everything that the church is done in africa is right. but let me tell you one thing it did do while i was prime minister. the churches together formed a campaign for the cancellation of debt. they came together. th succeeded. the first in a fisheries -- in a beneficiaries were the young girls able to go to school. i do say except that there are people doing great work, day in day out, were genuinel not prejudiced or bigoted. they are working with people who are afflicted by famine, disease, and poverty. they're doing it inspired by their faith. of course, it is the case that not everybody -- [applause] of course it is the case that you do not have to be a person

of faith in order to do good work. i have never claimed that. i know many people who are not people of faith at all to do fantastic and decent work for their community and the world. but there are people inspired by their faith to do good. i think the people i met some time ago in south africa. there were looking out for children born with hiv/aids. these are people working and living alongside and cing for people, inspired by their faith. is it possible for them to do that without the religious faith? of course. but the fact is that is what motivated. we should not end up in a situation where we have six hospitals and one suicide bomber

and how does it all equal out. that is not a productive way of arguing this. i thought one of the most interesting things that christopher said is that we're not going to drive religion out of the world. that is true. we are not. people of faith can have debates with secularists. it is good, and right, and what we should be doing. [applause] [applause] i'm not claing that everyone should congregate on my space, i'm simply claiming one very 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 weo encourage those people of faith who are trying

to do good, and how we unite those against those who want to pervert religion and turn it into a badge of identity used in opposition to others. [applause] so i would simply finish 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 any part in it at all, so let us not condemn all people of religious faith because of the bigotry or prejudice shown by some, and let us at least acknowledge that some good has come out of religion, and that we should celebrate. [applause]

>> christopher, your sond rebuttal, please. >> do i have a second one? what an amazing test of audience tolerance. all right, how splendidly you notice we progress, ladies and gentlemen. religiouskay, some people are sort of all right. i think i seem to be bargaining one of the greater statesmen of the recent past down a bit. not necessarily opposed to that. just to finish on the charity point, i once did a lot of work with a man called sebastian selgado, some of you will know him, great photographer, the unicef ambassador on polio questions, i went to calcutta with him and elsewhere. nearly got rid of polio, nearly made it join smallpox as a disease, a thing of the past a filthy memory, except for so many religious groups in bengal, afghanistan, don't go and take the drops, it's a

conspiracy, it's against god and his design. by the way, that argument isn't terribly new, when smallpox was a scourge, timothy dwight, head of yale, said taking dr jenner's injection was an interference with god's design as well. that's sort of by the way, you need something like unicef to get jor work done if you want to alleviate poverty, misery and disease, and for me, my money will always go to organisations like medicins sans frontiers, like oxfam, and many others, who strangely enough go out into the world,o good for their fellow creatures, for its own sake. they don't take the bible along, as people do to haiti all the time, we keep catching them doing it. their money is being spent flat out on proselytisation.

it is a function of the old thing hand in hand with imperialism. it's the missionary tradition. they can call it charity if they will, but it doesn't stand a second look. so much on the biness of doing good, except perhaps to add, since i have you for some extra minutes, mrlair and i at different times gave quite a lot of our years to the labour movement, and if the promise of religion had been true, right up until the late 19th century in, say, britain, or north america or cana, if good works should be enough, and those who give chaty should be honoured, those who receive it should be grateful, two rather revolting ideas in one, i have to say, there would be no need for human, social and political action, we could rely on being innately good, which we know we can't rely upon, and i never suggested could or should. religiongued now, so could be a good thing after all, sometimes, we think, is now the proposition.

what would relion have to do to get that far? i think it would have to give up all supernatural claims. [applause] it would have to say no, you are not to do this under the threat of reward, heaven, or the terror opunishment, hell. no, we can't offer you miracles; find me the church that will say forget all that. faith healing, no, it would have to give that up. it would have to give up the idea of an eternal, unalterable authority figure who is judge, jury and executioner, against whom there could be no appeal and who wasn't finished with you even when you died. that is quite a lot for religion to give up, don't you think? but who would say it would be ... like it to be, an aspect of humanism, an aspect of

compassion, an aspect of the realisations of human solidarity, thknowledge we are all in fact bound up with one another, that we have responsibilities one to another, and as i do when i give blood, partly because i don't lose the pint forever, ilways get it back, but there's a sense of pleasure to be had in helping your fellocreature. i think that should be enough, thank you. [applause] >> tony, it must feel like the house of commons all over again. [laughter] >> i don't know, so far they're a little politer actually! [laughter] >> your final rebuttal, please. >> it all depes, i guess, what your experience of religious people is. my experience of the people i was with last week in africa, that include deeply religious people; not actually that

they're doing what they're doing because of heaven and hell, they're doing it for love of their fellow human beings, and that's, i think, something very fine. what's more, that they believe that this love of thr 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 fah, they feel, is an impulse to do that good. and you know, i don't recognise the description of the work that they do in what christopher has said. in sierra leone, where i was, you have christians and muslims working together to deliver healthcare in that country. that's religion playing a positive role. they're working across the faith divide and doing it, because they again believe that their faith impels them to do that.

