In order to download Charlie Rose podcasts to iTunes for transfer to an iPod, you must have iTunes installed. If you do, please click the following link to download the podcast for this interview:
itpc://www.charlierose.com/view/itunes/9098
Otherwise, close this window to continue viewing.
Close
Page 1 of 1
Page 1 of 1
Wiley Newton 08/07/2008 07:29 PM Report
Wills is informative on religion. Great stuff. Interesting controversies. But I want to see a conversation about Wills book: The Negro President. In a nutshell: Jefferson is to slavery as Bush is to big oil. Now that would be an interesting conversation. C'mon Charlie, get with it.
compassionate conservative 05/25/2008 10:35 PM Report
Way to go Rose, that's the way to sock it to em. Those liberal Koran hugging atheists should stop talking about peace and start reading the Talmud. the Mossad published a "help wanted" ad a while ago. ק×?×?×?ת ×?×?×?×?×?×¢×?×? ×?×?שר×?×?×?ת would love to hire you Rosey baby. Go Israel! Go Kibbutz!
Sue Rawley 05/24/2008 11:28 PM Report
After reading the comments in response to the Wills interview I'm once again blessed to know that none of us no anything at all. May the mystery prevail. Thank you again, Mr. Rose.
shakazulu 05/24/2008 03:21 PM Report
Listening to this guy was like listening to a radio call in show where a caller is speaking in an intelligent and apparently learned manner and suddenly begins talking about their alien abduction. What a whack-job.
Ted Michael Morgan 05/24/2008 08:52 AM Report
Thank you for another conversation with Dr. Wills. He is a wonderful writer, popular in a fine sense of that term and learned in a classic sense of that term. And you avoided constantly interrupting him!
Cass of Shadows 05/24/2008 07:34 AM Report
For those who have questioned Mr. Wills' credentials I can find no excuse since obviously they have access to computers. HOWEVER: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garry_Wills should fill you all in. And for those who think there was anything new in Paul or the Gospels their reading seems to have been very limited. A familiarity with the so-called "Old" Testament (along with its apocrypha and pseudepigraphia) will tell you there isn't.
Frank&Basil 05/24/2008 12:29 AM Report
I think Mr. Rose's reaction to Mr. Wills comments on the war against Islam was unprofessional at best. Ultimately, it's not Mr. Rose's opinion about the reasons for the war that count. Mr. Wills had a reasoned message to deliver which was historically accurate and Mr. Rose obviously was trying to drown out Mr. Wills by raising his voice and repeatedly interjecting and negating statements Wills made. Mr. Rose was clearly promoting his own biased opinion & agenda.
RE Mant 05/24/2008 12:19 AM Report
It might be better to characterize Wills as a controversialist, and perhaps one with a particular bias against rationalism, though I confess I haven't fully read any of his books since Inventing America in which he tried to diminish the influence of Locke in the Founding and raise that of the Scottish sentimentalists; a claim that was preposterous. (And I stopped reading The NY Review of Books around '74-'75; I haven't missed it.) Wills reminds me of Isaiah Berlin who confessed to his biographer late in life that he was no scholar, or of an Hayek-Popper-anti-rationalist of the type bred in Chicago. Popper, btw, said late in his life that he had never meant to deny the existence of truth. I did not want to go back and listen to Wills' comments on Madison, Locke and toleration again, but if he means to again separate Locke from the Founders, he is again mistaken. Locke argues that because we are all the same, and truth is truth, ppl should not be condemned for falling short, since we all sin, but he did not hold that there was no truth, and the failing was intellectual not willful. This is a philosophical, not a religious, argument and Locke was a Platonic/Stoic like Jonathan Edwards and nearly all of the Founders. To understand it, you have to understand the way Stoicism resolves the division between absolutism and skepticism. Locke certainly did not argue "from the top down" since he was vehemently against divine right of kings. There is a discussion of Locke here: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/locke/#LocRelTol and here: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/locke-political/#Tol Madison's Memorial and Remonstrance is here: http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/cs/blcs_txt_MadisonMR.htm I do not think you will find substantive difference. Too, 19th c disestablishment was not entirely antinomian, and was embraced by Edwards' equally conservative successors as well as by the Unitarians.
Uncle Ron 05/24/2008 12:11 AM Report
Mr. Wills seems to have forgotten that Saddam signed a "surrender" agreement after the first Iraq war. This agreement led to the American
"fly over" zones which Saddam repeatedly violated by shooting missles at U.S./Coalition aircraft. He also murdered perhaps a million of his own subjects. Read the book "Saddam's Bombmaker" if you want insight into what Iraq was really like. The author of that book was in charge of Saddam's nuclear program and points out that Saddam wanted to acquire the "Arab Bomb" to wipe out Israel. This Saddam admitted in his final interview (shown on TV a few months after his death) would still have been his goal. To see how Saddam treated military and civilian prisoners, read "Tornado Down" by two British pilots. Mr. Wills says terrorism is just "criminal activity" - yet, the definition of terrorism is: "the use of violence and intimidation, especially for political purposes, and to maintain or achieve supremacy."
