appelachia. they get the $600 per month for a family of four. they need to start drug testing these mothers because they are using the money to buy sudafed to make the methamphetamines. host: what will you do going forward? guest: there will be some things in the very beginning stages. some of the efforts will be to reduce the paperwork burden. we should see some guidance on that, even in the coming school year. it will be a long process, but again, there are parts of it that can be blended in very quickly, including the board reduction. host: thanks for your time.

tomorrow we will talk about regulating organic food. you can see that discussion at 9:15 a.m. thank you for watching "washington journal" and a new show comes your way tomorrow. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> here is what is coming up later today on c-span. a form on the future of investigative journalism start at 8:00 eastern. at 9:30, q&a from london with dan reed. that is followed by a pro-

israel conference. that starts at 10:30 eastern. >> book tv in prime-time tonight with notable books from the past year. the inside story of the company that as connecting the world. memoir. romney's >> this weekend on c-span3, joy beasley on the recent discovery and excavation of slave quarters. and never before televised oral history by a yvonee brathwaite burke. then richard and stephen boafor

share their thoughts on the only man to be elected president of the united states without a vote. [applause] >> the first televised presidential debate back in 1960 with john f. kennedy and richard nixon. charles gibson recalled that encounter. this is just under an hour 20 minutes.

my name is carl cannon. i.n.d. executive director of politics daily. the reason i am here is i was a fellow at the institute of politics and i am happy to be back. i would like to recognize senator john culver and breaux. [applause] he is the interim director of the institute of politics. he was a lifelong friend at ted kennedy and family friend of the kennedys. he has been on the board since 1975. he is a great friend of harvard and to the institute of politics. as we mark the 50th anniversary of the nixon kennedy presidential debates, that is the first presidential debate we ever had. and i am the question that does not match appear.

these people have all had our role and presidential debates. it is a very interesting panel. i will introduce our speakers briefly. you probably know most of them. i will start with gov. michael dukakis. he began his career at a town meeting. >> as low as you go on the total poll. and-- totem poll. >> of the democrats not of tthem for president in 1988. people talk about that. on the governor's leftist charles gibson. he has seen every presidential debate. >> every one. >> he has also covered every

presidential campaign for the past 30 years. he moderated a presidential debate between george w. bush and senator john kerry in 2004 and moderated the debate two years ago during the democratic primary season. and next to charlie is andrew for shw roche. he has advised the senators and congressmen and he will help us as we look in the past, also look in the future to see where presidential debates are headed. to my immediate left is mike mccuray. i have known michael since he started in politics.

michael has had a long career in democratic politics and spokesperson for the state department and white house. speaking for reporters in my generation he has a standard for openness and effectiveness for the president. he is really the standard by which modern press secretaries are measured. he is also co-chairman of the commission on presidential debates. i do not know which hat people wear tonight. -- he will wear tonight. nicholes left is wallace. nikole also earned a reputation

for person that argued within the white house for more openness. she worked from the sarah palin campaign. if i've ever heard tonight it is not because she is the only woman or only republican, but it is because she is a californian and journalist. we will have a time of questions. i will remind you, please no speeches. make the question that ends with the question mark and identify yourself. with that, we will see a clip at the kennedy and nixon debate. >> in 1950 only 4 million homes

had television, but by 1960 it reached into 44 million homes. it was september 26, 1960, congress had made possible presidential debates available for the first time. chicago was chosen as the scene for the first great debate. [inaudible] in the studio, the producer prepared for the arrival of nixon and kennedy. representatives of the candidates approved each detail of the preparation. vice president nixon was the first to arrive at. he campaigned right through the morning and pause only in the afternoon for solitary rest. now she listens while the rules of tv debate are explained. -- now he listens well the rules

of tv debate are explained. >> you may not want to get up until we have finished. and howard will hit the gavel. >> what does that mean? >> getting out in five seconds. >> how word will give you a few seconds over the cut. [inaudible] >> look this way, please. [inaudible]

>> i leave first thing in the morning. >> can we clear the schock? everybody move back, please. -- can we clear the shot? david, can you hit the one- minute button? >> it is a pleasure to be here tonight to participate in this program, a series of

discussions, sometimes known as great debates. >> both fall silent as air time of purchase. -- approaches. all across the nation. quiet their children. it is september 26 at 8:30. and first -- >> your magic mascara. >> because of the following special broadcast, the original program scheduled will not be seen tonight. next week "the andy griffith .how" of will be seen on th >> good evening.

we're proud to provide facilities for discussion of issues in the current political campaign by the major candidates for the presidency. and the candidates need no introduction. is president richard nixon and the democratic candidates, john f. kennedy. themselves, each man shall make an opening statement of approximately eight minutes duration and a closing statement of approximately three minutes duration. in between the candidates will answer questions put by a panel of correspondence. the audience for the first debate is almost too huge to measure. researchers will claim it cost the attention of almost 70 million americans. >> now the first opening statement by john f. kennedy. nixon, mith and mr.

in the election of 1960 and with the world around us, the question is whether the world will exist half slave or half 3? whether it will move and the direction of freedom and the direction of the road we're taking or whether it will move in the direction of slavery? ibm global depend in great measure on what we do in the united states, on the kind of society that we built, on the kind of strength we maintain. >> the subject of the chicago debate was a domestic affairs. kennedy prepared as if for a college exam. >> in 1933 franklin roosevelt said that this generation of americans has a rendezvous with destiny. i think our generation of americans has the same rendezvoused. the question now is can freedom

be maintained under the most severe attack it has ever known? i think it can be, and died in the final analysis it depends on what we do here. i'd think it is time america started moving again. >> now the opening statement by vice-president nixon. and nixon addresses himself chiefly to kennedy. >> the things that senator kennedy has said many can agree with. there is no question but that we cannot discuss our internal affairs in the united states without recognizing that they have a tremendous bearing on our international position. there is no question whether this nation cannot stand still because we are in that the competition, competition not only with the men in the kremlin. we are headed in this competition as senator kennedy has implied, but when you are in

a race, the only way to stay ahead is to move ahead. i subscribe completely to the spirit that senator kennedy has expressed tonight, the spirit that the united states should move ahead. where then do we disagree? i think we disagree on the implication of his remarks tonight and on the statements that he has made her on many occasions during his campaign to the effect that the united states has been standing still. >> the nixon campaign express' the majority but face to face the scene to evenly matched. with this debate the nixon claim is shaken. nixon and his first debate leaves a disappointing image in the minds of millions of americans. for years men and women will argue who won or lost the chicago debate.

>> cut and there, i would like to start with you. do you remember that debate? -- governor, i with like to start with you. >> nobody forgets that debate. the rap on kennedy going into the debate was that he was young and inexperienced and was not up to the job. the single most important thing that happens in that debate is that when it was over, it was clear that he was certainly the match for nixon in that respect. the whole idea that he was too young to be experienced in that kind of thing went away. that did not mean the race was over. it was a very close race. that particular part in the

sense that he was 42 and pretty young, the leadership and the cold war which was so dominating lies at the time, she really effectively ended that discussion. >> you just graduated from harvard law school that year. did you get personal inspiration from this? >> there were two people that had a profound influence on me. it really propelled me into politics. one was a guy called joe mccarthy. >> you're not talking about the baseball manager? >> i am not talking about the baseball manager. he was once so drunk that it walked away from the pitcher's mound. it goes with the days when dos

and major-league baseball went hand in hand. -- when booze and major-league baseball went hand-in-hand. this was a scary time in american political history. then kennedy was an enormous inspiration to all of us. the reason he was was he has an extraordinary appeal to young people. i watched him for the first time at harvard. he came over from a meeting at the harvard corporation where he came over to usk and said we just had a meeting with corp. and we stood at one corner and the other stood and the other. they came into this group of about 400 harvard law school

students. it was one of the most impressive performances i ever saw. he really had an enormous impact on those of us that were just beginning to come of age politically. he was a massachusetts guy. he had an interesting political situation around here. he was an enormous influence. after i finished law school and took the bar exam, we jumped into liddy volkswagen -- little volkswagen and went across the country. i was just beginning to get into local politics. we were in the hall when the wyoming nomination finally went for him.

we were there and it was a great moment. >> charlie gibson you were in high school when this debate happened. you then spent the rest of your professional life in television. was that an inspiring thing? >> i grew up in georgetown. senator -- senator kennedy live two blocks away. the guy that lives across the street was a bad guy named david bruce which was rumored to be secretary of state. i was up doing my homework one night when the motorcade pulled up in front of the house and as all the president elect get out of the car and go into david bruce's house. i thought i got a scoop. as so often is my case and might journalistic career, i was

wrong. the next day he named dieter ross. he went in to tell burris he was not going to get the job. i did not know that. i think all of us spend our lives trying to prove to our parents that we're worth a. my dad was a tv news a junkie. television was in its infancy. we had gone one just not long before the debate occurred. interestingly he mentioned that audience for the debate was 70 million people. there were four debates. kennedy wanted by the nixon wanted just one. the audience held up at 7 million for all four, which is an interesting number because the first obama a kaine debate

got 52 million. about a third of all people in the country watched that debate, about the same number of people who voted, which is interesting. so much has been made. i thought clearly kennedy won the debate because nixon's argument was this man is not experienced enough to be president. nixon blue that argument in that first statement when he stands up and agrees with kennedy three times in the beginning statement. and immediately he seems to be conceding that kennedy is qualified to be president, which undercut his entire argument. the second is nixon had a knee operation and separate from staph infection. he lost 20 pounds and never bought new clothes. his neck was much smaller than the size of his shirt.

that jimmy was much more significant than the make up argument. -- that to me was much more significant than the makeup argument. all of that made it very clear that kennedy was very much on the rise. heweitt told ter she would te the story that nixon refused to make a plea deal that was there. nixon turned it down. four years later at the republican convention nixon was to introduce very cold water at the convention and he was getting made up. hewitts said to him if you have let her make you up for years ago cold water might be introducing new not the other way around. nixon said your right. >> there was nobody in the

place so you do not have anywhere near the kind of atmosphere you have these days. >> the 70 million biggert reminds me that that was pretty the 70 million number was pretty close to what sarah palin and joe biden numberg. -- number. my colleague wrote about the preparation and nixon was alone. kennedy was with his aides throwing three by five cards around and telling her re whenever he got an answer right.

in your experience did the preparation of the debate to tell you about the person? if the american people could see the preparation, would they know how to vote? >> i think people usually get it right. sarah palin's preparations were extraordinary in the she came in on the heels of four interviews done. four where with charlie. three were with kateie couric.

