Christopher Hitchens - On Q and A

[Music] [Applause] [Music] [Applause] [Music] good evening and welcome to Q&A will many people spend their lives considering big questions about the meaning of life and the existence of God well tonight we've got less than an hour but we do have a very good panel one of Australia's leading Catholic intellectuals father Frank Brennan renowned journalist and atheist Christopher Hitchens who's in Australia to deliver the opening address at the festival of dangerous ideas social commentator and founding editor of the monthly Sally warart and uh politics lecturer and former spokesman for the Islamic Council of Victoria wed Ali and deputy director of the Sydney Institute biographer and commentator Anne Henderson please welcome our panel okay now remember that Q&A is live from 9:30 eastern time so join the Twitter conversation and send your questions by SMS to 19752 or to our website abc.net.au Q&A well as we go to air tonight there are reports that thousands may have died in the earthquakes and tsunamis that ravaged our region in the last few days these sorts of tragedies inevitably raise questions like our very first one which comes from edj memis yes thank you very much um my i' like to um speak to Mr hens thank you very much not that you're wearing the curan flag again on your Lael and um we might come to that later Ed the cish really thank you very much for that uh for your soul D to the kurish people uh my question is that um thousands of people dying from earthquakes uh to the panel question thousands of people dying from earthquakes can't be called God's punishment why is it that a person being saved from under the dble days later is um almost invariably called the miracle and um also why should God be credit uh credited for um good act of a human being saving a fellow fellow human being from under the dble while um God being spared for the um um for the Calamity that that was brought upon the people yes look um I promise you I did not have anything to do with planting the guy in the OR and giving me such a brilliant he he even recognizes that I'm wearing in my lapel the flag of free Iraq the Kurdish people like it perhaps you're kurd yourself I don't know but if not even better um in England there are I think only three villages that don't have a war memorial from the first world war one of them is called upper Slaughter by the way it's in it's in the cotwell I think there only three or four that don't I used to when I was a kid I used to notice it and of course anyone who's been to an Anzac Day event will feel the same way this unbelievable horror show and culling of the young do you know what those Villages are called by the Imperial Warg Graves commission they're called The Blessed Villages what's blessed about being the only Village in a war which was fought for god king and country which didn't have any casualties and what does it make all the villages that did lose dozens or sometimes more than that of young men frequently every male member of the family are they cursed because they did what the church and the King asked them to do it's it's probably the stupidest thing the human race does is to look for patterns in this way and say when a baby falls out of a high-rise building and bounces on the grass below that must be God and when millions of children die every day for the lack of pure drinking water and just die of diarrhea in a banal manner that's because God Moves In A mysterious way or isn't involved at all so I think we're off to a racing start ladies and gentlemen on the key question anyway Frank Brennan let's hear from you do you have any thoughts on the role of an omnipotent God in natural disasters natural disasters happen and an omnipotent God lets them happen for those of us who believe in God uh it's not about God saying that we won't let nature take its course uh those of us who do have a religious faith we equally I think are committed to science but like Christopher says we all look for patterns we look for patterns in our daily lives we look P for patterns in our histories we look for patterns in the world and yes some Villages might be call Blessed well if they didn't lose anyone they wouldn't call themselves cursed and so what how do they only people who call them blessed could do that because it's the natural coroller now several leaders of the Christian church as you know said about the last tsunami that it was a punishment in Britain several of them said it was a punishment for homosexuality um that the it used to be said that earthquakes were a punishment for sodomy since we're doing sodomy in the Lash I thought I might as well bring this up odly enough the San Francisco earthquake only hit when San Francisco was famous for other things when New Orleans got flooded the only bits that didn't get flooded were the red light district okay so anyone who says they know God's mind in this had better not mind looking a bit foolish or which you obviously don't or had better say take responsibility take responsibilties Say Yes by letting it happen God must in some way wish it to let me bring uh W do that let me bring Wally Ali into the discussion here do you have any thoughts on this and does Islam have a a concept of a God uh that allows disasters to happen well I think by definition if you believe in God you would have to say that at the very least God allows this thing to happen because to say otherwise would be to to presuppose that God lacks the power to stop it which I don't know of any religious tradition certainly know monotheistic religious tradition that would say that I do want to say something that I definitely agree with in what Christopher said and that is that this sort of very simple dichotomized thinking about natural disasters that they are punishment or reward and this is the prism through which we view them I mean this this has to be some of the most uh rudimentary unsophisticated thinking that religious people and frankly irreligious people who perpetuate it even via criticism have ever produced I think it's a ridiculous assertion and I'm not really encountered a serious religious thinker as opposed to one who is too busy playing forms of identity politics or some other kind of Rabel rousing uh persecuting some rabor Rising religiosity who would argue that the simple fact is that things happen in life that are in our our subjective experiences grotesque and other things that are wonderful and our judgments immediately about whether they're grotesque and wonderful are in a sense beside the point the question I think for relig people who are actually serious about being religious people and with all the introspection that that implies is what do you do about it and what do you do with it it's possible that by surviving the earthquake and moving on to behave in all sorts of ways that you cast yourself into some kind of Eternal destruction in religious terms that's entirely possible in which case you probably would have been better off to have been killed