All-Purpose Religion Thread

[Kingfisher]

I didn't call him right wing.

[Brumerican]

Hitchens was a moron.

Sure .

He was one of the right wing media's biggest spokesman for a violent foreign policy which resulted in wars, invasions and millions of deaths. A policy which has been an unmitigated failure. He 'apparently' thought they were just and right wars against what he perceived to be the craziness of Islam. What a fool, if he did, and what a fool because it wasn't, and what a gift he was to the Fox network and the Neocon crusade OF terror.

He was obsessed with defying religion, and missed what's fundamental, an enlightened intellectual he was not.

He may have been wrong about going to war but that hardly makes him a fool or a moron does it ? He was clearly a highly intelligent and entertaining fella who was absolutely fearless. I always have a little chuckle whenever his detractors use his pro war stance as a stick to beat him with .They act like it nullifies his generally brilliant other work . His writing is fantastic regardless of whether you agree with him. Moron ?? I don't think so somehow

[Wainy316]

Hitchens is god.

[TrentVilla]

Hitchens is god.

 

And Dawkins is his son.

[coda]

Hitchens is god.

 

[TrentVilla]

Hitchens was a moron.

 

And that is a moronic statement.

[mjmooney]

Obviously as a writer, Hitchens was 'better' than Dawkins - it was his job, and it shows. 

 

Whereas Dawkins is a fine evolutionary biologist, but less skilled with persuasive writing. I agreed with every word of "The God Delusion", but it was clumsily put together and would have been improved by a good editor. 

[Wainy316]

 

Hitchens is god.

 

 

 

Wait, wait, I think I now agree with the Hitchens is a moron comment.

[Kingfisher]

Hitchens was a moron.

Sure .

He was one of the right wing media's biggest spokesman for a violent foreign policy which resulted in wars, invasions and millions of deaths. A policy which has been an unmitigated failure. He 'apparently' thought they were just and right wars against what he perceived to be the craziness of Islam. What a fool, if he did, and what a fool because it wasn't, and what a gift he was to the Fox network and the Neocon crusade OF terror.

He was obsessed with defying religion, and missed what's fundamental, an enlightened intellectual he was not.

He may have been wrong about going to war but that hardly makes him a fool or a moron does it ? He was clearly a highly intelligent and entertaining fella who was absolutely fearless. I always have a little chuckle whenever his detractors use his pro war stance as a stick to beat him with .They act like it nullifies his generally brilliant other work . His writing is fantastic regardless of whether you agree with him. Moron ?? I don't think so somehow

I think so, definately - how anybody could preach support for something so utterly fundamentally **** up and still be seen as someone worth listening to is beyond be. Ah well, different folks different strokes.

[Brumerican]

 

He was one of the right wing media's biggest spokesman for a violent foreign policy which resulted in wars, invasions and millions of deaths. A policy which has been an unmitigated failure. He 'apparently' thought they were just and right wars against what he perceived to be the craziness of Islam. What a fool, if he did, and what a fool because it wasn't, and what a gift he was to the Fox network and the Neocon crusade OF terror.

He was obsessed with defying religion, and missed what's fundamental, an enlightened intellectual he was not.

The Fox network hated him and you are making it sound as if we went to war on the behest of an author . Also you are insinuating that Hitchens is responsible for MILLIONS of deaths . Are you mental ?

If you think Hitchens is a moron I shudder to think how you would regard someone who has just said the things you have said . Your information is so flawed it's retarded. Shame on you.

Edited August 15, 2013 by Brumerican

[Kingfisher]

The Fox network doesn't give regular air time to people they hate, he was regularly put on their news to propagate the neocon lies with regard to their violent policies. His views are out there, he was given a soapbox and he used it.

The rest of your post is ridiculous, of course I'm not saying he is responsible for millions of deaths, we're judging a man on what he said, and believed, how can anybody possibly draw the conclutions you have regarding what I am saying is quite beyond me.