"saturday night live" had campaigned her. that was the moment of the presidential debate to say whether or not the mccain/pailin ticket existed in the morning after what was on the line for that debate. i do not know that anyone has ever prepared under high stakes. i have to cut her some slack in terms of what that preparation might have been like. senator mccain prepared the way many senators prepared and that he and lindsay gramm and joe lieberman were debating each other the whole time. it was actually quite typical ask doctors to get in and focus. -- it was actually quite difficult for staffers to get in

and focus. >> it is fun watching that whole preparation before the debate began because none of this as a result of this experience in 1960, which was so consequential, first of all several things happened. there are not another televised debate for 16 years. did anyone have the courage to go up and do it in again because of the transformative nature of that event that we just watched. among many other things, the idea that you would walz into their room and start looking around and say here are the rules. itt clearly walz and into the room and making up

their roles as he went. we even debate when is the walk through when you see the stage for the first time, which is what we witnessed earlier in the clip. that is all heavily litigated by the campaigns because it is so consequential. yes, we have not reached 70 million people every time, but this is still a fundamentally important moment in the democracy when the candidates get together --i saw an article that said they are just controlled press conferences, but not really. we have moments in the history of the debate when we get a true glimpse of what the candidates are about. we see some truths that help us make decisions about who we support and to we do not support. it seems to get into does not get it.

the monarch dukakis said the fact that nixon's repeated the key slogan of the kennedy campaign, we have to get the country moving which is what the kennedy campaign was all about. the fact that he almost repeated that was almost more significant than anything about the theatrics of this moment because he bought into the central premise that john f. kennedy was bringing to the campaign. i am putting on my hat now as co-chairman of the presidential commission on debates, but these are so fundamentally important to the way in which we and left the president. the fact that the theater at this is interesting we missed the substance of the sun-times. debates are still risky.

i agree. >> gerald ford agreed to debate today carter because he was way down in the polls. he made mistakes. they make mistakes in the debates. it is hard to get over them. i want to bring in andrew. this was cutting edge technology 50 years ago. it is not cutting edge right now. what are we going to be doing 50 years from now? we have technology we're not using? >> the internet has creative a way for people to participate. the entire political media has changed. the internet has become the tivo of our time. people know they can watch it later. the internet provides an

opportunity to break down some of its artificial ways in which we select our candidates. they do not need to be so scripted. they do not need to be so litigated or negotiated because the technology can allow everyone to ask questions and vote which questions they want answered. they can also allow the candidates to answer the questions on-line. then even allow citizens to vote on whether the canada answer the question. more important it could open up the process to third-party candidates, which is one of the major reasons why the parties currently negotiate with each other in order to block out the third party candidates coming in to participate in the debates. the technology offers an economy of abundance. this technology offered an amazing economy of scarcity at a time when it was the main vehicle for people to find out

information. there is a new kid on the block, and it is called the internet. it will change the face of politics in debate. --o's for the pale in debate >> before the pailin debate abc solicited on the internet. i got 30,000 questions. there were people in the past opposition. it was amazing the vitriol that was in this questions. the majority, 99.9% of the questions were helpless. >> that is the same on blog threads.

the problem is we do not have great tools for altering commons. the technology exists to allow for people to actually vote on the question they think is the most relevant. the community of people that look at the questions can also vote and down. i should be more specific. there is a platform called 10 questions.com. that basically allows citizens to vote questions up or down. they gave people six weeks to do that. the candidates were given four weeks to respond. they could take as long or short to answer the question. they could ask their advisers, think about it. it would not have to necessarily choose the president based on their ability to answer a

question in 60 or 90 seconds. after they were finished the citizens could vote on whether the candidates actually answered the question, which is the accountability points. >> mike is fidgeting. i want to correct a piece of information and pose a question to you. the commission on presidential debates is non-partisan. it is the creature a love-hate heroic guys. they said we have to have a structured institutionalize way in which we have these debates for the reason that it was possible for the candidates to say maybe i will not debate. there used to be a lot of debate about debates. what has happened is these debates have been

institutionalized, but by no means are third parties excluded. you have to demonstrate that you have the capacity to win an electoral college majority, and you have to demonstrate that you have at least 15 percent support in the country. that has been the general threshold. perot washy it loross included in the debates. a third party candidates could demonstrate sufficient support to be participating and that is fine. here is my question the internet is a vibrant, robust, wonderful interactive place where lots of different ideas. there have been experiments with how the internet can be interactive. during the primary season we had some of that. some of that was successful. they allowed the public to

generate questions that came from below. i do not foresee a time in which we will have a major presidential debates in which we make it so democratized that we allow anyone to lift up their questions. my question to you is how can we take this great tool and bring into this process in a way that respects the dignity of a process that the american people now rely on? , they rely on seeing the debates and rely on a dignified appropriate forum that frankly the internet cannot always replicate. >> i agree with you that they are very powerful tools for his giving people a glimpse of how candidates perform and who they are, but the goal of the democracy is to create in the

gauge as citizens reary. the first of that was cnn choosing questions that were sent over the internet. many people do not know how to create a youtube video it could not participate. since then lots of things have changed. the technology gets better and better. there is potential that everyone in the country can participate in the visual and transparent process by which the most important question facing the country are presented to the candidates. i would like to bring the governor into question because having to be restrained to 60 or 90 seconds is not as optimal as being able to consider question over time, to be able to select the way in which you into the question, select the setting for question anding the

allow quick to be able to refer back to later. for you as the candidates with the opportunity to be able to engage with the entire american public, not just those watching on television for those 90 minutes, but in an ongoing way. is that appealing to you as a tenet that? -- is that appealing to you as a didate? >> we are going to watch them for 90 minutes, probably three times anyway. that has its rewards and risks. nobody knows that better than i do. on the other hand our great risks. w. bush looking at his

watch. how many times did we see him looking at his watch after the debate was over? when i debate i take it off. you want to know where you are. this poor guy looked at his watch. everybody interpreted it as he was bored or it could not lead to get over this thing. we have other examples of that. those are some of the risks of the head to head thing. my own view is that we will probably have both. the other hand, as many as you know the best technology of all is a human being walking up to your doorstep and knocking on the door and having a conversation with you. something that neither political

parties are doing it very well. barack obama did and it is the reason he got elected. >> it is why we of the first primary in new hampshire city can be retail politics instead of wholesale. >> the first primary in new hampshire. i think there is on the part of journalists, there was a very unfortunate question in the debate. it was a gotcha question. when you prepare these things there is a conscious effort not to have that kind of question period to the extent you filter what goes to the internet, yes, but we have not in any way found a way to get the media -- >> i would like to follow on

that point that you made. you talked about gotch question. you did one of two debates the raise the questions on whether sarah palin had a crop toss to be vice-president let alone president. that is merely the question. then lent the debate rolled around months later with joe biden, senator biden knew all of this death, made numerous statements, the kind of statements that sarah palin made 2 1/2 to resign the next day. we spent more in iraq then we

spent for seven years in afghanistan. all of these kinds of things. the moderator did not do anything. i would like you to talk for a minute for the audience but the difference between a reporter and debate moderator. >> let me come back to your predicate. with that in mind, the business about gotcha questions, so many of the e-mails that i thought, the questions submitted over the web, where you have to show how -- people were angry. >> at you? >> no, not yet. conservatives got angry at me later. it was almost like they were trying to breaker. i really was offended by the e-

mails. the best of is i got came from higor. he said do not prepare an interview for sarah palin. prepare an interview for joe biden. i thought that was the best piece of the fis i could have gone. that is what i tried to do, because-i do away from what i thought to be interpreted as gotcha questions. the difference between moderator and reporter, i do not think there is a lot of difference. david brinkley used to sit there is no such thing as our objective of the -- there is no such thing as of the activity coming just as a decrease of subjectivity. you have to strive to be as obsolete as objective as you can be.

