If there were any doubts about writer and general provocateur Christopher Hitchens ability to pull a crowd, they were entirely dispelled by the sold-out opening night of the first ever Festival of Dangerous Ideas. Presented by the Sydney Opera House and the St James Ethics Centre, the Festival brought together some of the more controversial thinkers from Australia and around the world. Hitchens’s keynote address, followed by a discussion with our own Tony Jones, was an expansion on his bestselling, “God is Not Great: Religion Poisons Everything”. Hitchens was at his polemical best, delivering a beautifully constructed speech supporting his argument that religion is not only completely implausible, but often actively destructive. Christopher Hitchens’s other books include “Letters to a Young Contrarian”, “Why Orwell Matters” and “The Missionary Position: Mother Theresa in Theory and Practice.” He also writes a regular column in “Vanity Fair”.
On March 9, 2010, In Uncategorized, by admin
If there were any doubts about writer and general provocateur Christopher Hitchens ability to pull a crowd, they were entirely dispelled by the sold-out opening night of the first ever Festival of Dangerous Ideas. Presented by the Sydney Opera House and the St James Ethics Centre, the Festival brought together some of the more controversial [...]
If you enjoyed this article, please consider sharing it!
Actually, Christopher is mistaken when he says that Dr. King learned pacifism from Jesus. It was actually Bayard Rustin, a secularist, who instructed King on how to effectively execute nonviolent resistance.
Marten Luther King’s nonviolence worked, but only in conjunction with Malcolm X’s militancy. By having one violent group and one non violent group the media was able to portray that the blacks had the potential to be both reasonable and dangerous.
I suspect the combination was what drove the message home in a way Malcolm X or Martin Luther King could not have achieved alone.
@bootymanager – Good name!
Dr. Hitchen’s would simply counter my argument by saying placing faith in Yahweh would be immoral for him because he is atheist and does not hold the same values as Yahweh. Thus defeating my argument. And I would agree with that. This is what he does in all his videos and its necessary. Too bad we don’t have more intellectual athiests speak out.
The bottom line is: Good can be found in Hell and evil can be found in Heaven. And what is good today may be evil for you tomorrow. Morality is a subjective term and it changes over time if you go out and live life and experience it to the fullest. However my original comment was made in the context of modern day Christian beliefs and attitudes that placing faith in Yahweh carries a moral inference because most people believe he is real and moral.
Unfortunately religion is the only thing out there discussing the power of faith because without faith there is no God because we both already know there is no God. Yes you can have faith without religion but is faith moral immoral or amoral this is the question. Depends on what you are placing your faith in. Your argument is based on the preface that Christianity is all evil. It is not a black and white world. My world is gray.
You cannot place faith in God without some moral inference. The question is What are your morals? That is different for each culture over the passages of time it could be child sacrifice of the Myans or simply praise and worship at your corner church or wife beating at the hands of the Taliban. Morals have to be defined in order to set the criteria for your argument. It would be different based on your culture. I discuss Christianity because you cannot place faith in God without moral inference
joining yourself with belief in love, peace, faithfulness, goodness, kindness, meekness, temperance. Traditionally the “fruits of the spirit” are the results of having faith in God. Placing faith in these Moral attributes makes faith a verb the substance of things hoped for the evidence of things not seen. Without faith there is not God. Because as you and I both know there is no God but you cannot place faith in God without some moral inference
How could expressing faith in God or any other deity be a “moral” action?
Fuck those non-compromising Israeli Jews. I hope Lipini goes down for war crimes, the cunt. She’s a fucking genocidal maniac. The concilatory Jews of Israel need to stand up and say fuck you to the head-up-their-arses hardliners who won’t see compromise and continue in their pig-headedness.
@goodthaigals – Not even a good try. Be serious. Did you try to think it through before you posted this nonsense argument.
@goodthaigals – nice try. That comment is based on the preface that you NEED religion to be moral, and religious people ARE moral (which makes me think you didn’t watch this video, or weren’t paying attn), which Mr. Hitchens and others have debunked repeatedly. So, you cannot claim that saying you are religious is a moral action … it’s circular reasoning. “I assign that religious people are moral, and I am religious, therefore I am moral .. HA!” … Sorry, but that doesn’t hold any water.
One moral action you could not do without religion is express faith in God. As expressing faith in a God is traditionally viewed as a moral action. And having enough faith in God to be called moral makes you religious traditionally speaking ..So Dr. Hitchen’s I win that argument! Care to comment?
Tell that to the people who died. We’re not talking about the result of a war. We’re talking about face to face with an enemy trying to kill YOU. Not surrounded by a million others.
Not at all! Look at the 20th Century. Non-violence worked in India, the US South, and in South Africa. Other paths–terrorism, invasion, imperialism–have been tried more and worked rarely. Even when it succeeds–Vietnam, Afghanistan v. Soviet Union–armed resistance leaves ruin in its wake.
I’m no pacifist on principle. Violent self defense seems justifiable. I’m a pragmatist. I favor it, because it works. Israel ends the moment the Palestinians realize this.
Absolute pacifism is, in my submission, suicidal and unnatural. It’s quite easy to be pacifistic during peace times or when you’re not face to face with an enemy who is willing and and attempting to destroy you.
Well done Christopher Hitchens. Go secularism!!!!!
right. turn the other cheek means to allow yourself to be hit again.
All you have to do is read the bible for yourself. It’ s a load of shit. It amazes me the people that make a living fucking around with it.
I want Hitchens. He is handsome.
That may be true, but King shouldn’t have quoted Exodus as his example either then… which is precisely Hitchen’s point.
For the intro, keep it but turn down the volume, add some effects so it doesn’t sound exactly like the actual audio, and add a few seconds of mellow music.
Peace: the anti-religion
The signature of non-violence is not a rejection of violence; it is an embracing of violence. It is about taking on to your own body, publicly, the violence inflicted on it by others. The point being a moral one. That all your oppressors have left is violence.
Not to shout down CH’s point about the relationship between religion and King’s position. But I think he profoundly misunderstands the concept of resistance through non-violent action. At least here.
HC is too happy he has to pat himself on the back for being noticed