You shudder to think how I'd judge myself for what I am saying, considering I think Hitchens is a moron? Well, now you've so brilliantly held that mirror up to me I feel ashamed, what was I thinking?!?

Edited August 15, 2013 by Kingfisher

[Brumerican]

Why mention that tht millions have died in the sa 

The Fox network doesn't give regular air time to people they hate, he was regularly put on their news to propagate the neocon lies with regard to their violent policies. His views are out there, he was given a soapbox and he used it.

The rest of your post is ridiculous, of course I'm not saying he is responsible for millions of deaths, we're judging a man on what he said, and believed, how can anybody possibly draw the conclutions you have regarding what I am saying is quite beyond me.

You shudder to think how I'd judge myself for what I am saying, considering I think Hitchens is a moron? Well, now you've so brilliantly held that mirror up to me I feel ashamed, what was I thinking?!?

 

You said he was the right wings biggest pro war spokesman which led to millions of deaths . Why even make that link unless you are trying to put some sort of blame upon him ? Politicians send us to war not authors .

[Kingfisher]

What I wrote is there for people to see, and I think it's quite clear what it is I am saying, and that the conclutions you have attributed to me are false.

Hitchens spent a number of years, his final years, blotting his copybook with his pro war stance. He was so was obsessed with defying religion he missed what's fundamental. An enlightened intellectual he was not.

Edited August 15, 2013 by BOF

[Brumerican]

What I wrote is there for people to see, and I think it's quite clear what it is I am saying, and that the conclutions you have attributed to me are false.

Hitchens spent a number of years, his final years, blotting his copybook with his pro war stance. He was so was obsessed with defying religion he missed what's fundamental. An enlightened intellectual he was not.

So because he was pro war he was a moron ? That takes away from everything else he did ?

What a moronic thing to say.

Edited August 15, 2013 by BOF

[Kingfisher]

Yes he was a moron and yes I do think it rather takes the gloss off somewhat, if we're measuring him against the virtues of being wise, enlightened, intelligent and peaceful. He supported a war, a subject which was not a minor little sideshow in his career, or a footnote of history, but one of the major events of our lifetime and he got it wrong, totally wrong.

His stance was a reflection of his core beliefs, which amplified the negatives of Islam out of all proportion, to the point that he saw war as a legitimate act. How he can be held up as some kind intellectual leader by anybody is beyond my comprehension.

BOF : I've now unhid the original with the abuse taken out.

Edited August 15, 2013 by BOF

[Risso]

At least Hitchens was honest about his reasons for wanting to go to war - he wanted to see the end of Saddam Hussein. 

[Brumerican]

Let's just say that I disagree completely and that I think he was far more intelligent than both you or I . (I don't recall anybody calling him an intellectual leader mind you)

Being wrong does not make you a moron. Are you saying(after the fact I might add) that anybody who supported going to war is a moron ? Hindsight truly is 20/20 eh .

Was he flawed  ? Of course, he was a human being after all .

Was he ever wrong ? Certainly . We all are now and again .

Was he an intellectual  ? Of course he was , which would be apparent after reading even a small sample of his works on pretty much any topic .

Was he a moron  ? Not even close .

I have seen it a million times before though on apologist forums, where people use the war stick to tarnish Hitchens . It really is laughable . I suppose it makes the average joe  feel a little bit smug with themselves though, when they incorrectly  think they can get one over somebody, who is clearly far intellectually superior  than themselves .

Edited August 15, 2013 by Brumerican

[TrentVilla]

Yes he was a moron and yes I do think it rather takes the gloss off somewhat, if we're measuring him against the virtues of being wise, enlightened, intelligent and peaceful. He supported a war, a subject which was not a minor little sideshow in his career, or a footnote of history, but one of the major events of our lifetime and he got it wrong, totally wrong.

His stance was a reflection of his core beliefs, which amplified the negatives of Islam out of all proportion, to the point that he saw war as a legitimate act. How he can be held up as some kind intellectual leader by anybody is beyond my comprehension.