in the earthquake um it's entirely possible that by gathering all sorts of riches in life and having an easy life that you were similarly um just deforming your character as a person so I think the the the key question is not so much what is God doing um although that's perfectly legitimate question field of inquiry but I think the more important question for people particularly religious people is who am I in response to this what am I doing each of these is a test uh whether you're on the good side or the bad side of it and what do you do with it and I'm more interested in that frankly let's see from maners well where I come from um I can't take too much of the God as a person or a thing or a human creation I mean the idea of religion is a human creation and I grew up a Catholic and we had heaps of that little pictures of what God was but God is meaning Beyond meaning and the reason so many human beings have kept on believing in our God is because so much of ordinary material existence here doesn't explain things enough and whether God had anything to do with natural disasters I've really not very interested it's it's a question of when people can't understand something they give give a force a place in their understanding which is usually something spiritual beyond the material and to me what God is is not so important but what God that idea of God leads people to do when the um New Orleans tragedy happens one of the the most heroic acts was the way the Salvation Army was was there on the on the spot the minute it happened I spent three and a half years going to villawood detention center and got very much involved as Frank did with the the so-called illegal um people that came to Australia um without visas and trying to get them visas when I went to the yard which was a very unpleasant place to be in every week it wasn't the Fabian Society or the pacifist society that was there helping people but invariably it was older nuns um people who had some connection with the Anglican church we sat down um people who believed in Islam people who believed in Christ people who believed in uh anything you could think of and we were all kind of in the same boat together but it was interesting how it was those that had some Faith um who had the time too no doubt who were there helping and and to me it's as this a private institution well private what institution one you were visiting was it I was visiting A detention center run by the government um people who came to us or still it's it was a policy brought in by the labor government and continued um under the liberal government and continues to this day now we take people to Christmas Island I'm going to interrupt you and for a moment sorry I interrupt everyone just for a moment because we actually have a question uh that's coming up that uh that actually leads us in similar directions but you're watching a special politician free edition of Q&A answering the big philosophical questions clock is ticking let's move to our very next question it comes from Brown uh my question is to uh Mr Hitchens again um how do you count for the uh good work specifically regarding the title of your book uh religion poisoning everything uh the good work done by uh religious Aid organizations overseas in third world and developing countries as well as um locally um on our own Shores and I'm sure in in your country with the homeless and the needy actually Christopher can I before I before you answer that think about your answer for a moment CU we haven't heard from Sally War I'd like to bring her in and then go to you uh I think this gets into the whole question of of the whole argument about whether or not you know God is great or not great and Christopher's argument obviously um in his book to me what what's missing and I think what Wally touched on um is that lived experience of people is much more varied and and and and great and personal um than the the kind of things that you can pick out to make a case against God or that um you know God is somehow missing from a n a great disaster or tragedy but he's there in a in in a miracle and I I just think that um you know he's he's the lived experience of of people who are are religious uh is is it's part of what it is to be human it seems to be um for a great great many people across time and I don't think it's something that's going to go away Christopher this why in the was the tale of the last question I asked the lady from the cityne Institute whether these institutions she's talking about I'm well I don't know you will enough yet I'll just introduce myself we'll be more bonded by the some say not much of we'll be more we'll be more intimate by the end of none of us would say that well I know people who would it's just not the way I was brought up perhaps by the end of the show we'll be more intimate um well I asked about because she she wasn't content just to say religious people volunteer for charity as if that was news to anybody but she had to couple it with a smear against fabianism and social democracy now as a matter of fact well they weren't there Christopher that's all s say without the the the efforts of fa good SM the efforts of fais what's wrong with the smear I I don't I'll get to the end of this sentence if it kills you it we have the efforts of socialists and social Democrats to make sure that that things like education and health do not depend upon private charity given by rich people and religious institutions to the deserving poor are the reasons why a lot of it's taken care of because it's taken care of have welfare and just Adit there's another smear I wasn't a rich person giving charity where it wasn't gone and you have to understand I didn't say that you were well it seemed to come across I didn't even imply that you were no the the efforts of fabianism and social democracy socialism were to make sure that these things didn't depend on the voluntary whim but they don't all the idea of the deserving poor now that's the first second Point well because it's so taken for granted now I love to remind people actually this a long this meant social political action as you correctly say as you quite correctly say and I can help you out here by emphasizing it quite a while ago that's why I said not to forget it now to the point about religious activis activism isn't it true haven't you all heard that Hamas does so well because it supplies social services are you going to say that it's the same is true for Hamas an Islamic Jihad never mind that they're religious they distribute Services where otherwise there' only be secularism and Corruption well if you want to claim that you can't just claim the charitable part of it it seems to me Mother Theresa endlessly praised for work that most of the time she actually never did I went to watch her very closely in Kolkata you don't mind that she thinks that what Bengal and Kolkata mainly needs is a campaign a clerical campaign against birth control and Family Planning has anyone here ever been to