Although I greatly admire Hitchen's writings on atheism, let's not forget what a horrendous ass-hat he really was when it came to the Iraq war, neoconism, and the deaths of civilians. Hitchens would never let anyone else slide (see Mother Theresa, Princess Diana) on their moral misgivings and hypocrisies just because they're dead. How do you reconcile celebrating him with these unforgivable lapses in moral judgement?

http://www.salon.com/2011/12/17/christohper_hitchens_and_the_protoc...

http://gawker.com/5868761/christopher-hitchens-unforgivable-mistake 

Views: 1368

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Umm... card carrying member of the party? I doubt it. I think he was in the Hitler youth as a kid. I WAS a Christian in my youth. Do I have to carry that on my back the rest of my life?

Oh this pope, I thought Eugenio Pacelli.

Come to think of it, there is apparently in a real sense stability in the church. It remains over centuries at least with remarkable consistency an international organization of pedophiles with their own orphanages led by a mentally deteriorating geezer with fascist sympathies.

If this seems like a cheap shot, it is because I cannot make it look any more respectable than it is.

I WAS a Christian in my youth


Oh, you weren't a REAL Christian.


;)

Condemning Hitchens' stance on the Iraq war from the comfort of one's home is easy. But Hitch himself travelled extensively in Iraq and saw Hussein's atrocities first hand. He had many Iraqi friends and heard their tales. You may choose to disagree with his conclusion, but his decision to support the war was not made in a vacuum. He had more direct personal information about the country than most of the US administration.

Like myself, I'm sure Hitch lamented how incompetently Bush and his team executed the occupation. But that doesn't negate the entirely reasonable conclusion that Saddam had to go.

Also, he stated he didn't think waterboarding was really torture and volunteered to be waterboarded, then after experiencing it he changed his mind, so he could be intellectually dishonest. We need to stop condemning people merely because they disagree with our views. They may have their reasons for believing what they believe.

@ Dallas - That was a a fascinating and disturbing article (your Hitchens link). Thank you.

How on earth do Christians seem to accept that their supposedly existing, loving, just, all-powerful, all-knowing God, created/allowed (whatever term they like to use) this terrible world?

I know they say it is because of free will, but if that is the case, I wonder why it is, I do not recall this God of theirs ever asking me what my choice was about anything?

I don't know a whole lot about Hitchens' support for the war but I am going to read up on it. This thread has piqued my interest in the matter.

The Difference being Mr Hitchens would be fine with that criticism and would likely be open to listening to your position while defending his own position with an intellectually honest report.

u should know that he was a free-thinker not an ass-hat, and did not give crap what liberals or conservatives thought, ass-hat  might describe u better as u mostly ascribe to liberal side from what i read in ur post and don't want to take on the establishment. living in iraq or having ur relatives killed with chemical weapons, u would have had other idea about the war. exposing mother teresa was an eye-opener for a lot of people in the world, who would only keep her in the highest esteem. he had his flaws and accepted them but if u didn't like what he thought or said or could not understand where he was coming from on a particular issue than that is a flaw in ur part not his. 

I suppose under that line of thinking the same thing could be said of Hitler and Mein Kampf. He had his reasons.

Indeed, Hitler had many reasons for what he did, Mike.  None of those, however, involved something like taking action to save the lives of innocent Germans, about to be imprisoned or slaughtered by rampaging Jews.

Hitchens, on the other hand, by supporting the war did indirectly condone killing, but to be sure, it was the killing of a despot and his minions, who already had demonstrated their willingness to imprison, torture, gas and murder the innocents of their own nation over a period of decades that he had personally witnessed.

I would like to think you could find the ability to make a moral distinction between that, and the atrocities of the Third Reich.

Hitchins: "If you're actually certain that you're hitting only a concentration of enemy troops . . . then it's pretty good because those steel pellets will go straight through somebody and out the other side and through somebody else. And if they're bearing a Koran over their heart, it'll go straight through that, too. So they won't be able to say, "Ah, I was bearing a Koran over my heart and guess what, the missile stopped halfway through." No way, 'cause it'll go straight through that as well. They'll be dead, in other words."

"Cluster bombs are perhaps not good in themselves, but when they are dropped on identifiable concentrations of Taliban troops, they do have a heartening effect."

Juxtapose that with the reality which Hitchens undoubtedly knew that cluster bombs statistically were killing many more civilians that combatants and tell me about moral distinctions. Saddam was bad but read about what the Americans did in Fallujah. Hitchens was an unapologetic cheerleader far after everyone knew how corrupt and criminal the invasion was. Yes, I find these views of his morally repugnant. That said, his atheist stuff is really good.

RSS

© 2017   Created by Rebel.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service