Tuesday, May 8, 2007 | Reason : Commentary | print version

Christopher Hitchens and Al Sharpton: A Debate God Is Not Great

by The New York Public Library

Thanks to CruciFiction for the link.

Reposted from:
http://www.nypl.org/research/chss/pep/pepdesc.cfm?id=2677

Listen to the program

Watch the program

Christopher Hitchens and Al Sharpton

Taking on possibly the greatest issue of our time—the malignant force of religion in the world—Christopher Hitchens makes the ultimate case against religion through a close and learned reading of the major religious texts, citing numerous historical instances in which sexual repression and outrageous acts of violence have been committed in the name of God. He argues for a more secular life based on science and reason, in which hell is replaced by the Hubble telescope's awesome view of the universe, and Moses and the burning bush give way to the beauty and symmetry of the double helix.

About Christopher Hitchens

Christopher Hitchens is a contributing editor to Vanity Fair and a visiting professor of liberal studies at the New School. He regularly writes for the Atlantic Monthly and Slate, and is the author of numerous books, including Letters to a Young Contrarian and Why Orwell Matters. He was a longtime contributor to The Nation, writing a biweekly column for the magazine from 1982 to 2002. He was named one of the "Top 100 Public Intellectuals" by Foreign Policy and Britain's Prospect. His new book is God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything.

About Al Sharpton

Reverend Al Sharpton, is the President of the National Action Network (NAN), and one of America's most-renowned civil rights leaders. Whether it was his run for President of the United States in the Democratic Party primaries in 2004 or his use of passive resistance and non-violent civil disobedience, Reverend Sharpton has had an impact on national politics because of his strong commitment to equality and progressive politics.As the head of one of the most well-known civil rights organizations that currently has over thirty-eight chapters and affiliates across the United States, Reverend Al Sharpton has been applauded by both supporters and non-supporters for challenging the American political establishment to be inclusive to all people regardless of race, gender, class or beliefs. This summer across the country, Reverend Al Sharpton will launch his own nationally-syndicated news-talk program. Rush Limbaugh has said on his own radio program that "Reverend Sharpton has the best shot of anyone at becoming the 'Limbaugh of the Left'" by launching a major hard news driven radio show that attracts a strong following. Reverend Sharpton is the author of Al On America and Go and Tell Pharoah.

SOLD OUT
Tickets may be available at the door.

Add to del.icio.us Posted: Tuesday, May 8, 2007 | Permalink

Comments 1 - 50 of 130 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1. Comment #38548 by James Carroll on May 8, 2007 at 3:03 pm

Oh, I can't wait to hear this...

Funny, I just noticed. We have here a God-fearing liberal and an atheist conservative.

What is this world coming to? Lol.

LMFAO! "The old bitch got it anyways."

And I was disappointed. Sharpton needs to get his ears opened; Hitchens addressed clearly why a belief in God is not necessary as far as morals or origins of the Earth. There isn't any evidence for one. Hitchens said that!

Fucking Sharpton, he wasn't hearing anything.

Other Comments by James Carroll

2. Comment #38551 by William on May 8, 2007 at 3:23 pm

Hitchens is really only a conservative when it comes to the Iraq War (and antipathy towards Bill Clinton). Conservatives, I'm sure, would be hesitant to embrace him as one of their one, not least for articles like this:
http://www.slate.com/id/2101842/
where he bashes their most beloved hero.

Other Comments by William

3. Comment #38552 by Luthien on May 8, 2007 at 3:28 pm

I know this ain't the right place, but can someone post this story up on the site?

http://www.newscientist.com/channel/health/mg19426024.000-canada-probes-tb-genocide-in-churchrun-schools.html

Genocide in church run schools in Canada!

Other Comments by Luthien

4. Comment #38554 by MIND_REBEL on May 8, 2007 at 3:38 pm

Awesome, Sharpton is a fool, who's made irrationiality acceptable in the inner city, which has lead to inequality between groups.

Other Comments by MIND_REBEL

5. Comment #38560 by CruciFiction on May 8, 2007 at 3:51 pm

Hitchens is superb in this one. There's lot's of good laughs too.

A very worthwhile hour and 32 minutes (ignoring the last 20 minutes of religious music that follows - WTF?).

