Print
Hitchens V. Boteach
by Christopher Hitchens Watch
Thanks to Mark Grueter for the link.
http://christopherhitchenswatch.blogspot.com/2008/01/rematch-hitchens-v-boteach-at-92nd-st-y.html
The Rematch: Hitchens V. Boteach at the 92nd St. Y: Or, where the fu*k is Martin Buber when you need him?
- Report by Alexander Zaitchik
The last time I saw Hitchens debate, the subject was Iraq, his opponent the wide-tied British antiwar MP George Galloway. Outside Baruch College before the event, Hitch worked the line handing out Xeroxed fact sheets on his opponent—basically a collection of Galloway's stupidest comments and proven fabrications. It was an oddly endearing sight: a disheveled Hitchens with sweaty pit rings struggling to keep his Xeroxed flyers in order against the wind, just like the guys hawking Socialist Worker and 9/11 Truth lit. It was hard to imagine many other established writers street hustling like this, a throwback to the lefty faction pamphlet politics of his youth. That night, in front of a largely anti-Hitchens crowd, Galloway proved himself a ridiculous character who did the antiwar cause no good. His performance is best remembered for the moment he told Hitchens, "You're a drink-soaked former Trotskyist popinjay." I don't think more than 10 people in the packed house knew what a popinjay was, but damn if it didn't sound good.
Last night at the 92nd St. Y, it was Hitchens' opponent who handed out the pre-debate flyers. But the literature distributed by Rabbi Shmuley Boteach had nothing to do with the existence of God, the subject of the night's debate. The host of the cable program "Shalom in the Home" instead handed out contribution cards for his newly founded Jewish Values Network. The piece of paper he pushed into my palm offered zero information about the organization other than it wanted my money. The form listed donation options of $180, $360, $520, $1000, $5000, and $20,000. There was also an "other amount" option and an annual platinum membership of $2000, to be sent to a P.O. Box in Englewood.
Hitchens was a no-show at the reception. Perhaps he knew from his previous debate with Boteach that it wouldn't be a reception so much as a forum for Boteach to plug his latest projects. Tonight this meant the Jewish Values Foundation and his new book devoted to these values, The Broken American Male. Boteach's nineteenth book, The Broken American Male lays out a plan for American men to feel better about themselves by adopting the Jewish values of family, spiritual life, and professional success. "People are so sad these days that some companies are making a fortune selling anti-depressants," Boteach told the reception. "Companies I wish I owned shares in!" Nobody laughed because he wasn't joking.
The sold-out debate, which was simulcast to 11 Jewish community centers around the country, was over before it began. As Hitchens noted in his opening statement, the burden of proof was fully on his opponent. Considering this was Boteach's second time debating Hitchens on the subject—not to mention his numerous other debates with prominent atheists, including four matches with Richard Dawkins—he was shockingly unprepared to rumble. If they had been wearing gloves, it would have been stopped 20 seconds in.
Hitchens began his opening statement with a droll "Shalom" and proceeded to lay out the argument in God Is Not Great: "We are just poorly evolved primates… Religion is merely our first and worst explanation we came up with, our first attempt at philosophy and cosmology… Slowly we've been winnowing down the number of Gods, getting ever closer to the real number. The history of emancipation is the history of getting over religion…Religion is wish thinking. Who but a serf wants it to be true? To believe in interventionist God you must believe God was indifferent to us for most of our history, then started to care in Bronze Age middle East… If you want to chop off the end of your penis, that's fine, but don't force it on children…"
Seconds into Boteach's incoherent response it was clear the debate stage would be a killing floor. "I am so depressed after listening to that!" the rabbi declared when Hitchens was finished. His first and biggest problem with atheism, it seemed, was that it lacked the power to uplift, and hence could not possibly be true. Boteach followed this observation by noting that God Is Not Great made Hitchens a lot of money—even though atheism is supposed to be a "non-prophet faith" (no one laughed) and even though it was "his weakest book." The Rabbi then proceeded to plug his own books (Kosher Sex is now available in paperback) and quote Jack Nicholson in People magazine talking about how men are all dogs. Boteach wound up his first response by explaining that a watermelon is not a jellyfish and the difference surely points to the existence of an interventionist god. Then he called Hitchens "positively ignorant" and sat down.
To the extent it was possible, things devolved from there. Boteach became more spastic with each exchange. He attacked Hitchens for not understanding the true meaning of Hanukah ("Google it!") and claimed that the complexity of the human eye proves the existence of a divine all-knowing creator. He also said Steven Jay Gould did not really believe in evolution and attempted to draw a direct line between the ideas of Charles Darwin and Adolf Hitler, a trick last heard on AM Christian radio. He marveled at how the earth was perfectly positioned in the galaxy to allow life to flourish. He lambasted Dr. Kevorkian in such a way that condescended to terminal cancer patients in extreme pain. Then he sat down again.
