• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Unrepentant until the very end, Christopher Hitchens dead at 62

Faxecura

Member
Christopher Hitchens Dead at 62 | Riding the Tiger

A review of the life of one of the most prominent atheists of the 21st century.

The life-long, unrepentant Trotskyist polemicist and warmongering atheist known as Christopher Hitchens has died of esophageal cancer.

Hitchens was a man of his time, an insignificant son of a World War Two British war criminal, who was catapulted to fame through his absolute hatred and intolerance of all things religious, while his younger and more conservative brother faded into obscurity. He blasphemed against God, castigated the Pope, and openly brandished hate against the Catholic Faith (and to a lesser degree Islam), but was a fanatical and follower of modernism down to its last detail, and tolerated no dissent from its orthodoxies and doctrines.

Despite his associations with the New Left, his bile-filled invective against everything traditional, against culture, religion and identity, Hitchens found a home among the neoconservative clique of American politics. FrontPageMag, the online magazine run by his fellow ex-communist, David Horowitz, has praised Hitchens as a defender of Western civilization. In turn, Hitchens had reciprocated his admiration of neoconservatives. He admired Paul Wolfowitz, and minced no words about his glowing veneration of the neoconservative movement, saying that "it [could] turn US power into a revolutionary force". Like many neoconservatives (although he himself never used the label), would continue to promote wasteful, internationalist, and globalist wars in the name of "democracy," but not necessarily because he actually supported the United States, but because as Piatak says, "his entire politics is motivated by his hatred of religion and tradition; he’d be just as happy bombing St. Peter’s as the Taliban".

Additional/supplementary links:

www.alternativeright.com/main/blogs/zeitgeist/the-conventional-contrarian/
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/article/2005/oct/10/00022/
http://bonald.wordpress.com/2011/12/16/the-dispicable-christopher-hitchens/
 

gnomon

Well-Known Member

Storm

ThrUU the Looking Glass
Jeez... I generally make exceptions to the "don't speak ill of the dead" rule for controversial public figures, but don't you think this is rather tasteless? His body's not even cold.
 
Alternative right?
American convervative?
Two random blogs of a catholic fundamentalist?
You cannot even let a man rest in peace and go out of your way to drag his name through the mud because he "hurt your feelings". Grow the heck up.

Hitchens devoted his life to doing what he thought was right. He was ultimately a force for good in the world even if it was just for that. Even if you don't agree with him, you should still show some respect.

As a Christian, I am taught to love my enemies. To turn the other cheek. We lost a great man and intellect in the passing of Hitchens.

Those who criticize Mr. Hitchens are only proving everything that he says to be true.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Storm

ThrUU the Looking Glass
Whoa, whoa hold up! Hitchens can't be criticized in turn? I'm hardly a fan, but I don't think he'd approve of such a pedestal, much less the fallacy of delivery.
 

not nom

Well-Known Member
Whoa, whoa hold up! Hitchens can't be criticized in turn? I'm hardly a fan, but I don't think he'd approve of such a pedestal, much less the fallacy of delivery.

he's not being criticized, rather a strawman is. it's the best some peeps can do I guess (otherwise they'd get hitchslapped, again, this time by a corpse). I have plenty of criticism for hitchens myself, but I'm not gonna be a petty, cowardly, lying little ***** about it... that's "the problem" IMHO, not criticizing hitchens per se.

but it's also predictable. what I really dread is the death of chomsky, and all the twits that will come out of the woodworks then to do their victory dances. I'm angry about that in advance heh :p
 
Last edited:
but it's also predictable. what I really dread is the death of chomsky, and all the twits that will come out of the woodworks then to do their victory dances. I'm angry about that in advance heh

You know this Van Nostrand character reminds me of a guy I read about back in 2006 in the British magazine "Searchlight".

The fellow in that article was some sort of a very right-wing radical Christian fundamentalist who openly stated he was sorry there wasn't a "Christian Osama bin Laden" and who also admitted that he admired the Islamic Revolution of Iran as a model for building making England/the UK Christian again, and in fact ran off to Iran to study their political ideologies and was even present at the Holocaust denial conference. Now I'm not saying that they're the same person, but it's interesting to note that they are apparently very pro-Iranian. I suppose the fact that one is an extremist naturally brings you together with other extremists regardless of other factors.

But you're right. A tragedy of this extraordinary proportion brings all the weirdos out of the woodwork. The funny thing is that by criticizing Hitch, they only prove everything he is saying.
 
Last edited:

K.Venugopal

Immobile Wanderer
Whoa, whoa hold up! Hitchens can't be criticized in turn? I'm hardly a fan, but I don't think he'd approve of such a pedestal, much less the fallacy of delivery.
Columnist Glenn Greenwald wrote: The day after Jerry Falwell died, Hitchens went on CNN and scorned what he called “the empty life of this ugly little charlatan,” saying: ”I think it’s a pity there isn’t a hell for him to go to.” As I said, those demanding that Hitchens not be criticized in death are invoking a warped etiquette standard on his behalf that is not only irrational, but is one he himself vigorously rejected.

Christopher Hitchens and the protocol for public figure deaths - Salon.com
 
Columnist Glenn Greenwald wrote: The day after Jerry Falwell died, Hitchens went on CNN and scorned what he called “the empty life of this ugly little charlatan,” saying: ”I think it’s a pity there isn’t a hell for him to go to.” As I said, those demanding that Hitchens not be criticized in death are invoking a warped etiquette standard on his behalf that is not only irrational, but is one he himself vigorously rejected.