>> nichole, what do you think? >> there were plenty of people that work fact checking -- that were fact checking. you do not say you are wrong. you say something that gets around it and a much more even- handed manner. >> a campaign, particularly of republican campaign never takes for granted their role of the journalist as arbiter. the reason charlie was selected as the first five interviewer for sarah palin is there are fewer and fewer our borders. -- arbiters. so much has been said and

written and criticized about the making campaign decision to speak with evening and anchors. a lot of the maintain campaign interviews, big moments was with the evening news anchors. we're almost having two different conversations appear. it is all about it -- as a campaign operative, the word job is to protect and insulate your muchdates from roo too risk. it is ironic that we seem to have consensus around the structure that you advance which is the sanctions debate commission's, which every canada i have ever worked for has totally fallen on their face. senator mccain, most people judging by the kennedy and nixon standard said he went 0-3.

what youtill a risk in exposure canada to it you threw it open to live chat. >> let's be clear. and i am not suggesting a live chat. the fact that you got a really lousy e-mails a few years ago does not mean that that internet is full of just angry people. there are thoughtful people on the internet also. this is not a battle between an on-line debate verses the televised debate. the book have roles to play because they teach us something. the issue is that there is an opportunity to engage the entire american public in the process much more deeply and to provide the candidates was something that they cannot get from a televised debate which is time to express themselves in detail. it is not necessarily built around the structure of moments.

the real opportunity for citizens is to be able to hold their elected leaders accountable, because after they present their answer, citizens can either vote for tell each other. for example, look at this. people talk to each other in the most commonplace as. they do it around the dining room table and in office. a consensus is, essentially formed. -- is eventually formed. the political operatives do whatever they can to influence that debate. in the 2008 presidential campaign, that happened the way it would in any other campaign. my 83-year-old dad would never hold up a sign at a rally are called up his friends and tell them who to vote for, but the

second politics came up around the dinner table would open his mouth. he called and asked me if i could help him with his e-mails. i look at the e-mail to ascendant and the subject line was "watch this" and he was sending around barack obama political video. there were 1.5 billion views of online video set mentioned obama or mccain in the title. only one out of 10 where views of videos that were produced by the candidates or parties themselves. nine out of 10 videos are watched and the campaign where videos produced by people trying to influence each other. when howard dean ran and lost many people said the internet cannot elect anyone, will not

let anyone. george allen was unmolested by the internet -- unelected by the internet. we have a shift in the dynamics. that is what we're talking about. >> they cannot shift all look the way. here is my point. it will be three times that the major party candidates come together. he knows what will happen in 2012. at that moment, going back to what charlie says, we need a moderator who will encourage the candidates to debate. that is what is fascinating and revealing is when they actually get away from their sound bites and scratches and prepared moments and it actually looked

at each other eye to eye. i will tell you a story, in 1996 my job when i worked at the white house for president clinton was to pralay jim lair. i was wanted to have a lot of gotcha moments. andrew, that is what we know from research, people want to see these candidates are actually get off of the scripps in debate each other. they want the moderator out of the way. >> we are not when to get the moderator out of the way tonight because i am getting signals for about 15 minutes. >> senator mccain suggested to

have the candidates for around week after week and debate each other with no moderator. no moderator just talking. >> we have tried to move the structure of the debates in that direction so there is more interaction. the problem is campaign operatives know that we do not like the uncertainty. >> we're going to stop for one minute. charlie made a wonderful point. john f. kennedy talked about doing exactly that. tragically he did not live to run for reelection. they talked about going around with no moderators and debated like the lincoln douglas debates. wouldn't that have been a rich and wonderful thing?

i do not mean to be impolite, but i have been getting signals that i have to open this up. i am happy to open it up. there are microphones here. you need to go to the microphone. you need to identify yourself and actually ask a question and not give a speech like we have been giving. we're now open for business. and i name is loewis novey am a junior at the college. if i write to my local governments acted as cryptic

letter. you can tell it's descriptive. some assistant wrote it. barely my senator will read it. this is all beautiful in the sense that we're connecting many people, but at the same time are we disconnected people from the reality of who their candidate is? former governor stated because president obama got elected because of knocking on doors. are we providing comfort zone knowing that their risk is ultimately disconnected from the grassroots and constituency? >> i think you are asking two questions. the issue of politicians still for the most part do not know the difference between a server and a waiter.

[laughter] they still live in the 20th- century model of sound bites and television and newspapers and constituent letters and do not want to engage with their constituency. we very often think we elect our leaders but quite frankly they elect us. we have broken politics for a lot of reasons, and the internet may not necessarily fix it but it may help. the candidates to understand this technology allows them to engage and validate their citizens and our process of discussing the issues and knows how to use the technology has a lot to gain. barack obama's learned how to be a media organization that delivered massive amounts of media and to his supporters with credit for him. the question -- one of the biggest potential malpractice lawsuits you can have in politics as the squandering of the 13 million people listed

that the head when he was president and the stoppage engagement after he became president. it is not going to happen instantly, but a party that really wants to engage can use the tools and citizens who want to engage can use the tools as well. >> sarah palin is using the tools more expertly than any other politician on the national stage. she tweets. she actually treweets, typos and all. >> there is a new era where people in opposition and to use the tools to break the model you just described. >> i am a freshman at the college. my question was directed not necessarily at the general presidential election debates, but more towards the primary debates.

if i recall correctly during 2008 we had debates running up all the way into the summer of 2007 where it seemed every candidate who was even considered perhaps running for the respective party. do you feel in general this is over saturation of debate after debate or do you think it really helps the public interest in having as many candidates as possible with as many debates as possible? >> i have worked for a lot of candidates running for president, most of them have lost so i have participated in a lot of primary debates. there is a difference, there is a qualitative difference between the primary debates in which people are trying to get traction and identify constituencies and mobilize support in their party, and some of what we have been talking about in the 50th anniversary

that week honored tonight, the presidential debate. we have nominated candidates or third-party candidates who are competitive that really require the different formats, a different structure, a different quality than what we do in the primaries. in the primaries some of that was a drunk and some of that was silly and some of that was really insightful. -- some of it was junk and some of that was silly and some was really insightful. >> we have 45 different debates. i flew to the mexican border for one of them. you will have them, because people want to hear you. the party base wants to get a sense of who are these people? they do not know was.

i was half of 1 percent when i started. the canada once opportunity. you have a lot of those in their bag the ball. there are not the presidential debates. those are different. you command a much larger audience. >> my name is keith peters -- katie peters. while i appreciate the value of door-to-door candidates the, i think social networking can be a valuable and individual of reach. i think both parties have done a great job in girding to use the internet to organize their own parties and basis but it feels a lot like preaching to the choir. there is really the first

groups. how do each of you could see -- add to more moderates, reaching out to the metal and using the internet to foster a common dialogue rather than each side speaking only to its own? >> i think this is the moment where the internet political debate will either go the way of ms nbc and fox news where it will totally separate >> you mentioned the names of some house and if you are on the right you have never heard of them. other than throwing shoes at the tv when they are on. this is the moment to be working in this area. we will look back in a few years and this will be the moment when the internet it became that safe place and maybe it will happen around issues. there are interesting things happening around gay marriage.

maybe the internet will foster more bipartisan communities around issues so that we are not riled up about our primary candidate and what not. i don't know. >> the internet is a network of networks. how you assemble them and aggregate them is the interesting proposition. if you are a candidate for office, you have to get to 50%. you cannot go to your individual audience and get your slice and talk to them individually and do anything with that if you cannot assemble them around some larger proposition that creates an argument that wins a majority in an election. i think that is the challenge for the candidates. they have to figure out how to take these networks that are available in social may be an aggregate them into something that represents a movement. that is the challenge on the political side. andrea is right that the technology creates the

opportunity to do that in a way we have never seen before. if the governor goes up and rings the doorbell, that is the old-fashioned way. the new way is to do that virtually. that is at exactly what you are talking about. >> how many people are on twitter? how many people here on facebook? if you had a political candidate engage with you on twitter or facebook, would that impress you? >> let's be honest -- to win an election -- in 2008, only 30% were under age 50. the rest of them are not on twitter and facebook. they are growing. >> you should look at the pew studies. >> you want to know who does twittered? ?

>> it is not just twitter. >> hold on, there are other students. we are here on the 50th anniversary of the first televised debate. between john f. kennedy and vice president richard nixon and i am about to call on this young man. >> thank you for coming today. i am from los angeles, california and i am a freshman. my grandmother has facebook. [laughter] my question is to mr. mccurry about a role of third parties in debates about having 15% of the popular support plus having to win in the electoral college. with the growth of third parties and candidates like ron paul, do you feel having more ideological diversity in the debates even if they don't have a legitimate chance of winning due to the way our political system is structured would be a

good thing? >> i think the commission has taken a principled stand that has withstand -- withstood a lot of litigation and the courts. it fits that if you participate in these debates which are fundamentally important to the american people so they can actually look these candidates in the eye and see them in what we have described as an unscripted moments, they need to know that candidate has a mathematical chance of winning so they can win an electoral college victory. that is to be on the ballot. that means they have to constitutionally be able to get elected president. by the way, there are hundreds of people who run for president of the united states that you have never heard of before. they are fringe party candidates. the last task which is important is that they demonstrate some modest level of support in the american people.

