Quotes of the day

posted at 9:00 pm on November 27, 2010 by Allahpundit

“The message of the prophet Mohammed, saving one life is as if you’re saving the whole of humanity, the Hindu searching after selflessness, the Buddhist concepts of Kuruni … which all subjugate selfish desires to care for others, Sikh insistence on respect for others of another faith. That in my view is the true face of faith. And the values derived from this essence offer to many people a benign, positive and progressive framework by which to live our daily lives. Stimulating the impulse to do good, disciplining the propensity to be selfish and bad…

“So I do not deny for a moment that religion can be a force for evil, but I claim that where it is, it is based essentially on a perversion of faith, and I assert that at least religion can also be a force for good, and where it is, that it’s true to what I believe is the essence of faith, and I say that a world without religious faith would be spiritually, morally and emotionally diminished.

“So I know very well that you can point and quite rightly Christopher does to examples of where people have used religion to do things that are terrible. And that have made the world a worse place. But I ask you not to judge all people of religious faith by those people, any more than we would judge politics by bad politicians. Or indeed journalists by bad journalists.

“The question is, along with all the things that are wrong with religion, is there also something within it that helps the world to be better and people to do good, and I would submit there is. Thank you. (Applause).”

***


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

Blake on November 28, 2010 at 12:55 AM

The koran confuses. The more one reads it, the more contradictory it becomes.

OmahaConservative on November 28, 2010 at 1:04 AM

OmahaConservative on November 28, 2010 at 1:00 AM

A weekly driver and an Sunday go to meeting car? Sounds like the folks did well. I like Studebakers, the Husband says the look like the should have been made in the Soviet Union. We saw a Packard Hawk, yesterday and it took me by surprise. I thought Hawks were strictly Studebaker. I’m going to have to investigate and see if they merged at some point.

Cindy Munford on November 28, 2010 at 1:05 AM

Dire Straits on November 28, 2010 at 1:04 AM

I’d love to meet you, Cindy & others face to face some day. I just know we would all have a good time and be famous friends.

OmahaConservative on November 28, 2010 at 1:06 AM

Tony Blair was the best they could find? I’d like to see Hichens try and cut his teeth on someone like Peter Kreeft. Let’s get someone who actually knows what he’s talking about. I mean really, what kind of theological training does Blair have?

Goldenavatar on November 28, 2010 at 1:06 AM

I’m going to have to investigate and see if they merged at some point.

Cindy Munford on November 28, 2010 at 1:05 AM

1957

OmahaConservative on November 28, 2010 at 1:07 AM

OmahaConservative on November 28, 2010 at 1:06 AM

I agree!..That would be so cool!..:)

Dire Straits on November 28, 2010 at 1:08 AM

A weekly driver and an Sunday go to meeting car? Sounds like the folks did well.
Cindy Munford on November 28, 2010 at 1:05 AM

Great-uncle Walter was a bank president. He introduced me to London Fog topcoats.

OmahaConservative on November 28, 2010 at 1:10 AM

This is from the Talmud – not the koran!

Blake on November 28, 2010 at 12:55 AM

He may mean Sura 5:32 which is lifted from Jewish texts.

[5:32] Because of this, we decreed for the Children of Israel that anyone who murders any person who had not committed murder or horrendous crimes, it shall be as if he murdered all the people. And anyone who spares a life, it shall be as if he spared the lives of all the people. Our messengers went to them with clear proofs and revelations, but most of them, after all this, are still transgressing.

It continues in the next verse however…

[5:33] The just retribution for those who fight GOD and His messenger, and commit horrendous crimes, is to be killed, or crucified, or to have their hands and feet cut off on alternate sides, or to be banished from the land. This is to humiliate them in this life, then they suffer a far worse retribution in the Hereafter.

sharrukin on November 28, 2010 at 1:11 AM

Great-aunt Pearl was a socialite do-gooder who wore pearls to picnics and softball games. In Council Bluffs, IA, no less.

OmahaConservative on November 28, 2010 at 1:13 AM

Well, when it comes to atheism, Hitchens is the end-all. When I think of his equivalent on the religious side of the equation…it ain’t Tony Blair.

Emily M. on November 28, 2010 at 12:32 AM

I would have liked to have seen Hitchens debate his late countryman, C.S. Lewis. Or John Wesley, Hudson Taylor, William Carey, Eric Liddel, George Mueller, Oswald Chambers, Charles Spurgeon…. my, how far England has strayed from it’s Christian heritage…

parteagirl on November 28, 2010 at 1:14 AM

So Blair tried to defend Catholicism, Buddhism, Islam, Hinduism, and the Sikh religion all at the same time?