Bengal and concluded that's what it really needs that's what she was really campaigning for in case you worry but never mind she gives a wonderful impression of being a charitable person so what Indians need is more missionaries to cure poverty when everybody knows there's only one cure for poverty which is the empowerment of women which means giving them some control over their reproduction name me you name me a Catholic or Muslim charie that goes into the fields determined to secure the empowerment and you'll have the ghost of a point let's see if Frank until now you don't let's see if Frank Brennan can address that point well let's take it I mean people like Amara have argued very strongly and persuasively like yourself Christopher that empowerment of women is the key to the development of peoples now why don't we just drop the bagging and smearing and saying all right anyone who's out there let's judge them by their fruits whether they're atheists or whether they're Catholics or whatever let's drop the bagging and smearing let's say right we agree what we've got to be working for is is the empowerment of women and there are people of religious dispositions who are passionately committed to that and yes there will be mistakes made in terms of policies and in terms of moral theories but that's where I think in a pluralist society like Australia we can have the respectful dialogue and we can work those things through as we do this evening Wally dely just trying to figure out which aspect to take I I think I guess that uh the argument being made in that question is religion doesn't poison everything because there are people who do good works I think I think there's a a real call that needs to be made for some honesty here on the part of religious people and that is that yes lots of religious people do lots of very good things uh and there was research published I think two years ago looking at Generation Y Australians that found that uh those who were more religiously committed were more socially aware they more committed to the social good and all that sort of thing you can point to those studies and you can say that's wonderful but in a sense I think you get caught in a reactionary argument which is with all these people lining up saying look how horrible religion is you get a religious response that says no no no no no no we're good look at these Charities turning a blind eye to not only some of the points that Christopher raises but also the fact that there are religious Charities that do a lot of that religious work for their own ends that in my judgment are actually quite nefarious at times religious can be religions can be used as a cover and a pretext for violence and evil and all sorts of things it can be instrumental ized in that way it can also be instrumentalized in the opposite way and so I kind of echo what what father Frank Brennan said here and that is that if you actually look to the substance of what people are doing rather than asking the first question is this a religious organization or is this not and then trying to make some judgment about their conduct and their motives on the basis of that then I think you get further down the track of making some kind of assessment I think we caught in these Petty games about well you know are religious people good or bad just get on with being good or being bad and let people make up their I I think that's I really think that's brilliantly phrased but there is one more thing we have to say just to do with the logical inference um if Catholic Charities were better than I say they were or Muslim ones it still wouldn't have anything to do with the truth or otherwise of their preachments any more than a group like medic s on Frontier for example which would be my favorite medic iCal charity or Amnesty International which is completely secular proves that there is no God I mean it's it's purely coincidental that's an entirely separate argument but if the question it's it's part of the premise that needs to be if the question is okay I'm going to interrupt you all because uh there is there is a uh there's a questioner and U Christopher Hitchens obviously has got a lot of attention from our audience and here's a question aimed directly at him it's from Jessica langr just another one to Mr Hitchens um you typically stereotype religious people people as dogmatic and fundamentalists um how is this when people who listen to you um feel as if you're the one being dogmatic and fundamentalists in your Evangelical pursuit to convert the world to atheism well I have to I would have expected more Applause for a cheap Point like that um that's more like that's more like what I call Applause for um I we'll have to uh Tony put myself in the safekeeping of your audience but tonight uh here physically and those who are watching and ask them if they really think that's what I do or what I'm like and that the reason the questions come to me all of them so far is not just because of my sexual Carisma um but but if it was that uh all this uh that this description of me is dogmatic and my only uh description of others as being dogmatic was true then I wouldn't be able to correct it in the time of this show Christopher just getting to the point of why religion still resonates here's a quote from your book for you to reflect on religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature the heart of a heartless world it is the spirit of a spiritless situation this is the opiate of the people quotation goes on and it goes on even more beautifully to say that um no it's not for me it's not for me it it goes on to say say uh that criticism of religion has plucked the flowers from the chain not so that men and women May wear the chain without consolation but so that they may break the chain and call the living flower it's it's from KL marks it's the opening of his critique of hegel's philosophy of right it's the most misrepresented quotation probably of the 19th century it's the one where he doesn't say religion is the Opium of the people but he does the one that shows that atheists are not dogmatist but he does understand essentially in making that point why religion still resonates today he understands why religion is ineradicable why it's part of the human makeup and personality and why um it's the most interesting argument that we have because it's it's the it was our first attempt at philosophy just as it was our first attempt at Health Care cosmology astronomy and so on it's the it's the argument that never goes stale but I think one of the strengths of your book is that you do concede that religion is ineradicable so given that reality I mean I come back to the point why not dro the bagging and smearing and let's say the solvent is respectful public discourse we judge things by their fruits and if there be arguments which are put which are misconceived then we talk that out okay soul of Charity but I mean who's been bagging and smearing and you've said that twice now as if you're sitting