In short, whatever one feels about Hitchens, it was impossible not to enjoy his systematic and merciless destruction of his loathsome opponent.
"There are no statements worth arguing here," Hitchens said toward the end of the night, practically checking his watch. "All you can do is underline them."
Winding down the clock, Boteach and Hitchens sparred over the extent of Einstein's Zionism and whether an Israeli court ever signed off on a Jewish doctor's refusal to treat non-Jews on the Sabbath. Hitchens showed no more patience for Boteach's historical and political arguments ("so much white noise") than he did for his religious ones ("whaling and bleating at an empty sky"). If Boteach understood he was suffering a severe public humiliation, he never showed it.
http://christopherhitchenswatch.blogspot.com/2008/01/rematch-hitchens-v-boteach-at-92nd-st-y.html
The Rematch: Hitchens V. Boteach at the 92nd St. Y: Or, where the fu*k is Martin Buber when you need him?
- Report by Alexander Zaitchik
The last time I saw Hitchens debate, the subject was Iraq, his opponent the wide-tied British antiwar MP George Galloway. Outside Baruch College before the event, Hitch worked the line handing out Xeroxed fact sheets on his opponent—basically a collection of Galloway's stupidest comments and proven fabrications. It was an oddly endearing sight: a disheveled Hitchens with sweaty pit rings struggling to keep his Xeroxed flyers in order against the wind, just like the guys hawking Socialist Worker and 9/11 Truth lit. It was hard to imagine many other established writers street hustling like this, a throwback to the lefty faction pamphlet politics of his youth. That night, in front of a largely anti-Hitchens crowd, Galloway proved himself a ridiculous character who did the antiwar cause no good. His performance is best remembered for the moment he told Hitchens, "You're a drink-soaked former Trotskyist popinjay." I don't think more than 10 people in the packed house knew what a popinjay was, but damn if it didn't sound good.
Last night at the 92nd St. Y, it was Hitchens' opponent who handed out the pre-debate flyers. But the literature distributed by Rabbi Shmuley Boteach had nothing to do with the existence of God, the subject of the night's debate. The host of the cable program "Shalom in the Home" instead handed out contribution cards for his newly founded Jewish Values Network. The piece of paper he pushed into my palm offered zero information about the organization other than it wanted my money. The form listed donation options of $180, $360, $520, $1000, $5000, and $20,000. There was also an "other amount" option and an annual platinum membership of $2000, to be sent to a P.O. Box in Englewood.
Hitchens was a no-show at the reception. Perhaps he knew from his previous debate with Boteach that it wouldn't be a reception so much as a forum for Boteach to plug his latest projects. Tonight this meant the Jewish Values Foundation and his new book devoted to these values, The Broken American Male. Boteach's nineteenth book, The Broken American Male lays out a plan for American men to feel better about themselves by adopting the Jewish values of family, spiritual life, and professional success. "People are so sad these days that some companies are making a fortune selling anti-depressants," Boteach told the reception. "Companies I wish I owned shares in!" Nobody laughed because he wasn't joking.
The sold-out debate, which was simulcast to 11 Jewish community centers around the country, was over before it began. As Hitchens noted in his opening statement, the burden of proof was fully on his opponent. Considering this was Boteach's second time debating Hitchens on the subject—not to mention his numerous other debates with prominent atheists, including four matches with Richard Dawkins—he was shockingly unprepared to rumble. If they had been wearing gloves, it would have been stopped 20 seconds in.
Hitchens began his opening statement with a droll "Shalom" and proceeded to lay out the argument in God Is Not Great: "We are just poorly evolved primates… Religion is merely our first and worst explanation we came up with, our first attempt at philosophy and cosmology… Slowly we've been winnowing down the number of Gods, getting ever closer to the real number. The history of emancipation is the history of getting over religion…Religion is wish thinking. Who but a serf wants it to be true? To believe in interventionist God you must believe God was indifferent to us for most of our history, then started to care in Bronze Age middle East… If you want to chop off the end of your penis, that's fine, but don't force it on children…"
Seconds into Boteach's incoherent response it was clear the debate stage would be a killing floor. "I am so depressed after listening to that!" the rabbi declared when Hitchens was finished. His first and biggest problem with atheism, it seemed, was that it lacked the power to uplift, and hence could not possibly be true. Boteach followed this observation by noting that God Is Not Great made Hitchens a lot of money—even though atheism is supposed to be a "non-prophet faith" (no one laughed) and even though it was "his weakest book." The Rabbi then proceeded to plug his own books (Kosher Sex is now available in paperback) and quote Jack Nicholson in People magazine talking about how men are all dogs. Boteach wound up his first response by explaining that a watermelon is not a jellyfish and the difference surely points to the existence of an interventionist god. Then he called Hitchens "positively ignorant" and sat down.
