About
Best Documentaries - TED - NextEinstein - Fora.tv - MyFora - SciTalks - Better World Links - Uncommon Knowledge - MIT World - CloserToTruth - KurzweilNet - Helium - OpenTheFuture - AcademicEarth - Noam Chomsky - NaomiKlein - TheVenusProject -
Friends
Click here to check if anything new just came in.
February 09 2010
“ Chair Zeinab Badawi introduces the motion 'The Catholic Church is a force for good in the world.— Intelligence Squared - The Catholic Church is a force for good in the world
Use the chapter bar on the right-hand side of this page to view each of the panelists' speeches.
Initial Vote: 678 For, 1102 Against, Undecided 346
Final Vote: 268 For, 1876 Against, Undecided 34
Arguing in favour of the motion are Archbishop John Onaiyekan and the Rt Hon. Ann Widdecombe MP.
Archbishop Onaiyekan begins by insisting that if the Catholic Church were not a force for good, he would not have devoted his entire life to serving it. He says that the hierarchy of the Catholic Church exists because of its 1.6 billion members worldwide, rather than in spite of them. He points not only to the spiritual assistance that his Church provides, but also to the tangible aid that is given internationally through Catholic projects. Finally, he admits that Catholics are not infallible, but are by necessity sinners trying to improve themselves through their faith.
Ann Widdecombe suggests that in trawling all the way back to the Crusades to find something to blame the Catholic Church for, Christopher Hitchens merely demonstrates how flimsy his argument really is. Why would the Pope have hidden 3,000 Jews in his summer palace during the Second World War if the Catholic Church was an antisemitic organisation? Admittedly, the New Testament does blame a Jew for the death of Christ; but it also blames a Roman, Pontius Pilate. Are we to infer then that Catholicism is anti-Italian as well as antisemitic? Widdecombe insists that the actions of the Catholic Church in the past should be judged with a degree of historical relativism; they were not the only people to murder and torture those deemed guilty of wrongdoing. She entreats us to imagine a world without the benefits of the Catholic Church, which provides hope, education and medical relief all over the globe.
Arguing against the motion are Christopher Hitchens and Stephen Fry.
Christopher Hitchens asserts that any argument trying to identify the merits of the Catholic Church must begin with a long list of sincere apologies for its past crimes, including but not limited to: the Crusades; the Spanish inquisition; the persecution of Jews and the forced conversion of peoples to Catholicism, especially in South America. He illustrates the vacuity of recent Catholic apologies by drawing on the case of Cardinal Bernard Law – shamed out of office in the US for his part in covering up the institutionalised sexual abuse of children – whose punishment from the Vatican was to be appointed a supreme vicar in Rome, and who was among those assembled in the 2005 Papal Conclave to choose the next Pope. Hitchens concludes by reminding the Archbishop that his own Church has been responsible for the death of millions of his African brothers and sisters, citing the Church’s disastrous stance on Aids prevention, as well as the ongoing trials in Rwanda in which Catholic priests stand accused of inciting massacre during the 1994 genocide.
Stephen Fry concedes that his opposition to the motion is a deeply personal and emotional one. He criticises the Catholic Church not only for the horrors it has perpetrated in the past, but also for its ideology, and for its sinister temerity to preach that there is no salvation outside of the Church. With two words he refutes Anne Widdecombe’s suggestion that the Catholic Church does not have the powers of a nation state: “The Vatican”. As a homosexual, Fry reflects how bizarre it is to be accused of being “immoral” and “a pervert” by an institution that has persistently hushed up the rape and abuse of children under its care, and whose leading members, abstentious nuns and priests, all share an attitude towards sex that is utterly unnatural and dysfunctional. He concludes by questioning whether Jesus, as a humble Jewish carpenter, would have approved of all the pomp and excess of the Catholic Church, and whether he would even have been accepted by such an arrogant organisation. ”
The sixties weren't the beginning of sex
The panel, under chair Joan Bakewell, debate the motion: The sixties weren’t the beginning of sex, but the end of civilisation.
Arguing in favour of the motion are Professor Laurie Taylor, Leonie Frieda, and Howard Jacobson.