there our only protection against a wave of smearing and bashing I thought that I thought that if as long as we have a civil conversation we don't have to keep on saying that that's what we're doing okay in this in this civil conversation we have an audience we've got a gentleman up there with his hand up and I'm going to come to you this questions for Chris and for w um you and Frank sorry Frank and W um you said that we live in a pluris society where Duality Society what is your views on gay marriage and and why is it there seems to be such opposition from the Christian and Muslim societies against it okay we'll take a quick answer from Frank and willed on that I've just finished a national human rights inquiry we've heard about this constantly around the country I would approach the issue of gay marriage uh distinguishing two things one people of a religious disposition may have a view about what they call the sacramentality of marriage I would see that as a separate question from the Civil institution of marriage now in terms of the Civil institution of marriage I think one of the welcome developments in Australia is we've got to the stage of saying that discrimination against people on the grounds of their sexuality should be wiped out completely and that we're a better Society for that being the case in terms of The Next Step whether or not in civil law there should be a recognition of the bond between two men or two women as being the same as marriage as it's presently understood the real issue I think is whether or not that decision is best made by our elected politicians or whether it's made by unelected judges and I think at the moment in a Australia the view has been that that should be a decision of our elected politicians my own view is moving around the country I think that younger Australians they don't see it as a problem it's not an issue I think for a lot of older Australians it's still an issue and guess what a lot of them happen to be married so in terms of a free and Democratic Society for those who are civil married then we've got to bring them with them with us as we look at any change on that issue all right before I go to anyone else on that uh you're watching Q Anda we actually have a video question that's going to uh uh I think continue this discussion we're watching Q&A remember you can send your web or video questions to our website the address is on the screen like this video from Joseph Bromley of malsbury Victoria hello comrades can we ever hope to live in a truly secular society when the religious maintain their ability to affect political discourse and decision making on issues such as voluntary euthanasia same-sex unions abortion and discrimination in employment uh Christopher this won't mean anything to you but uh I was a bit distracted by that because he looks enormously like a young Malcolm Turnbull I'll just repeat his question I was thinking Sid Barrett actually can we ever hope to live in a truly secular society when the religions maintain their ability to affect political discourse and decisionmaking on issues like voluntary Youth and Asia samesex marriage AB abortion and discrimination in employment w i i frankly don't understand the question well I do literally understand the question but I there are assumptions embedded within it that I think need to be examined I actually think a secular society implies the ability of religious arguments to enter the discourse the idea of secularism the reason for it coming into existence was to open the public discourse to a range of views religious irreligious and otherwise it's about the separation of church and state that is it's about removing the levers of government the levers of power from an in a religious institution like the church that's a different thing from saying that arguments that have their grounding in some kind of religious commitment cannot be aired that to me is actually an anti- secular position because what it's doing is it's saying here are the uh the the approved modes of discourse here are the approved arguments the idea of of a secular society is to say you come you want to come from a socialist perspective you want to come from a a Christian perspective an Islamic perspective a Hindu perspective or some other perspective that as yet has not been conceived fine and we'll sort that out in the in the political process I think to say on Ethan Asia religious people uh are not allowed to comment as religious people is is ridiculous and anti-secular and anti-liberal okay s warart i i I agree with everything while said if if what the question was meant to ask was you know as meaning a you know Society without religion then I'd say you want to be careful what you wish for and uh hehs perhaps he's talking about a society without politicians who are expressly religious and maybe we should all be praying very hard for that sure but you know I mean you voting very hard for that's that's right I mean that and I mean what w said is absolutely true secularism means everybody can uh get involved and it's I mean it's a great thing about a country like this um and but you know you imagine back in time I I don't want to imagine a uh a world that never had Mozart or bark in it you know you have to be careful what you ask you're not religious though why do you value religion because I think that I'm interested in in in what drives human beings in what makes human beings human um and and I think there is obviously whether you're religious or not there is something in human beings that um that that that passions and faith override reason in just about everything we do from we get up in the morning and we choose what to wear or you know there's there there's a lot that's going on in human behavior that is not that well thought out and in fact a lot of our reason is is in analysis it's after it's after the fact and um I think that none the worst for that though no well that's you need both you know though it's true there aren't many secular Gothic Cathedrals for example verie verie could write a beautiful you call the [Laughter] Kremlin it's the very could write a very good requ without actually being a Believer but I don't think that John Dunn could have written his sacred poetry not thinking I don't really believe any of this I mean it's quite clear that there's there's an instinct in all of us for the for the numinous and the Transcendent you might say I I think you can have it without the supernatural in fact I think you have to well again I couldn't agree more with if I may call you may I call you one in well they that's what secular means but um in that case I think uh it it behooves the religious to say what they genuinely mean now Frank just talked about homosexuality as if the church had never condemned it as a mortal sin yes yes I mean it's extraordinary um I would not know that you were a member of the Society of Jesus except that it was a very jesuitical point you were making and conceal and concealed your m one and I'm well it is the