The Rosenkranz Foundation, in partnership with The Times Online (UK), has sponsored a new debate series on serious and contentious public policy issues. Usually, three experts or representatives (in case you don’t think they are experts) from each side are present. ABC News did a piece on tonight’s debate, "Global Warming is not a Crisis."
Note that you can listen to the IQ2US debate series archived on NPR, including:
- Is America Too Damn Religious?
- Hollywood and the Spread of Anti-Americanism
- Hamas: Government or Terrorist Organization?
- Weighing the Limits of Freedom of Expression (Freedom of expression must include the right to offend)
- Debating a Nuclear Iran
Upcoming debates in this "IQ2US" program include the following topics:
- Spreading democracy in the Middle East is a bad idea
- Let’s stop welcoming illegal immigrants
- Russia is becoming our enemy again
- It’s time to end affirmative action
- Aid to Africa has done more harm than good
- Racial profiling keeps criminals off our streets
- Excellence in sports requires performance enhancing drugs
- Darfur is not our problem
- America’s newspapers are dead
- Civil unions, "yes": gay marriage, "no"
- CEOs get paid way too much
I'd like to add this debate to your series…
1986 Oxford Union Debate
The 1986 Oxford Union Debate between evolutionists Richard Dawkins and John Maynard Smith (Professor of Biology, University of Sussex) and creationists A. E. Wilder-Smith (Professor of Pharmacology and consultant) and Edgar Andrews (Materials Scientist & President of the Biblical Creation Society).
And this one too…
<a href="http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7385355182363346492&q=theism+naturalism&hl=en" rel="nofollow">Video: Naturalism vs. Theism Debate (Fernandes vs. Lowder)
America is to damn religious
I downloaded this 90 minute debate, and found the conservatives to be rather poor, and the liberals annoyingly patronizing (though Barry Lynn was funny), and often, utilizing standard arguments, canards, and in some cases, misinformation.
That is, until about 41 minutes, when William A. Galston, a Brookings Institute Sr. Fellow took the mike. He is an “old school liberal” (a Kennedy liberal, not one of the secularist anti-religionist extremists we call liberals today), and he was clear, concise, and excellent. Here’s my transcript, which is partial.
As you see, he is not a conservative. And I disagree with his underestimate and marginalizing of evangelicals – nominal and liberal Christians may be plentiful, but conservative evangelicals are not fringe or an insignificant minority.
In addition, his allusion to “tolerance” brings up the issue of opposing moral ills, and whether or not that is “intolerant.” Many many conservatives have discussed how the current morality free tolerance, devoid of truth, especially in the areas of sex, is extreme and unbalanced.
Again, the first two points are strong, the last, not so strong.
Again, the first two points are strong, the last, not so strong.
Well of course, Seeker. Galston's first two points are in line with conservative evangelical thought because they put religion in a positive light. Therefore, it's only natural you agree. Though, it must be said that he made religion sound almost like socialism in it's progressiveness. As you point out, Galston's last point is highly critical of Christian fundamentalists (who take their holy books as literal truth). Therefore in your estimation, his last point is correspondingly, "Not so strong." The reason you give for the weakness of Galston's last point is "conservative evangelicals are not fringe or an insignificant minority" and "many conservatives have discussed how the current morality free tolerance, devoid of truth, especially in the areas of sex, is extreme and unbalanced."
My dear Seeker, you completely undermine Galston's argument that "America is better off with the religion it has, with all of it's flaws, than without it." You accomplish this by blatantly, if unwittingly, underlining what is so wrong about the right wing evangelical mindset. To right wing Christian Evangelical fundamentalists (who take the Bible as literal truth), those who do not agree with you are described, in your own words as "morality free," "devoid of truth," "extreme" and "unbalanced." This is intolerance defined. Your intolerance to secular morality screams to secularists that we (secular human beings) are better off without your intolerant brand of fundamentalist religion. This is exactly why Galston was trying to disassociate moderate Christianity from right wing fundamentalist evangelical Christianity. You contradict yourself and your claim conservative evangelicals are not "fringe" by your poor choice of adjectives. Like a bull in a china shop, you blunder about in your arguments and effectively trash Galston's "third point." "Morality Free" indeed! Shame on you!
Here is another series that is a takeoff of the movie "Office Space."
God, Inc – Episode 1
God, Inc – Episode 2
God, Inc – Episode 3
God, Inc – Episode 4
God, Inc – Episode 5
God, Inc – Episode 6