when we look back in history, yes of course you can see plenty of examples of where religion has played a negative role. you can see great example, for example in the abolition of slavery, where religious reformers joined with secular reformers in order to bring about the abolition of slavery. [applause] let's get away from this idea that religion created poverty. there are bad things that have happened in the world outside of religion. and 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, absolutely at their heart was the eradication of religion, and what i would say to you is, get rid of religion, but you're not going to get rid of fanaticism or the wrong in the world. [applause]

the question is, how then do we make sense of religion having this vital part in the world today, since it is growing and not diminishing, how do we make sense of this? this is where yes, there is an obligation on the people of faith to try and join across the faith divide with those of other faiths, that's reason for my foundation. we have people of different religis faiths, we have a programme where young people team up with each other of different faiths and work together in africa on malaria, back in their own faith communities, and here in canada, we have a schools programm that allows schools to link up using the technology so that kids of different faiths n talk to each other across the world. 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's an executioner of those that do wrong, they talk

in terms of their basic feeling that love of god can be expressed best through love of neighbour and actions in furtherance of the compassion and help needed by others. [applause] in 2007, religious organisations in the us gave one and a half times the amount of aid that usaid did, not insignificant. my point is very simple, you can list all the faults of religion, just as you can list the faults of politicians, journalists and any other profession, but for people of faith, the reason why they try to do good, and when they do it, is because their faiths motivates them to do so and that is genuinely the proper face of faith. [applause] >> gentlemen, thank you for a

terrific start to this debate, the time has now come to involve you the audience here at roy thomson hall, those written questions have been coming in and some have been passed on to me, and our folks in the control room. also, we're going to bring on our online audience through questions that have been debated on our discussion boards and i'm going to take some live questions from some younger audience members here on the stage. in that regard, christopher, we're going to start with a question for you, a young woman like here who would like to address you personally, tell the audience your name and question, please. >> my name is mega, i'm a recent graduate from the university of toronto, my question is in regards to globalisation. this century, globalision will bring together as never

before nations and peoples divided by wealth, geography, politics and race. so my qution is: instead of fearing faith, why not embrace the shared values of the world's major religious as a way of uniting humankind? >> great question. christopher? unity out of faith or disunity? >> perfectly good question, but seemed to be phrased as a call for common humanism. i didn't hear anyone say, wouldn't it be better if everyone at least joined some church or other, not a bit of it. common humanism is, i think, not made particularly easier by the practice of religion, and i'll tell you why, there's something about religion that is very often, at any rate, in its original monotheistic and judaistic form, is ab initio an expression of exclusivism. this is our god, the god who has made a covenant with our tribe. you find it all over the place. it isn't always as sectarian as

... sometimes still is but it's not unknown. it's always struck me as slightly absurd that there would be a special church for english people, although i can sort of see the point. [laughter] it strikes me as positively sinister that pope benedict should want to restore the catholic church to the claim it used to make, which is it is the one true church, and all other forms of christianity are, as he still puts it, defective and inadequate. how this helps to build your future wld of co-operation and understanding is not known to me. if you tell me in the balkans what your religion is, i can tell you what your nationality is. you're not a catholic, you know less about loyola than i do. but i know you're a croat, and a croat nationalist. religion and in fact any form of faith, because it is a surrender of reason, it's a

surrender of reason in favour of fah, is a fantastic force multiplier, a tremendous intensifier, i was trying to say, of all things tt are in fact divisive rather than inclusive and that's why its history is so stained with blood, not just of crimes against humanity, womanhood, reason and science, attacks upon micine and enlightenment, all these appalling things that tony kept defending himself from and i didn't even have time to bring up. no, but if you would just look at the way the christians love each other in the wars of religion in lebanon, or in former yugoslavia, you will see that there is no conceivable way that by calling on t supernatural, you will achieve anything like your objective of a common humanism which is, i think you're quite right to say, our only chance of -- i won't call it salvation, thank you. [applause]

>> tony, what i'd like you to do, there's another question on the stage, someone in a sense that's an inverse question for you, and it would be a great opportunity for to respond to hitchens at the same time. so let me go to a scholar at oxford university, who has a question for you, mr blair. >> thank you very much. myesearch is in armed conflict in sub-saharan africa so the question is: how do you argue that religion is a force for good in the world when the same faiths that bind peoples and groups also deepen divisions and exacerbate conflict? >> great question. [applause] >> to which my answer is they can do, and there are very many examples of that, but therere also examples, let me give you one from the northern ireland peace process, where people from protestant and catholic churches got together and the religious leaders tried to bring about a situation where people

reached out across the faith divide. what i would say to you is this exclusivism is not -- you know, this type of excluding other people because they're different, let's just nail the myth that this is 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're 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 neighbour, and christopher is absolutely right, confucius did indeed say exactly something similar to rabbi hilel, of course jesus said love your neighbour as yourself, if you look at hinduism, buddhism, the religion of islam, after the death of the prophet mohammed, islam was actually at the forefront of science, and introducing proper

rights for women, for the first time, in that part of the world. so the point is this, and this is really where the debate comes to, christopher says, well, humanism is enough, and what i say to thats: but 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 terrorise people into submission to religion, they actually thk of it as about how you fulfil your purpose as a humaneing, in the service of others. so when we say, well, that could be ne by humanism, yes, it could, but the fact is for many people, it's driven by faith, and so yes, it's true, you can find examples of where religion has deepened the divide in countries isub-saharan africa. you can also find examples of

where religion has tried to overcome those divides by preaching what is the true message of religion, one of human compassion and love. [applause] >> hitchen let's have you come back on that, not just northern ireland but iraq, a war you supported, religion played an important role arguably in the success of putting together post invasion iraq. >> i only think we should do this because the two questions were in effect the same, both very well phrased, and because i never like to miss out a chance to congratulate someone on being humorous, if only unintentionally, it's very touching for tony to say that he recently went to a meeting that bridged a religious divide in northern ireland; where does the religious divide come from? 400 -- [applause] 400 years and more, in my own