same Islam says the same you cannot be a good Muslim and publicly be a homosexual why don't you given the given the wonderful freedom of a secular conversation where no one's going to say anything about your right to say it why don't you say what you actually think how about that okay yes yes and then I'd like to hear from can I can I just say that what I find interesting about your book Christopher is that everyone's the same and yet we're all violently different and if you are a cultural Catholic as I am I don't listen to what the Pope says every day and take my guide from him my mother who's 84 says she had a a Vatican bypass 30 years ago you know it it isn't like you see maybe because you're not a Believer you don't understand that sounds like progress of a Kind no she converted from a a completely non-believing family when she was about 20 but the the thing is that religion is so manifestly pluralist as well I mean there's so many different ways in which people see God and even within the Catholic Church there's violently different um ways in which people practice their faith the idea I miss that you did say violent well VI well I agree with you I agree with you on all that that you say about violence among religion and and that's the point there's a I like the old Greeks and the Romans you had a god of war and a god of peace and you know you had different kind of gods I like that but the idea that we're all following the Pope I think is a bit misguided okay you're either Roman Catholic who are not you can be tons of kinds of you'd be surprised there are several there are five popes I know about there's a Copic Pope there's an Eastern Pope right well I'm talking about the one not accepting the author of the Holy Father I I leave it to uh this father but I mean I think there not I think since about people who take their faith Al and cafeteria style don't impress me very much on the points of principle and conviction that we're supposed to be were following the pope they'd all have 10 children they don't Frank that's a start too can I can I hear Frank the fundamental point that Christopher hitch's made which is how can you say something which is clearly against the teachings of your church clearly against the teachings of the Pope I haven't said anything clearly against teaching my church or against my Pope uh I have drawn a distinction hang on a sec is homosexuality a sin or otherwise and is if it is a sin is it the sort of sin that would see you go to hell according to Roman Catholicism no homosexuality is not a sin it's it's to disposition if you want to argue if you want to argue about whether particular homosexual acts are appropriate for an individual in a moral context that would require a pastoral discussion with that individual what we were discussing previously was what should be the law in a civil society such as Australia where you have people of different religious convictions and the question was whether or not there should be same-sex marriage now that is not an issue which is resolved by deter mining what the Catholic Church says to its own members it regards as moral or immoral they're quite distinct questions uh well you on the same question if you like um is is homosexuality a sin in Islam I'll get to that the thing I want to say well no no but there's a point there's an important distinction here and I get often frustrated with this discourse of lumping the Islamic tradition in with the Christian tradition particularly the Catholic tradition tradition because they're structurally so fundamentally different the Catholic tradition has a church which has a kind of divine impat and Authority the Islamic tradition is a far more anarchic tradition in a sense uh there is no centralized Authority especially in the Sunni tradition so to say the Islamic teaching on anything is X is a position that immediately becomes contestable you can try to verify it statistically or otherwise but the point is that at the very least in theory if not in practice any position that you take is a position that you take that may or may not that may be failable and is open to being contested by other Islamic theologians or or other Muslims and so on so on any question whether it be homosexuality or it be anything you will find a position that the majority take and on the question of homosexuality undoubtedly if you if you took a poll in the Muslim world uh you would find that most people would consider it sinful Behavior but if you took dodging it it's not the what Muslims think it's what Islam teaches but my question is my question is what exactly is your repository of a a list of Islamic uh conclusions there is no book called Islamic law there is no Islamic body that says uh this is what Islam teaches it is it's it has for 14400 years been an ongoing conversation so and what ongoing conversation very good yeah and then and but that's my point if if there is a criticism I would make of the Muslim world it is this it is that particularly in the post colonial era as religion has become an identity movement rather than something that's actually anything to do with spirituality and faith in my view um particularly in the postcolonial world that religiosity Islam has become instrumentalized as a list of conclusions as a political ideology as though there is some Manifesto you can just download from a computer and install into a society it doesn't work that way certainly not in the classical tradition the classical tradition was one of constant debate that's why uh it was very difficult to get something like an inquisition going we managed it at some point but it was not terribly successful and It ultimately crumbled because you can't ultimately centralize Authority uh to make definitive statements on behalf of God in the Islamic tradition that's an act of polytheism to do that I'm just going to interrupt the flow for a minute because we have another question tonight it comes from Hai kryon uh yes my question is for Christopher Hitchens um with many voters using a politicians religious persuasion to influence their vote do you expect to see in your lifetime an openly atheist politician be appointed to the head of government for example for Australia Britain or the United States I'm not going to let Christopher answer this immediately I'd rather throw it around the panel first Frank Brennen I think undoubtedly I mean perhaps not so readily in the United States uh or if in the United States the presidential candidate were atheist he or she would probably still Proclaim some religious conviction in that that's part of the United States but I think here in Australia whether or not one of our political leaders I would think was an atheist or of a religious persuasion I think is almost an irrelevance to the Australian Community okay let's hear from an Henderson on that I mean I can't think of any atheist Prime Ministers Australian Prime Ministers to date you might you might certainly not openly openly Proclaim he was a Believer but anyway that