"New York Times" article on the debate ACCEPTING PUBLIC COMMENTS:

http://empirezone.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/05/07/hitchens-sharpton-and-faith/

Other Comments by CruciFiction

6. Comment #38563 by Thor on May 8, 2007 at 3:58 pm

I don't know if anyone else had this issue but I had to rename the file that is downloaded under the "Listen to the program" from "070507.ra" to "070507.ram" for it to work.

Maybe that's just a small typo in the link.

Other Comments by Thor

7. Comment #38570 by Bremas on May 8, 2007 at 4:20 pm

Off Topic
Luthien post 3
That's interesting. My grandfather was born in 1898 and lived his childhood in the western plains and rocky mountains of the U.S. I remember him parroting a phrase from that timeframe. I heard him say it several times. I'm close to 100% sure that he didn't mean it and was just being obnoxious, but it was obviously a common phrase. "The only good Indian is a dead Indian."

Other Comments by Bremas

8. Comment #38571 by maton100 on May 8, 2007 at 4:22 pm

This will some crazy shit. Worth finding a scalper on ebay and a concession stand that sells carob peanuts.

Other Comments by maton100

9. Comment #38579 by jesus_christ_himself on May 8, 2007 at 4:50 pm

Can anyone convert it to mp3, or even tell me how to?

Other Comments by jesus_christ_himself

10. Comment #38580 by IQHQ on May 8, 2007 at 4:52 pm

More than half-way through this debate, and I gotta say (rxcuse the vulgarity): Hitchens is fucking awesome! I've read most of his published works, and have always admired his debating skills. Yet here he is UNBELIEVABLE!!!!!

Other Comments by IQHQ

11. Comment #38581 by catchy_nick on May 8, 2007 at 5:02 pm

This should be interesting. Although I agree with CH when it comes to religion, I cant stand most of his political views. I have a real problem with conservatives of any kind. This guy is no different. Also with the words atheist demonized so much, the last thing we need is a sauced up alkie bashing goD on TV. Sorry CH fans, I cant get behind someone who believes that life is precious and we get one shot at it, but its ok for political gain to spray napalm on small brown children. Peace.

-"Once again science has failed in the face of overwhelming religious evidence!! - Rev. Lovejoy (Simpsons)"

Other Comments by catchy_nick

12. Comment #38582 by Salvatore on May 8, 2007 at 5:11 pm

Contrariwise to some comments, I have to say Reverend Al was holding his own. He had to sit back while his Bible got trashed, but he kept Hitchens on the ropes with his repetitive demand that Hitchens address religion *itself*, without reference to history or scripture. Hitchens definitely loses debating points for not hitting that one squarely.

I wouldn't be surprised if some in the audience would rank Reverend Al as the debate winner.

I give the Reverend a kudos. After all, who would volunteer to go up against Hitchens live? And I *loved* his calling his opponent "brother Hitchens."

Other Comments by Salvatore

13. Comment #38583 by IQHQ on May 8, 2007 at 5:13 pm

Excuse me, Catchy Nick, but that is plain slander . . .

Where is your evidence for that closing assertion? I'm quite sure Hitchens supports no such thing. In fact, he has for years been an ardent advocate of human rights for minorities around the globe.

Other Comments by IQHQ

14. Comment #38584 by catchy_nick on May 8, 2007 at 5:15 pm

Read his views on the Iraqi war and how he supports the US prez on the issue.

Other Comments by catchy_nick

15. Comment #38585 by benh on May 8, 2007 at 5:16 pm

@jesus_christ_himself

You'll have to do this in several parts, Linux and MacOS users shouldn't have a problem, windows users will have to modify the steps accordingly -

1) Obtain the stream URL

wget http://helix.nypl.org/ramgen/live/070507/070507.ra?usehostname

vi 070507.ra

Copy the line beginning with rtsp

2) Download the stream using mplayer

mplayer -dumpstream rtsp://helix.nypl.org:554/live/070507/070507.ra

3) Once the stream is downloaded, convert it to a wav file

mplayer -ao pcm stream.dump

4) Once this is complete, you will have a file called audiodump.wav in your working directory, to convert this to an mp3 you will need a program called LAME.

lame --preset standard ./audiodump.wav ./hitchensvssharpton.mp3

And your done, have fun!