country of birth, of people killing each others' children, depending on what kind of christian they were, and sending each others' children in rhetoric to hell, and making northern ireland the place, the most remarkable in northern europe for unemployment, for ignorance, for poverty and for, i would say, stupidity too. d for them now to say, maybe we might consider bridging this gap; well, i should bloody well think . [applause] but i don't see how. if they had listened to the atheist community in northern ireland, which is a real thing, and if they had listened to the secular movement in northern ireland, which is a real thing and i know many people who have suffered dreadfully from membership in it, not excluding being pulled out of a car by a man in a balaclava and being asked,re you ... are you a protestant jewish atheist or a catholic jewish atheist? you laugh, but it's not --

[laughter] so funny when the party of god has a gun in your ear at the same time. and that was in britain, and still is, to some extent, until recently. rwanda, do i say that there would be no quarrel between hutu and tutsi, people in rwanda. belgian colonialism made it worse, but there are no doubt innate ethnic differences ... most christian country in africa. in fact, by one account -- that's to say, numbers of people in relation to numbers of churches, it's the most christian country in the world, and the hutu power genocide at any rate was preached from the pulpits, actually the pulpit of the catholic church, as many of the people we are looking for wanted in that genocide are hiding in the vatican, along with a number of other people who should be given up to international justice, by the

way, quite a number of people. [applause] so since tony seems to like religious people best when they are largely nonpractising, but just basically faithful, i will grant him that much. i will say it is not entirely the fault of religion that this happened in rwanda, but when it's preached from the pulpit as it was in northern ireland and rwanda, it does tend to make it very, very much worse. thank you. [applause] >> tony briefly come back on that, because you were intimately involved in the search for peace in northern ireland and i presume you have a very different perspective of the role faith played in the resolution of that conflict. >> yes, and i now do work in rwanda. first of all, i think it really would be bizarre to say that the conflict in rwanda was a result of the catholic church. i mean, rwanda is a perfect indicator of what i'm saying, which is you can put aside

religion, and still have the most terrible things happen. this was the worst genocide since the holocaust, it was committed on a tribal basis. yes it's true there were members of the catholic church who behaved badly in that context of rwanda, there were also, by the way, members of the catholic church and others of religious denomination who stood up and protected and died alongside people in rwanda. [applause] so you -- and as for northern ireland, yes, of course, protestant and catholic, absolutely right, but you couldn't ignore the politics of the situation in northern ireland, it was to do with the relationship between britain and ireland goi back over many, many centuries. so 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. and what is at the heart of this is we wouldn't dream of condemning all of politics because politics had led to

hitler, stalin or indeed what has happened in rwanda, so let us not condemn the whole of 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 that impact. so my -- i think actually rwanda and northern ireland are classic examples, even the middle east peace process, i mean yes, i agree, you can look at all the religious issues there but let's not ignore the political issues either, and frankly at the moment the reason -- and i can tell you this from first hand -- well, but i can tell you from first hand experience, the reason we don't have an agement at the moment between palestinians and israelis is not to do with the religious leaders on either side, it's a lot more to do with the political leadersso it's my branch that has to take the blame for that. [applause] therefor what i would say is i actually think that yes of course a lot of these conflicts

have religious roots, i actually think it's possible for religious leaders to play a positive part in trying to resolve 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 globalisation that is pushing people together, can play a positive rather than negative role, and if we ncentrated on that, rather than trying to drive religion out, which is futile, to concentrate instead on how we actually 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. thank you. [applause] thekay, let's -- we like applauding, so please connue that throughout the debate. let's take a written question, my producers are telling me we have a written question, we'll get that on the screen, christopher this is for you to start with, interesting one: america is both one of the most religious countries in the world and also one of the most

democratic and pluralistic, both now and arguably throh much of its history. how do you explain that seeming paradox? >> relatively mply, the united states has uniquely a constution that forbids the government to take sides in any religious matter, or to sponsor the church, or to adopt any form of faith itself. as a result of which, anyone who wants to practise their religion in america has to do it as a volunteer. it's what dick hotfield wrote about so well in his democracy in america, ever since tmas jefferson wrote to the baptists of connecticut during his tenure of president, you'll be familiar with the phrase i'm sure -- they had britain to him out of their fear of persecution in connecticut: rest assured there will ever be a wall of separation between thehurch and the state in this country, but the maintenance of that wall, which people like me have

to defend every day, against those who want garbage taught in schools and pseudo science in the name of christ and other -- [applause] -- atrocities, the maintenance of that wall is the guarantee of the democracy. by the way, for a bonus, can anyone telme who the baptists of dan bring connecticut thought was persecuting them? the congregationalists of danbury, connecticut, well done. [laughter] that argues by the way for the existence of a very small but real fan base of mine somewhere here. [laughter] it doesn't seem to matter very much now but it mattered them, give those congregationalists enough power, as they had in connecticut, and just you see how unfurried they look. now we have discipned them, thank you.

