to me. and so, i think the most difficult thing for people of faith in is to be able to explain scripture in a way that makes sense to people in the modern world and one of the things we have actually begun recently is a dialogue called the common word which is about muslims and christians trying to come together and through scripture find a common basis of cooperation and mutual respect. so it is a difficult life demanded that is the most difficult item i agree but there is an answer to it and i think one of the values of having a debate like this and having someone making that point as powerfully as christopher has made it is it does force people to say to recognize we have to

deal with this argument to take it on and to make sure that not just in what we are trying to do but how we interpret our faith we are making sure that what i described is the essence of fate which is serving god through the love of others is indeed reflected not just in what we do but in the doctrines and practices of our religion. [applause] >> at rebel question. thank you for it. the remarks tony made that i must agree with this evening i will just, that doesn't sound too minimum is when he said if religion was disappeared things would by no means as it were automatically be okay. he traced it better than that. but it would be what i regard as

a necessary condition would not be a sufficient one in any way religion disappeared just think the hold on people's mind can be substantially broken and domesticated. he's quite right about that of course, i do not see there is any point to argue to the contrary to come before you as a materialist if you give up religion we discover what we know already whether we are religious or not which is we are somewhat in perfectly revolved primates on a very small planet and important services that itself very rapidly expanding and blowing up parts of the cosmic phenomena on. these conclusions to me are a great deal more inspiring than what is contained in any burning bush or course that flies overnight to jerusalem or any other.

it is as it is and he looked through the hubble telescope out of work real nature and future so he was quite right to say that, and i would be entirely wrong if i didn't find other ways. i would say a couple things for religion myself. first is what we call hour to pay it. we all have it but don't find to beginning of the credit. a certain kind of modesty. you could almost say humility. people therefore will say thank god when something happens great for the world. there is no way to make this a religious things. they have the concept of hubris has something to be avoided as criticized, but they also call of the view that of all the glory can be claimed by primates like ourselves is a healthy reminder to the second and something beyond the material or if not beyond it, not entirely

consistent materially with it is i think a very important matter, but you could call the new meal list for the transcendent or at its best i guess the ecstatic. i wouldn't trust anyone in this hall that didn't know what we are talking about. we know what we mean by it when we think about certain kinds of music perhaps. certainly the relationship of coincidence but sometimes very powerful between music and linscott, certain kinds of artistic and creative work that appears not to be done entirely by hand. we've really would merely be primates. i think it's very important to appreciate finesse of that and religion has done a good job at enshrining the music and architecture not so much painting in my opinion. [laughter] and i think it's important that we learn to distinguish this

way. i read a book about half of, i will mention briefly. i don't believe any person could it is much worse than the destruction that is occurring it seems to me. but and we have an enormous amount of science, symmetry and grace and harmony but i don't care about the palace. it's gone. and as far as i know it is not to be missed. the only is hour to be demystified. the sacrifice is some of them human need to those gods that have been forgotten and the imperialism is also a thing of the past. what remains is the fantastic beauty and the faith. the question is how to keep what is of value of the sort of an art and our own emotions and the transcendent go as far as the ecstatic and to distinguish it

precisely for superstition and the supernatural which are designed to make us fearful and afraid and which sometimes succeed if he will. thank you. [applause] >> it's time for the final act in the debate, closing statements. we will do that in the reverse order of our opening remarks. christopher, i am going to call on you again to speak. you're closing remarks, please. >> already. okay. i just didn't know it was coming. tony, what would you say? would you rather have another question? so many of you have gotten them. [inaudible] [applause] don't run away with the idea i would run out of stuff. [laughter] i would rather be provoked.

