1. Comment #97339 by Styrer- on December 11, 2007 at 11:15 pm

Just as I am falling asleep thinking the Hitch is right on religion, wrong on Iraq, his comments wake me up. As ever.

Not that I change my mind on listening to him, in the previous regard - but I do consider myself lucky to be alive at the same time as this intellectually provocative giant.

Would it, I wonder, be possible for Dawkins to capitalise on his uncontestable fame to occupy the same 'fuck, that woke me up' moment in educating us about his views, without that, sorry to say, ever evident feeling that he's trying too hard to find some impossible middle ground in his dianoetic expositions? Can he be persuaded to stop being just so wonderfully fucking nice to his antagonists?

What do you think?

Best,
Styrer

Other Comments by Styrer-

2. Comment #97343 by Zzyx1170 on December 11, 2007 at 11:26 pm

I placed an mp3 of this on RapidShare at:
http://rapidshare.com/files/75999493/Christopher-Hitchens-on-Hugh-Hewitt-Show.mp3

Other Comments by Zzyx1170

3. Comment #97352 by Conrad on December 12, 2007 at 12:01 am

Amazing. The host, an informed man apparently, is yet naive as a child about the importance of being a Bishop and the actual ties this entails. Also, to conflate asking a man if he will follow the teaching of his religion and follow his leader above all else or follow the constitution, with that of the inquisition is absurd. It is a question that must be answered, no matter what silly equating with england goes on. To ask questions and demand answers is not to threaten the sword as this otherwise seemingly informed host should know.

Other Comments by Conrad

4. Comment #97371 by Zakie Chan on December 12, 2007 at 1:30 am

Thanks Zzx1170!

Other Comments by Zakie Chan

5. Comment #97390 by irate_atheist on December 12, 2007 at 2:22 am

Christopher Hitchens appears on the Hugh Hewitt Radio Show

Wow! Thats much more impressive than Jesus appearing on a piece of toast. Way to go, Hitch!

Other Comments by irate_atheist

6. Comment #97396 by dan w. on December 12, 2007 at 2:50 am

Conrad: "The host, an informed man apparently, is yet naive as a child about the importance of being a Bishop and the actual ties this entails."

---

Hewitt has written an entire book shilling for Romney's presidential bid, with the word Mormon in the title in big letters. ( http://www.amazon.com/Mormon-White-House-Things-American/dp/159698502X/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1197456071&sr=8-1 )

Now I haven't read the book, obviously, but the description on Amazon seems to indicate that the entire purpose of the book is to convince Republicans to vote for what Hewitt feels is obviously a near-perfect candidate, whose only flaw is his Mormonism. That Hewitt would write a whole book with this as his purported subject and appear not to know important details about Romney and/or the Mormon church either reveals him as stupid, ignorant, or dishonest (perhaps a combination of more than one).

In the Hitchens interview here, Hewitt seems to indicate that he is of the opinion that asking tough questions to people who want to lead our country is somehow a harmful, anti-American concept.

Other Comments by dan w.

7. Comment #97410 by Sharrow on December 12, 2007 at 3:27 am

Well this was going quite well until the end. Then the interviewer managed to jump to accusing Hitchens of wanting to stir up religious hatred 'like there was in England'. I can't for the life of me work out where this came from.

And this reminds me, like many Americans, Hugh Hewitt has the romantic view that the Pilgrim Fathers came to their shores in order to flee religious intolerance in England. This is not true. It was religious tolerance they were escaping from not intolerance. Charles II on his ascencion to the throne announced an end to religious strife and decreed that all citizens were equal. The sect which formed the Pilgrims could not stand to see Catholics let off the hook and left - first to Holland where their views pissed the Dutch off, then back to England and then by ship to America. Good riddence!

Other Comments by Sharrow

8. Comment #97440 by Robert Maynard on December 12, 2007 at 4:56 am

Thanks again Zzx1170. :)

Other Comments by Robert Maynard

9. Comment #97447 by Peacebeuponme on December 12, 2007 at 5:18 am

Always been a bit uneasy with Hitchen's stance on Virginia Tech. He considers it a non-story because it "has no significance beyond itself". On the other hand, September 11 is supposed to be the pinnacle of importance and something to be mourned by all. Apart from sheer numbers of dead, I don't see the difference in how we should deal with them. We look at the causes, whether religion, gun laws or society in general and try to take action to stop recurrences.

As for newsworthiness, I think most Amercians would be glad that such shootings are still rare enough that they are reported.

Other Comments by Peacebeuponme

10. Comment #97457 by Copernic on December 12, 2007 at 6:02 am

Sharrow,
you say "....the romantic view that the Pilgrim Fathers came to their shores in order to flee religious intolerance in England. This is not true. It was religious tolerance they were escaping from not intolerance. Charles II on his ascencion to the throne announced an end to religious strife and decreed that all citizens were equal. The sect which formed the Pilgrims could not stand to see Catholics let off the hook and left..."

I don't doubt the crux of this story but am curious if you or anyone has any references or good sources for details on this.
Thx

Other Comments by Copernic

11. Comment #97460 by Styrer- on December 12, 2007 at 6:08 am

'Not enlightening'.

Hm. At several moments during the interview, Hitchens was generous enough to give Witt a free education in matters that he was supposed to know and on the basis of which the interview was to take place.

'Not enlightening'.

What a guy.