>> tony, same question. is it a case of american exceptionalism, or is this balance between pluralism and faith being achieved in america either something that ... or a model that can be exported globally? >> 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 ablto dictate, and that is a reasonable balance, and i think that most -- you know, most people would cept. but i think, you know, again what i would say about examples of where you get religious people that are fanatical in the views that they want to press on others, fanaticism is not -- as i say, it's not a wholly owned subsidiary of religion, i'm afraid, it can happen outside of religion too. so the question is, how do people of, if you like, good faith, who believe in pluralist democracy, how do we ensure that people who hold faith deeply are able to participate in society, and have the same

ability to do that as everyone else, without being kind of denigrated, but 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. so i think that most people can get that balance right, and we are very lucky actually in our countries, because we are in a situation where people of different faiths are free t practise their faith as they like, and that is in my view an absolutely fundamental part of democracy, and it's something that people of religious faith have to be very clear about and stand up and do. one of the reasons why for me i think it's -- 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 isn't different, how you're going to

make it so, and i think that's a positive and good thing. all i ask for is that where people of faith are speaking in the public sphere, and people accept that we have a right to do that, and sometimes we do that actually because we believe in the things that we're saying, and we're not trying to subvert or change docracy; on the contrary, we simply want to be part of it, and our voice is a voice that has a right to be heard alongside the voice of others. [applause] >> i see christopher writing furiously so i'm going to ask him to come back on that point. >> well, i hadn't anything specially to add there, i think i would rather give another person a chance for a question. >> it's a question that was debated for you, christopher, on munk debates.com in the lead- up to this evening, on our discussion board, many people sang that religion provides a

sense of community, in modern societies we're immersed in a consumer culture, more often than not living alongside fellow citizens who are more maybe self-directed than other- directed. what do you say abt the pure community function of religion? isn't that a valid public good of religious belief? >> absolutely, i say good luck to it. the way i phrase it in my book, available at fine bookstores everywhere, is that i propose a pact with the faith, the faithful, i'll take it again, quoting from the great thomas jefferson, i don't mind if my neighbour believes in 15 gods or in none, he neither by that breaks my leg or picks my pocket. i would echo that, and say tha as long as you don't want your religion taught to my children in school, given a government

subsidy, imposed on me by violence, any of these things, you are fine by me. i would prefer ... [applause] i would prefer not even to know what it is that you do in that church of yours, in fact, if you force it on my attention, i will consider it a breach of that pact. have your own bloo christmas, and so on. do your slaughtering, if possible, in an abattoir. and don't mutilate the genitals of your children! because then i'm afraid it gets within the ambit of law. all right, don't you think that's reasonably pluralistic and communitarian of me? i think it is. why is it a vain hope on my part? has this pact ever been honoured by the other side? of course not. it's a mystery to me, and ill share it with you. if i believed that there was a

saviour who had been appointed or sent, or a prophe appointed or sent by a god who bore me in mind, and loved me, and wanted the best for me, if i believed that, and that i possessed the means of grace and the hope of glory, to phrase it like that, i think, i don't know, i think i might be happy. they say it's the way to happiness. why doesn't it make them happy? don't you think it's aerfectly decent question? beuse they won't be happy until you believe it too, because that's what their holy books tell them. [applause] now i'm sorry, it's enou with saying in the name of religion; do these texts say that until every knee bows in the name of jesus, there will be no happiness? of course it is what they say. it isn't just a private belief.

it is rather, and i think always has been, and that's why i'm here, actually a threat to the idea of a peaceable community, and very often, as now, and frequently, a very palpable one. so i think that's the underlying energy that powers the friendly disagreement between tony and myself. [applause] >> tony, would you like to come back on that topic of religion and community or move on t 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, and it's about something that many people posted about sothing 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? >> i think we can nail this one pretty easily. it was not about religious faith. you know, one of the things that i sometimes say to people is, look, the thing about religion and rigious faith is if you are a person of faith, it's part of your character, it defines you in many ways as a human being. it doesn't do the policy answers, i am afraid. so as i used to say to people, you don't go into church and look heaven ward and say to god, right, next year, the minimum wage, is it £6.50 or 7? unfortunately, he doesn't tell you the answer. and even on the major decisions that are to do with war and peace that i've taken, they were decisions based on policy, and so they should be, 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-on question to you is how did you square the circle, maybe you didn't, between your support for the iraq war and the current then president, george w bush, in his very public evocation of faith in terms of his rhetoric around the invasion. >> well, i don't remember, in fact i don't think you can point out to me any moment where george bush said he was under divine order or had any divine warrant for the intervention in iraq. in fact, i'm perfectly certain -- he might not have mind at some points giving that impression, he wanted to give that impression about everything that he did. [laughter] george bush is someone who, as with his immediate predecessor, after various experiments in faith, ended up in his wife's church, most comfortable place for him to be, she's after all

the one who said to him, if you take another drink, you scum bag, i'm leaving and taking the kids, which is his way of saying he founjesus and gave up the bottle. [laughter] [applause] we know this to be true. and like a good methodist, i was in methodist school for many years myself, he says the following ... from now on, all is in god's hands. that's quite different, i think. it would have made him a perfectly good muslim, as a matter of fact. [laughter] a combination of fatalism with a slightly sinister feeling of being chosen. anyway. [laughter] surely what is strike most to the eye of those who ... agree to call the liberation of iraq is the unanimous opposition of the leadership of every single christian church to

it, including the president's own and the prime minister's own, the methodist church of the united states adamantly opposed, the vatican adamantly 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 faces fascist dictatorship, and of course i -- [applause] -- was very surprised by the number of liberal jews who took the same about a regime that harboured genocidal thoughts towards them, and if it comes to that, although i'm not ... given the number of muslims put to the sword by saddam hussein's regime, quite extraordinary to see the extent to which muslim fundamentalists flocked to his defence, but i don't expect integrity or consistency from those quarters. [applause] but those us who worked with