Other Comments by benh

16. Comment #38586 by William on May 8, 2007 at 5:18 pm

I cant get behind someone who believes that life is precious and we get one shot at it, but its ok for political gain to spray napalm on small brown children.

Absolutely despicable, catchy nick. Shame on you.

Other Comments by William

17. Comment #38588 by catchy_nick on May 8, 2007 at 5:21 pm

I knew I would get crucified for that comment. Sorry I dont like supporters of war especially the one going on right now. Trust me I want to love this guy so much. I love the way he talks, what he has to say about religion and Orwell. I want someone to convince me how the iraqi war is justified. Im not being a dink I really mean it, help me change my mind about this. thanks.

Other Comments by catchy_nick

18. Comment #38589 by William on May 8, 2007 at 5:30 pm

Sorry I dont like supporters of war especially the one going on right now.

If you want to disagree with him on the war, fine. But you had no right to accuse him of being a racist or of approving of the deaths of small children. That was totally inaccurate and defamatory.

Other Comments by William

19. Comment #38591 by ramses on May 8, 2007 at 5:34 pm

@benh

benh, I just wanted to say that you are Awesome!

Other Comments by ramses

20. Comment #38592 by ramses on May 8, 2007 at 5:35 pm

>> If you want to disagree with him on the war, fine. But you had no right to accuse him of being a racist or of approving of the deaths of small children. That was totally inaccurate and defamatory.

What William said.

Other Comments by ramses

21. Comment #38593 by IQHQ on May 8, 2007 at 5:36 pm

I suggest that if you truly want to like Hitchens, then you should try to emulate him in just this one way: go get informed! (instead of throwing about slanderous comments).

Noone but the most bloodthirsty savage has as a starting premise "War is good", not even the most hawkish commentator. It's too simplistic to impute such reasoning to a man of Hitchens' intellect. Too simplistic, and wrong. If you want a book recommendation, go check out (amongst others) "A Matter of Principle" (edited by Cushman) - it contains an essay on "Regime Change", by Hitchens himself.

Other Comments by IQHQ

22. Comment #38594 by Fire1974 on May 8, 2007 at 5:36 pm

It seems as though Sharpton kept wanting to discuss the cover of the book, rather than the words inside.

I don't know about all of you, but I found this telling.

Other Comments by Fire1974

23. Comment #38595 by Bonzai on May 8, 2007 at 5:41 pm

George Galloway wiped the floor with Hitchens over the Iraq war.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=INy2ysHhgYM

I don't agree with Galloway's pandering to Islam in the U.K. But on Iraq he is right on.

Other Comments by Bonzai

24. Comment #38596 by IQHQ on May 8, 2007 at 5:43 pm

In addition, I implore you to read the fantastic "Terror and Liberalism" by Paul Berman. Here's a link:

[url]http://www.amazon.com/Terror-Liberalism-Paul-Berman/dp/0393325555/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/102-9878474-7074508?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1178671208&sr=1-1[/url]

Perhaps you're not a political thinker, and so the morally comfortable anti-war/pacifist rings true for you. Well congratulations. However, the complex and dangerous world we live in today (with ever-increasing technological capacities in the hands of those with the most archaic and barbarous motives) requires that those who are political thinkers adopt a slightly more nuanced approach. I gervently hope you do the same.

Other Comments by IQHQ

25. Comment #38597 by jesus_christ_himself on May 8, 2007 at 5:45 pm

i'll have a go, god bless you benh

Other Comments by jesus_christ_himself

26. Comment #38598 by Janus on May 8, 2007 at 5:48 pm

I've only read the summary in the New York Times article, but it seems to me that they're not even talking about the same thing. Sharpton wanted to have a sort of pseudo-scientific debate about the existence of God. Hitchens wanted to have a debate about the actual religious beliefs and their effects on society.

Other Comments by Janus

27. Comment #38600 by ab_initio on May 8, 2007 at 5:51 pm

Did anyone else think that Al Sharpton was secretly trying to lose. Thats the only way I can try to understand how poorly he performed. And then to recommended the book! Lol.

I agree, Fire1974, it seemed the only thing he wanted to debate was the title, not the content of the book. It seemed his tactics for making it through the debate were:

-hide behind his version of what the debate was when tricky situations come up (criticism of the Bible, etc)

-say "I cant understand how the universe works so God did it" and "I dont know enough about the revelent science / philosophy so I'll say theres only objective good and naughtiness with God". Repeat until 90 mins up.