it's not so much it's not so much um whether you're an atheist or an agnostic or a Believer it's what you say to the people you are I find it interesting at the moment and I wouldn't have thought it would have happened in the 1980s that all leaders of countries in the west um seem to want to go to church every Sunday um Christian churches it was interesting that Tony Blair wouldn't be wouldn't take um on being a Catholic I think he's is he considering it now become a Catholic now after he left um his position as prime minister the problem with uh Democratic politics is and spin and 24-hour news and whatever the person who inevitably comes to lead the country and I think that questioner had had it um had it right is going to have to reflect the strength of belief in the country itself so if you went around like Christopher bagging all the churches and anyone who believed I think it'll be a long time before that happens and I would be very surprised if it ever did happen you could be an an atheist but I don't think you'd go around telling everyone that you thought everyone that was a Believer was an idiot s w have I think there is there is um I think there's just no way the United States SC claws for a cheap point it's encouraging I think that there is no way the United States would elect a president uh who was not a practicing uh Christian of some sort in my lifetime I just cannot see it I mean interestingly they they were ready to elect a woman and I think they they would have if there hadn't have been a um an Obama there but but there's just no way I I in fact I think that's probably going backwards um in American culture at the moment Australia I don't think people could care less Christopher well my only point would be um I'll make a quick point about the United States it's it's a good thing that you atheists are not bound from holding the the office because we would have missed Mr Lincoln for example um and in my opinion Mr Jefferson and while of other people probably worth having but as late as late as as late as the in England the life of uh James Stuart Mill in America the life of Benjamin Franklin there were quite well-known publicly think secure confident uh professional thinkers who didn't say didn't think it was advisable to let people know what they thought in public because that's how dangerous it could be in a Pious regime and it seems that and all all people of Faith Can apparently congratulate themselves upon it that the faith still still demands professions of Faith by people who don't hold it that are by definition hypocritical so congratulations to religious opinion for bringing that beautiful thing about in what's supposed to be a secular democracy okay no doubt we'll we're going to come back to uh religious questions shortly but you're watching Q&A the unpredictable program where you get to ask the questions if you'd like to ask a question in person go to our website register to join the studio audience we'll change subjects now for a while uh next question comes from William McKenzie is talent and excuse for pedophilia what are the panel's opinions on the Roman palansky situation in Switzerland and America at the moment well can can someone explain to me why I actually don't understand the argument that he shouldn't be brought before I just don't understand it I'm I'm happy for someone to convince me well there's an argument in France he's very talented so he shouldn't therefore face TR no but have you caught up with the news it's all changed um it's changed today which was interesting the the French have backed off U Hillary Clinton has said it's a legal matter uh the pole polish leader I think's backed off even though he's married to someone who's supporting um palansky and a Hollywood serious Communicator has a blog or something where the anti palansky uh responses are running 100 to1 and the New York Times has come out and argued against him which is an interesting phenomenon so maybe it's changing can I I don't know why it wouldn't would be interesting I mean I just can't believe they they wouldn't argue that he should be tried I was reading his autobiography last night and pansy's account of you know making love to this young woman on Jack Nicholson's couch it was just a um you know so why is it taken so long that's Reon that's where that's where the T comp yeah REM REM Remus they say last you touch the point with a needle he's already had the rewards of being talented 30 years on the lamb after I'll say it directly fornicating with and sodomizing a 13-year-old to whom he had given narcotics to La now excuse me you know we do have our standards even those of us who don't believe we're being supernaturally super although the really sad thing is that this woman has come out and and said that the the trial by media um that she's going to have to endure uh in this is is she believes will be worse than the actual crime which is uh it's it's a really sad and terrible tale this but that's his fault too that's absolutely it is and and and he still needs to be tried but it's awful that she's going to have to um suffer uh so she doesn't want it to Define her whole life foring this and yet he has to be tried his lawyers that brought this back into the arena and so in a sense this has been all brought about because late last year his lawyers tried to get through a loophole in the law to have his charges dropped and of course that then set the prosecution out and running can I make can I make a point a sort of admission here and I'm almost surprised I'm almost surprised by the admission which is well it's a simple one really that I've actually been to see several of these films in that period I've watched others on DVD and and when you think about it carefully um is that somehow supporting you mean we we'd have been deprived of the films if You' been nabbed in the first place no not at all I'm simply saying I wonder why I didn't think about this at the time oh well cuz we're all capable of keeping two sets of books I mean that's my our um well I can see that I'm not the only one um just for discussing this subject a couple of years ago my magazine vanity Affair was sued by Mr palansky from Paris in London not in not in American where he thought the jurisdiction will be easier on him he didn't even have to appear in person because he thought that might be risky he made a video deposition we claimed he had no reputation to defend he walked away with a lot of our money on a Lial judgment saying this couldn't be discussed so I would say screw him and I would add and I would add screw him for a chain frag B it's his turn going back to the question I mean what about the 13-year-old girl she saying no but go back to then and I mean to speak of you know the talent of the one who is the perpetrator what about the talent and what's happened to the victim and what the law has got to be about is protecting the victim whether or not she's talented and if the perpetrator be talented well it counts for nothing that's what