15% is not a huge a threshold amount. ross perot was a third-party candidate in 1992. that was a performance standard that a ron paul, a libertarian candidate, or sarah palin if she decides to run in the tea party, anybody who can meet that threshold can actually be include in this process and get there. i recognize that means that not every party, not every cause is going to meet that threshold and there are dissident voices that need to be heard. if they can go out and build support and use the internet and technology to get to a threshold level of support for the mathematically can be included in that debate, i think that is a good thing and an important thing. >> you have been very patient. >> governor, your reference to joe mccarthy being the motivation to get you into politics of getting you into the jfk campus ironic given the close friendship between mccarthy and jack kennedy and

the entire kennedy family. isn't there irony there? >> i don't think there is irony there. >> you referenced george bush looking at his watch which invites scrutiny of you and your performance. do you think that the bernard shaw question was a gotcha question that was below the belt? don't you think you should be a big boy? if you can't take questions, if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen. have you formulate a better response in the intervening years? >> well, i have never objected to the but marge schott question. i insisted that he be one of the journalists. -- i have never objected to the barnyard shaw questions. -- bernard shaw questions.

my problem was that i entered the question as if i had been asked the question. i forgot that 90 million people at that point were watching. it deserve something better than that. i thought was a perfectly fair question. you would expect a question like that and i was not surprised. i did not do a good job of answering it. i did not lose the election because of that question. >> right here. >> i am from the graduate school of design. there is clearly some candidates like bill clinton who are excellent campaigners and want to be great statesman. there are some very intelligent people that might be good leaders that are not good communicators. what are your thoughts on the system helping to select a good states person as opposed to a

good campaigner? is there a good debate format that can focus on states the ship quality? >> do you want to take this? >> no. [laughter] >> it is an excellent question. it goes to whether there is a disconnect between the skill of running for president and the skill of being president. many politicians will talk to you about that at great length. it is a frustrating part of the system. it is also one of a great disadvantage is we have that our system is so damn long now. we start at the first of the year in 2008 with iowa and new hampshire back-to-back and there was tremendous election fatigue by the time -- kennedy has to take -- that part of all the campaigning skills does not mean you will be a good president.

as i watched that in 1960, eisenhower and stevenson ran against each other in 1956. those were the last two bald candidates we had. [laughter] guys's a lot of blow-dried in there now which does not mean that they are not good members. do we need an entire united states congress with well coiffed women and men as opposed to people who could be great statesman? >> let the moderator use his prerogative. after the 1984 campaign, i was covering out in cranston -- i was covering cranston and he finished so far back in the democratic primary in new hampshire that ronald reagan got more right in votes. he quit the next day. i came to logan and went to cover gary hart.

he lamented the point you're making -- abraham lincoln could not be elected today. i will quote you as saying that. i want to ask you a question instead of agreeing with it. somebody hinted that how you know in the system that you will not get a slew of staffers answer these questions and you won't be taking the measure of the candidate, you will be taking a measure of the whole party? >> you mean of the candidate was granted a question? >> yes. >> how does the president make decisions now? they read papers. they talk to their aid. they look at the polls. they look at the statistics and eventually at some point the president makes a decision. they can answer in the same way.

there is something fundamental that we learned for the process of the televised debates. unfortunately, in our modern connected era, there is something may be too artificial about it as well. there is not a particularly a great deal of transparency about the way in which the trend -- candidacy is born or where it gets its money or what the criteria is about the 15% of whether they get elected or not. who makes that decision? >> take the measure of the candidate. the american people look at jack kennedy and kate said this guy could be president. can'tthat is something you take away from the voters. >> many people watched the obama speech which was shown on the internet and they took a measure of somebody at a time in crisis. the internet -- it is not the internet itself, it is the ability to communicate within

the new medium. it's not whether it is a net or twitter or facebook, is whether the person running is connected to a citizenry that is not interested in e-government but is interested in we government and read it -- and reinventing democracy in the 21st century. >> i think the answer is a really good leaders, like tony blair and bill kent -- bill clinton, can do both. >> thank you. >> i am a freshman at the college. there seems to be a conflict with the idea of political discussion on television and the internet. is there a way in the traditional televised debate format we can address those concerns and perhaps propose improvements so that we can get that greater forum for debate in a televised format? >> the answer is yes.

all that andrews says about the interactive nature of the internet and what it provides has to be a robust forum for people to come together, congregate, evaluate candidates, question each other, and i like his idea of figuring out a way where you can engage the campaigns of the candidates around that. these events and there are three presidential debates and one vice-presidential debate that gets haggled over sometimes. they should live beyond just the one moment in which there is an appointment to show up and do it. andrew is right about that. don't necessarily have to show up and be there at that moment although that is when the two candidates come together. living beyond that, the internet offers a great opportunity for people to interact and submit questions and challenge each other. they can form debate groups and go back and forth. i think that is very important. that is exactly what we want to do.

who pays for this now is the networks. that is a problem because how many network will we have in 2012? the rest of it is the communities that support it, the schools, universities, and the communities. -- it is entirely transparent how this commission works and who was on and how they do the work. >> if i were running for political office today, and democracy is sick because i will not, i would go on every single day and do a chat. i would tie the answers myself. i think it is a great opportunity for politicians to communicate directly. >> president obama has done that, by the way, and it has not been all that great. got two more questions. the people at the microphones

will get the questions but you will get the last question. >> i am a freshman at the college. thank you again for being here to talk to us. my question is for mr. gibson. seeing as you were the first mainstream reporter to interview sarah palin and keeping in mind that you asked her the same questions that you would have to joe biden, what was your first impression of her qualification for the role of vice president. ? [laughter] >> whatever you say will be on the internet. [laughter] [applause] >> i think it is a matter of fact that it is very difficult for someone to transition from the background that she has come a small town mayor. one thing that knocked me out walking around with her was she

knew every single one of the people at the local high school, the policemen, their problems, what ever. i thought that this was a terrific small town mayor. then she becomes governor of a very small state which is not anti u.s.. it is a great state. it is not contiguous to the united states. it occurred to me that it is very difficult to make that transition into the national stage. it is very hard. you have to give her credit for doing what she did. >> let me say this -- it is difficult matter what state you're governor of. [laughter] in my case, 1986, 1987, i thought was a good governor and i have a sense that i have a good team and we were doing well. the jump to the presidential

race was huge. i don't care where you start. although it is long, too long. one of the advantages of a long primary is that you get out to iowa and spend time out there. you have real exchanges with people. i to scrape the ability to do what i have always done as governor which is to be at barbeques and clambakes in backyards having a real exchange with the people i represented and being able to listen. i don't care who you are, that move from governor or congressional office is huge. you will have a lot of difficulty. you get there but it takes a lot of work and effort.

you need the kind of experience which is a very long primary which goes on forever -- charlie said it started in january. candidates started the previous january. you are camping before -- for a full year before you even get to the primary. assuming you win the nomination, you are expected to start all over again and be fresh and different. it is not easy. >> you have the last question. >> i wish i could ask 10 questions. i myself more at the college. my question is for mr. mccuryy -- being a press secretary to president clinton, there must have been sometime where a question was asked that you thought there was no possible way that you can come out ahead on this question. i'm sure there were many. is there any episode you would like to share?

>> i am glad that so many of you are so young and i don't remember the zesty material i got to deal with when i was press secretary. i had one rule which was to remember always that nobody cared what my opinion was because they really only wanted to know what the president's opinion was. i tried to put myself in that frame of mind. i always remembered my family in south carolina. that is where most of my family is from. they have a hard time believing most of what they hear of washington. i always ask how i could explain to my cousin's what the answer was or what should be said. if i can get t int frame of mind and represent the presiden andt said, it got me

in that frame of mind. it is a lot harder to be out there and be a candidate and hold the office and run for the office than it is to do what nicole and i have done which to work with these people. it is a great privilege to work with the people who actually do the hard work. >> i was going to go around the panel and have one more go around but mike, that was a good note to end on. i thank you for your graciousness. i would like to thank the entire panel. andrew i didn't know but now i would like to know and all the rest i have been privileged to meet on behalf of the john f. kennedy form, thank you all for coming. i would like to thank john culler for his leadership here. i would like to mention cathleen douglas laughlin -- katherine

mclaughlin. on the 50th anniversary of the kennedy-nixon debate, i like to thank all of you for coming. >> and view ,carl. [applause] -- an you, carl. [applause] >> now we get to tell you what we really think. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> the 111th congress ended this month. we are talking to the party membs and a new face is coming to replace them. we will start at 6:30 p.m. eastern time with congressman paul kantor ski. the pennsylvania democrat lost his bid for a fourth term to a republican and we will visit with him as well. at 7:25, outgoing representative mike castle of delaware. the former governor lost his bid for the senate in the state's republican primary.

tea party and new house interviews are coming up here on c-span. tonight at 8:00 eastern, a forum on the late pulitzer prize- winning journalist david halberstam and the future of investigative journalism. martha raddatz leads a panel discussion on mr. halberstam's impact legacy. at 9:00 third becomeq &a from london, a conversation with a filmmaker. it chronicles the -- the film chronicles the terror attacks of 2008. then we go to fort lauderdale, fla. for a pro-israel. forum that is at 10:30 eastern, all here on c-span. documentaryriginal on the supreme court has been newly updated. sunday, you will see the grand public places and those available only to the justices and their staff and you will hear about how the court works

from all the current supreme court justices, including the newest justice, elena kagan. also, learn about some of the court's newest developments. the supreme court, home to america's highest court, airing for the first time in high- definition, sunday, at 6:30 p.m. eastern here on c-span. >> the cspan networks are all available on television, radio, online and on social media networking site. find our content any time through the cspan video library. we take cspan on the road with our digitalbus, bringing our resources to your community. this is washington your way. we are available in more than 100 million homes created by cable and provided as a public service.