Laurie Taylor begins by arguing that whilst people in the sixties thought that sex was a natural, original source of the ‘pure self’. However, it was the the realisation that ‘sex sells’ that really resulted in a liberation of sexual attitudes.
Leonie Frieda makes a ‘plea for sexual subtlety’. She acknowledges the social problems of the fifties, such as the treatment of homosexuals and backyard abortions, but points out that reform was coming, and that to call the changes of the sixties ‘civilised’ is nonsensical.
Howard Jacobson, in a humorous speech, details the structure of a pre-sixties relationship, declaring that, whilst couples weren’t happy, the rest of civilisation was nevertheless created whilst working under these sexual mores.
Arguing against the motion are Rosie Boycott, Christopher Booker and Claire Fox.
Rosie Boycott argues that the sixties took sex from a private act into one that can be publicly celebrated, whilst also bringing about the meritocracy, women’s rights, gay rights, civil rights and the belief that we are all equal.
Christopher Booker argues that changing sexual mores actually began in the 1950s with the beginning of rock ‘n’ roll, and that to say the breakdown of civilisation occurred in the ‘60s is ignoring history.
Claire Fox notes that if civilisation means an advanced state of social development, then the sixties were a huge step forward for mankind. She believes that the left’s mantra is ‘better safe than sorry’, while the motto of the sixties was ‘nothing ventured, nothing gained’.
First Vote: 186 For, 293 Against, 229 Don’t Know
Final vote: 319 For, 333 Against, 86 Don’t Know
The motion is defeated by 14 votes.
BUY THE DVD
Filmed: 21 Jun 2005
Length: 1 hr 39 min
February 08 2010
The West must stay friends with the House of Saud
The panel debate the motion: The West must stay friends with the House of Saud. Chaired by James Naughtie.
Arguing in favour of the motion are Sir Andrew Green, Robert Lacey and Senator Wyche Fowler.
Andrew Green explains that you don’t have to be a regional expert to understand the strategic, economic, and cultural importance of Saudi Arabia. He explains how Saudi Arabia is a society totally different to our own, under immense stress, and any likely alternative to House of Saud could potentially be far worse.
Robert Lacey begins with the idea that royal families are very good at surviving. He also says that the House of Saud is almost a tribe in its own right, and emphasises the fact that the House of Saud is developing the nature of that society.
Wyche Fowler maintains that reformers in Saudi Arabia are slowly making progress to overcome extremism. He particularly makes the case for the House of Saud's foreign policy in the wider region, which is essential to maintaining the West's goal of ensuring the balance of power in the Middle East, and notes their supportive role in the war on terror.
Arguing against the motion are John R Bradley, Jason Burke and Dr Mark Heller.
John R Bradley states that he does not agree with the premise of the debate: in his view there has not been a friendship between the West and the House of Saud. To support this he puts forward an alternative historical narrative in order to rebut the charge that there is no alternative to the House of Saud.
Jason Burke examines the broader situation in this age of terrorist threat based on Islamic fundamentalism. Burke believes that the House of Saud has used its prodigious profits from oil to support rigorous and conservative strands of Islam. On top of this, he emphasises that that country is horrifically mismanaged and, as an overall consequence, we need to distance ourselves from the regime.
Dr Mark Heller says there is nothing quite as scandalous as the cosy relationship between the West and Saudi Arabia. He suggests that Saudi Arabia is the richest font of anti-western terrorism in the world, pointing to evidence of Wahhabi literature in the US and Germany that spreads hate-rhetoric.
First Vote: 294 For, 189 Against, 223 Don't Know
Final Vote: 328 For, 269 Against, 70 Don't Know
The motion is passed by 59 votes.
Filmed: 23 Mar 2005
Length: 1 hr 51 min
Subjects: Politics International
Zionism today is the real enemy of the Jews
The panel debate the motion: Zionism today is the real enemy of the Jews. Chaired by Richard Lindley.
Arguing for the motion are Professor Avi Shlaim, Professor Jacqueline Rose, and Amira Hass.
Avi Shlaim rejects the Zionist colonial project beyond the 1967 border, and states that Israel's occupation of Palestine has transformed Zionism from a legitimate national liberation movement to an ideology of ultra-nationalist settlers. He warns that a lot of people are upset and angry with Israel for its treatment towards Palestinians.