>> let's do that, and i guess we will give christopher a chance to drink and catch his breath and tony, go to you on the whole question of which is at the center of this debate on the rigid the or flexibility of religious doctrine. your church, the catholic church has just made a reversal of sorts on its policy around the use of condoms, allowed explicitly and only for the prevention of hiv/aids infection. is that a positive? is that an expression of flexibility or critiqued of the decades of rigidity before this reversal? >> well, i welcome it, but i am one of the billion catholics who many catholics have different views on the whole range of

issues upon which there is teaching by the church. i just want to pick up something if i might that christopher said because our fault is his discussion is the transcendent was very interesting actually. i mean, for those of us of religious faith, we acknowledge and believed that there is a power haulier and separate from human power, and what christopher is saying is i can't accept that but i do accept that there is something transcendent in the human experience and something even ecstatic. for me the believe in a higher power and the fact that we should be to the will of that

simply not our own will i don't regard that as putting me in the position of stability and not the word i will use, i wouldn't use the word obligation, and if it is of course absolutely true that when i can point to either of the acts that i say are inspired by religious faith you can say they could easily be inspired by humanism, the i think for those of a store of faith and who do believe that there is something more than human power this does give you i think a humility. it's not all that can give you him of the but it does. and by witnesses to myself to refer to northern ireland when i met some of the people who were

their relatives of those who died in the bombing which came after good friday agreement in the worst terrorist attack in the history of northern ireland and i went to visit the relatives of the victims and i remember a man saying to me who had lost his love to one in the bombing saying to me i have prayed about this and i want you to know that this terrible action made you all the more determined to reach peace and not stock your quest for peace and it is completely true that of course he could come to such an extraordinary and i would say transcendent view of forgiveness and compassion without religious

faith but what led him to that so if you cannot ignore the fact that for many of us actually religious faith is what shapes us in this direction and not because we are basing our religious faith on superstition or contrary to reason indeed which is why i've never seen a contradiction between darwin and being someone of religious faith, but we do genuinely believe it and tells us in a way that is different and more imperative than anything else in our lives and in a way we wouldn't be true to ourselves unless we admit that, so that doesn't mean to say that someone who is of no religious faith couldn't be just as good a person and that is i do not plan for an instant in the view of

religious faith is and in some ways a superior better person than someone who isn't, but i do say religion can and does in the lives of million actually hundreds of millions of people does give them an impulse to be better people than otherwise would be three [applause] >> with our closings difference christopher, you will begin. you have five minutes on the clock. >> what i might do is comment on what tony just said because he succeeded in doing what i had hoped i might do earlier which is to allow me to drive him back onto the metaphysics began because we did need to transcend and get beyond questions like

well, are religious people good, are they that and other things very important, does religion meek vindicate better or worse and so forth. i will give you an example. i mentioned earlier the labor and socialist movement in our lifetime. for a very long time, we had in that movement a challenge apparently from the left, the communism movement which has been very short time and which said it had a much more comprehensive and courageous and thorough answer than we did for the problems created by capitalism and imperialism and other things and a solution, and if i were to point to use a number of heroic people believe in that and the number of works that especially fiction, novels and essays written by people who

believed in it, you could probably all of you mention one of your own if you were canadian, i hope the stultz teach about him in school, the great example of norman, heroic doctor who went to volunteer in china during the civil war on the communist side did amazing work and former battlefield blood transfusion. just one among many examples. he was a communist in many parts of dugard the road to fascism in spain and kept madrid from falling to franco. gondhi me take credit for the indian independence movement, too much in my view, but no one would deny the tremendous role played by the communists in doing this and helping to bring the challenge -- excuse me break the hold of great britain on their country. as a matter of fact, some people find it hard to conceive this, but i don't come as a supporter of myself the african national congress nelson mandela's party, at least half is of the central committee and will become

members of the communist party until recently ferry to the concluding nelson mandela himself. there's no doubt about it there was real heroism and dignity and humanism to those people but we in post. we said no one would work. it's not worth the sacrifice of freedom it in place. it implies all these great things can only be done if you place yourself under an infallible leadership. once it's made the decision, has made the decision and you are bound by it. he might conceivably notice where i am going here. [laughter] it's why many of the people who actually did leave it left and for the high reasons of principle as they did in the first place in the names of their books and the legendary best known is called the god that failed precisely because it was an attempt of a bogus form. let no one save in the history comes no one will be able to say that they didn't represent some high points in human history.