To the extent it was possible, things devolved from there. Boteach became more spastic with each exchange. He attacked Hitchens for not understanding the true meaning of Hanukah ("Google it!") and claimed that the complexity of the human eye proves the existence of a divine all-knowing creator. He also said Steven Jay Gould did not really believe in evolution and attempted to draw a direct line between the ideas of Charles Darwin and Adolf Hitler, a trick last heard on AM Christian radio. He marveled at how the earth was perfectly positioned in the galaxy to allow life to flourish. He lambasted Dr. Kevorkian in such a way that condescended to terminal cancer patients in extreme pain. Then he sat down again.
In short, whatever one feels about Hitchens, it was impossible not to enjoy his systematic and merciless destruction of his loathsome opponent.
"There are no statements worth arguing here," Hitchens said toward the end of the night, practically checking his watch. "All you can do is underline them."
Winding down the clock, Boteach and Hitchens sparred over the extent of Einstein's Zionism and whether an Israeli court ever signed off on a Jewish doctor's refusal to treat non-Jews on the Sabbath. Hitchens showed no more patience for Boteach's historical and political arguments ("so much white noise") than he did for his religious ones ("whaling and bleating at an empty sky"). If Boteach understood he was suffering a severe public humiliation, he never showed it.
Add to del.icio.us
Posted: Friday, February 1, 2008 | PermalinkComments 1 - 50 of 460 |
Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers2. Comment #120074 by nattyadams on February 1, 2008 at 8:34 am
I was there, too! http://nattyadams.blogspot.com/2008/01/hitchensboteach-debate.html Other Comments by nattyadams
3. Comment #120076 by Storeo on February 1, 2008 at 8:36 am
Would be nice to see a video of the debate Other Comments by Storeo
4. Comment #120078 by Storeo on February 1, 2008 at 8:38 am
Theres a 5 minute one here if anyones interested;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QDw5_fFIkf0 Other Comments by Storeo
5. Comment #120080 by Storeo on February 1, 2008 at 8:41 am
nattyadams:
http://nattyadams.blogspot.com/2008/01/hitchensboteach-debate.html"In fact, it was rather like watching a lion tear apart a very shrill and incoherent jellyfish." Haha, lovely stuff.
Other Comments by Storeo
6. Comment #120081 by nickthelight on February 1, 2008 at 8:41 am
yes, not exactly neutral is he!Was this filmed, anyone got it/know where to get it?
Other Comments by nickthelight
7. Comment #120084 by HughCaldwell on February 1, 2008 at 8:45 am
"Galloway proved himself a ridiculous character who did the antiwar cause no good."To reply in similar vaporous terms. Hitchens, on this occasion, was a fascist buffoon, showing that good men are not always admirable. Galloway was right and, although it was a rather sorry spectacle on the whole, set up on the lines of a cockfight, Galloway was no worse than Hitchens, except for having a less mellifluous voice.
Other Comments by HughCaldwell
8. Comment #120086 by al-rawandi on February 1, 2008 at 8:47 am
HughCaldwell,Agreed. Galloway absolutely obliterated the unsuspecting Senators when he came to Washington. He is not always an admirable character, but happens to be right on the war.
Hitchens is a great mind, but that doesn't mean he is always right and perfect.
Other Comments by al-rawandi
9. Comment #120103 by Fanusi Khiyal on February 1, 2008 at 9:04 am
A truly vile blog, this one. Take for example the following:
Hitch worked the line handing out Xeroxed fact sheets on his opponent�quot;basically a collection of Galloway's stupidest comments and proven fabrications
That is, that Galloway provably took money from Saddam, from the Oil-for-food program, in exchange for defending Saddam.
Of course, I am hardly surprised to see the usual suspects defending Galloway:
He is not always an admirable character
He is a man who quite literally took the food out of the mouths of the poorest of the poor in order to defend one of the most evil men in human history. And he did this not just against the United States, but also against the United Kingdom, where he was a member of parliment. There is a name for this: High Treason, and it is typically punishable by death.
Other Comments by Fanusi Khiyal
10. Comment #120114 by epeeist on February 1, 2008 at 9:17 am
Comment #120103 by Fanusi KhiyalThat is, that Galloway provably took money from Saddam, from the Oil-for-food program, in exchange for defending Saddam.
For which accusation he was investigated both by the police and the parliamentary committee on standards and privileges. Their report is at http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200607/cmselect/cmstnprv/909/90902.htm
Now personally I think Galloway is a loathsome creep, but I think the report from parliament holds more weight than your post.