 

 

 

Oh where to even begin.

 

To understand Hitchens stance on Iraq you need to have knowledge of the things that went before it that helped to shape it. One such incident being the war in the former Yugoslavia, Hitchens supported military intervention in Bosnia, in stark contrast to the views of many he was normally categorised with on the left of the political spectrum, instead unintentionally yet unashamedly aligning himself with those on the right who were usually considered his enemy, even by the man himself.

 

Yet he took this stance on principle, he took this stance not because he supported war or military action but because he rightly believed the West couldn't stand by and watch the use of rape, ethnic cleansing and torture as policies of a state. Was this stance anti Islamic? Given that said military intervention stopped the ethnic cleansing of muslim's  in Bosnia?

 

His stance on intervention in the Balkans had nothing to do with religion and everything to do with his humanitarian beliefs and the belief that religion shouldn't be allowed to be the vehicle for the slaughter of the innocent, whatever religion may be the one holding the smoking gun. He was critical of every religious faction in equal measure.

 

The war in the former Yugoslavia was, belatedly sadly, perhaps the finest hour of the post war European Union, the only regret of it should be that it took too long. Yet he supported it from very early on and much like the war in Iraq this was a significant event, not a footnote in history. It was to use your phrase 'one of the major events of our lifetime'.

 

So was Hitchens wrong to support action in Yugoslavia? Do you cast the same moral judgement of him for his support of the cause which was largely though not exclusively aimed at saving the lives of innocent muslims.

 

If you think he was wrong to support such action, you are at least consistent I guess. Consistent in both opinion and what I consider to be the lack of validity of your opinion. If you think he was right then, that military action was appropriate then perhaps you should think twice about your criticism for not being entirely peaceful and for supporting a war.

 

Because in reality if you think action in the former Yugoslavia was right then what you are actually saying is that you don't agree with the action taken in Iraq which is an entirely different stance to the one you are seemingly expressing above.

 

If it simply comes down to you holding a different view to Hitchens on the need for action in Iraq then that really becomes less about morals or intelligence and more about the facts in relation to that particular case in point doesn't it.

 

Hitchens didn't see war as a legitimate action because of some deep rooted core belief that Islam was evil, to suggest so is utterly ridiculous and quite frankly without foundation as the example of the former Yugoslavia demonstrates.

 

He was against organised religion and strongly against religious extremism, his scorn wasn't limited to, reserved for or indeed more intense for any single religion. None was better or worse than any other in his eyes.

 

The views he expressed in support of action in Iraq had nothing to do with Islam and everything to do with his belief that Sadam posed a credible threat to the lives of people both within Iraq and beyond its boarders. It isn't unthinkable to presume this stance was in some way influenced by the West's inertia faced with the escalating conflict in the Balkans until far far too late.

 

Now that isn't to say that the situation in Iraq was the same as that in the Balkans but you can't look at his views on one without at least considering his views on the other.

 

What has happened in the years since the intervention in Iraq really isn't something that can be laid at Hitchens door, it isn't his fault there was no concrete plan by the West for what came after Sadaam, neither is it his fault people continue to kill each other in the name of religion although their actions do illustrate how right he was about religion as a force in the world.

 

His support for action in Iraq was the result of the commonly held belief that Sadaam was hiding weapons, a myth he himself went to great lengths to perpetuate to his own ultimate cost.

 

Yet you claim he was so obsessed with defying religion he missed what was fundamental, if only you could see the irony of this statement but as you say yourself it is seemingly beyond your comprehension.

[Kiwivillan]

I will read what Trent posted at some stage but I just want to say and have said to friends who love Hitch for many reasons but bring it up, if you get caught up on his Iraq stance you're a moron for taking it out of context.

[Risso]

Hitchens defended the war in Iraq on the basis he wanted to see Saddam Hussein removed.  If Bliar has been as upfront in the reasons instead of telling blatant lies, he probably wouldn't be so reviled now.