Justice according to law has to be although sadly you know the stuff up of this means that it it hasn't protected her at all it's gone on for 35 years it could have all been over there's there's a broader Point as well that's not about the pansky case and this is where I get in my lawyer mode it's about the Integrity of the justice system you cannot I think as a justice system tolerate or reward someone just because they managed to get away with it for 30 years and say that was a long time ago well no there is a reason that the criminal law doesn't have a statute of limitations that applies to it by en large um and and that is because we deem crime to be of such significant import that it must be punished irrespective of of how what what time has elapsed between the commission of the defense and and the finding of of the offender there imag what we would say if it was a bishop of course but I just cannot just probably probably what everyone on the panel actually has been saying so you're watching Q&A the live and interactive Forum where you ask the questions our next question comes from basda yich uh why is it that the Islamic country Iran is the threat to peace in the world and not the Zionist uh is it America's sport of Israel well hundreds of people are getting killed uh in Gaza and West Bank every day uh with the support of America the Israel Palestinian War has been going on for 61 years and we are not actually looking at what um what is actually happening and we're fearing about what is not happening we're fearing about something that hasn't happened okay Sy War half that up and I might add by the way we had a number of questions asking why Iran's nuclear program and not Israel's is the illegal way um look this is it's it's it's a tragedy I I I think Israel and Palestine it it it's something where it almost takes half an hour to sort out what what has to happen uh you know the Palestinians need a state um Israelis need to feel secure um but it feels uh like that's it it's just so far away um I think that part of the problem is obviously the delicacy of the Israeli Coalition um I mean I I don't know um beyond what I've just said that it's simple what has to happen but how you make it happen and how you uh make people want peace more than they want other things uh is beyond me Christopher hin it's become a familiar thing I I should perhaps preface this by saying that with Edward SED the late professor Edward S I I wrote a book about the rights of Palestinians and the way this in which these have been negated by Israeli policy but um I know a lot of people in the Arab and Muslim world who are fed up with having the subject change to Israel whenever human rights for them comes up a very good example of this just last week in Teran where the government has an official alud day as it's called the day of Jerusalem where school children and others are paraded it's a more or less compulsory demonstration to say they'll give their blood and their lives for Palestine and and hundreds of thousands of Iranians turned up to say no we'll only give our blood for Iran thanks we're fed up with being told by the regime that they represent the oppressed of Palestine that we can't talk and and they are having to shed their blood because the regime keeps on killing them for wanting to have a say in their own Internal Affairs and a regime that does this and has just pulled off a bloodstained military coup uh it's overturned the results even of an already predetermined fraudulent election that says that the the that a woman's voice is worth that of only uh sorry it takes three women in a court against one man um that uses torture and rape as as policies imprisonment and so forth you want a regime like that to have nuclear weapons you're welcome but you should say that's what you don't mind are you going to say that are you going to say you've no objection that the real problem is the Jewish State come on be serious so so you so the Jewish State doesn't have nuclear weapons is that is that what you saying well now I appeal again to the fair-mindedness and intelligence of the audience did I say that no but did I by any in any way imply it no but did I not begin with a throat clearing which I I'll amplify you about my long record of work about this my defense of the Israeli dissidents who published the news about Israel's illegal program and gone to jail for it I can refer you to all that if you my point was directed specifically to you I said does this in your mind make the destruction of human rights in Islamic countries okay or not no good okay let's let's hear from well well that's progress of a Kind this is I I think highlights the really difficult I think personally intractable situation that now confronts the world in dealing with uh Iran's apparent nuclear weapons ra regime and I hear today that the un's still arguing that they're not developing weapons but whatever you think about that there is a problem because you do get questions like this whether or not you agree with Christopher that there's a lack of moral seriousness about that question you're always going to get that question the minute the conversation turns to Iran it is going to be deflected towards Israel and so the problem is that if you're interested in disarming Iran or somehow reigning in that region it's very hard to do that in isolation without also engaging in some kind of agreement that's going to that's going to bring Israel into the into the mix and of course the US who also have nuclear weapons I'm encouraged by the fact that President Obama is talking about a nuclear free world and that when he headed the the UN SEC or presided over the UN Security Council this week which I think the first time an American president has ever done that uh the vote to rid the world of nuclear weapons was unanimous that's that's all good but now that really really tough politics starts and that is the politics of dealing with an Iranian regime that frankly probably sees very little incentive if any to try to disarm or to become less evil it's got every reason to remain as evil and perhaps it become even more evil than it is and Israel is going to have to be part of that discussion whether they like it or not um whether the US likes it or not because without that I just can't see how there's a way forward on Tony sorry I simply must say this I'm really sorry um in in both what w said and the lady questioner is the idea that Iran is perfectly entitled to have nuclear weapons at least if Israel is it is no no that's not what I all the Iranian government don't let us forget says it doesn't want them and isn't planning to have them and so if it turns out they are it's not a problem to do with Israel it's to do with them breaking every undertaking they've ever made at the United Nations every undertaking they've ever made to the international atomic energy Authority every undertaking they've ever made to the European Union negotiators it means that international law is completely meaningless