Other Comments by epeeist
11. Comment #120119 by HughCaldwell on February 1, 2008 at 9:22 am
"He is a man who quite literally took the food out of the mouths of the poorest of the poor in order to defend one of the most evil men in human history."This comment is based on a total ignorance of the Oil-for-Food program and an attempt at libelling Galloway which would find you paying out substantial sums in damages were it to be taken seriously.
Other Comments by HughCaldwell
12. Comment #120125 by al-rawandi on February 1, 2008 at 9:29 am
Epeeist,Fanusi has never found himself burdened by evidence. Must be liberating.
If Saddam is one of the most evil men in history (maybe excessive, but certainly an evil man) what does it say about all the people that funded him and armed him?
Saddam was chosen by the CIA BECAUSE he was a brutal psychopath.
Other Comments by al-rawandi
13. Comment #120130 by notsobad on February 1, 2008 at 9:32 am
Other rabbis probably too shake their heads when they hear Boteach speak. Other Comments by notsobad
14. Comment #120133 by HughCaldwell on February 1, 2008 at 9:33 am
Anyway, it's a pity we have to get our account of the Hitchens-Boteach debate from such an incompetent source. Let's look forward to the video.Other Comments by HughCaldwell
15. Comment #120135 by Fanusi Khiyal on February 1, 2008 at 9:35 am
For which accusation he was investigated both by the police and the parliamentary committee on standards and privileges.
Not entirely sure how this link is supposed to disprove my point, when it says the following:
the steps he took to secure funding for the work of the Mariam Appeal from the Iraqi government
As we have demonstrated in this report, we agree with the Commissioner that there is strong circumstantial evidence that the Oil for Food Programme was used by the Iraqi government, with Mr Galloway's connivance, to fund the campaigning activities of the Mariam Appeal. In acting as he did, Mr Galloway breached the advocacy rule and damaged the reputation of the House. We believe he was complicit in the concealment of the true source of the funds for the Mariam Appeal. He was also in our view reckless in the terms of the authority he gave Mr Fawaz Zureikat to act in his name in relation to the Mariam Appeal. Further he was clearly irresponsible in refusing to enquire into the source of Mr Zureikat's substantial donations. His obligations to the House under the advocacy rule required nothing less, given the dependence of the Appeal at that point on those donations.
I.e. a considerable sum of money, undeclared by him, was sluiced into a charity he was sitting on. There is a completely seperate report by the UN that points to $ 120 000 that ended up in the bank account of Galloway's ex-wife.
The report is worth reading, particularly for the points about Galloway meeting with Saddam.
Other Comments by Fanusi Khiyal
16. Comment #120137 by al-rawandi on February 1, 2008 at 9:36 am
HughCaldwell,You don't trust fanusi? Shocking.
Other Comments by al-rawandi
17. Comment #120142 by al-rawandi on February 1, 2008 at 9:41 am
Met Saddam. Are we talking about Rumsfeld or Galloway now? Other Comments by al-rawandi
18. Comment #120174 by HughCaldwell on February 1, 2008 at 10:05 am
"I.e. a considerable sum of money, undeclared by him, was sluiced into a charity he was sitting on. There is a completely seperate report by the UN that points to $ 120 000 that ended up in the bank account of Galloway's ex-wife."There was no sum of money 'undeclared by him'. His ex-wife is recorded as receiving money from a Jordanian businessman to fund cancer research. Absolutely not a penny has been shown, or even alleged, to have been spent improperly by Galloway. If you'd like to make your allegations public you can contribute to Galloway's personal wealth to the extent of the damages that will be awarded against you for your reackless libel.
Other Comments by HughCaldwell
19. Comment #120176 by pkruger on February 1, 2008 at 10:07 am
"His first and biggest problem with atheism, it seemed, was that it lacked the power to uplift,"A false notion AND not an argument in favour of God's existence.
I am sure I am not the only atheist in the world who experienced an indescribable feeling of liberation/ecstacy when I realized that theism was
simply just not true, and removed myself from its shackles. That feeling was not due to the fact I no longer believed that God existed, but that I learned and possessed the epistemological tools by which I could make that move--and that includes not believing something is true simply because it makes you feel good, as Boteach would have us believe.
Other Comments by pkruger
20. Comment #120178 by headcold on February 1, 2008 at 10:12 am
Why hasn't anyone caught on to the fact that I and probably other people here would be willing to pay a few bucks to watch these debates? Instead of waiting around for it to pop up on YouTube, I'd pay $5 to see it now. $10? Ehh...maybe, but definitely $5. I'd rather see it free, but if the producers can get these debates up within a couple days of the debate, I'll do my best to encourage that.I'm still waiting for Hitchens debate from last weekend with Jay _____ from the Discovery Institute.