people with -- with iraqi intellectuals, with the kurdish leadership, the secular left opposition of the popular -- excuse me, the patriotic union of kurdistan, the iraqi communist party, you have to give it credit for this ... very proud of our solidarity with those comrades, those brothers and sisters, we are still in touch with them, we have nothing to apologise for. it's those who would have kept a cannibal and a caligula and a professional sadist in power who have t explaining to do. thank you. [applause] >> i want to be conscious of our time and go to our two final onstage questions. i believe the first one is for mr blair, a student at the munk school of obal affairs, introduce yourself and ask your

question of mr blair. >> good evening, my name is jonah, my question pertains to something that has come up earlier this evening. religion on both sides is 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 heing to bring peace between israelis and palestinians. >> well, i remember a few months ago, i was in jericho and when you go out from jericho, they took me up to -- we went to visit the mount of temptation, which is where i think they take all the liticians, and the guide that was showing us round, the palestinian guide, suddenly stopped at oneoint, and he said, this part of the world, he said, moses, jesus, mohammed, why did they all have to come here?

[laughter] i sort of said, well, supposing they hadn't, would everyone be fine? he said, well, probably not. but you know, the religious leadership can play a part in this, for example, i don't think you will get a resolution of the issue of jerusalem, which is a sacred and holy city to all thr abrahamic faiths, unless people of faith are prepared to try and fincommon ground, so they are entitled to worship in the way that they wish. and the correct that in both israel and palestine, you see examples o religious fundamentalism and people espousing and doing extreme things as a result of their religion, but i can also tell you that there are rabbis and people of the muslim faith on the palestinian side who are deerately trying to find common ground and ways of

working together, and i think part of the issue and the reason indeed for me starting my faith foundation is that we can argue forever the degree to which what 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 of religious faith 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 underlies everything we have been saying this evening, that if it is correct that you're not going to simply eliminate religion, you're not going to drive religion out of the world, then let's work on how we make those people of different faiths, even though they believe that their own faith is the path, so they believe, to salvation, how they can work across the faith divide in orr to produce respect and understanding and tolerance, because believe it or not, amongst all the examples

of prejudice and bigotry that christopher quite rightly draws attention to, there are also examples of 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, religion has to one degree created these problems, but actually people of different religious faiths working together can also be an important part of resolving these problems, and that's what we should do, it's what we can do, and in respect of jerusalem, it is absolutely imperative that we do do. [applause] >> a visitor goes to the western wall -- anything he can do. a visitor goes to the western

wall, sees a man tearing at his beard, banging his head on the wall, shoving messages in at a rate of knots, watching with fascination ... i couldn't help noticing you were being unusually devout in your address to the wall, to the divine, do you mind if i ask you what you're praying for? he was saying, i was praying for peace, that there should be mutual love and respect for peoples in this ... -- in this area. ah, it's like talking to the wall. [laughter] but there are people who think talking to walls is actually a form of divine worship, and it's another instance, not that i didn't bring it up laboriously myself, but i don't mind it again, of the difference between tony and myself, when he uses his giveaway phrase "in the na of religion", rather than "as a direct consequence of scriptural authority", which is

what i mean when i talk about this. no one is going to deny, are they, that there are awards of real estate made in the bible, by none other than jehovah himself. that land is promised to human primates over other human primates, in response to a divine covenant. do excuse me, sorry, this sometimes happens. no, that can't be denied. when david ben-gurion was prime minister of what he still called a secular ste he called in israeli archaeologists, professional guys, and said: go out into the desert and dig up the title deeds to our statement. you'll find our legitimate -- that was instruction to the department of archaeology. they went, after they conquered sinai and west bank, even further ield looking for some evidence moses had ever been ere. they didn't find any, because ere never has been and there

never will be any, but you cannot say that the foundational cause, causus belli in this region, the idea that god intervenes in real estate and territorial disputes, isn't inscribed in the text itself. not only in the jewish text but thanks to a decision taken in the early christian centuries where it was decided not to dump the new testament, and start again just with the nazarene story, great christian theologians were in favour of that, why do we want to bring the darkness, tyrrany, terror, death ... surely we should start again? no, we're saddling ourselves with all that. so this is a responsibility for the christian world too. need i add that there is no good muslim who does not say that allah tells us we can never give up an inch of muslim land and once our mosques are built,

there can be no retreat, it would be a betrayal, it wou lead you straight to hell. in other words, yes, yes, they gibber and jabber, all of them, the three religions, yes, god awards land, it's just you've got the wrong title. this is what i mean when i say religion is a real danger to the survival of civilisation, and it makes this banal regional and national dispute ... a nothingness, if it makes that, not just lethally insoluble, but is drawing in other contending parties, who really wish, openly wish, for an apocalyptic conclusion to it, as also bodied forth in the same scriptural texts, in other words that it will be the death of us all, the death of humanity, the end of the world, end of the whole suffering veil of tears, which is the ... not something that happens because people misinterpret the texts, it is because they believe in them, that's the problem, thank you.