The audience didnt fall for it either - I was kinda embarrassed with the silences following Al Sharpton's contributions.

Other Comments by ab_initio

28. Comment #38601 by Bonzai on May 8, 2007 at 5:56 pm

IQHQ wrote:

>>Well congratulations. However, the complex and dangerous world we live in today (with ever-increasing technological capacities in the hands of those with the most archaic and barbarous motives) requires that those who are political thinkers adopt a slightly more nuanced approach. I gervently hope you do the same.<<

It is a strawman argument to paint everyone who is against the invasion of Iraq as "pacifist". I don't think pacifism is a slur but it is simply not true that only pacifists oppose the war.

Seeing the mess that the U.S. is in and the horrendous violence and death toll in Iraq unleashed by the invasion it doesn't look like the architects of the war have a lot of "nuanced thinking" and political foresights. The ME is more unstable than ever, terrorist activities and radical Islam is on ascendecy, Iraq is fast becoming another theocracy, with U.S. help. These are all the immediate outcomes of the invasion. Need I go on? I should add that war whores have been warned about these developments before the war.

Other Comments by Bonzai

29. Comment #38602 by jesus_christ_himself on May 8, 2007 at 6:07 pm

I am so out of my depth with mplayer, ive got no idea how to use it. i might as well use real player

Other Comments by jesus_christ_himself

30. Comment #38603 by Romin_Devourin on May 8, 2007 at 6:10 pm

Sharpton is representative of the calibre of intellect one is dealing with among the droves of religionist-memed zombies defending the utter nebulosity of theistic postulates. Indeed, Sharpton doesn't even exhibit the attendent reason that would have made manifestly clear to him his own intellectual barbarity compared to Hitchens' and what a terrible disservice he has done to his own superstitious, maniacal, church-pimping brethren by allowing himself to be so ingloriously mismatched.

I'm sorry, but one thing is clear: At some point not long from now, we secularists and freethinkers are simply going to have to face the fact that, in order for progress to continue at all, and wars be averted, religionists of all stripes must be summarily rounded up, packed onto trains, and permanently interned. What other viable final solution is there?

Other Comments by Romin_Devourin

31. Comment #38607 by IQHQ on May 8, 2007 at 6:22 pm

FAO Romin_Devourin

What a pity that you turned out to be found intellectually wanting also, especially after such a fine opening paragraph! Not only a non sequitur, offending the very logiv you previously professed to love, but also morally repugnant. I'll tell you what other solution there is: to live and let live!

FAO Bonzai

"anti-war/pacifict" - here, i did not mean to imply synonymity, merely two alternative stances. Hope this clears this up.

Other Comments by IQHQ

32. Comment #38608 by almorgan98 on May 8, 2007 at 6:34 pm

Isn't demonizing religion sort of contradictory?

Other Comments by almorgan98

33. Comment #38609 by Fire1974 on May 8, 2007 at 6:34 pm

Romin_Devourin:

I sincerily hope that was ill-communicated sarcasm.

Surely, you meant to inter the religious dogma, and not it's hosts.

Other Comments by Fire1974

34. Comment #38610 by sane1 on May 8, 2007 at 6:43 pm

Very glad Hitchens wrote his book, and has taken up the case bravely. Feels to me that RD has really started something.

Now I hear that Bill Maher is making an atheist documentary, and speaking his atheist mind. Right on!

Other Comments by sane1

35. Comment #38612 by Romin_Devourin on May 8, 2007 at 6:44 pm

IQHQ: Introducing a separate line of thought is hardly a non-sequitor. Indeed, once one induces the general implications of Sharpton's debate with Hitchens, the mere force of immediate inference tends toward the precise logicality of my own conclusion. You simply don't have the stones to own it, though you should if you really believe what you espouse.

Fire1974: Neine. Though, my "apologetic" for internment is considerably more humane than Sam Harris' (otherwise logical) conclusion that: "some propositions are so dangerous that it may even be ethical to kill people for believing them." I am not advocating killing anyone, but interning them such that they can be controlled, monitored, and perhaps employed with more meaningful labour other than draining society by continually spreading the tentacles of their religious fantasies.