Other Comments by headcold
21. Comment #120181 by c4chaos on February 1, 2008 at 10:13 am
nice. but where is the full video so i can pimp it out some more?
so far, i've only found this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QDw5_fFIkf0
~C Other Comments by c4chaos
22. Comment #120187 by Skepsis on February 1, 2008 at 10:22 am
There is a new interview with Hitchens by Plum TV Here is a link for the playlist: Christopher Hitchens on Books $ Ideas There is also a new debate on evolution and creation by Dr. PZ Myers on his blog Pharyngula (MP3) [admin edit: please don't use div's in your comments, they can cause the page layout to display incorrectly. Thanks! -Josh]Other Comments by Skepsis
23. Comment #120190 by al-rawandi on February 1, 2008 at 10:24 am
Hugh, I noticed the same thing. Where is Galloway spending this vast sum he illicitly received from Saddam? It doesn't make much sense to take a bribe and then never spend it. I would like some of these accusations made public.
Fanusi is rehashing what a few US Senators already tried to hang Galloway with. It didn't end well for the senators.
Other Comments by al-rawandi
24. Comment #120229 by Smith on February 1, 2008 at 10:49 am
An article by Rabbi Boteach: G-d Is Greater Than Christopher Hitchens Other Comments by Smith
25. Comment #120238 by HughCaldwell on February 1, 2008 at 10:54 am
"It doesn't make much sense to take a bribe and then never spend it."The Iraqis didn't give you a bribe. You gave them money. You, the oil trader, got a contract from the Saddam government and you paid it the agreed percentage and kept the rest of the profits. Nothing unusual about that, except that it broke UN sanctions.
Other Comments by HughCaldwell
26. Comment #120239 by MaxD on February 1, 2008 at 10:55 am
I can't believe anyone in here thinks Galloway did well in the debate he had with Hitchens. Galloway was shrill, and moreto the point, a pointless buffoon. Galloway did better on the Bill Mahr show and made actual points. And why is no one else offended by the Galloway comment celebrating the 150 or so successful operations in iraq. He was talking about the insurgents who care not a whit for their fellow iraqis and in fact target them with much greater frequency than they do americans and (formerly) british troops. There are good arguments against the war in Iraq but Galloway doesn't often make them. He is a criminal, and dishonest man. Other Comments by MaxD
27. Comment #120246 by He'sAVeryNaughtyBoy on February 1, 2008 at 11:01 am
"An article by Rabbi Boteach: G-d Is Greater Than Christopher Hitchens"A quick summary - Humans can't be moral without guidance, ergo god exists. Is it just me or is that one getting a bit of a work out at the moment?
Do theists get together and decide they're all going to write bobbins about the same topic for a short while and hope that in the masses of crap they spew out there's at least something credible?
Other Comments by He'sAVeryNaughtyBoy
28. Comment #120287 by al-rawandi on February 1, 2008 at 11:41 am
Hugh,
Weren't there accusations swirling that bribes were paid?
Other Comments by al-rawandi
29. Comment #120293 by al-rawandi on February 1, 2008 at 11:45 am
MaxD,
I agree about Galloway, he gets a little whacky. However I shy away from this nonsense about terrorists being those who attack occupation forces. By that logic, American revolutionaries were terrorists, more so because they targeted officers with snipers.
The targeting of other Iraqis gives me a sense that they are anarchists as well as a number of different ethnic and religious groups.
Did you see Galloway verses those American senators? You tube it. And he did a good job on Sky News during the lebanon war as well.
Other Comments by al-rawandi
30. Comment #120328 by mathews on February 1, 2008 at 1:20 pm
Hitchens has written a few articles on Galloway, here's onehttp://www.slate.com/id/2170981/
Other Comments by mathews
31. Comment #120367 by keith on February 1, 2008 at 2:20 pm
Hugh Caldwell,
Hitchens, on this occasion, was a fascist buffoon
This has got to be the stupidest comment yet. Hitchens, whether you like him or hate him, is in no way a fascist.
Do you perhaps mean, Hugh, that anyone who doesn't agree with your analysis of the Iraq question must, by definition, be a fascist? What, specifically, did Hitchens say on that evening that leads you to call him a fascist buffoon? I'm assuming you chose your words carefully since you've been so fastidious in upbraiding Fanusi for his criticisms.
Other Comments by keith
32. Comment #120377 by keith on February 1, 2008 at 2:38 pm
Point put forward by MaxD:
And why is no one else offended by the Galloway comment celebrating the 150 or so successful operations in iraq. He was talking about the insurgents who care not a whit for their fellow iraqis and in fact target them with much greater frequency than they do americans and (formerly) british troops.