[applause] >> tony, can i move on to the final question? great, we have the perfect final question, it's from another student at the munk school for global affairs, dana. >> a big part of this issue is our inability to stand in another's shoes, with an open mind to understand a different world view. in this regard, can each of you tell us which of your opponent's argumentis the most convincing? thank you. [applause] [laughter] >> this definitely never

happened in the house of commons! i think that the most convincing argument is -- and the argument that people of faith have got to deal with is actually the argument christopher has just made, which is that t bad that is done in the name of religion is intrinsically grounded in the scripture of religion. that is the single most difficult argument. since i've said it's a really difficult argument, i suppose i had better give an answer to it. my answer to it is this: that there is, of course, that debate that goes on within religion, which is the degree to which, as it were, you look at scripture abstracted from its time, you pick out individual parts of it, you use those in order to justify whatever view you like, or whether, as i tried to do in my opening, you actually say, what is the essence of that faith, and what

is the essence of scripture? of course, then what you realise is that yes of course if you believe, as a muslim that we should live our lives according to the 7th century, then you will end up with some very extreme positions, but actually there are masses of muslims who completely reject that as a view of islam, and instead say no, of course, the prophet back then was somebody who brought order and stability and actually, for example, even though we today would want equality for women and many again, despite what people say, many muslims would agree with that as well, and many muslim women obviously, back then, actually what he d was extraordinary for that time, and also when you look at christianity, yes of course you

can point to issues that of that time now seem very strange and outdated, but on the other hand, when you take christianity as a whole and ask what it means, what draws people to it, you know,hat is it that made me as a student come to christianity, it wasn't to do with some of the things that christopher has just been describing, and you know, i understand that's -- there are those traditions within religion, i derstand that, i accept that, i see how people look at certain parts 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 of it is through the life of jesus christ, a life of love, selflessness and sacrifice and that's what it means to me. so i think the most difficult

thing for people of faith is to be able to explain scripture in a way that makes sense to people in the modern worldand one of the things that 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 co- operation and mutual respect, so, you know, yes, it is a difficult argument, that is the most difficult argument, i agree, but i also think there is an answer to it, and i think one of the values actually of having a debate like this, and in a sense, having someone making that point as powerfully as christopher has made it, is that it does force people of faith to recognise that 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 in how we interpret our faith, we are making sure that what i descri

as the essence of faith, which is serving god through the love of others, is indeed reflected not just in what we do but in the doctrines and the practice of our religion. [applause] >> admirable question, thank you for it. the remark tonmade that i most agreed with this evening, i'll just hope that doesn't sound too minimal, was when he said that if religion was to disappear, things would by no means, as it were, automatically be okay. i mean, he phrased it better than that. but it would be what i regard as a necessary condition would certainly not be a sufficient one, at any rate religion won't disappear, but the hold it has on people's minds can be substantially broken and domesticated.

... to have argued to the contrary, i come beforyou after all as a materialist. if we give up religion, we discover what actually we know already, whether we're religious or not, which is that we are somewhat imperfectly evolved primates, on a very small planet in a very unimportant suburb of a solar system that is itself a negligible part of a very rapidly expanding and blowing apart cosmic phenomenon. these conclusions to me are a great deal more awe inspiring than what's contained in any burning bush or horse that flies overnight to jerusalem or any other of that -- a great deal more awe inspiring, as is any look through the hubble telescope at what our real nature and future really is. he was quite right to say that, and i would be entirely wrong if i implied otherwise. i think i could say a couple of

things for religion ... the apotropaic, we all have it, the desire not to be found to be claiming all the credit, a certain kind of modesty, you could almost say humility. people will therefore say they will thank god when something happens they are grateful for. there is no need to make this a relious thing, the greeks had the concept of hubris as something to be avoided and criticised, but what the greeks would also have called the apotropaic, the view that not all the glory can be claimed by primates like ourselves is a healthy reminder too. second, the sense that there is something beyond the material, or if not bend it, not entirely consistent materially with it, is, i think, a very important matter. what you could call the numinous or the transcendent, or at its best, i suppose, the ecstatic.

i wouldn't trust anyone in this hall who didn't know what i was talking about. we know what we mean by it, when we think about certain kinds of music perhaps, certainly the relationship or the coincidence but sometimes very powerful between music and lo. landscape, certain kinds of artistic and creative work that appears not to have been done entirely by hand. without this, we really would merely be primates. tohink it's very important appreciate the finesse of that, and i think religion has done a very good job of enshrining it in music and architecture, not so much in painting in my opinion, and i think it's actually very important that we learn to distinguish the numinous in this way, i wrote a book about the parthenon, i will mention it briefly. i couldn't live without the parthenon, i don't believe every civilised person could, if it ... much worse than the first temple

had occurred, it seems to me. and we would have lost an enormous amount besides by way of our knowledge of symmetry, grace and harmony. i don't care about the cult of palace athena, it's gone, and as far as i know ... the sacrifices, some of them human, that were made to those gods, are regrettable but have been blotted out and forgotten, and athenian imperialism is also a thing of the past. what remains is the fantastic beauty ... the question is how to keep what is of value of this sort in art in our own emotions ... i will go as far as the static, and to distinguish it preciselfrom superstition and the supernatural which are designed to make us fearful and afraid and servile and which, sometimes succeed

only too well. thank you. [applause] >> it is now time for the final act in our debate, closing statements. we will do that in the reverse order of our opening remarks. christopher, i am going to call on you first to speak. your closing remarks, please. >> i did not know it was comg. how about another question? >> let's take another question. [applause] get the ide that i have run out of stuff. i would rather be provoked. >> let's do that. we will give christopher a pause, a chance to drink. tony, the whole question of the

rigidities or flexibility of religious doctrine. the catholic church has just made a reversal of sorts on its policy around the use of condoms, allowed explicitly to only for the prevention of hiv/aids infection. is that itositive? is that an expression of flexibility? is it a critique of the decades of rigidity before this reversal? >> i welcome it. i am one of the billion catholics. i sank many, many catholics have different views on a whole range of issues. i just wanted to pick up something, if i might, that

christopher said. i thought his discussion of the transcendent is very interesting, actually. for those of us of religious faith, we acknowledge and believe that there is a power, hire and separate, from human power. in a way, what christopher is saying is that i cannot accept that but i accept there is something transcendent in the human experience, something even ecstatic. you see, for me, the belief in a higher power and the fact that we should be obedient to the will of that power, i don't regret that ashburn putting me in a position of civility.