Other Comments by Romin_Devourin

36. Comment #38614 by sane1 on May 8, 2007 at 6:55 pm

Sharpton's "God" apparently has nothing to do with religion, or religious dogma. OK. Everyone go home.

Sharpton is a deist, I suppose: "god set universe in an order."

Hitchens should have asked him what the hell he meant by the "god" he insists exists. When Sharpton finally got to defending "god," it was some personal amorphous thing totally divorced from any "relgion." Confirmed to him in his own personal feelings - "nothing to do with scriptures."

And, per Sharpton, plenty bad has gone on with religion, but that is just people's doing, not god.

The long debate about Dr. King is tiresome.

Other Comments by sane1

37. Comment #38616 by filthyatheist on May 8, 2007 at 6:59 pm

Catchy Nick is quite right about Hitchens. Do William and IQHQ not believe that napalm is being used in Iraq? Do they not realize that the NYTs reports on its front page that US war planes are firing into built-up urban areas in Baghdad. Which is a War Crime.

Robert Fisk, on his last appearance on Democracy Now, describes arriving at the scene of a massacre where US troops, who had been hit by an IED, opened up with tanks on all civilian cars in case they were 'hostiles'. Fisk says there were children covered with carpets all over the place and women, dead in the back of cars, naked, with their clothes blown off.

And what ever you think of Hitchens debating skills, he supports this carnage.

Other Comments by filthyatheist

38. Comment #38617 by crumbledfingers on May 8, 2007 at 7:01 pm

Al Sharpton seemed to be debating with the book based on title alone. He was not clever enough to realize its ironic nature as a reversal of the "allah ackbar" chanted by jihadists. And, as his opponent, the moderator, and questioners have mentioned, he seems to be completely unable to defend a single piece of the scripture.

However, I do wish Hitchens was not so wishy-washy about the existence of God. Although it cannot be proven or disproven, the two hypotheses are far from being on equal ground, as Sharpton says without rebuttal. In fact, it is impossible to disprove the existence of God, so that goes without saying; how telling it is that although proof of God's existence is very possible, it is conceded by the reverend that none exists.

I'm surprised that Hitchens did not pounce on the "no morality without God" more forcefully. What Sharpton was saying, in effect, was a universal negative: that nobody can be moral without God. He pointed to dictators who happened to be atheists, but no amount of individual cases can prove a statement of that sweeping nature. Hitchens missed a great opportunity to ask why there have been so many kind non-believers throughout history! Why was Carl Sagan such a devoted humanitarian and environmentalist? Why did Albert Einstein look toward the prospect of an atom bomb with dismay? Why have no rapists come from the National Academy of Sciences? Sharpton would have to ride a pretty thin line, namely that all of them secretly believed in a morality-providing God, or were invoking God unconsciously, to support his reasoning.

Other Comments by crumbledfingers

39. Comment #38620 by Harlon57 on May 8, 2007 at 7:27 pm

Sharpton used the Muhammad Ali "rope a dope" strategy from boxing. He just fell against the ropes letting Hitchens flail away.

Sharpton knew he couldn't go toe-to-toe with Hitchens, so he just ignored the religious context and said god can't be proven to not exist.

Well, that point should only be allowed to be used once in a debate. Why did he show up? Face it, Sharpton is a fraud using religion for its' income value. He is a reverend of what religion? He admitted that he couldn't argue against the biblical inadequacies, that he may actually agree. He was supposedly ordained at the age of 9.

He seemed to know less about christianity than Hitchens.

Other Comments by Harlon57

40. Comment #38621 by MelM on May 8, 2007 at 7:28 pm

Sharpton seemed to disown the holy books, but, at the same time, believe that God was the source of ethics. But, the ethics (how to live one's life) is in the holy books. He escaped this trap by claiming that ethics was inate (planted by God though.) How nasty of God to plant quite different ethics across the the surface of the planet. His personal "experience" basis for his belief in God coupled with the subjective nature of his ethics is a deeply irrational approach and one that I don't recall hearing about (so explicitly) before. Escape into one's unknowable (to others) mental life as a form of debate, wow! (It's slick though; believing in holy books and doing evil things isn't God's work--no, no.) Anyway, I think Hitchens would have done better if he'd gone after Sharpton about his "personal experience of God". I think the theology here is worth a second listen just to make sure I've got a firm grasp of how it works.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali showing up at the end was a pleasant surprise. (I guess most know that a U.S. iman recently decided she deserves to be put on trial in an Islamic country and put to death.)