Styrer

Other Comments by Styrer-

12. Comment #97493 by Sharrow on December 12, 2007 at 7:35 am

Copernic,

Now you are asking! I could dig out a few learned texts on the subject but they would probably bore you! However, if you want a really good and entertaining source (one which is still historically accurate) I can highly recommend Neal Stephenson's masterpiece 'The Baroque Cycle'. This is a novelised view of that period in time - I think most of what you seek will be in book 1 -'Quicksilver'

Other Comments by Sharrow

13. Comment #97495 by CruciFiction on December 12, 2007 at 7:36 am

This interview is from Wednesday, August 29, 2007.

Other Comments by CruciFiction

14. Comment #97524 by Eclectic on December 12, 2007 at 8:45 am

Thanks for the mp3 hosting, Zzyx1170

Other Comments by Eclectic

15. Comment #97563 by 35bluejacket on December 12, 2007 at 11:07 am

Sharrow:
That statement is quite profound and deserves good research. Thanks. Damn I love this site.

It may help explain why our founding fathers were so worried about religion.

Other Comments by 35bluejacket

16. Comment #97577 by JammyB on December 12, 2007 at 11:37 am

Cheers Zzyx1170. Enjoyed this, very different from the normal fallacious questions he gets asked about Hitler et al.

Other Comments by JammyB

17. Comment #97590 by Fedler on December 12, 2007 at 12:01 pm

Sharrow,

Thanks for giving me something to read about. In addition to the Neal Stephenson reference, what were some of the 'boring' texts?

I admit being one of the Americans who assumed/were told that the Pilgrim Fathers came to America to escape religious persecution. It never occurred to me to question which way the persecution was flowing, though. I'm very intrigued to learn more.

Other Comments by Fedler

18. Comment #97597 by 35bluejacket on December 12, 2007 at 12:05 pm

Could this also explain why the US is more religious than the Europeans? Our heritage has been of religious extremists? Imagine... they came to America to escape secularism and tolerance and build a new world of fanaticism.

Other Comments by 35bluejacket

19. Comment #97606 by Fedler on December 12, 2007 at 12:20 pm

35bluejacket,

In that light, would the theists be right in some sense in stating the nation was initially founded on Christian beliefs? Remember, this would be 300 years prior to Jefferson, et al writing the constitution - a more secularized constitution (thank goodness).

Other Comments by Fedler

20. Comment #97613 by 35bluejacket on December 12, 2007 at 12:32 pm

Fedler:
It would seem so. It may have been tent settled on Christian beliefs but I wouldn't go so far as say founded (politically). Eventualy the secularists took control politically. It would be a good study as to how and why they were allowed to. Didn't Jefferson mention the battles between sects?
Someone needs to give this hypothesis to Hitchens.

Other Comments by 35bluejacket

21. Comment #97672 by robotaholic on December 12, 2007 at 1:57 pm

Hitch is great- I want him to write another book - I'll buy it big time!

Other Comments by robotaholic

22. Comment #97830 by 35bluejacket on December 12, 2007 at 5:26 pm

Fedler:
After some research, I may have to back up here, in the light of the "Puritan Legal System" of the 1600's, several colonies had written laws (demanded by secular businesmen (freemen) who owned the ships and stockholders of the companies, in fear of verbal arbitrary puritan magistrates) based on the Bible leaning heavily on the Old Testament laws. These laws were carried into statehood but were deluted somewhat over time with a bits of reality checks like the regrets of which hunts (Mather) growing wealth and population. It seems, in the beginning, the purians' idea of "liberty" was to be free to be fanatical.

One "could" argue that the USA was founded on bibical beliefs. But the argument; what is customary or tradition, is a logical fallacy.

Can anyone give more enlightenment to this?

Other Comments by 35bluejacket

23. Comment #98134 by Fedler on December 13, 2007 at 6:09 am

35bluejacket,

Thanks for the info! I remain intrigued and will hopefully start to pursue this more this weekend when I have more time. Thanks again!

Other Comments by Fedler

24. Comment #99291 by coke20 on December 16, 2007 at 9:05 am

See how hard Hewitt works to control the frame of an argument? Before he asks Hitchens a question, he creates a context of misinformation and confusion... tries to push Hitchens into this "bubble" in order to limit his faculties. But Hitchens is much too smart and thoughtful and clever. He merely steps aside, avoiding the trap, and corrects Hewitt with a little slap on the wrist and a short history lesson.

Then Hewitt, with a rather pathetic attempt to manage his pride and maintain his stubborn, limited sense-of-the-world, declares a draw based on mere "difference of opinion" or whatever other terms for neutrality he may wish to use.

How common for the religiously devout to shout his religious beliefs from the Mountain-top and then, once challenged to a point when those beliefs can no longer be defended, he'll so humbly submit on basis of "difference of opinion". I guess its preferrable to violence, anyways.

Other Comments by coke20

25. Comment #99590 by Mango on December 17, 2007 at 6:25 am

This is not from August as said in comment 13, it's from this month because it mentions the Omaha shooting and the new intelligence report on Iran.

Other Comments by Mango

26. Comment #128016 by xdrive on February 15, 2008 at 9:37 pm

In case anyone cares, at the halfway point of the interview you hear the beginning of the song "Bravado" by Canadian rock band Rush. The song transitions back to the interview from the break.

It's totally random and weird. I have to wonder if Hugh Hewitt got permission to use it for his show like that.

Carry on.

Other Comments by xdrive

27. Comment #128022 by Diacanu on February 15, 2008 at 9:55 pm

xdrive-

Yeah, wow, I totally don't care at all....

..that so wasn't worth bumping a 2 month old thread...

Other Comments by Diacanu