i would use the word "obligation." it is, of course, absolutely true that when i can point to any of the ax i say are inspired by religious faith, you can easily say they would have been inspired by humanism. i think that for those of us who are of faith and to believe that there is something actually more than simply human power, this does give you, i think, humility. it is not all that can give you an humility, but it does. i have witnessed this myself. i remember when i met some of the people, the relatives who had died in the worst terrorist

attack in the history of ireland. i went to visit their relatives of the victims. i remember a man saying to me, who had lost his loved one in the bombing, saying to me, "i have prayed about this and i want you to know that this terrible act should make you all the more determined to reach a peace and to not stop your quest for peace." is completely true, that of course he could have come to a transcendent view of forgiveness and compassion with our religious faith. i think you can't ignore the fact that for many of us,

actually, religious faith is shaped in this direction and not because we are servile or based religious faith on supervision or contrary to reason. which is why i have never seen a contradiction between darwin and someone other religious faith. but we do generally bieve that it compels us in a way that is different and more imperative, in a sense, than anything else in our lives. and the way that we would not be being true to ourselves unless we admitted that. that does not lead to say that someone of no religious faith could just be as good of the person, which i claim notven r an insta that someone of religious faith is a superior or better person than someone who isot. i do say that religion can and does in the lives o hundreds

and millions and billions of people it gives them an impulse to be better people than otherwise they would be. [appuse] . .

i hope is to teach about him in school. the heroic doctor that went to

volunteer in china during the civil war on the communist side and the amazing work it with the communists who barred the road in spain. gondi me take credit for the independence movement, but no one would deny the tremendous role played by doing that. as a matter of fact, i did not support it myself. there is no doubt about it, there was real hair was an to those people.

it is not worth the sacrifice of freedom that it implies. you cannot please yourself under an infallible leadership. once you have made the decision you are bound by it. you must conceivably notice where i'm going here. it is why many of the intellectuals that did leave it left as they joined in the first place. let no one say that it did not do not represent some high points in history. it was not worth it at the sacrifice of mental and intellectual and moral freedom.

are you considering your souls are you, yourselves, are you willing to say that you give your allegiance to the ultimate believer? you have to believe that it intervenes all the time. if you need that, you do not need me. are you willing to pay the price? miracles and after life's and angels, are you willing to admit that human beings can be the interpreter of the stevin figure because their religion

means he will have to find someone who is a religious leader. try as you may follow jesus of nazareth, it cannot be done. you have to follow his vicar on earth. you have to say that this person has divine authority. that is too much of a sacrifice of the mental and intellectual freedom and he gave everything but repeating that and standing up to your own full height. you gain much more than you will find pretending you are a member of the a flock. [applause] thank you.

when christopher was talking there, i was recalling after we had our defeat, meeting a party member after the fourth defeat and he said to me that the people have now voted against us four times. what is wrong with them? [laughter] i would say that the examples of communism show that those that want to suppress freedom and

those that have a fanatical view of the with the world should work, those are not confined to the religious faith. it is there in many different walks of life. the question is, for me, this is not about a belief in jesus christ. not how that makes me subject to oppression and servitude, but on the contrary, how it helps me find the best way of expressing the human spirit. it was einstein who was not an atheist. he did not necessarily prescribed to organized religion. he said their religion without science is blind. but he also went on to say that

science without religion is lame. i would say that faith is not without certainty. it is an inflexion of my own ignorance. it cannot be explained by science. the meaning and purpose of life cannot be. it is not certain in the scientific sense, but a belief that it is rational that causes us to lead separate lives in accordance with our own. not only should we be imprisoned by that superior

will, but as a country so that we can discipline and use our own will in the things that represent the best in human beings i think that this debate. i think that this will be about fundamentalist theology. the way that we avoid that is for those people of faith to stand up and debate those people and for those people who

believe in the world of peaceful coexistence where people do cooperate together, recognize that there are people with deeply held religious convictions and that those convictions compel them to be part of that world of peaceful coexistence, even though it is true that there are those that in the name of religion and as a consequence of religion will sometimes do things that are written that i u.s. totally contrary to the meaning of faith. i do not stand here 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 of people inspired by faith that have actually rather

than contributed to the depression of humanity contributed to its liberation. spiritually, emotionally, and even empirically. it is those people that i stand up for here with you tonight. thank you. [applause] ladies and gentlemen, let me reiterate something that peter munk said at the beginning of this evening's top. it is one thing to get up and get a set piece on something you are intricately familiar with. it is quite different to appear at a public event, a global events such as this, to have your ideas contest it and combated by someone who is

every ensure. and to do so with the eloquence and conviction of a power to debaters. please join me and a round of appreciation. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> stay here just one second. [applause]

this debate is not over yet. this audience will take some minutes to a tally of votes on our motion and find out who won the debate. i will ask the audience members and debaters to proceed to the post-debate reception next door where we will reveal the results shortly. let's briefly see where the state of public opinion started in this room tonight. 22% of you in favor of the motion, 56% oppose, 21% undecided. a large number indicating that they could change their vote, also. you have your ballots with you. they were included with your program. hand them to the usher and we will announce those results in the public perception to follow. ladies and gentlemen, start voting. we will see you in the reception. you can both go off together.