Response by Al-Rawandi:
I agree about Galloway, he gets a little whacky. However I shy away from this nonsense about terrorists being those who attack occupation forces. By that logic, American revolutionaries were terrorists, more so because they targeted officers with snipers.
The targeting of other Iraqis gives me a sense that they are anarchists as well as a number of different ethnic and religious groups.
Al-Rawandi, your post in no way deals with the assertion that nobody, not even George Galloway, should cheer on the 'insurgents' who intentionally target fellow Iraqis as a means of undermining the democratic process. As has been pointed out a million times (and I shall do so again), being against the invasion (a very reasonable position) does not mean that you should now be on the side of the insurgents who are trying to wreck Iraq (a stupid position and that of Galloway). This is a change from an anti-war/pro-Iraq stance to a simple anti-Americanism/anti-democratic Iraq stance in the blink of an eye.
Other Comments by keith
33. Comment #120408 by epsilondelta on February 1, 2008 at 3:31 pm
"I am sure I am not the only atheist in the world who experienced an indescribable feeling of liberation/ecstacy when I realized that theism wassimply just not true, and removed myself from its shackles."
You aren't the only one; I felt exactly the same way. My life has been infinitely better since.
Other Comments by epsilondelta
34. Comment #120412 by mark65 on February 1, 2008 at 3:43 pm
Galloway is a prick who loves the sound of his own voice.Other Comments by mark65
35. Comment #120413 by HughCaldwell on February 1, 2008 at 3:44 pm
"This has got to be the stupidest comment yet. Hitchens, whether you like him or hate him, is in no way a fascist."Just a throwaway statement. Yes, the Great Man is completely wrong, gutless and fascistic on the Iraq issue. Would you care to compare his windy words with the tremendous courage shown by Galloway to free the Iraqis from the cruel, crushing and murderous weight of US/UK sanctions?
Other Comments by HughCaldwell
36. Comment #120418 by Robert Maynard on February 1, 2008 at 3:54 pm
As I scrolled through this mess, only one comment really stuck out to me, the 'fascist buffoon' bit. Now I've seen the debate with Galloway too, and I can't think of anything that Hitchens said which was fascistic - he did however have to spend considerable time demonstrating (repeatedly) how radical and reactionary leftists like Galloway often end up supporting the grossest causes in dizzy opposition to "Western colonialism", causes which are often reminiscent of fascism.If you think that criticising the use of cheap moral equivalences makes one a fascist, you are a crazy person who has arrived in a time machine from the 70s. Thank you.
EDIT: And before yet another leap of thought-free, monochromatic transference is made (Robert's defending Hitchens, Hitchens defends the invasion of Iraq, Robert defends the invasion of Iraq!), there is a broad spectrum of positions one can take on Iraq, and defending Hitchens does not mean I stand with him.
Secondly, the claims of bias toward Hitchens are written on tissue. For those not familiar with the site, Hitchens Watch is an anti-Hitchens blog, whose contributors are routinely critical of his "Islamophobia" and journalistic integrity. A five second perusal of other posts would show that it is biased against Hitchens, and the fact that the review is positive despite the blog's slant should give an indication at how badly this went for Boteach.
Other Comments by Robert Maynard
37. Comment #120421 by skepticato on February 1, 2008 at 4:01 pm
I was at this debate. If anything this review was too mild about how conclusive Hitchens' victory was. Hitchens was in top form. Boteach didn't have a chance...or a single coherent argument to offer. I was quite surprised at just how awful he was - it was almost embarrassing to watch and people were really feeling sorry for him. My favorite moment was at the end when the line for Hitchens book signing snaked around the room and they kept making announcements saying if anyone at all was there to get a book signed by the Rabbi they could just go up to the front. I was in the line for around 30 minutes, not a single person walked up to Boteach in that time.
Other Comments by skepticato
38. Comment #120422 by keith on February 1, 2008 at 4:03 pm
"This has got to be the stupidest comment yet. Hitchens, whether you like him or hate him, is in no way a fascist."
Just a throwaway statement. Yes, the Great Man is completely wrong, gutless and fascistic on the Iraq issue. Would you care to compare his windy words with the tremendous courage shown by Galloway to free the Iraqis from the cruel, crushing and murderous weight of US/UK sanctions?
No, I don't want to compare anything because we'll just get into an argument that will go nowhere. However, I would like you to explain why Hitchens is "fascistic on the Iraqi issue". Do you simply mean he was for the invasion? Don't you think that overusing a term can lesson its effect? Would you, for instance, put Hitchens on the same moral plane as Adolf Hitler? Benito Mussolini? Oswald Mosley?
Also, I find your explanation of "Just a throwaway statement" rich coming from one with such a litigious mind.