And yet when Mr amadin Jad tests missiles he says this is part of our nuclear program how is that part of a piece can I just say their party their proxy party hasb I've been to its rallies in Beirut do you know what the symbol of the party now is what they put on the flag a mushroom cloud with a threat to the Jews uh written underneath it can I can now actually when you go to meetings of the American Jewish committee you don't quite get that Christopher hold on we're just going to hear from W then I'm going to go to another question which is related I think that's a bit of a gross misreading of what I was saying I'm certainly not implying that what but what I am saying is the real politic of dealing with this situation is that for the Iranian regime if you put yourself in the position of the Iranian regime that has now become such a grotesque deformed regime that in a sense it has to perpetuate that deformity in order to survive that's kind of the logic of those sorts of regimes the minute you do that they're now in a position where it's just going to be very hard to create the political environment for them to change course without dragging Israel in now whether or not you want to say that Israel's acquiring of nuclear weapons is equivalent to Iran's worst better whatever that to me is not the point as far as real politics is concerned how are you going to get that change to occur without incorporating Israel into the conversation Christopher just I'd like to put a line under this but I just want to ask you one question and a brief answer if you can if you could um you me in capable of a brief answer I'm going to be TS if I have to be okay we'll add to this personally um Israel of course uh did try and stop uh Iraq uh acquiring nuclear weapons by bombing a reactor uh would it be justified in your opinion for them to do the same uh in Iran what Israel did to the ayic reactor was what the Iranians had tried to do everyone forgets this with their own air force a couple of months before the Iranians had a huge sigh of relief when the Israelis pulled off a raid they couldn't bring off themselves and disarmed Saddam Hussein there are a lot of people in the Sunni Arab world believe you me who hope that the Israelis take out the the Iranian one in turn but they can't say so in public anymore than the Iranians could before my own view is that Israel both cannot and should not no uh attempt such an attack okay well we're going to move on again oh actually look you've had your hand up for a while I'm going to take your question lady in the front there look my one question is basically or my one comment or passing comment is that so many times you've brought up women in Islam I just like to correct that I've read the Quran and all Muslim Scholars would agree with me that Islam gives women a lot of Rights we over and over give Islam women in Islam through the Quran I may not say it through individuals who preach the religion but Islam through the Quran gives women a lot of Rights and I need that to be heard I need that to have everyone to understand and hear that mean I am a young Muslim woman myself I sit before you I have a voice and I can speak to you and I can look you in the eye and I do have my rights and when I go to Iran I'm actually Iranian as well so when I go to Iran I also have my rights I need it to be heard that the Quran the Quran Allah subhana gives us our rights in people individuals in countries and people who represent our religion may not and they may do the wrong thing to um sort of stand in front and show us religion and preach us religion but Islam does all right we're going to take that as a comment a very passionate one of that okay well no you're no we're not no we're not going to take it as a comment I can I can see your face I can see your hair and I can see you sitting in an audience with young gentlemen don't you tell me you can do any of that in Iran I can though no you can't yes I can no you can I can in Iran in Iran in the Islamic Republic of Iran where I have been my hair would be out my hair would be out because my veil would be little my hair would be it may be covered a little bit but just like in in in the Bible in the letter to the Corinthians it says to cover your hair to be mod a shame she spoiled what could have be a perfectly good state I'm sorryy would be there I mean you've been talking about these cheap cheap jokes this whole conversation but you're the only one making you insult your sisters in Teran who are being be and raped every day when you say that they have theirs in it's an insult to the women of I do not okay okay we're nearly out of time you're watching Q&A live if you'd like to join the audience register on our website the address is on your screen abc.net.au Q&A we have one last question it comes from Pam cicott many non-believers facing death change their minds about religion is that fear or Comfort okay we're gonna have to have quick answers from everybody Frank Brennan it soften both I the same and Henderson I would say exactly the same it's again what I said before where there is no meaning people find find God and they that's their comfort there's even supposed to be a god Gene I think someone thought of and I don't understand it totally and some part of me does so you know I would say I agree with Frank it's fear and comfort W dely well let's not ignore it's a perfectly rational decision to make at that point AB you're on your deathbed there's absolutely no point not believing in God at that point CU you might be right you may as well jump on a team that if it's wrong he can I would I would say God knows I mean you unless you're from a team that you know dies repeatedly uh when voler was dying the priest came and said you should renounce the devil and he said this is no time to be making [Applause] enemies but it's a it's a it's a religious uh falsification that people like myself scream for a priest at the end David Hume very famously didn't didn't and was witnessed by by James Boswell not doing so uh most of us go to our ends with dignity if we don't if it is the wish for fear or comfort then both of these things are equally delusory as religion is itself and and uh I think what we've thank you we've uh We've proven I think tonight that this kind of discussion is worth having but that is all we have time for I'm sorry to those people who still got their hands up please thank our panelists Frank Brennan Christopher Hitchens Sally warart Wally D and an Henderson all right next week next week another iconic clastic panel including the feminist author with dangerous ideas Jermaine Greer gruin transfer adman Todd Samson the labor parties Belinda Neil and the Liberal Party backbench Rebel Cory Berard and that's all we have at the moment we'll have one more bye then uh so join us next Thursday for another great Q&A good night

Channel: James V

Views: 2,279,549

Keywords: Christopher Hitchens (Author)

Id: -j6rN33hqf4

Length: 56min 52sec (3412 seconds)

Published: Sun Sep 22 2013