Unrepentant until the very end, Christopher Hitchens dead at 62

[Drolefille]

Exactly.

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.



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

And people here are choosing to strike up a conversation. *shrug* I fail to see how it matters much that no one here was invited to speak poorly of the dead. And the assumption that an invitation somehow absolves one from a distasteful action seems silly.

Regardless, someone who comes here and chooses to say whatever they like isn't really doing anything different than anyone else. Just because they speak negatively rather than positively.

And the more I read about him he seems to be on the one hand, quite a good force in the world for some things and on the other quite a negative force for others. Particularly in the last 10 years or so, I see what isn't rational thinking but is an unchecked reactionary and emotional response to the September 11th attacks. Which is a shame. I think he also misses the boat in lumping all religious belief in with the 'worst' of religion but I tend to have that issue with people who classify themselves as anti-theists. (Especially when it appears they have their own set of irrational beliefs as he did w/ regards to terrorism)

In short, plenty of things to praise or criticize for. I'm going to have to page through his book and see what I think.

 

[work in progress]

Christopher Hitchens Dead at 62 | Riding the Tiger

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



Additional/supplementary links:

www.alternativeright.com/main/blogs/zeitgeist/the-conventional-contrarian/
The American Conservative -- The Purest Neocon
The despicable Christopher Hitchens « Throne and Altar

About all there is to learn from your links is that religious conservatives hate him, while Neocon globalists considered him their favourite atheist. I've got nothing good to say about either. His attacks on religion and religious belief were nothing profound or informative. Just divisive and simplistic.

But the primary reason he became a media celebrity in the U.S. is because he joined the lineup of Marxists-turned-Neoconservatives. He was as wrong about the wisdom of regime change and occupation of Iraq as every other Neocon, but he was not one to ever admit to being wrong. He continued to argue that it was all worthwhile even after the permanent occupation of Afghanistan, and the war in Iraq, which has caused at least half a million deaths....and will likely continue, as America removes all but the 18,000 mercenaries guarding that giant "embassy" in Baghdad.

As recently as 2008, Hitchens wouldn't admit to being wrong in his cheerleading for Neocon empire building. A lot of people seem to have missed the fact that he was such a tool for Bush Administration foreign policy, that he wrote one Slate editorial after another, attacking every critic of the Bush Admin and the Iraq Invasion...and he was totally out to lunch when he regurgitated the Bush Admin smear campaign against Joe Wilson and Valerie Plame that was based on lies and innuendos passed on to unnamed sources and disseminated through the media. Or how about his attack on Cindy Sheehan, for responding to the death of her son by starting an antiwar group. In reality, Hitchens offered little more in his editorials than Ann Coulter. It was nothing more than one-sided propaganda intended to support his cause and attack everyone who disagreed in the most personal and vile manner. So, why should we be surprised if more than a few writers have returned the favour during the last two days?

 

[work in progress]

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.

Why should that rule apply to someone like Hitchens, who did not refrain from speaking ill of the dead himself?

 

[work in progress]

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

Yes, Glenn Greenwald's piece has a lot of infamous highlights of Hitchens career as a foreign policy analyst, and quotes that hold him accountable for his statements:

I go back to something Judith Butler’s been saying for years; some lives are grievable and some are not. And in that context, publicly mourning someone like Hitchens in the way we are supposed to do — holding him up as someone who was “one of us,” even if we disagree with him — is also a way of quietly reinforcing the “we” that never seems to extend to the un-grievable Arab casualties of Hitch’s favorite wars. It’s also a “we” that has everything to do with being clever and literate and British (and nothing to do with a human universalism that stretches across the usual “us” and “them” categories). And when it is impolitic to mention that he was politically atrocious (in exactly the way of Kissinger, if not to the extent), we enshrine the same standard of human value as when the deaths of Iraqi children from cluster bombs are rendered politically meaningless by our lack of attention.
​

 

[LeftishBritInPA]

So, why should we be surprised if more than a few writers have returned the favour during the last two days?

The difference is that although Hitchens was controversial (I don't think anyone can deny that even if you completely agree with him) he was a man the utmost moral caliber and he called the shots as he saw them, while the people that espouse such hatred for a dead man aren't doing anything but mudslinging. Yes there were things that Hitchens may have got wrong, but then again everyone makes mistakes. However the criticisms that are now being thrown around by the religious right are nothing more than sour grapes against a person who undoubtedly did a lot more good for our planet than any priest or imam.