>> a live look at the capitol in washington, d.c. coming up in a few minutes, a debate on the social aspects of religion with tony blair and christopher hitches. this is from toronto and is just under one hour, 50 minutes. [applause]

>> it is my privilege to be your moderator tonight. i want to welcome the world wide audience of the british broadcasting corporation, some 240 million people that will have access to this debate for the bbc world service, a bbc online news, and the bbc world news. it is 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 munkdebates.com.

i want to turn my attention to this spectacular fall, the lucky 2700 people who are in here in the flesh to listen to this debate tonight. let it be said that on this day, thanks to the generosity of peter and melanie munk, canada and its largest city toronto are truly at the heart of a global conversation. [applause] >> religion is a force in the world and we need our debaters center stage. ladies and gentlemen, please welcome mr. tony blair and mr. christopher chens. [applause]

>> tony blair was the prime minister of united kingdom from 1997-2007. among his many international roles today, he is the quartet representative in the middle east working with the un, the u.s., russia, and the use to try to secure a lasting peace in the region. after leaving politics, mr. blair converted to catholicism and eight launched the tony blair quake 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 best-selling memoir, "a journey, my political life." christopher it is a british-born american, author, journalist, and atheist. his regular vanity fair column is prolific, speeches and essays, are essential reading for anyone and everyone concerned about global affairs. christopher has a number of best-selling books, too. " god is not a great" as one of them and his recently published memoir. christopher was recently diagnosed with esophageal cancer and we are doubly grateful that he and his family have joined us tonight. ladies and gentlemen, your debaters. [applause]

before getting our debate under way, let me briefly rundown house the next hour and a half will unfold. as to better has been given seven minutes for their opening remarks for and against the motion. next, mr. hichens and mr. blair will confront each other head on, so to speak, through two rounds of formal rebuttal. we will then bring you the audience into this debate to written questions, all of the received a written quit -- question card. fill that out and pass that down the aisle for collection. i will be taking some questions from audience members on the stage, some of the younger audience members here. those questions will be asked directly to mr. blair and mr. hichens. we will bring in our online audience through a series of questions, too. the debate will conclude with

short 5 minute closing statements and a second audience vote on the motion. but before i call on our debaters for their opening statements, let's find out how the 2700 people in this audience voted as they came into the hall. let's get those numbers up on the screen now. 22% of you are in favor of the motion. youare's and fully 21% of are undecided. we also ask you a second question tonight. we asked you, depending on what you hear during the debate, are you open to changing your of both the? let's have those numbers. wow. 75% of this audience, three quarters, could change their vote depending on what they hear

in the next hour and a half. ladies and gentlemen, we clearly have a debate on our hands and remember, we will hold 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. the time has come for oduct yemchristophes we h an you, ls thank ry muc mu mi who a gat phanropi making this utordltime to pry i migh to see aett tece furing that pd ld wo't be acpted. i aext. [lr] created second ordered to be well. it orders us to be supervised in

this. we install a celestial dictatorship, a kind of divine north [laughter] korea. [laughter] swift to punish the oseeh w it y fted un thry fst ple. [lghter] wever, letone say theis no cure. salvation is offered, redemption, indeed, is promised at the low price of the surrender of your critical faculties. [laughter] religion, it might be said, must be said, would have to admit makes extraordinary claims, but i would maintain be extraordinary claims would require extraordinary evidence while it during which provides not ordinary evidence for its extraordinary supernatural claims. therefore, we might begin by

asking and i ask my opponent as well as you, is it good for the world to appeal to our credulity and not to their skepticism? is it good for the world not to worship a deity that takes sides in wars and human affairs? to appeal to our fear and guilt, is a good for the world? to our terror of death, is a good? to preach and guilt and shame about the sexual act and relationship, is it good for the world? are these really religious responsibilities? too terrified children with the image of hell and eternal punishment, not just of themselves but of their parents and those they love. perhaps considering women enter creation, is that good for the world? kenyon in the religion thatas not done that? to insist that we are created and not involved in the face of all the evidence.

to say that certain books of legends and myths, man-made and primitive, are revealed. religion forces nice people to do unkind things. also makes intelligenteople saidy stupngs. handng a small bab it is beautiful, you want to do the work of the lord on its genitalia [laughter] in the ordinary moral universe, the good will do the best they can have a workload to the worst they can but if you want to make good people do with good things, you will need religion. i now have one minute, 57 seconds to say why i think this is a very self-evident our material. let me ask tony again because he is here -- and because the place

where he is seeking peace is the birthplace of monotheism. you might think it was filled with love and peace. everyone the civilized world of roughly agreed including the majority of arabs and jews that there should be enough room for two states for two people in the same land. we have a rough agreement on that. why can we get it? the u.n. can't get it. the u.s. can't get it. the plo can't get it. the israeli parliament can get it. why can't they get it? because the party of god have a veto on and everyone knows this is true. because of the divine promise is made about this territory, there will never be peace, never be compromised, there will be misery, shame, an attorney and people will kill each other's children for ancient books and caves and relics. who can say this is good for the world? that is the argument nearest at hand.

have you looked lately at the possibility that we used to discuss as children what will happen when messianic fanatics get hold of an apocalyptic weapon. we are about to see that has ever run makes a dress rehearsal for this. have you looked lately at the revival of a tasrism in russia. ? there is an increasingly xenophobic expansionist and aggressive regime. have you looked lately at the teachings in africa and the consequences of a church that says aids may be wicked but not as wicked as condoms. i have done my best. believe me, i have more. [laughter] [applause]

>> thank you for starting hour debate. mr. blair, your opening remarks, please. >> let me say it is a real pleasure to be with you all this evening. being in toronto is a particular privilege to be with christopher in this debate. let me say i do not regard the leader of north korea as a religious icon. [laughter] i will make seven points in my seven minutes. the first is -- it is undoubtedly true that people commit a horrific acts of evil in the name of religion. it is also undoubtedly true that people do acts of extraordinary common good inspired by religion. almost half of healthcare and 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 or destitute. here in toronto, barely 1.5 miles from here, is a shelter run by government house, a christian charity for homeless youths in canada. the proposition that religion is adulterated poison is unsustainable. it can be destructive. it can also create a deep wel of compassion and frequently does. the second is that people are inspired to do such good by what i would say are the two ethics of that faith. along with doctrine and rituals particular to each faith, a

basic belief comes to all faiths in service and loving god and serving and loving your fellow human beings. as witness by the life and teachings of jesus, the meaning of the torah rabbi hillel said he would convert to religion if he could recite the whole thing and start on one leg. he said," do unto others as you to on yourselves." he said that is the basics now go do it. the hindu searching for selflessness. t e buddhist concep of of this for another fight. that is my true face of the

faith. the value to drive from this essence offered to many people 89 progress of a framework by which to live our daily lives stimulating the impulse to do good, disclineand the propensity to be selfish and bad. faith defined in this way is not simply faith as solace in times of need though it can be. nor is it a relic of on thinking tradition. it is not an explanation of biology. instead, it enters a profound spiritual yearning, something we feel and sense instinctively. th is a spiritual presence, bigger and more impornt and more meaningful than just us alone. it has i own power separate from our power and that even as the world's marble's multiplied makes us kneel in humility and not swagger andride. if fate this scene in this way, and religion are not

incompatible to fight each other until eventually the cool reason of science and extinguishes the fanatical flames of religion. rather, to educate us as to how the physical world is and how it functions and faith educates us as to the purpose to which such knowledge is put. the values that should guide its use and the limits of what science and technology can do not to make our lives materially richard but rather richard in spirit. imagine, indeed, a wor without religious faith, not just no place of worship or prayer or scripture, but no men or women who because of their faith dedicate their lives to others showing fginess were otherwise they wouldot, the leading to their fate that even the weakest and most powerless avid and they have a dutyo defend them very i agree that in

a world without religion the relious fatics may be gone but i ask you -- would fanaticism be gone? realize that such an imagined vision of a world without religion is not in fact knew. the 20th century was a century scarred by visions that have precisely that imagining in their vision. and that their heart and gave us hitler and stalin and pol pot. obedience to the will of god was for the week. it was the will of man that should dominate, in their view. i do not deny for a moment that religion can be a force for evil. but i claim is based on a perversion of the faith. i assert that at least religion can also be a force for good and

where it is is true to what i believe is the essence of faith -- i say that a world without religious faith would be spiritually, morally, and emotionally diminished. i know very well that you can point and quite rightly christopher does to examples where people have used religion to do things that are terrible. and that have made the world worse place. i ask you not to judge all people of religious faith by those people any more than we would judge politics [laughter] by bad politicians. [laughter] or nt journalists, but bad journalists. [laughter] the question is, along with all

the things that are wrong with a religion, is there also something which in it that helps the world to be better and people to do good and i would submit there is. [laughter] thank] [applause] thank] thank you. [applause] >> you partly landed that on the seven minute mark. we are moving into our rebuttal round. i would like the audience to get engaged and applaud when they hear something that the debaters say they like and held me and force hour time limit. we see the clock ticking down, start applauding and that will move us through this in an orderly fashion christopher, it is your opportunity in our first of two rebuttal rows to respond to mr. blair.

each of you have the opportunity to go back and forth and yes, you have four minutes apart a speaker within each of those rounds. >> so i've got four minutes, good. [laughter] then hold your applause for heaven's sake. [laughter] in fairness, no one was not think that religion should or would die out in the world. i am arguing that if there was a great deal more of secularism. i would be slightly better off being a one of the moslem -- be awahabi muslim or jobless witness been wallowing in that as i do in secularism. i'm arguing that we need a great deal more of one and a great deal less of the second. i knew it would come up that we would be told about charity. i take this very seriously.