Other Comments by keith
39. Comment #120426 by Enlightenme.. on February 1, 2008 at 4:11 pm
..."Then he called Hitchens "positively ignorant" and sat down."
I chuckled to myself at that.
It comes across as a classic
"I'll .. just get my coat" moment.
Other Comments by Enlightenme..
40. Comment #120436 by scooternyc on February 1, 2008 at 4:22 pm
I was at the event and Hitchens was on his game, no doubt. I'm glad he was the first one up at the podium, he made his case so efficiently and precise.
I've seen Hitchens several times this past year on this subject and he has refined and defined it so effectively, any atheist would be glad he's, in a sense, speaking on our behalf.
The most glaring problem with the "debate" was that is wasn't a debate in any sense of the word.
Hitchens was left to defending his credentials too much of the time from the vitriol of the rabbi.
In fact, the rabbi did not present his case at all.
Hitchens clearly stated at the beginning what the motion before us was, "Does god exist?". The burden was all upon the those that claim it - hence, the rabbi - who never even approached the challenge.
The rabbi spent more time attacking Hitch and utilizing quotations not germane to the motion presented; was illogical and had no grasp of science but for which he acted as though he was. This was the same tactic utilized by Sharpton and challenged by Ayaan back in May, one of the other times I saw Hitchens in this forum.
While Hitch was on his game, entertaining as always, and humorous more than he could possibly contain, the rabbi was a mess, with a voice so shrill that I'm sure there were dogs howling within the neighborhood in response to his high pitched yelps; his mind had walked off the map.
Other Comments by scooternyc
41. Comment #120441 by Radesq on February 1, 2008 at 4:25 pm
Welcome back Scooternyc, I was preparing to present an accountability/responsibility argument to someone on another thread...but I'll wait until you find him. Other Comments by Radesq
42. Comment #120443 by scooternyc on February 1, 2008 at 4:28 pm
Batboy - Greetings.
Well, I understand most people don't wish to be either accountable or responsible - they're happier with their consequence free lifestyle for which others are handed the bill. LOL!
Other Comments by scooternyc
43. Comment #120521 by MelM on February 1, 2008 at 10:08 pm
Yet another "red herring" debate?From scooternyc,
In fact, the rabbi did not present his case at all.
Hitchens clearly stated at the beginning what the motion before us was, "Does god exist?". The burden was all upon the those that claim it - hence, the rabbi - who never even approached the challenge.
The rabbi spent more time attacking Hitch and utilizing quotations not germane to the motion presented; was illogical and had no grasp of science but for which he acted as though he was. This was the same tactic utilized by Sharpton and challenged by Ayaan back in May, one of the other times I saw Hitchens in this forum
Off the top, I don't remember a debate or interview that was supposed to be about the existence of G*d that wasn't pulled off track quite successfully with a "red herring". It always works. All the theist has to do is drag in Hitler or "good works" or....
About the "red herring" fallacy:
http://www.fallacyfiles.org/redherrf.html
Other Comments by MelM
44. Comment #120586 by scooternyc on February 2, 2008 at 4:25 am
MelM, you're right that the red herring always shows through and it was interesting in observation that the rabbi didn't even attempt to prove the existence of god he just went for the fish.
I would have enjoyed hearing Hitchens say, "yes, yes, yes, we know all these great quotes that you and I could drag out aud nauseum, but it still doesn't prove your case for the existence of god -where is your evidence to the personal claim? What have you got to offer us to place under the microscope of scrutiny?"
Ultimately, past all the quotes of attempted credential to prove the point, the individual making the claim really has the burden upon him or her self, an understanding lost on the unfortunate rabbi.
Other Comments by scooternyc
45. Comment #120589 by ericcolumba on February 2, 2008 at 4:55 am
It depresses me to see that even on this forum there are those among you who can't see through Galloway.
As someone who considers himself a socialist and an internationalist. I am dismayed by the actions of the pseudo left personified by Galloway and Ken Livingston.
These people have found common ground(anti west, anti american and anti semitic) with Islamo fascists in the arab world.
Instead of backing secular academics, womans groups and trade union leaders they have aligned themselves with Hezbollah to the extent that so called liberal and left wing british middle classes marched against the war holding banners saying "We Are All Hizbollah Now"
The same Islamic fascists who are homophobic, misogynists who 2500 Arab secular academics have petitioned the UN to condemn.
So no I can't sit here and read comments lavishing praise on Galloway and his ilk and not say anything.
I believe that everyone on this planet should have the right to change their government and we have a duty in the west to promote the basic democratic values of equal rights, democracy and freedom of expression.
And to all those anti war people I don't know what kind of logic says democracy is good for you but not for others.