As a Christian I believe in "turning the other cheek" and "loving my enemies" as Jesus taught. I also believe that you should not judge lest ye be judged.

They are telling lies about a man who was completely honest about where he stood on the issues. What the "haters" are doing is the equivalent of going into a bar when you're 21 picking on the biggest man there, getting beat up, then whining about it.

 

[not nom]

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.

to be fair though, I don't think it was a fair debate, that is, those two representing the catholic church didn't have a chance. I mean, that woman with, uhm, that voice and that attitude?! plus the patronizing bishop with rough english -- against hitchens and fry, of all people? I kinda felt bad for them.

this one is so much better http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2729970-post14.html yet hitchens was *still* holding his ground.. I just have to salute a big intellect when I see one, doubly so when one dies.

though I disagreed with him, too. I thought he was often a bit onesided, and polemic. maybe even repetitive. but I also think he was angry about many right things for the right reasons, and nobody can take that away from him. in my view that anger condemned a lot of complacent, mediocre people who didn't and don't have it, and that, in turn, explains stuff as the OP. that is my summary, may he rest in peace.

 

[K.Venugopal]

I think to be truly great not only must you call the bluff of that which you think is wrong, but you must also offer something positive in its place. While Hitchens was great in calling the bluff of religions, as he felt they were wrong, I am not sure he offered anything positive in its place. In his last interview he said he fears he would lose his 'will to live’ if he lost his ability to write. He thereby revealed that he was dependent on his writing for the zest of living - just as others depend on God for their zest of living. What difference? Both folks are dependent.

The positive alternative is to be independent. He obviously had no idea of such independence – he would have had to be spiritual to understand it. Thus, he replaced the normal weakness for God with his own specialized weakness. Spiritualism is not about weakness – it is about strength, the strength that comes from discovering oneself.

 

[gnomon]

I think to be truly great not only must you call the bluff of that which you think is wrong, but you must also offer something positive in its place. While Hitchens was great in calling the bluff of religions, as he felt they were wrong, I am not sure he offered anything positive in its place. In his last interview he said he fears he would lose his 'will to live’ if he lost his ability to write. He thereby revealed that he was dependent on his writing for the zest of living - just as others depend on God for their zest of living. What difference? Both folks are dependent.

The positive alternative is to be independent. He obviously had no idea of such independence – he would have had to be spiritual to understand it. Thus, he replaced the normal weakness for God with his own specialized weakness. Spiritualism is not about weakness – it is about strength, the strength that comes from discovering oneself.

One must be spiritual to be independent?

That doesn't even mean anything. If you must be spiritual to be independent than you must depend upon spiritualism to be independent! Or are you calling anyone who possesses whatever intellectual quality to be independent spiritual even if that individual explicitly states that they are not?

 

[Storm]

Why should that rule apply to someone like Hitchens, who did not refrain from speaking ill of the dead himself?

Does "hypocrisy" mean anything to you? We all have our standards. Maybe my rule wasn't one of his, but what matters is that *I* keep it. No?

That said, as I stated, I generally make an exception for highly public figures. Still, the op struck me as little more than glee over a great man's death, and turned my stomach.

 

[gnomon]

I see no problem with criticizing the man's views even when he's dead. For example, I completely disagreed with his views on the war in Iraq. That was actually the first time I even knew much about this man when I saw him debating James Galloway on TV. I thought he was an *** just because of his political views. Then I started reading more and watching more and was blown away by his intellect. Still disagree with his views on the war and the concepts of radical Islam.

Like Storm it's the OP that I find offensive. I'm actually offended. That doesn't happen often. But I've read that website before when someone posted about the anticulture/counterculture nonsense from that forum. Riding the Tiger is homophobic. Racist. Anti-science. Anti-intellectual. It's a repository of bizarre, right wing Christian dominated nonsense.

 

[K.Venugopal]

One must be spiritual to be independent?

That doesn't even mean anything. If you must be spiritual to be independent than you must depend upon spiritualism to be independent! Or are you calling anyone who possesses whatever intellectual quality to be independent spiritual even if that individual explicitly states that they are not?

Oops, I've gotten into trouble here. Let me put it this way:

There is something about us, each one of us, that is simply superlative. THAT is what we are. When we cease being dependent on anything (psychologically), we would come face to face with THAT. What we are then can be called spiritual or independent. Unless we reach this stage, criticizing those dependent on God when we ourselves are dependent on something else (writing, in Hitchens' case) is mere quibbling. Hitchens' merit lay largely in his capacity to say what he had to say with great turns of phrases.