Christopher Hitchens and the protocol for public figure deaths - Salon.com

The difference is that Hitchens was merely stating what many people thought, and truthfully I might ad. It is no different than mocking any other awful person like Saddam Hussein or Osama bin Laden

What did Jerry Falwell do in his life that was so great?

People that criticize Hitchens are just bitter. There is no question about it.
 

Poisonshady313

Well-Known Member
Columnist Glenn Greenwald wrote: The day after Jerry Falwell died, Hitchens went on CNN and scorned what he called “the empty life of this ugly little charlatan,” saying: ”I think it’s a pity there isn’t a hell for him to go to.” As I said, those demanding that Hitchens not be criticized in death are invoking a warped etiquette standard on his behalf that is not only irrational, but is one he himself vigorously rejected.

Christopher Hitchens and the protocol for public figure deaths - Salon.com

First of all, Glenn Greenwald is a shmuck.

Next, Hitchens was invited onto CNN to give his opinion.

Nobody is on this forum asking those who didn't like Hitchens for their opinion. Those opinions are being given unsolicited.
 

Drolefille

PolyPanGeekGirl
First of all, Glenn Greenwald is a shmuck.

Next, Hitchens was invited onto CNN to give his opinion.

Nobody is on this forum asking those who didn't like Hitchens for their opinion. Those opinions are being given unsolicited.

Since its a forum and not CNN I'm not sure that matters.

But that said, if it's ripping on a straw man - and I can't speak to the accuracy of the quoted text but it reads quite biased to me - then it's pointless and should be called out as inaccurate.

He's not immune to criticism because he's dead or because this isn't CNN though.

I never really followed him so I can't speak to the details.
 

Poisonshady313

Well-Known Member
yeah, why not lie about a dead man, right? STRUT those christian values, baby! make 'em jiggle.

[youtube]-Z5Yk8uMdJ8[/youtube]
Intelligence Squared Debate - The Catholic church is a force for good in the world - YouTube

Those numbers at the end are interesting. Not surprising, but interesting.


For those who can't/haven't watch(ed) the video, here are the numbers:

Motion: The Catholic Church is a force for good in the world

Before the debate:
For 678
Against 1102
Undecided 346

After the debate:
For 268
Against 1876
Undecided 34

52 more people voted the second time around. They all voted against the proposition that the Catholic Church is a force for good.
312 of the undecideds decided against the proposition that the Catholic Church is a force for good.
410 of those who initially voted for the proposition that the Catholic Church is a force for good changed their mind.

Numbers aside, this is certainly one of Hitchens' most excellent moments.
 

Poisonshady313

Well-Known Member
Since its a forum and not CNN I'm not sure that matters.

But that said, if it's ripping on a straw man - and I can't speak to the accuracy of the quoted text but it reads quite biased to me - then it's pointless and should be called out as inaccurate.

He's not immune to criticism because he's dead or because this isn't CNN though.

I never really followed him so I can't speak to the details.

The point I'm making is, nobody asked you. So you would be actively making the decision to come forward and speak disrespectfully of someone who recently died. You could have chosen to say nothing at all.

Hitchens only gave his disrespectful opinion because it was asked of him.
 

The Sum of Awe

Brought to you by the moment that spacetime began.
Staff member
Premium Member
Hitchens is probably up in the pearly gates talking God out of belief in himself :D
 

Drolefille

PolyPanGeekGirl
The point I'm making is, nobody asked you. So you would be actively making the decision to come forward and speak disrespectfully of someone who recently died. You could have chosen to say nothing at all.

Hitchens only gave his disrespectful opinion because it was asked of him.
It's a forum, no one asked any of us to say anything. If no one asked him and he decided to strike up the conversation at home or ... gasp... online... I somehow doubt he'd be "no no, no one asked me, I will not speak of him."

I could be wrong, mind you, but here's my question:
Why does someone who has died deserve more respect than someone still alive?
 

Poisonshady313

Well-Known Member
Hitchens is probably up in the pearly gates talking God out of belief in himself :D

Hitch on Pascal's Wager:
[youtube]vD3zrpCUBXQ[/youtube]
Christopher Hitchens on Pascal's Wager - YouTube

What Hitch would say if he met God (starting at 2:05)

"Look Boss, if it's true what they say about you that you're an infinitely kind, forgiving, all fatherly person - this is certainly what you're fans keep saying - do you not have a little room in your obviously very capacious heart for someone who just couldn't bring himself to believe in you and really, honestly, truly couldn't, as opposed to someone who spent half their lives on their knees making fawning professions of faith because Pascal told them it was a good bet?
Which of us is the more moral?
Which of us is the more honest?
Which of us is the more courageous?
Which of us has the bluest eyes and is the most sexually attractive?
Which of us has the real charisma here? I'm just only asking."
 

Poisonshady313

Well-Known Member
It's a forum, no one asked any of us to say anything.
Exactly.

If no one asked him and he decided to strike up the conversation at home or ... gasp... online... I somehow doubt he'd be "no no, no one asked me, I will not speak of him."
That all sounds rather silly.

If he decided to strike up the conversation, it would be perfectly reasonable for those who found his comments disrespectful to say so, rather than inviting him on a program to express his opinion, and then wonder if it was perhaps in bad taste to do so.

I could be wrong, mind you, but here's my question:
Why does someone who has died deserve more respect than someone still alive?

Perhaps they don't. I'm not sure that Hitch was deserving of such disrespect while he was alive.
 
Top