Other Comments by MelM

41. Comment #38622 by William on May 8, 2007 at 7:31 pm

Do William and IQHQ not believe that napalm is being used in Iraq?

Is filthyatheist not aware that Hitchens is a vociferous critic of the use of napalm?

And what ever you think of Hitchens debating skills, he supports this carnage.

He absolutely does not. These are nothing but straw men. You point to the worst abuses of the military and accuse anyone who favors the war of supporting such atrocities.

Other Comments by William

42. Comment #38625 by yeahok on May 8, 2007 at 7:49 pm

Not sure if anyone has mentioned this(I don't feel like reading all your comments, as wonderful as I'm sure they are), but I noticed how Sharpton was eager to change the topic from religion to the Iraq war. I love how the audience cheered for this red herring when it was first mentioned.

I also found it funny how he dodged Hitchen's attacks against the Bible by saying Hitchen's book wasn't about an attack on Christianity, but an attack on God. Well, his book also wasn't about the Iraq war either, so why the hell did he keep bringing that up? More importantly, if Sharpton is a Christian, how can he separate the Bible's description of God from the general idea of God?

I also screamed out with laughter when Hitchens took notice of Sharpton's admittance to being an agnostic.

Other Comments by yeahok

43. Comment #38626 by MelM on May 8, 2007 at 7:53 pm

Continued from: Comment #38621 by MelM

Interesting how Sharpton got rid of the unwanted baggage: 1st to go was religious people, then the holy books, and finally, the theologians (except for one). What was left was just Sharpton's very very personal god.
------------------------------------------------

I don't think Hitchens had a counter to Sharpton's assertions about order in the universe. I think all he'd have to say is that the order we see is from things acting according to cause and effect because of their characterists. We observe this every day and count on it every second. Science has begun discovering these laws; God isn't needed at all here. If Sharpton were to ask about "where the laws come from", "existence" or "reality." would suffice as an answer in the context of a debate. At least a short (philosophical) answer is required to shut the door to theology. I think it's important to remember that the source of everything is "reality"; there is nothing else.

Other Comments by MelM

44. Comment #38628 by filthyatheist on May 8, 2007 at 8:42 pm

Hey, William can you supply a reference where Hitchens has made "vociferous criticisms' of the use of napalm in Iraq? I'd like to take a look at it.

William, I am not a pacifist. If I support a war (say the sandinista war to get rid of Somosa) then I accept that there will be 'collateral damage' and that innocent people and children will be killed. I will support the 'carnage' and accept that I support it. To say that I support the "worst abuses of the war" is correct and no 'straw man'.

You have to differentiate between the violence of the oppressed and the violence of the oppressors. We know which side Hitchens is on these days.

Other Comments by filthyatheist

45. Comment #38631 by Harlon57 on May 8, 2007 at 9:00 pm

Filthyatheist.

In WWII, The german people lost their will to fight because we bombed them into submission.

The japanese people and their leaders lost their will to fight, not because of the thousands of soldiers on both sides who fought and died in the tiny islands leading to japan, but because we bombed their people into submission.

War is horrible. But sometimes necessary.

Other Comments by Harlon57

46. Comment #38636 by catchy_nick on May 8, 2007 at 9:27 pm

Ok I just finished watching this debate. I think CH didnt respond well to AS's core argument. Not once did he ask which "God" AS claims to be great. I hear that from believers all the time. "Where did anything and everything come from? Who designed the laws of the universe?" I think the blind design of evolution by natural selection comes to mind and is a very powerful argument against an intelligent creator. Hurricanes, floods, tsunamis, plate tectonics, our inability to inhabit this planet on over 70% of its surface, most of the known universe cannot support life, trillions of lifeless planets, recurring ice ages on earth, global warming, (I could go on for days), might not completely rule out the existance of an intelligent creator but puts a pretty big dent in the theory. Someone like Daniel Dennett would've destroyed this jesus sniffer in about 10 mins. Actually most atheists on this website would've been better armed against AS's dumb arguments and his obsession with the book's title Vs. its actual content. Let the flaming begin. :D

-"Once again science has failed in the face of overwhelming religious evidence!! - Rev. Lovejoy (Simpsons)"

Other Comments by catchy_nick

47. Comment #38638 by filthyatheist on May 8, 2007 at 9:32 pm

harlon57

I agree. If you supported the war against nazism you could be said to support the carnage involved.