we know, ladies and gentlemen, what the cure for poverty really is. it has a name. it is called the empowerment of women variant [applause] . [laughter] [applause] [applause] if you give women some control over the rate of which they reproduce and give them some site and take them off the animal cycle of reproduction which some religious doctrine everything in that, village, education, and health will increase. try it in bangladesh and bolivia. it works all the time grid name me one relion that stands for that or ever has. wherever you look in the world and try to remove the shackles of ignorance and disease and

stupidity from women, it is the clarity that stands in the way. [applause] if you're going to grant this to catholic charities which i would hope are doing work in africa, if i was a member of a church that had preached that age was not as bad as condoms, i would be putting conscious money into africa, too. [laughter] i am not trying to be funny. it will bring back the millions of people who have died wretched death because of teaching that. i would like to hear a word of apology from religion about that. otherwise, i would be accused of judging them by the worst things this is ed direct precept and practice of religion girded is it not so in this case? i think you'll find that it is. [applause]

if you say that the mormons will tell you the same that you may think it is crass to think that there was another bible buried in upstate new york but you should see are missionaries in action. i am not impressed. [laughter] i would rather have no mormons and their missionaries. do we grant to hamas and has blocked -- hezbollah -- they say where with the poor be? they do a great deal of charitable work. it is nothing to do with the harm they do but it is a great deal of work all the same period [applause] the teachingsith of the great rabbis hillel and i am familiar where he plagiarize the story from. it is found income shoot -- in

confucius. that is found in the heart of every person in this room. everybody knows that much. [applause] divinet require permission to know right from wrong. we don't need tablets administered to west and at a time in tablet form. on pain of death to be able to have a moral argument [applause] we have the reasoning and the moral situation of socrates and our own abilities. we don't need dictatorship to give us right from wrong. thank you. [applause] >> in the name of fairness and equity, mr. blair, i will give you an additional 25 seconds for your rebuttal. >> first of all, i don't think

we should think that the cogent point of example and the name of religion that bigotry and prejudice are wholly owned by religion. there are plenty examples of prejudice against women, against a people, against others that come from outside the world religion. the claim that i make is not that everything the church has done in africa is right, but let me tell you one thing it did do and it did do it while i was prime minister of the u.k., the churches together formed a group or cancellation of debt came together and 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. i agree that not everything the church or the religious communities have done around the

world is right but i do say that at least accept that there are people doing great work day in, day out who genuinely are not prejudiced or bigoted but are working with people who are afflicted by famine and disease and poverty and are doing it inspired by their fate. 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 would never claim that. i know lots of people, many, many people who are people not of faith at all but to do fantastic and decent 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 who i met some time ago in south africa, nuns

looking after children were born with aids. these are people who are working and living alongside and caring for people inspired by their faith. is it possible for them to have done that without their religious faith? of course, it is possible to have done it but the fact is that is what motivated them. at least look -- what we should not do is end up in a situation where we have six hospices and one suicide bomber and how does a equalize out. that is not a productive way of arguing this. one of the most interesting things that christopher said is that we are not going to drive religion out of the world. that is true. we are not. actually, i think the people of faith to have debate would secularists is good and right and healthy and it is what we should be doing. [applause]

i am not claiming the everyone should congregate on my faith. i am simply climbing one simple thing -- that if we cannot drive religion off of the world because many people of faith believe it and believe it 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 unite those against those who want to pervert religion and turn it into a badge of identity used in opposition to. others [applause] 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. 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 second bottle, please. >> i get a second one. oh, my god current [laughter] that is a good test of audience tolerance. notice how we progress. some religious people -- people are all right. [laughter] one of the recent states and is down a bit. i am not necessarily opposed to

that. to finish on the charity point -- i worked with a great photographer who is a unicef ambassador. i went to calcutta with him. he nearly got rid of polio. so many religious groups in benguela and elsewhere, afghanistan and so forth did not want people to take a trust because they said it was against god. that argument is not terribly new. when smallpox was a scared, timothy dwight said that taking an injection was an interference with god's design as well. by the way, that is -- you need something like unicef to get major worked on of you want to alleviate poverty and misery and

disease. for me, my money will go to organizations like that. [applause] like oxfam and others who go out into the world to do good for their fellow creatures for its own sake. [applause] they don't take the bible long as people do to haiti all the time. we keep catching them doing it. [laughter] their money is spent on proselytizes in berlation. they can call a charity but it does not stand a second look. so much on the business of doing good except to add -- mr. blair and i gave a lot of our years to the labor movement. if the promise of religion had been true right up until the

late 19th century in britain or north america or canada, could work should be all that is required. there would be no need for human and social political action. we could rely on being in a plea good which we know we falter on. i am intrigued. religion could be a good thing after all. sometimes, we think. what would religion have to do to get that far? i think it would have to give up all supernatural claims. [laughter] [applause] it would have to say no, you are not to do this under the threat of reward from heaven or terror of punishment from hell. no, we cannot offer you miracles. find me the church that says we will forget all that. i would have -- they would have

to give that up. they would have to drop the idea of an eternal, on alterable authority figure who is judge, jury, and executioner and there will be no appeal. he is not finished with you even when you [laughter] died. that is quite a lot for a religion to get off, don't you think? [laughter] who say that we would not be better off without it? it would be an aspect of compassion and the realization of human solidarity. we are all bound up one with another and have responsibilities to want to another. when i give blood, there is a sense of pleasure to be had in helping your fellow creature. i think that to be enough, thank you. [applause]

. . yes, of course,, it is absolutely true.

they might decide do this irrespective of their religious faith but their faith they feel is an impulse to do that good. and you know, i don't recognize the description of the work that they do and what christoffer said in sierra will he-on-you have christians and muslims working together in that country. they are working across the faith divide, and doing it because they again, believe their faith impales them to do that. when we look back in history you can see great examplals where religion played roles in order to bring about the abolition of slayry. [applause] >> and 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. absolutely at their heart was the eradication of religion. what i would say to you, get rid of their religion and you are not going to get rid of fanaticism or the wrong in the world. [applause] >> so 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? and yes there is an obligation on the people of faith to try to join the people across the

great the dwoid. we have people of different relinoleumous faiths and we have a program where people team up and work together on africa on malaria. here in canada we have a school program that allows schools to link up so 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 materials of heaven and hell and god is the execution they are in of those who do wrong. they talk about the basic feeling that love of god can be expressed best through love of neighbor and help and compassion needed by others. [applause] >> and this is -- in 2007, religious organizations in the u.s. gave 1.5 times the amount of aid that usaid did.

not insignificant. so my point is very, very simple. you can list all the faults of the religions just as you can the politicians and journalists and the others. but the reason faith, it's because their faith motivates them to do so, and that is genuinely the proper face of faith. [applause] >> well, gentlemen, thank you for a terrific start to this 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 of them passed on to me. and our folks in the control room. also we're going to bring in our online audience through questions that have been debated on our discussion boards, and i'm going to take

some live twess from our younger audience members here on stage. we're going to start with a question from you. a young woman right here who would like to address you personally. tell the audience your name and your question, please. >> hi. my name is -- >> hold on. we're going to get this microphone working. is this microphone working? >> hello. >> my name is meg. i am a recent graduate from the university of toronto. this century globalization will bring together as never before nations divided by politics and rate so instead of fearing faith why not embrace the values as a way of uniting human kind? >> great question. christoffer? >>al 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 we -- exxon humanism is i think not made easier by the practice of religion. i'll tell you why. there's something about religion that's very often, in its is abanisio, an expression of exclusivism. this is our god. the god that's made a covenant with our tribe. you'll find it all over the place. not as judaism was at some point but always thought -- it strikes me as positively sinster that pope benedict should want to restore the

catholic church to the ninth used to make that it is the one true church and the others are as we huts it defective. and how this -- if you tell me in the balkans what your religion is, i can tell you what your nationality is. any form of faith. because it is a surrender of reason in favor of faith. it is a fantastic force multiplier. a tremendous intensifier, i was trying to say. in all things are in crimes against hu mapty. crimesal against womanhood. crimes against reason and science and all these appalling

things that the attorney kept defending himself from that i didn't even have time bring up. no. but if you would just look at the way the or in yugoslav y5eu. you will see that there is no conceivable way that by calling on the supernatural you will if -- [applause] [applause] >> tony, what i'd like you to do. there's someone on the stage. someone has the inverse question for you. it would be great if you would respond. let me go to emily who has a question for you, mr. blair. >> thank you, very much. my research is in armed conflict. the question i'd like to ask

you, mr. blair, if i may is how do you argue that religion is a force in the world when the same fate that is bind people and groups also dopen -- deepened visions? >> great question, to which my answer is they cannot do. there are examples of that. but there's also another example from the and those religious teachers of to two tried to -- this exclusivism is not -- this type of excluding other people because they are different which let's nail the myth that this is solely the prerogative of religion. i'm afraid this happens in so many walks of life. it is not what true religion is

about. true will he lidgen is actually about embracing someone who is different. that is why, you know, in every major religion, this concept of love of neighbor and confusing did say if you look at the religion of islam. after the death of mo ham med. it was at the forefront for rights of women for the first time in that part of the world. so the point is -- and this is where the debate comes to. they say humanism is enough. but for some people of faith it isn't enough. some bree there really is a higher and different power than human today.

that is not a forgive heaven and hell in a point submit people into religion. but they actually think about it as to how you fulfill yourself in the service of others? when we say that could be done by humanism. yes, it could. but the fact is for many people it's driven by faith. so yes, it's true, you can find conditions from a legend in the south he has tried preach the message of religion which is one of human and compassionate love. >> not just northern ireland, but iraq. a war you supported, played a role arguably in the success of putting together post invasion iraq. >> if i -- i really think we

missed out a chance to con -- congratulate someone, it's touching to say he went to a meeting that bridged the religious divide in ire land. but where does the religious the divide come from? [applause] >> 400 years and more in my own country of birth of people killing each other's children, depending on what kind of christian they were and sending each other's the for unemployment. ignorance, poverty and i would say to the for them to say maybe we might consider reaching this gap? well, i should bloody well

think so. but -- [applause] >> i don't see how. if they'd listens to the athiest community in northern ireland which is a real thing and the secular -- and i know several who suffer from being in it [inaudible] and asked are you catholic or property stint? he said i'm jewish atheist. >> what are you a protestant jewish atheist or a -- it's not so funny when -- in rowanda. do i say there will be no quarrel between people in rowanda? bell gym colonialism -- but the

fact of the matter is rowanda is the 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 power genocide was preached from the pull bits many people we are still looking for are hiding in the vatican along with e others who should be give up to international justice by the way. [applause] >> quite a number of people. >> so while toy likes his people best when they are non-practicing and but basically faithful. i'm going to say it's not entirely the fault of religion. but when it's preached from the -- it does tend to make it very

much worse. thank you. [applause] >> tony, just briefly come back on that. because you were intimately involved in peace in northern ireland and very -- had a different perspective on the role played in that. >> yes. i worked in rowanda. first of all, i would say if it weren't resolved in the catholic church. rowanda is perfect example of what i was saying. you can put aside religion and still have to worst things happen. it was a holocaust and there were members of the catholic church who believe there were members of the catholic church and others of religious demom