Maybe he should have thrown in the Mayan religion that required human sacrifice as well.

Sounds like he took on an impossible task.

I think it’s a waste of time to defend religion in some general sense. That would imply that all religions are essentially equivalent, which makes no sense. If each religion is different, why should we expect all religions to be equally good?

For instance, Islam requires jihad and domination, and subjugation of other religions and of women. Why would a Christian defend Islam as a religion?

Now, if you want to defend a belief in God as opposed to a belief in no God, you’ve got something to work with. But eventually you’re going to have a debate between believing in nothing — no God or religion — vs. believing in something — your own religion. Blair seems to have wound up in the position of a debate between believing in nothing, as in no God or religion, vs. believing in everything, as in all religions. And since one religion will inevitably contradict another, Blair’s side of the debate would seem to be unwinnable.

There Goes The Neighborhood on November 28, 2010 at 1:15 AM

OmahaConservative on November 28, 2010 at 1:06 AM
Dire Straits on November 28, 2010 at 1:08 AM

Maybe one day when the recession is over we can have a HotAir convention. To my knowledge I have only met one person from HotAir live and in person and that is hawkdriver.

Cindy Munford on November 28, 2010 at 1:17 AM

parteagirl on November 28, 2010 at 1:14 AM

You know, before he lost his mind, Andrew Sullivan use to have some really interesting debates with Mr. Hitchens on the subject of religion.

Cindy Munford on November 28, 2010 at 1:18 AM

Cindy Munford on November 28, 2010 at 1:17 AM

You met a good one…

OmahaConservative on November 28, 2010 at 1:20 AM

You met a good one…

OmahaConservative on November 28, 2010 at 1:20 AM

I agree with that!..Hawkdriver is one of the best!..:)

Dire Straits on November 28, 2010 at 1:23 AM

So Blair tried to defend Catholicism, Buddhism, Islam, Hinduism, and the Sikh religion all at the same time?

There Goes The Neighborhood on November 28, 2010 at 1:15 AM

Excellent point. In doing so he bought into atheists like Hitchen’s argument that all religions are equal. That religions are like a tables or chairs, differing in appearance but serving identical functions.

29Victor on November 28, 2010 at 1:23 AM

OmahaConservative on November 28, 2010 at 1:20 AM

Roger that! The Husband and I met the Hawkdrivers for dinner. And no surprise, they are even more wonderful than you could imagine.

Cindy Munford on November 28, 2010 at 1:23 AM

Dire Straits on November 28, 2010 at 1:23 AM

So are you and Cindy…

OmahaConservative on November 28, 2010 at 1:24 AM

I guess I am going to call it a night. Everyone have sweet dreams and God bless you all.

Cindy Munford on November 28, 2010 at 1:27 AM

I guess I am going to call it a night. Everyone have sweet dreams and God bless you all.

Cindy Munford on November 28, 2010 at 1:27 AM

Back atcha’, darlin’
Sweet dreams.

OmahaConservative on November 28, 2010 at 1:28 AM

Blessings!

OmahaConservative on November 28, 2010 at 1:29 AM

Listen, all I know is when nobody is being blasted and ripped apart on a typical Palin thread, then I know with absolute certainty that there is a God!

anXdem on November 28, 2010 at 1:30 AM

OmahaConservative on November 28, 2010 at 1:24 AM

Once again let me say..Glad to have you back posting..We all are very lucky to have our Hot Air family!..There are a lot of folks that want to be able to have posting priviledges on Hot Air..It is the coolest site in the blog world!..:)

PS..Scott Brown sends you a shout out also!..:)

Dire Straits on November 28, 2010 at 1:33 AM

anXdem on November 28, 2010 at 1:30 AM

I knew that without a Palin thread.
Jesus is Lord!

OmahaConservative on November 28, 2010 at 1:34 AM

OmahaConservative on November 28, 2010 at 1:34 AM

Amen, Amen, and Amen.

anXdem on November 28, 2010 at 1:37 AM

Dire Straits on November 28, 2010 at 1:33 AM

Aww, thanks. Only look at the Warren Buffett threads where I am hated and vilified for being friends with Astrid and Warren. Oh, well…

OmahaConservative on November 28, 2010 at 1:39 AM

This morning is Advent I for liturgical churches that follow the church calendar. Here is my favorite Advent prayer:

Prepare my heart, Lord Jesus,
Turn not from me aside,
And grant that I receive Thee
This blessed Advent-tide.
From stall and manger low
Come Thou to dwell within me;
Loud praises will I sing Thee
And forth glory show.

