on
the washington post's
on faith:
'i am sometimes asked whether i ever get tired of debating the faithful. there are two reasons why i never do. the first is that this argument is at the root of all other arguments: constituting the essential underlay of differences about philosophy, cosmology, history, textual criticism and even medicine. the second is that i never know what my antagonist is going to say, or affirm, or claim to believe.
in any case, there was scant chance of being bored while contesting these matters with tony blair. but he did exemplify, to an unusually high degree, the tendency of modern believers to eclecticism and to the public presentation of what often turns out to be a virtually private or personal definition of religion. (i find this doubly odd in the case of a man who went to a lot of trouble to convert to one of history's more disciplined and rule-bound churches, at a time when its latest pope is striving to reinvigorate a highly traditionalist interpretation, but let that pass for now.)'continue reading...tony blair's corresponding piece is
here. here's a snippet:
'christopher hitchens is someone of huge integrity and whatever the disagreement between us over religion, he is someone who puts the case against religion with vigor. and of course, his argument requires an answer. no rational person can look at the world today - and especially the history of the last decade - and deny religion can be a source of division and conflict.'again,
read on...