 

[waitasec]

I think to be truly great not only must you call the bluff of that which you think is wrong, but you must also offer something positive in its place.

truth has no regard for anyones feelings though.

if you call out a bluff of that which you think is wrong...you are offering truth.

and that is the point...

 

[work in progress]

Does "hypocrisy" mean anything to you? We all have our standards. Maybe my rule wasn't one of his, but what matters is that *I* keep it. No?

That said, as I stated, I generally make an exception for highly public figures. Still, the op struck me as little more than glee over a great man's death, and turned my stomach.

If this was just about getting nasty in the debates about religion, it wouldn't be so bad; but Hitchens took the side of people who caused the deaths and destroyed lives of millions, and never apologized or admitted to being wrong regarding his foreign policy cheerleading......and I'll probably feel the same way whenever Dick Cheney or Donald Rumsfeld kick the bucket!

 

[work in progress]

The difference is that although Hitchens was controversial (I don't think anyone can deny that even if you completely agree with him) he was a man the utmost moral caliber and he called the shots as he saw them, while the people that espouse such hatred for a dead man aren't doing anything but mudslinging.

I don't believe he was a man of high moral caliber -- just someone with such a large ego that he always felt the need to break with whatever movement he was in and start leading another parade. He was a contrarian by nature, and if he had the time, his criticisms of the use of torture by his Neocon friends looked like the beginning of an end game to withdraw himself from the Neoconservative alliance.....judging from the way he slowly disentangled himself over a number of years from the British Marxist literary elite.

As a Christian I believe in "turning the other cheek" and "loving my enemies" as Jesus taught. I also believe that you should not judge lest ye be judged.

And those lofty values seem to be very difficult for most people to uphold, judging from the attacks from fundamentalist Christian writers....three of whom are cited in the OP.

They are telling lies about a man who was completely honest about where he stood on the issues. What the "haters" are doing is the equivalent of going into a bar when you're 21 picking on the biggest man there, getting beat up, then whining about it.

That analogy doesn't work for me in regards to Hitchens! Maybe if he actually put on a uniform and had a taste of what it's like to go to war, his advocacy for sending others off to battle would be a little more palatable.

 

[Viker]

Christopher Hitchens Dead at 62 | Riding the Tiger

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



Additional/supplementary links:

The Conventional Contrarian
The American Conservative -- The Purest Neocon
The despicable Christopher Hitchens « Throne and Altar

Him being "unrepentant" or just not backing down in the face of adversity was one of his most admirable qualities.

 

[WanderLust]

That was pretty tasteless. Hitchens wasn't the most agreeable guy, but this isn't even a criticism, it's a slaughter.

 

[waitasec]

That was pretty tasteless. Hitchens wasn't the most agreeable guy, but this isn't even a criticism, it's a slaughter.

all this proves hitchens was right...religion (a strong belief in a personal god) is justification for bad behavior.

 

[Poisonshady313]

to be fair though, I don't think it was a fair debate, that is, those two representing the catholic church didn't have a chance. I mean, that woman with, uhm, that voice and that attitude?!

a former member of parliament, a novelist, a columnist, and a TV personality. She's not inept when it comes to words, nor is she a stranger to a microphone. I highly doubt 774 people changed their mind because of "that voice".

plus the patronizing bishop with rough english

. Don't let the accent fool you. He's no stranger to the English language. He's no fool. He's recogized globally as a leader and has given more than his fair share of speeches. If he's a poor choice because of his accent, you could say the Pope would also be a bad choice to represent Catholicism.

-- against hitchens and fry, of all people? I kinda felt bad for them.

. Don't feel bad. The debate was fair, and the Catholics lost.

 

[not nom]

it's not like what they said was any better, so I did notice the super obnoxious delivery/attitude of both.. it surely can't have helped. and that people are "widely recognized" as whatever doesn't make them intelligent, and this was like shooting fish in a barrel for hitchens and fry.

no single person can "represent" anything, anyway... but they could at least have given some better arguments for hitchens and fry to shoot down, and that would have made it more interesting.

 

[LeftishBritInPA]

You know what's ironic is that in a way, the religionists (not all religious people, just the ones who take it too far) are also unrepentant.

In the 21st century, they want to continue oppressing those who don't think like they do. They want to refuse modernity and they actively want to reject an advancing society, and insist that they have some kind of monopoly on truth.

Kind of funny if you think about it.