Other Comments by ericcolumba
46. Comment #120592 by scooternyc on February 2, 2008 at 5:02 am
Eric, you've just opened yourself up to the vitriol of descent.
Brace yourself and best of luck.
Other Comments by scooternyc
47. Comment #120593 by epeeist on February 2, 2008 at 5:03 am
Comment #120589 by ericcolumbaIt depresses me to see that even on this forum there are those among you who can't see through Galloway.
As someone who considers himself a socialist and an internationalist. I am dismayed by the actions of the pseudo left personified by Galloway and Ken Livingston.
I don't know how socialist you are, long years ago I used to be a member of a Trotskyist organisation. Two of the major things that caused me to leave were the internecine squabbling that went on and the support for some significantly nasty people and organisations because they looked vaguely anti-capitalist (Oh, and the fact that the organisation's printing press was owned by a single individual who effectively censored anything that went in the paper).
I agree with you about Galloway, but I wasn't prepared to allow an unsubstantiated accusation stand without pointing people at something more evidential.
Other Comments by epeeist
48. Comment #120599 by Steve Zara on February 2, 2008 at 5:12 am
As someone who considers himself a socialist and an internationalist. I am dismayed by the actions of the pseudo left personified by Galloway and Ken Livingston.These people have found common ground(anti west, anti american and anti semitic) with Islamo fascists in the arab world.
I do agree with you. It seems to me to be an attitude of "my enemy's enemy is my friend".
The problem with this is you can end up with some very unpleasant friends.
Other Comments by Steve Zara
49. Comment #120603 by ericcolumba on February 2, 2008 at 5:39 am
Scooternyc
So far so good.
Other Comments by ericcolumba
50. Comment #120619 by phasmagigas on February 2, 2008 at 6:10 am
from the video it was intersting to see the moderators insistence that boteach explain what he meant by god, boteach answers with an almost d'sousaesque whining and pleading 'he who..., he who...., he who...., he who i am somethimes angry at...
hes not providing any useful answer, instead hes attempting to win over like minds by emotional pleading, this is a common tactic ive noticed with creationists/religious people, things like 'you know your grandma wasnt a monkey' they are oftren rolled up and disguised within facetious comments to waste time and entrap unsophisticated listners.
Other Comments by phasmagigas
Upcoming Events:
About this site
Mailing List Signup: Enter your email
Go to The Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science
Richard Dawkins Articles | Comments | Tour Journal
Atheist Resources | Local Groups
Debate Points | Latest Responses
Links:
Quotes of Note:
"Hot on the heels of its magnanimous pardoning of Galileo, the Vatican has now moved with even more lightning speed to recognise the truth of Darwinism."
Richard Dawkins
"The universe is a strange and wondrous place. The truth is quite odd enough to need no help from pseudoscientific charlatans."
Richard Dawkins
"The sermon was based on what he claimed was a well-known fact, that there were no Atheists in foxholes. I asked Jack what he thought of the sermon afterwards, and he said, "There's a Chaplain who never visited the front.""
Kurt Vonnegut
"Science offers us an explanation of how complexity (the difficult) arose out of simplicity (the easy). The hypothesis of God offers no worthwhile explanation for anything, for it simply postulates what we are trying to explain."
Richard Dawkins
"There was no place in the land where the seeker could not find some small budding sign of pity for the slave. No place in all the land but one-- the pulpit. It yielded last; it always does. It fought a strong and stubborn fight, and then did what it always does, joined the procession-- at the tail end. Slavery fell. The slavery texts in the Bible remained; the practice changed; that was all."
Mark Twain
Other Recommended Reading
Parenting Beyond Belief
Dale McGowan (Editor)
Evolution
Jean-Baptiste de Panafieu
The End of Faith
Sam Harris
The Quotable Atheist
Jack Huberman
The Blank Slate
Steven Pinker
More Books
Adjust font size: 
"If this book doesn't change the world -- we're all screwed."
-Penn (Penn & Teller)
The God Delusion
by Richard Dawkins
Over 1.5 million copies sold
DVDs
'Break the Science Barrier' DVD
'The Four Horsemen' DVD
'AAI 2007 Conference' DVD
'Root of All Evil? The Original Program' DVD
'Root of All Evil? The Uncut Interviews' DVD
'Growing Up in the Universe' DVD
Books by Richard Dawkins
The Oxford Book of Modern Science Writing
by Richard Dawkins
The Ancestor's Tale
by Richard Dawkins
The Selfish Gene
by Richard Dawkins
The Blind Watchmaker
by Richard Dawkins
Unweaving the Rainbow
by Richard Dawkins
1. Comment #120066 by j.mills on February 1, 2008 at 8:23 am
Other Comments by j.mills