Jacqueline Rose points out that Zionism is a movement that has always been reinterpreted from within. On the subject of displacement of Palestinians, Rose asks how the creation of a nation on the back of another society cannot be dangerous for Jews themselves.
Amira Hass says she does not believe in such generalising statements as the motion in hand. However, she discusses the reality of life in Israel and uses her own experiences to paint a picture of the practical, if not legal, separation of Palestinians and Israelis.
Arguing against the motion are Melanie Phillips, Shlomo Ben-Ami and Professor Raphael Israeli.
Melanie Phillips says the motion wrongly suggests that Jews have no enemy but themselves. She questions whether the behaviour of Israel or the ideology of Zionism are malign. She refutes the charges made against the actions of Israel – expansion in 1967 was, in her view, not an act of aggression.
Shlomo Ben-Ami states that Israel is in a circumstantial conflict, and that the historical realities it faces were predicaments that most European nations have faced. He points out that Britain, France and Belgium set precedents for any repression that has since been used by Israel, and notes that it took Europe endless wars to end its nationalist disputes.
Raphael Israeli says there has so far been little mention of Zionism, with the previous speakers concentrating on Israel. He points out that Zionism is an ideology and Israel is a state. In his view, Zionism has enjoyed spectacular success, but all we hear of are various demonisations.
First Vote: 228 For, 227 Against, 291 Don't Know
Final Vote: 355 For, 320 Against, 40 Don't Know
The motion is passed by 35 votes.
BUY THE DVD
Filmed: 25 Jan 2005
Length: 1 hr 47 min
Subjects: Politics International
Britain needs school vouchers
Despite generous investment, and despite children starting school young and spending long days learning. Britain, as studies keep on showing, lags behind when it comes to education. That’s why the idea of creating a voucher system, in which schools compete for pupils and the funds that come with them, has proved attractive to people from both sides of the political spectrum.
Supporters of vouchers say that they are a radical measure which will raise academic standards, provide parents with a better choice of where to send their kids, and, crucially, empower the poor. However, the idea has plenty of detractors, who question what would happen to failing schools, and where the government would find the funds.
This Controversy is part of our membership service. Existing members, please sign in. If you would like access to our regularly updated, expanding catalogue of controversies become a member now.
Subjects: Politics UK
Alexander Solzhenitsyn: A World Split Apart
Russian writer and Nobel Laureate Alexandr Solzhenitsyn (1918-2008) delivers his commencement speech entitled 'A World Split Apart' at Harvard University, June 8, 1978. In the context of the Cold War, Solzhenitsyn identifies a world split between the two world powers (the US and Russia), both capable of destroying the other. He highlights the dangers of an autonomous world, especially one dominated by western thought, incapable of understanding Russia and blinded by superiority.
Filmed: 08 Jun 1978
Length:
Subjects: Literature
Nuclear energy must power our future
The panel debate the motion: Nuclear energy must power our future. Chaired by Martyn Lewis.
Arguing for the motion are Bruno Comby, Bishop Hugh Montefiore and Lord Parkinson.
Bruno Comby states his belief that there are very good environmental reasons to be in favour of nuclear energy, and argues that Comby says that, while wind energy and solar energy can help, and should be developed, neither come close to the potential of nuclear energy.
Hugh Montefiore says that those who are against nuclear energy are living in a time warp. He addresses the key concerns about nuclear, such as safety and disposal of waste – but he doesn't think we can point to Chernobyl, which was an experiment gone wrong.
Lord Parkinson begins with a critique of the oppositions arguments, particularly the facts that they deployed. He declares that we are light years away from viable forms of renewable energy, with an example being the conventional power stations that have to back-up wind power.
Arguing against the motion are Mycle Schneider, Zac Goldsmith, and Tony Juniper.
Mycle Schneider, having emphasised the importance of factual accuracy in this debate, begins by illustrating some of the key statistics about nuclear energy and its potential development. He mentions the long time-frames that are involved – it takes an extremely long time to build the nuclear reactors as different parts are sourced from around the world.