-- denomination that died for their beef. but you couldn't ignore the politics of northern ireland to do with the relationship between britain and ireland going back over many centuries. so my point is very simple. of course, religion has played a role in -- and sometimes a bad role in these stwagse situations. but not only eare dream of condemning all of politics, because politics had led to hitler or pistol inor indeed, what has happened in rowanda. so let's not condemn the whole religion. i think actually rowanda and northern ireland are classic

and teeven middle east peace process. yes, i agree you can look at all the religious issues there but let's not ignore the political issues either. i can tell you this from -- i can tell you from firsthand experience it's the reason when he don't have an roment -- so it's my branch that has to take the blame for that. i would say i actually think of course, a lot of these conflicts have religious roots. i actually think it's possible for a religion to play a positive part in all those. but in the end it's the politics and religion to try to work out a way in which religion in a world of globalization that is pushing people together can play a positive rather than rather than try to drive religion out,

which is futile. but concentrate instead on how we actually get people of different faiths getting together and working and liing together and working with each other i think would be more productive mission. >> ok. let's -- [applause] >> we like the 34r5uding. 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 that on the screen. criff, 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 how do you play that paradocks? >> simplely the united states has uniquely a constitution that forbids the government to take sides in any religious matter or sponsor a church or

adopt any form of faith itself. as a result of which anyone who wants to practice their religion in america has to do so as a volunteer. ever since tom maps joompsbrote to the baptistings of danberry rest assured because they've written to him out of fear or persecution there. resta sure that there will ever be a wall of separation between the church and the state in this country. and the maintenance of that wall which people may have to defend every day against those who want guard inertia depeps -- the maintenance of that is the gant of democracy. by the way. for a bonus, can anyone tell me who the baptist of danberry

connecticut thought was purse cuting them? >> the -- [inaudible] well done. also, that is for existence of a small but real fan base of mine. yes? now it doesn't seem to matter. but it mat o -- just you see how furry they look compared to how docile we've disciplined them. thank you. >> well, tony, let me come to you with that same question. is it just a case of american exception lism? or is it a balance of that and what can be exported? >> i think people want to see a situation where people of faith are able to speak in the public sphere but not able to dictate. that is the most balance.

that's a balance most would except. but i think again what i would say about examples of i think evidence -- so the question is how do people of -- if you like, good faith, who believe in pluralist democracy, how do we ensure the people who hold faith deeply and who 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 i have to respect the fact that ultimately democracy is about the will of the people and the will of the people as a whole. i think 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 nas my view an absolutely fundamental part of democracy, and something that people of religious faith have to be clear about and stand up and do. it's one of the reasons why for me, i think it's actually important for people of religious faith to have people like christoffer challenge us. and say ok. 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 where people of faith are speaking in the public sphere, then people help 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 controversy, question simply want to be part of it. and our voice has the right to be heard along stide voice of others. [applause] >> well, i see christoffer writing furiously, so i'm going to ask him to come back on that point. >> well, ien hadn't anything special right there. i think i'd rather give another person a chance. >> it was a question debated for you, christoffer on a months debate.com in the leadup to this evening. on our discussion board many people saying religion provides a sense of community modern societies where emersed 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 about the pure community function of religion? isn't that a valid public good of religious beef? >> absolutely.

i say good luck to it. the way i phrase it in my book available at fine book stores everywhere. [laughter] >> is that i propose a pact with the faith. the fame. say i -- i'll take it again and quote from the great thomas joomps. i don't mind? my neighbor believes the 15 gods or not he neither breaks my leg or picks my pocket. i would echo that and say that sloppings 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 -- [laughter] >> in fact,, if you force it on my attention, i will consider

it a breach of that pact. have your own bloody christmas. do your slaughtering, if possible, in an [inaudible] and don't mute threat genitals of your children. because they are now afraid it gets within the -- of law. don't you think that's pluralistic and [inaudible] of me? i hope so. has this pact ever been honored by the other snide of course, not. and it's a mystery to me, and i'll share it with you. if i believed that there was a saye color. or prophet. a god who bore me in mind and loved me, if i believed that and that i pessed the means of grace and the hope of gloirks to phrase it like that. i think, i don't know, but i think i might be happy. they say it's the way to happiness. why doesn't it make them happy?

[laughter] >> well, don't you think it's a perfectly decent question? why doesn't it? because they won't be happy until you brief it, too? why is that? it's because that's what their holy books tell them. [applause] >> now, i'm sorry. it's enough with saying in the name of religion. do these texts say until every knee bows in the name of jesus and so an it is rather, and i think it always has been actually a threat to the idea of a peaceable community. and as now and frequently a very pal ible one. so i think that's the underlying energy that power it is friendly agreement between tony and myself. [applause]

>> tony, would you like to come back to that topic of religion and community or move on? >> let's move on. also on our website, big discussion around the top i can of religion and its role of the invasion of iraq. mr. player, the question is for you. -- mr. blair, the question is for you. something about what you vade once about the interplay of religion and politics 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 rule did faith play in your most the >> i think we can nail this one pretty easily. it was not about religious faith. and one of the things that i sometimes say to people is look, the thing about religion and religious faiths. if you're a person of faith. it's part of your

charactermented it defines you in many ways as a human being. it doesn't do the policy answers, i'm ray afraid. so as i used to say to people. you know, you don't te -- because unfortunately, it doesn't tell you the answer. and even on the major decisions that have to do with war and peace that i've taken, and they were decisions based on policy. and so they should be, and you may the disagree with those positions, but i took them because i genuinely believed them to be right. [applause] >> so christoffer, the natural question to you is how did you square the circle? or maybe youb didn't between your support for the iraq war and the then current president george w. bush and his very public evocation of faith in materials of his rhetoric around the inwhere george m

bush said he was under divide order, he might not have minded at some points give that impression. but he wanted to give that impression on everything that he did. george bush is someone who, as with his predecessor, after various experiment ins faith, ended up in his wife's church. most comfortable place to be. she's off the one after fall if you take another drink, you scumback bag, i'm leaving and taking the kids. which is his way of saying he found jesus and gave up the bottle. >> we know this. we know this to be true. [laughter] >> and like a good -- like a good methodist. i was in methodist zool the --

i've done all i can with this argument. from now on, all is in god's hands. would have made him -- a slightly sinster feeling of him but with the feeling of being chosen. the no, ma'am mouse opposition of every christian -- unanimous opposition of every christian church to it. the vatican adamantly opposed as it had been to the liberation of can you wait in 1992. has been preached in the face of fascist dictatorship.

and of course, i was very surprised by the number of liberal juice who harbored feelings of genocide. and if that's so, i'm not what's rational in the minds of -- but i don't expect integrity or consistency from those [inaudible] [applause] >> but those of us those of us who worked with the people with iraqi sbe collect twals with the kurdish leadership, educational background the >> excuse me, the patriotic union of cautionary flag stan. and many feminist and other seculars would work for years to bring down saddam hussein.

we are still in touch. the and professional saidist into power that have the explaining to do. thank you. [applause] >> well, i want is to be con shouse of our time and go to our two final on-stage questions. and i believe the first one is for mr. blair. student at the monk school of global affairs. introduce yourself and ask your question to mr. >> religion on both sides is often seen as an observeical to peace in the middle east, and i'm wondering what role do you think faith can play in a positive manner in helping to bring peace between the

israelis and the palace? >> wil, i remember a few months back i was in jare co-. they took me up to -- we went to visit the mountain toe which is where i think they take all the public -- and it happened guy who was showing us around. the palestinian guy sutly stopped at one point, and he said, this part of the world. he said, moses, jesus, mohammed, why did they all have to come here? and i sort of said, well, but you know the religious leadership can play a hero for example, i don't think you will get a resolution to the issue of jerusalem which is a sacred

city to all three faiths unless they are prepared to find common ground so they are entitled to worship in the way that they wish. and it's correct that in both israel and pal steyn, you see examples of relidges. and people ato have -- but i can also tell you that there are rabbis and people of the wisdom faith on the palestinian side who are desperately trying to 12350eu7bd common ground and ways of working together. and ip think the part of the issue and the reason starting my faith foundation is that we can argue forever, the degree stf -- >> 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 this is? a sense a detpwhate underlies everything we've been saying this evening is that if it's correct, you're not going to drive religion out of the world, then let's pork even though they believe that their own faith is it how in order to induce, respect and understanding aened tolerance because believe it or not amongst all the examples of big trithat christoffer quite rightly draws attention to, there are also examples of people of deep relidgeous faith. jewish, muslim and christian, who are desperately trying to search for peace. and with the right supporting that that -- i believe they

have created these problems but people of different religious faiths working together can also be a an important part of rolfing these problems it's what we should do and can do and in the case of jerusalem, it's impairtive that that's what we do. [applause] >> sit depeps the western war, anything he can do. this is the ghost of the western war. sees a man tearing at his beard. banging his head on the wall and shoving his mess to -- do you mind if i ask you what

you're praying to? >> that there should be peace and mutual respect and love between the people in this area. >> i said what do you? i >> he said, uh, it's like talking to the wall. [laughter] >> but there are people who think talking to walls is a form of define worship. it's the >> when he uses his giveaway phrase, in the name of religion rather than in the direct -- of scriptural authority. no one is going to deny there are rewards of real estate made in the that to sland promised to human primates in -- excuse me. scoir. sorry. this sometimes happens.