>> 20% of the audience undecided on the question of whether religion is a force for good in the war. after the debate, 68% of the audience did not see religion as a force for good, compared to 32% who did. monday on washington journal, steven emerson, headed the investigative project on terrorism, talks about islamic rivals is some -- islamic radicalism within the u.s. part of our week-long series on food policy, the attorney general look set to its safety

legislation passed by congress. we began with the day's news and your calls, e-mails, and tweets live at 7:00 a.m. eastern here on c-span. monday is day one of american university's annual campaign management institute, a training students to work on political campaigns. we will hear from political consultants and strategists from both parties. topics include the general political environment and the chicago mayor's race. we'll have live coverage starting at 9:00 a.m. eastern on c-span2. >> c-span's our original documentary on the supreme court has been updated and errors on january 2. you will see the grand spaces and those of available only to the justices in their step. you will hear about how the court works from all the current supreme court justices. also, learn about some of the court's recent developments. the supreme court, home to

america's highest court hearing for the first time in high definition sunday january 2 at 6:30 p.m. eastern on c-span. now, queen elizabeth's annual christmas matches. she talked about the role of sports in building communities. the queen also credits sports for teaching bible social skills. -- a valuable social skills. [", save the queen" playing] -- ["god save the queen and" playing]

>> over four hundred years ago, king james the sixth of scotland inherited the throne of england at a time when the christian church was deeply divided. here at hampton court in 1604, he convened a conference of churchmen of all shades of opinion to discuss the future of christianity in this country. the king agreed to commission a new translation of the bible that was acceptable to all parties. this was to become the king james or authorized bible, which next year will be exactly four centuries old. acknowledged as a masterpiece of english prose and the most vivid translation of the scriptures, the glorious language of this bible has survived the turbulence of history and given many of us the most widely-recognised and beautiful descriptions of the

birth of jesus christ which we celebrate today. >> she should be delivered. >> and she brought forth a firstborn son and laid him in a manger because there was no room for them in the end. >> and there were the same country and shepherds of fighting in the field keeping watch over their plot by night. >> and the glory of the lord shown about them and they were sore afraid. there was a multitude of heavily host praising god and saying, glory be got to got in the highest. ♪

>> the king james bible was a major cooperative endeavour that required the efforts of dozens of the day's leading scholars. the whole enterprise was guided by an interest in reaching agreement for the wider benefit of the christian church, and to pfft bring harmony to the kingdoms of england and scotland. four hundred years later, it is as important as ever to build communities and create harmony, and one of the most powerful ways of doing this is through sport and games. >> gogh, gogh, gogh. >> during this past year of abundant sporting events, i have seen for myself just how important sport is in bringing people together from all

backgrounds, from all walks of life and from all age-groups. in the parks of towns and cities, and on village greens up and down the country, countless thousands of people every week give up their time to participate in sport and exercise of all sorts, or simply encourage others to do so. these kinds of activity are common throughout the world and play a part in providing a different perspective on life. apart from developing physical fitness, sport and games can also teach vital social skills. none can be enjoyed without abiding by the rules, and no team can hope to succeed without cooperation between the players. this sort of positive team spirit can benefit communities, companies and enterprises of all kinds. as the success of recent

paralympics bears witness, a love of sport also has the power to help rehabilitate. one only has to think of the injured men and women of the armed forces to see how an interest in games and sport can speed recovery and renew a sense of purpose, enjoyment and comradeship. right around the world, people gather to compete under standard rules and, in most cases, in a spirit of friendly rivalry. competitors know that, to succeed, they must respect their opponents; very often, they like each other too. sportsmen and women often speak of the enormous pride they have in representing their country, a sense of belonging to a wider family. we see this vividly at the commonwealth games, for

example, which is known to many as the friendly games and where i am sure you have noticed that it is always the competitors from the smallest countries who receive the loudest cheers. people are capable of belonging to many communities, including a religious faith. king james may not have anticipated quite how important sport and games were to become in promoting harmony and common interests. but from the scriptures in the bible which bears his name, we know that nothing is more satisfying than the feeling of belonging to a group who are dedicated to helping each other. 'therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should to do to you, do ye even so to them'. i wish you, and all those whom you love and care for, a very happy christmas.

♪ ["the holly and the ivy" playing] >> c. spence original documentary on the sand creek -- on the supreme court has been newly updated. you will see the grand public places and those only available to the justices and their staffs. if you will hear about how the court works from all the current supreme court justices, including the new west. learn about some of the court's recent developments. "said the supreme court -- home

to america's highest court cause code sharing for the first time in high definition on january 2. to in the house of commons is in recess so prime minister questions will not be shown this week. it will return on wednesday, january 12 with live coverage at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span2. >> a closing speech has an inevitable aspect of stature. an extraordinary experience for me is coming to an end. my feeling is pride in the great privilege to be a part of this very unique body. >> search for farewell speeches and hear from retiring senators on the c-span video library. every c-span program since 1987, more than,0