OmahaConservative on November 28, 2010 at 1:51 AM

We Lutherans love our church calendar.

OmahaConservative on November 28, 2010 at 2:08 AM

I would rather be a member of God’s flock than a slave to the state. Hitchens laments man being under the yoke of the creator but seems to have no problem with a government of flawed and often corrupt men running our lives almost completely. It is forgotten he is a committed socialist and statist. That portion of his argument fails completely for that reason in my view.

Even if the notion of a creator and natural rights is a human construct, it is enormously useful in that it is based on unalienable rights that no man or group of men can take away. In Hitchens mind our rights are whatever our government says they are at a given point in time. A very dangerous concept that has proven to be a source of tremendous misery for humankind.

In addition, without some sort of agreed upon moral framework, something religion provides to us, men are free to make up their own rules about what is right and wrong on an individual level. We have seen that has been quite detrimental to society. It seems to me the very repression Hitchens fears most is made even more probable. Clearly Stalin and Mao were not religious men, they decided what was right and put their plan into action with enormous brutality.

Hitchens also has very little to say about he origin of the universe. His atheism has no answers for us in that regard. Evolution starts far too late to explain any of that. So, in the end, his worldview is based on his own faith to a large extent. Atheism is basically an alternative belief system with its own prophets and unprovable theories, pretty similar to a religion really.

Once you realize that, Hitchens is just another guy with an opinion who pretends to know definitively what it impossible to know, and anyone who doesn’t agree with him is a superstitious fool in his mind. He is as pious in his atheism as those he criticizes who are members of organized religions. His tiresome nonsense is the road to nowhere. We came here from nothing by an accidental explosion, there is no reason for us to be here and when we die we go nowhere. Not exactly an uplifting world view. No sale.

echosyst on November 28, 2010 at 2:11 AM

Blessed Trinity.

OmahaConservative on November 28, 2010 at 2:15 AM

Will AP ever post video of William Labe Craig mopping the floor with Hitchens? Prolly not.

Hitchens is a rhetorician. A sharp one at times, but a rhetorician nonetheless. Blair is a politician. So I’m not surprised that he didn’t do justice to the side of religion.

darii on November 28, 2010 at 2:18 AM

Sorry, the should read William Lane Craig. Craig is quite the able apologist even if he’s wrong on several issues such maintaining divine temporality instead of eternal atemporality.

darii on November 28, 2010 at 2:22 AM

Craig Paton and Montgomery are the best apologists.

OmahaConservative on November 28, 2010 at 2:29 AM

Parton

OmahaConservative on November 28, 2010 at 2:35 AM

Speaking the truth in love to Muslims.

OmahaConservative on November 28, 2010 at 1:19 AM

“Server Not Found”

Why do I find that so ironic?

John the Libertarian on November 28, 2010 at 3:36 AM

I just don’t get why atheists care so much.

It should just be noted that there are people out here who see both sides as freaky. Relax people.

Ampersand on November 28, 2010 at 3:39 AM

Why do I find that so ironic?

John the Libertarian on November 28, 2010 at 3:36 AM

http://www.truthinlovetomuslims.com/

OmahaConservative on November 28, 2010 at 4:29 AM

John the Libertarian

Dire Straits

Did y’all, by chance, watch CBS this afternoon?

Gohawgs on November 28, 2010 at 4:30 AM

When I was young and dumb my father gave me a 1958 GOLDEN HAWK. It was in cherry condition. I had mixed emotions, it was a great car to drive but my friends called it the Bat Mobile. I traded it for a 1969 GTO Judge. My father did not approve. I thought I traded up, he thought I traded down. Looking back I believe he was correct.

IowaWoman on November 28, 2010 at 8:23 AM

Craig Paton and Montgomery are the best apologists.

OmahaConservative on November 28, 2010 at 2:29 AM

Add Norman Geisler to that list.

parteagirl on November 28, 2010 at 8:31 AM

Neither Blair nor Hitchens(third rate degree)are intellectually reasonable. Hitches a bit less than Blair.
One of last persons to go to about faith would be Blair and the very last person to ask about science is Hitchens.

Science uses faith as much as any religion.