Zac Goldsmith begins by pointing out the dangers of aeroplane crashes: nuclear plants were not built with terrorism in mind. Given the horrors and risks involved he says you could be forgiven for thinking there must be benefits, and yet in his view there are none.
Tony Juniper claims that 75% of our emissions are not even coming from the electricity sector, so we need to distinguish between energy and climate change. He points to the fact that wind power is already beginning to meet more and more of our energy needs.
First Vote: 258 For, 155 Against, 186 Don't Know
Final Vote: 289 For, 224 Against, 63 Don't Know
The motion is passed by 64 votes.
BUY THE DVD
Filmed: 19 Apr 2005
Length: 1 hr 58 min
Subjects: Environment
February 06 2010
After the Financial Crisis: Consequences & Lessons
The financial crisis has caused an economic crisis around the world.
Drastic state measures have prevented the collapse of the economic system: governments have established rescue funds for failing banks or nationalized banks for relaunching economic growth. At the same time, central banks have intervened with important injections of liquidity and have lowered interest rates.
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2010 00:00:00 -0800
Location: Davos, 2010 World Economic Forum, World Economic Forum
Program and discussion: http://fora.tv/2010/01/28/After_the_Financial_Crisis_Consequences__Lessons
The US Economic Outlook with Lawrence Summers
The economic outlook for the world's largest economy remains uncertain with unemployment levels reaching 10 percent and budget deficits increasing at the national and state levels. How will the Obama Administration address these and other economic challenges in 2010?
Lawrence H. Summers, Director of the National Economic Council talks with journalist Charlie Rose about these and other pressing economic questions.
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2010 00:00:00 -0800
Location: Davos, 2010 World Economic Forum, World Economic Forum
Program and discussion: http://fora.tv/2010/01/29/The_US_Economic_Outlook_with_Lawrence_Summers
February 05 2010
Down Cemetery Road with Philip Larkin and John Betjeman
Philip Larkin talks to John Betjeman in 1964 about his life, his poetry and the city of Hull, where he lived and worked as university librarian. With readings from his work, the poet explores the life of a rapidly modernising Hull.
Filmed: 1964
Length: 29 min 54 sec
Subjects: Literature
TEDTalks : Tom Shannon: The painter and the pendulum - Tom Shannon (2009)
Primo Levi revisits Auschwitz (excerpt)
Primo Levi (1919-1987), Jewish-Italian chemist and writer, returns to Aushwitz, where he was interned for nearly a year in 1944-45, and discusses the effect the visit has on him. Here, Levi talks about the time he spent in Poland, and how he was misplaced and maltreated. His time in Auschwitz is described in the autobiographical work If This Is A Man (1958, originally published in Italian as Se questo è un uomo in 1947).
Filmed: 1983
Length: 7 min 7 sec
Subjects: Literature
Virginia Woolf on words
In this 1937 BBC broadcast Virginia Woolf (1882-1941) looks at memories and their associations with words. She examines how they are not single or separate entities, and explains how they can be beautiful, how they can teach, write, read, criticise, and progress. For Woolf, these free and wild entities do not live in dictionaries, but in the mind.
Filmed: 29 Apr 1937
Length: 7 min 38 sec
Subjects: Literature
TS Eliot reads selected works
Nobel Prize winning American poet TS Eliot (1888-1965) wrote The Love Song Of J Alfred Prufrock between 1910 and 1911, although it was not published until 1915. The poem is Eliot's first major work, and takes the form of an internal monologue as a stream of consciousness. Strongly influenced by French Symbolists, such as Mallarmé, Rimbaud, and Baudelaire at the time of writing the poem, Eliot's speaker is an urban, isolated and sensuous man, Prufrock. As Prufrock comes to terms with his own inadequacies, the reader sees his neuroticism and his emotional isolation.
Filmed:
Length: 11 min
Subjects: Literature
A telescope that sets its sights on cyber-crime
First germanium laser brings us closer to 'optical computers'
U.S. Scientists Given Access to Cloud Computing
NASA, GM team up to build robotic astronauts
'Nanobubbles' kill cancer cells
Maybe Soup is currently being updated? I'll try again automatically in a few seconds...