Robert Philbiln 05/23/2008 09:50 PM Report
Interesting discussion. The first part made no sense at all. The comparison between the gospels and Homer -- works of antiquity -- was simply boring and incorrect. There is no comparison. Homer is rich and wonderful literature. The gospels, however, are childish narratives by comparison. All the talk of "sacred" texts simply means nothing. Any text can be called "sacred" since no evidence beyond "belief" is required.
The second part of the conversation however was insightful. Mr. Willis clearly separates the "gibberish" of faith from the cold logic of the U.S. Constitution and demonstrates what happens -- the invasion of Iraq for example -- when the "sacred" is taken so seriously it infringes on the constitutional. The neocon movement he mentions, which has led this nation into historic failure has nothing to do with the gospels. Neocons use the "sacred" to justify their arrogance, racism and greed.
Interesting program. Thank you.
Robert Philbin
MotherLodeBeth 05/23/2008 06:46 PM Report
I was so tired but stayed up until the second half of the show just so I could watch and hear Garry Wills who is the type of writer that holds my attention. And I appreciate any religious scholar who can separate fantasy and fiction from historical fact.
Grizbayer 05/23/2008 06:10 PM Report
Any injection of reality and scholarship into matters of faith is bound to bring out the "fear-biters." I came to the site to get the title of the book because I want it. One factor: my reading of the gospels long ago led me to an affinity for "Honest John."
The imaginary interview I would love to see: Charlie and H.L. Mencken (on religion).
Dave Levy 05/23/2008 06:06 PM Report
I don't know anything about Mark, Luke, Paul and John, but I do know that we DID NOT invade Iraq because of their religion, but in spite of it. On this one, Mr. Rose used good judgement in his responses to the interviewee's blatantly absurd statments. Iraq's Saddam Hussein may have been somewhat secular, but his supporter's and advisers weren't. They were Muslims., who didn't care about killing other Muslims (Iran, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia AND "Infidels" (Christians and most especially Jews). Call them secular or religious whatever, those Scuds didn't discriminate and neither would have their WMD, had they not been destroyed during the 1 year lull before we invaded, freeing 25m Iraqi Muslims, for better or worse. Saddam had links with Al Qaeda, and had an agenda, had he had his druthers. Why Mr. Rose didn't chop off that portion of the interview, allowing this leftist a forum for his personal, biased views, is beyond me? This was to be about his perspective on Christianity, NOT Islamo-fascism, which he thinks nonsensical, referring to the criminal aspects, and denying the obvious link to Islam's Koran, which, they, the terrorists quote constantly. This aspect of the hour did a dis-service to all of we who want the fight there, and not here. What James Madison has to do with our struggle against this latest form of fascism is beyond me? I think R. Giuliani knows about what he speaks..as a former law enforcer, mayor of such a large and diverse city as New York, and prosecutor. I ask, what have you done lately Mr. Wills to protect US, you are no Giuliani.
There are no words for this guy.
Robert Thompson 05/23/2008 05:27 PM Report
Mr. Willis is an overeducated religous soul,
who typifies the unbelieving liberal. In other
words, he is over the edge.
Charlie - You are to be commended for your
handling of Mr. Willis' confused monologue.
cindy 05/23/2008 02:02 AM Report
Garry Wills is neither dumb, nor struck........
He seems to have a formidable grasp of history, both biblical and secular, as well as the BIG IDEA behind separation of church and state.
Perhaps an atheistic point of view underscores the limited value of moral relativism.
Once again, thank you for your interviews.
CAM
cindy 05/23/2008 02:02 AM Report
Garry Wills is neither dumb, nor struck........
He seems to have a formidable grasp of history, both biblical and secular, as well as the BIG IDEA behind separation of church and state.
Perhaps an atheistic point of view underscores the limited value of moral relativism.
Once again, thank you for your interviews.
CAM
dumbstruck 05/23/2008 01:26 AM Report
As an atheist and a carrier of multiple cancers, Wills and Jordan are hard to conflate, assimilate or reconcile. Wills is a kind of a wasteland of erudition, of applied and knowledgeable ignorance, aka, faith. I can't handle that. Irreconcilable waste! Jordan on the other hand is uplifting and enviable without a mention of religion. A profound endorsement for a dead man. Nevertheless enviable is the word. He captured life (perhaps) through death. Indeed (perhaps again) he was lucky.
RE Mant 05/22/2008 11:50 PM Report
I have trouble thinking of Wills as anything more than a popularizer. In any case I would add that both Paul and the Gospels include a heavy dose of philosophy not present in the Old Testament and they cannot be seen simply as an exercise in typology. I also think he is making a distinction regarding the meaning of tolerance that is without a difference historically at least up to the adoption of the Bill of Rights.