String theory doesn’t add up, M theory -created to hide that fact in other dimensions, yes other dimensions ….ooohh spooky.
Dark matter is an invisible transparent substance with 5 times the gravity of matter ,that passes through everything in this universe including us. unseen , undetected…made up because our known laws of physics do NOT seem to compute in deep space.
Dark energy is a invisible undetectable force that drives the universe…no one has every seen it nor felt it.
So yes, an invisible undetectable force AND form that is far greater than what we know.
Science and religion -on issues we can prove physically both are on the same page . -on issues we can not prove are the same .

LeeSeneca on November 28, 2010 at 8:50 AM

Tony Blair’s understanding about religion…
To me, the most remarkable thing about the Koran is how progressive it is. I write with great humility as a member of another faith. As an outsider, the Koran strikes me as a reforming book, trying to return Judaism and Christianity to their origins, much as reformers attempted to do with the Christian church centuries later. The Koran is inclusive. It extols science and knowledge and abhors superstition. It is practical and far ahead of its time in attitudes toward marriage, women, and governance.

Under its guidance, the spread of Islam and its dominance over previously Christian or pagan lands were breathtaking. Over centuries, Islam founded an empire and led the world in discovery, art, and culture. The standard-bearers of tolerance in the early Middle Ages were far more likely to be found in Muslim lands than in Christian ones.

sharrukin on November 27, 2010 at 10:06 PM

Holy crap

it’s like princess charles extolling the greatness of islam

wretch

Churchill is spinning in his grave

no wonder GB is a goner

it’s amazing thatca cult that doesn’t have the wherewithall to manufacture a radio is such a threat yo humanity

Sonosam on November 28, 2010 at 8:56 AM

Too bad Francis Schaeffer is no longer with us. That would be a good and fair debate. I can only speak as a Christian but, my own two cents on the whole “do you need God to be good” argument…If all you think Christianity is for is to “be good” and to “feel good”, you’re missing the point entirely.

vcferlita on November 28, 2010 at 9:46 AM

Another very predictable QOTD. This blog is basically running on automatic pilot. I hope it’s just post election fatigue.

joejm65 on November 28, 2010 at 10:45 AM

When I first saw this debate advertised here in Toronto, I was interested in going to see it. But to have Tony Blair as a representative of Christianity just seemed absurd to me.

Honestly, was Hitchins afraid of going up against an actual priest, pastor, or Christian theologian?

CityFish on November 28, 2010 at 10:54 AM

How does Christopher Hitchens … who is really like a third string pundit – achieve an opportunity to debate with Tony Blair – a former leader of the free world?

Try as I might – the only reason I can come up with is …

“It’s the cancer”

I mean sure – Hitchens is probably the foremost ATHEIST pundit out there – but is Tony Blair really the foremost Christian defender?

I don’t think so.

I think this event was rigged – to provide an image of a dieing man, on his deathbed, unyielding atheist, who somehow musters the strength to debate one of the great leaders of our times.

And the “great leader” selected?

Why – he’s only Tony Blair – a man who is reviled by most Britons for his role in the War on Terror.

So, in a sense, you have a sympathetic character – matched against a “non” sympathetic character. Seems to me that is a manipulation of audience sympathies?

I’m not a Huckabee fan – but at least he was a preacher and would have been in a better position to debate Hitchens. Or how about Jonathan Morris? Or just anyone who’s known for their keen ability to debate religion and has a well known sense of humor who could compete with a cancer patient on chemo.

Please.

HondaV65 on November 28, 2010 at 11:01 AM

When I first saw this debate advertised here in Toronto, I was interested in going to see it. But to have Tony Blair as a representative of Christianity just seemed absurd to me.

Honestly, was Hitchins afraid of going up against an actual priest, pastor, or Christian theologian?

CityFish on November 28, 2010 at 10:54 AM

Oh … it was totally rigged and even AllahPundit has bought into the hype here because his hero Hitchens is involved.

Any idiot can see that the two were paired SPECIFICALLY for the “sympathetic” vs “unsympathetic” imagery.

HondaV65 on November 28, 2010 at 11:04 AM

Why do atheists have the need to convert others to their belief system? Maybe there is an inborn human trait to want to evangelize our beliefs, whether that is a belief in God or a belief in the lack of a God. Allah evidently has this trait. If he was a Christian he’d be the annoying and preachy relative attempting to proselytize at every family get together.