but i repeat, it wasn't worth the sacrifice of mental and intellectual and moral freedom, and that was the purpose of my original search of questions on the metaphysical site. are you consider yourself, consider this, ladies and gentlemen, brothers and sisters, friends -- [laughter] are you, yourself, willing for the sake of certain elements, perhaps a great record of good work as is proposed, are you willing to say that you give your allegiance they are not religious you don't believe that there is a design supervision. if we don't believe that you are halfway out the door you don't need me. [laughter] are you willing to pay the price of the leading known things that supernatural merkel scum

afterlife, angeles, are you willing to admit argue perhaps most of all willing to admit human beings can be the interpreter of this because the religion means that you will have to follow someone who is your religious leader. you can't try as you may follow jesus of nazareth. it can't be done. you can try and do it, it can't be done. you have to follow him on earth, benedict xxvi as present. his own claim, not . this person has the time of doherty. that what goes with it is too much of a sacrifice of the mental and intellectual freedom. that is essential to us to be tolerated. and you gain everything by repeating that and standing up to your own full height and gain much more than you will by pretending that you are a member of a flock or in any other way any kind.

thank you. [applause] >> when christopher was talking in times of the labor party together, i was just recalling after we suffered our election defeat in the labor party meeting a party member after the fourth defeat and said to me that people have now broken against us four times. what is wrong with them? [laughter] [applause]

i would say that the example of communism shows that those who want to suppress freedom and those who have a fanatical view of the way the world should work, those are not confined to their religious faith i am afraid. it is there in many different walks of life. so the question is for me this is not about how i, with a believe for me as a christian to believe in jesus christ, not how that makes me subject to aggression and servitude, but on the contrary how that helps me find the best way of expressing the rest of the human spirit and it was actually on sign who was not an atheist in fact, he was a

supreme being although he did not necessarily subscribe to organized religion who sit religion without science is blind. but he also went on to say science without religion is lamb. and i'd say that for me face is not about certainty, it is in part a reflection of my own awareness and that both life processes can be explained by science nonetheless the meaning and purpose of life cannot be. and in that space for me at least life is not a certainty in the scientific sense but a belief that is clear and insistent and i would say rational which is is there a high gear power than human power and the high year power poses to

the better lives in accordance with a will more important than our own, not in order that we should be imprisoned by that superior well, but on the contrary so that we can discipline and use of verdone will to the things that represent the best in human beings and so i think this debate this evening has been fascinating and i think deeply important debate about probably the single most important issue in the 21st century. i actually don't think the 21st century will be about fundamentalist political ideology. i accept it could be about fundamentalist religion or cultural ideologies and the way that we avoid that is for those

people of faith to be prepared to stand up and the date those people who are at nunn and so for those people who believe in the world of peaceful coexistence, where people to cooperate together recognize there are people with deeply held religious convictions and of those convictions and held them to be part of the world of peaceful coexistence even though it is true there are those in many of religion and indeed as a consequence of religion will sometimes do things that are terrific and evil and in my view totally contrary to the true meaning of faith. so why don't stand before you tonight and say that those of us of religious faith have always done right since that is plainly

wrong, but i do say that throughout human history there have been examples by people in spite of from her faith that rather than contributed to this suppression of humanity contributed to this litigation. a spiritually, emotionally and even imperially and it is those people on the stand up for here with you tonight. thank you. [applause] >> ladies and gentlemen, let me reiterate something that peter said it the beginning of this evening's talk. it is wanting to give up a set speech on the subject that you are intimately familiar with. it is something quite antiyearly different though to appear at a

public event, global e event such as this to have your ideas contested and combat by someone who can do so with the eloquence and conviction of the two debators. [applause] >> stay here just one second. [applause] ..

ladies and gentlemen, start voting.