Hitchens supports the illegal invasion of Iraq. He presumably support the strike on the first night of the war where women and children were slaughtered in the attempt to assassinate the previous US ally and CIA asset Saddam Hussein.

War is horrible. But this war in Iraq is horrible, illegal, unnecessary and immoral.

Other Comments by filthyatheist

48. Comment #38639 by Thor on May 8, 2007 at 9:38 pm

First of all, I am a big Hitchens fan. I don't agree with him on some issues, but I simply love his writing and his speeches.

Criticism of him for his Iraq stance is, of course, understandable but I'd rather have it come from people who have a more realistic view of reality than the usual mindless drivel of "the evil, racist neo-cons want to oppress the people in Iraq, steal their oil and kill their children blah blah blah...."

Let's be clear: I believe that the neo-cons got some things right but in the big picture their naive optimism about the Middle East and the inability of the American troops to prevent Zarqawi from igniting the sectarian violence that now ravages large parts of Iraq has paved the way to the bloodshed and carnage we see now.
They simply didn't understand the realities of the country they wanted to transform into a free and democratic society. As the saying goes: "A little knowledge is a dangerous thing."

Hitchens has often criticized the incompetent manner in which the war has been conducted but he has, admittedly, been less critical of the administration than some would have liked. Why?
Because he is some war-mongerer who likes nothing better than to bomb poor countries?

Anyone who believes that caricature knows nothing about Hitchens and his past as a writer and journalist. He simply despises large parts of the left and the Democrats even more than he disagrees with the Republicans.
He is disappointed with the Republicans that they made such mess of the war, but he is disgusted with the Democrats for being against the war or blaming the violence there on America instead of THE JIHADISTS WHO ACTUALLY DO THE KILLING!!

This is a difficult discussion and to be honest I am not quite sure where I stand on this right now. The first priority should be now to at the very least guarantee the coninuity of a free Kurdistan. As for the rest of Iray, well... I don't pretend to have an answer, but to those of you who believe that when the American troops leave the people there will have peace I can only say:
the carnage will get even worse after they are gone because nothing and nobody will restrain the religous death-squads then.

Other Comments by Thor

49. Comment #38642 by Harlon57 on May 8, 2007 at 10:06 pm

filthyatheist.

You said "War is horrible. But this war in Iraq is horrible, illegal, unnecessary and immoral.?

It is your opinion that this war is illegal. Legality is a term with specific meaning. There is no court in the world that has tried and convicted the U.S. nor the current U.S. administration for crimes related to this war.

It is your opinion that this war is unnecessary.
It is your opinion that this war is immoral.

During WWII, there were many who said the carpet bombing of entire german and japanese cities was immoral.

In the final analysis, the only way to stop that war was to ensure that support for those who were our enemies was completely annihilated.

Other Comments by Harlon57

50. Comment #38643 by catchy_nick on May 8, 2007 at 10:06 pm

The issue seems to be heating up :)
I think I've already said how I feel about Iraq and CH's position on it. For the record, I am an american citizen. And YES, America is directly responsible for the slaughter of human life in Iraq. The country that CH and some of you love so much has to be one of the biggest terrorist states in history. Theyve waged more meaningless wars than anyone else. The only country to use a "new-queue-lar" bomb on innocent civilians. Read its history, land hungry, racist europeans built this country on the backs of slave labor on top of indian graves. Sorry the idea that "dropping nukes on Japan saved more lives than if the war had continued" is bullshit. Thats like saying we know for a fact people will be less moral without god, so lets turn our backs on religion. Theres no nice way to say it, so I'll keep it simple. Patriotism is tribalism. I know we've only been out of the caves for a few thousand years, nano seconds in cosmic time, but we've also put people in space, wheres the political movement for reuniting the human species as one, vs mindless nationalism based on circumstantial locations of birth and the accidental shuffle of dermal melanin genes?

-"Once again science has failed in the face of overwhelming religious evidence!! - Rev. Lovejoy (Simpsons)"

Other Comments by catchy_nick