Personally I believe in God wich requires faith. I just wish atheists would see that it requires the exact same level of faith to believe in the lack of God as it does to believe in the existence of God.

crashland on November 28, 2010 at 12:10 PM

Personally I believe in God wich requires faith. I just wish atheists would see that it requires the exact same level of faith to believe in the lack of God as it does to believe in the existence of God.

crashland on November 28, 2010 at 12:10 PM

That’s not quite what they are doing. For many of them, Hitchens included, there isn’t a faith in non-God. Rather they believe that science has disproven the traditional gods and provided a better basis for morality than the books of scripture and stories of revelation.

dedalus on November 28, 2010 at 12:43 PM

A weekly driver and an Sunday go to meeting car? Sounds like the folks did well. I like Studebakers, the Husband says the look like the should have been made in the Soviet Union. We saw a Packard Hawk, yesterday and it took me by surprise. I thought Hawks were strictly Studebaker. I’m going to have to investigate and see if they merged at some point.

Cindy Munford on November 28, 2010 at 1:05 AM

Cindy, go to Ate Up With Motor, a superb automotive history site. Once raw materials controls ended in the early 1950s and Ford & Chevy had a price war, the independent automakers, Nash, Hudson, Packard, Studebaker, Willys and Kaiser, did not have the financial resources to compete. V8 engines, automatic transmissions and yearly styling changes were the order of the day and the independents just didn’t have the money. George Mason, who ran Nash-Kelvinator, wanted to merge all of them but was rebuffed by Packard and Studebaker. Eventually Nash and Hudson merged to form American Motors (which later bought Jeep when Kaiser got out of the car biz), and Studebaker merged with Packard. The last Packards, like the Packard Hawk you saw, were essentially Studebakers with slightly different bodies, an ignominious end for what had been America’s premier luxury marque. By the end of the 1950s, there were no more Packards, and Studebaker gave up the ghost in 1966. AMC survived until 1987, when Chrysler bought it to get the Jeep brand.

rokemronnie on November 28, 2010 at 1:52 PM

Will AP ever post video of William Labe Craig mopping the floor with Hitchens? Prolly not.

Hitchens is a rhetorician. A sharp one at times, but a rhetorician nonetheless. Blair is a politician. So I’m not surprised that he didn’t do justice to the side of religion.

darii on November 28, 2010 at 2:18 AM

He did link that way back, along with a link with approving commentary to an article that it was a “win” for atheism because, even though Craig smoked him on facts and logic according to the ATHEIST commentators, Hitchens was “cooler” and had more “snark,” thus venerating the ignorance of the general population.

It was a pathetic and disgusting indication of just how much confidence in “reason” these characters have. After all, reason is only an accidental epiphenomenon of unguided evolution, and has no greater significance in the great scheme of things.

The “New” Atheism is all about emotions, not about reason.

ebrown2 on November 28, 2010 at 1:58 PM

Sounds like the folks did well. I like Studebakers, the Husband says the look like the should have been made in the Soviet Union.

While it’s true that Stude sedans were stodgy, your hubby must never have seen a 1953 Studebaker “Loewy” Coupe, one of the most beautiful car designs ever. Attributed to Raymond Loewy, one of the greatest designers ever (Air Force One’s livery, the Post Office logo, Shell Oil logo), the design was mostly Bob Bourke’s who worked in Loewy’s studio.

Though it has a bit of a 1950s look to it, the lines are pretty timeless and plenty of customizers have made very contemporary looking cars out of the ’53 Stude Coupe.

Along with the Cord 810 and Bugatti 57, the 1953 Studebaker Starliner coupe shows up on almost every “most beautiful cars ever made” list.

rokemronnie on November 28, 2010 at 2:00 PM

He did link that way back, along with a link with approving commentary to an article that it was a “win” for atheism because, even though Craig smoked him on facts and logic according to the ATHEIST commentators, Hitchens was “cooler” and had more “snark,” thus venerating the ignorance of the general population.

It was a pathetic and disgusting indication of just how much confidence in “reason” these characters have. After all, reason is only an accidental epiphenomenon of unguided evolution, and has no greater significance in the great scheme of things.

The “New” Atheism is all about emotions, not about reason.

ebrown2 on November 28, 2010 at 1:58 PM

Craig is an articulate and interesting speaker. Isn’t he ultimately, though, a Molinist positing a creator god who determines who is and isn’t saved?

dedalus on November 28, 2010 at 3:26 PM

Craig is an articulate and interesting speaker. Isn’t he ultimately, though, a Molinist positing a creator god who determines who is and isn’t saved?

dedalus on November 28, 2010 at 3:26 PM

AFAIK, molinists do not believe that. That would be the distinction between a molonist and a calvinist.

I’ve heard Craig present his “middle knowledge” argument. I think he borrows heavily from Barna

Inanemergencydial on November 28, 2010 at 9:05 PM

Comment pages: 1 2