that can't be denied. when david was prime minister of what he still called a secular state. he called in professional guys and said go out 7 into the dessert and dig up the title they went even further upfield the the they didn't find any, because there never has been and there never will be any, but you cannot say that the foundational cause in this region, the idea that god intervenes in territorial dispute isn't enscribed in the text itself. and not only in the jewish text. but thank you to a foolish decision taken in the centuries where it's decided not to --

and start again with the nazarene story. great christians were in favor of doing that. why do we want to bring -- need i add there is no food muslim that says allah tells us we can never give up an inch of land. once a process k is built there can be no retreat. it would be a betrayal in other words yes, yes, they jibber and james bonder. toe no. this is way mean when i say religion is a real danger to the survival of civilization and makes this dispute -- if it

makes not that just leathly incolorible, to which for an apock lentic conversion to it. in the same script churl to the end of humanity, the end of the world. the end with everyone suffering in tears. thises what they want. it's not something that happens because people misinterpret the text. it's because they believe in them. that's the problem. thank you. [applause] >> tone, would you like a quick rejoiner or can we move snon >> you can move on. >> perfect final question. and it's from another student at the monk -- at the munk

school of global affairs. deborah. >> 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 is to. thank you. [applause] [laughter] >> hmm. right. now, this definitely never happened in the house of champions. [laughter] i think that the most convincing argument is -- and the argument that people of faith have got to deal with is actually the argument that christoffer's just made, which is that the bad that is done in the name of religion is intrinsically grounded in the scriptture of religion.

that is the single most difficult argument. and since it's a difficult argument, i suppose i 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 where at you look at scriptture, abstract it from its time. you pick out individual parts of it. you use those in order justify whatever view you like, or as i tried do in my opening, you actually say what is the essence of that cincinnati and what is the essence of cryptture? and then of course, what you realize is yes, of course, if you believe as a muslim that we should live our lives according to the second century, then the

prophet back then was somebody who brought order and stability, and actually, for example, even though we today would want quality for women and many again, despite what people say, many muslims would agree with that as well, and many muslim women, obviously. but back then, actually, what he did was extraordinary for that time. and also when you look at christianty, yes, of course, you can point issues of that time. now seeming very strange and outdated. but on the other hand, when i don't nfl -- you know? what is it that made me as a student come to christianty? it was not to do some of thet

things that christoffer's just been describing. and i understand that's -- there are those traditions within religion. i understand that, and i accept that. i see how certain people look at certain parts of scriptture and draw their conclusion of it. but that's not what it means to me. the essence is through the life o and still i think the most difficult thing for the people of faith is to be able to explain scriptture in a way that makes sense to people in the modern world. and 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 scriptture find a common bis of corporation and mutual

respect so yes, it is a difficult argument. it is the most difficult argument. i'll agree. but i also think there is an answer to it, and one of the values, actually, of having a debate like this and having someone make that point as powerful as christoffer's made it is it does force home the deal with the argument and take it on and 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 describe as the essence of faith, which is serving god through the love of others is indeed reflected not in just what we do, but in the doctrines and in the practice of our religion. [applause] >> admiralible qui.

thank you for it. the remark tony made that i most agreed with this inc. hope that doesn't sound too minimal was when he said if religion were to disappear, things would not by any means be ok. he phrased it better than that. but it would be what i regard as a necessary condition, certainly not a sufficient one. i just think the hold on people's minds can be substantially broken and domesticated. he's right about that. i hope i don't seem at any point to have argued to the contrary. if we give up religion, we discover what we know already, which is that we are somewhat perfectly evolved primates on a very small planet on a very

unimportant suburb of the solar system that is in itself a rapid part of exploding and blowing apart a phenomenon. these conclusions to me are a great deal more awe-inspiring than what's contained in any burning bush or [laughter] >> horse that flies overnight to jerusalem. as awe inspiring as any look through the hubbell telescope. so he was fist is with a i call the [inaudible] we all have it. the desire not to be found claiming all the credit. a certain kind of modty. modesty. you could almost say humility. people will therefore sometimes thank god when they are grateful for something. there's no need to make this a religious thing.

the greeks have hubrus as something to be criticized but they can also say not all the glory can be -- not entirely consistent materially wit. i think is a very important matter. what you could could call the numunous or the transcendn't or at best 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 talk about certain kinds of music, perhaps. so the relationship sometimes coincidence powerful between -- landscape. certain kinds of artistic and creative work that appears not

to have i think it's very important to appreciate the finesse of that. around i think religion has done a good job of enshrining it in music and ar can i techture. not so much in painting in my opinion. [laughter] >> and i think it's actually important that we learn to distinguish the numunous. i've wrote a book about parthenon. i couldn't live without a parthenon. i don't believe any civilized person could. it seems to me. but we've lost an enormous part of by way of our knowledge of sim triand grace and harmony. but i don't care about the palace of athena. it's gone. and as far as i know, it's --

athena and im pearlism is also a thing of the past. what remains is the fantastic beauty and the faith that built it. the question is how to keep what is of value of the sort in art and in our own emotions and feelings the transcendn't and go as far as the exstatic and the distinguish it from the superstition and the supernatural which are designed to make us fearful and afraid and which sometimes succeed only too well. thank you. [applause] well, it's now time for the final act in our debate. closing statements. we'll do that in the reverse order of our opening remarks. so christoffer, i'm going to call on you again to speak. your loews --

>> i didn't know it was coming. and tony, did you say would you rather have another question? assuming you'd gotten them? >> i don't care. >> don't run away with the idea that i've run out of stuff, ok? because i'd rather be provoked, if someone can do that. >> well, let's do that. and i guess we'll give christoffer a pause here, a chance to drink and catch his breath. and tony, go to you on the whole question of, which has been at the center. your church, the catholic church has just made a reversal of sorts on his policy around the use of condoms. allowed explicitly and only for the prevention of h.i.v. aids infection. is that a positive?

is that an expression of flexibility? or well, i welcome it. but you know, i'm one of the i think billion catholics. so i think many, many catholics have different views on a whole range of issues, on which there is teaching by the church. and i just wanted to pick up something, if i might that, christoffer said. because i thought his discussion of the transend ant was very interesting, actually. i mean, for those of us of religious faith, we acknowledge and believe that there is a power higher and separate from people in power. and in a way christoffer is

saying i can't accept that, but i do accept there is something transend ent in the human experience, and something humunous. something even ecstatic. for me, the belief in a higher power, and the fact that we e. i don't regard that as putting me in a position of civility. i would use obligation. you know, it is of course, absolutely true that when i can point to any of the acts that i say are inspired by religious faith, you can say they could have easily been enspider but

that there is something more than simply human power. this does give you, i think a humility. it's not all that can give you a humility, but it does. i think and i've witnessed this myself. again to refer to northern ireland. when i met some of the people who were the relatives of those who died in the bombing, which came actually after a good friday. it was the worst terror attack in the history of northern ireland. and i went to visit the relatives of the to -- sing to me, and who had lost someone in the bombing. saying to my, you know, i have prayed about this. and i want you to know that this terrible act should make

you all the more determined to reach peace and to not stop your quest for peace. and it is completely true, that of course, he could have come to me and said forgiveness and compassion. without religious faith. but it was what led him to that. and so i think you can't ignore the fact that for many of us, actually, religious faith is what shapes us in this direction. not because we are . op a splithepotch -- but we do genuinely believe that it impels us in a way that is

different and more impairtive in a sense than anything else in our lives. and you know, in a way we wouldn't be being true to ourselves unless we admitted that. that doesn't mean to say someone of no religious faith couldn't be just as good a person and not that i am saying someone with relimbous faith is a superior foreign smon who isn't. but i do say to an impulse to be better people than otherwise they would be. [applause] >> as for your closing statement. five minutes. >> each? >> yes. >> so now on to our closing statements. christoffer, you will begin. you have five minutes on the clock. >> i think way might do is

comment on what tony just said, because he succeeded in doing what i hoped i might get him to do earlier which is to allow me to drive him back on to the territory of metaphysics which is where i began. because we did need to transcend that and does religion make them behave better or worse, and so forth. i'll give you an example. i mentioned earlier our attach ment to the labor and socialist movement in our lifetimes. for a very long time we had in that movement a challenger a apparently from the left. the communist movement which has only been dead a very short time in fact, hasn't died everywhere yet, but which said

it has a more thorough going on than we did. so the problems created by capitalism and im pearlism and proposed a fighting solution. and if i was the point to you the number of heroic people w40b8d in that and the number of wonderful works, especially fiction. of novels and essays written by people who believed in it. probably you could mention one of your own. if you were canadian -- i hop they still teach you in school. the story of norman ba than to, the one who went to civil war on the communist side and invented a form of battlefield bod transfusion. it was a communist who barred the road to fascism in spain and kept madrid for of the independence movement. too much in my view.

but no one would deny the role of the communist in break the hold of great britain on their country. 13456k9