All-Purpose Religion Thread

[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.

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 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, he 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.

Yougoslavia and the war on terror are two different situations. He blotted his copybook with his support of the neo con interventionist policy in the Middle East.

Hindsight is great, foresight is greater. Thousands of people from all backgrounds marched against the war in Iraq. Many knew of the disaster that it would become, many suspected the reasons to be false, nobody listened to them. Hitchens was not one of these people, and even with the benefit of hindsight he remained steadfast in his opinion, despite that opinion becoming more and more demonstrably absurd as the blood of millions was shed and non of his predictions became a reality.

Was he an intellectual? Well his education armed him with an impressive vocabulary, but I always found the content confused, on a number of subjects. However there was one subject he was quite clear on. His hatred of religion consumed him, and shaped his views, and if you hate, reason and logic is lost, and that is why he was so spectacularly wrong on 'the war of terror', and why in my opinion he's not 'awesome'.

[Kiwivillan]

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.

 

Speaking of which I think I will watch Hitchens vs Blair: Is religion a force for good in the world

 

I wonder how many times Blair will say "I posit you..."? (the basis of any Blair impersonation I do which is apparently quite reasonable)

[TrentVilla]

 

Yougoslavia and the war on terror are two different situations. He blotted his copybook with his support of the neo con interventionist policy in the Middle East.

Hindsight is great, foresight is greater. Thousands of people from all backgrounds marched against the war in Iraq. Many knew of the disaster that it would become, many suspected the reasons to be false, nobody listened to them. Hitchens was not one of these people, and even with the benefit of hindsight he remained steadfast in his opinion, despite that opinion becoming more and more demonstrably absurd as the blood of millions was shed and non of his predictions became a reality.

Was he an intellectual? Well his education armed him with an impressive vocabulary, but I always found the content confused, on a number of subjects. However there was one subject he was quite clear on. His hatred of religion consumed him, and shaped his views, and if you hate, reason and logic is lost, and that is why he was so spectacularly wrong on 'the war of terror', and why in my opinion he's not 'awesome'.

 

 

 Yougo where?

Yes they are two different situations, I have to wonder if you actually read what I posted, if you did it certainly didn't get through.

 

That you found his content confused is in my view a reflection on you rather than him.

[Kingfisher]

I read your post, I didn't answer many specific points as I didn't see very much relevance in them. His hatred of religion was a driving factor which shaped his views. But how this intellectual thought we could solve the problem of specifically islamic extremism in the case of Afghan/iraq the way he did I find utterly bizarre.

[Kiwivillan]

I read your post, I didn't answer many specific points as I didn't see very much relevance in them. His hatred of religion was a driving factor which shaped his views. But how this intellectual thought we could solve the problem of specifically islamic extremism in the case of Afghan/iraq the way he did I find utterly bizarre.

 

Saddam wasn't an islamic extremist. Hitchens was opposed to him because he was a ruthless dictator, which he was.

[CarewsEyebrowDesigner]

Hitchens' main hatred was toward totalitarianism. His views are consistent with that, whether you agree with him or not.

[TrentVilla]

I read your post, I didn't answer many specific points as I didn't see very much relevance in them.

 

Again, that is down to you.

[Kingfisher]

I read your post, I didn't answer many specific points as I didn't see very much relevance in them.

Again, that is down to you.

Indeed.

Hitchens is the man, remember, who said islamophobia is a fake term, because fear of Islam is not irrational. With that kind of language he really was bangong the fear drum for the neo-cons. The policy which was resulting in soldiers returning home in body bags had to be justified somehow.

Putting his anti-Islamic feelings aside for a moment, other reasons for supporting Bush and Blair ranged from terrorism, WMD's, democracy, you name it. But the policy hasn't worked, it was never going to work, it was doomed to failure from the start, and now, ironically, in Iraq we have another potential Yugoslavia.

So no, IMO, Hitchens was not 'awesome' as a writer, speaker, journalist or intellectual.

[Brumerican]

If you don't think he was awesome that is absolutely fine . The problem is that you called him a moron, which he isn't .

Being wrong doesn't make you a moron  . You are spectacularly wrong about him not being a great writer and you wouldn't call yourself a moron would you ?

[mjmooney]

I disagree with him about politics.

 

I agree with him about religion.

 

What so hard about that?

[TrentVilla]

He wasn't anti-Islamic FFS, he was anti religion. His views on Iraq had nothing to do with Islam which is why I referenced the Balkans.

 

You don't know what you are talking about.

[Brumerican]

 

I disagree with him about politics.

 

I agree with him about religion.

 

What so hard about that?

Regardless of whether you agreed with him on absolutely anything at all, how would you rate the man as a writer, journalist, orator and at championing secularism ?

[CrackpotForeigner]

Blimey, what's happened to this thread? So much unseemly arguing. It's as if someone popped up and said there's a god or something.

[mjmooney]

 

I disagree with him about politics.

 

I agree with him about religion.

 

What so hard about that?

Regardless of whether you agreed with him on absolutely anything at all, how would you rate the man as a writer, journalist, orator and at championing secularism ?

 

 

Very highly on all counts.

[Wainy316]

Blimey, what's happened to this thread? So much unseemly arguing. It's as if someone popped up and said there's a god or something.

 

[CrackpotForeigner]

 

Blimey, what's happened to this thread? So much unseemly arguing. It's as if someone popped up and said there's a god or something.

 

 

 

Apart from God himself, obviously. The synod is divided as to whether God is a god, or simply God.

[CarewsEyebrowDesigner]

'The heavily armed attackers pulled up in several cars and shot their way into the most upmarket shopping centre in Nairobi, ordering Muslims out if they could prove their religion by reciting a prayer or answering a question on Islam. They started killing those who failed the test.'

 

Grim reports from Kenya

 

Somehow reminds me of this story retold by Heaney in his Nobel Prize speech

 

 

One of the most harrowing moments in the whole history of the harrowing of the heart in Northern Ireland came when a minibus full of workers being driven home one January evening in 1976 was held up by armed and masked men and the occupants of the van ordered at gunpoint to line up at the side of the road. Then one of the masked executioners said to them, “Any Catholics among you, step out here”. As it happened, this particular group, with one exception, were all Protestants, so the presumption must have been that the masked men were Protestant paramilitaries about to carry out a tit-for-tat sectarian killing of the Catholic as the odd man out, the one who would have been presumed to be in sympathy with the IRA and all its actions. It was a terrible moment for him, caught between dread and witness, but he did make a motion to step forward. Then, the story goes, in that split second of decision, and in the relative cover of the winter evening darkness, he felt the hand of the Protestant worker next to him take his hand and squeeze it in a signal that said no, don't move, we'll not betray you, nobody need know what faith or party you belong to. All in vain, however, for the man stepped out of the line; but instead of finding a gun at his temple, he was thrown backward and away as the gunmen opened fire on those remaining in the line, for these were not Protestant terrorists, but members, presumably, of the Provisional IRA.

 

Edited September 22, 2013 by CarewsEyebrowDesigner

[villaguy]

There's a lot of nutters in this world, I'm unashamedly atheist

[Rodders]

http://madmikesamerica.com/2013/09/6-books-banned-by-christian-influenced-school-boards/

 

3. 1983: The Diary of a Young Girl, Anne Frank

Diary of a Young Girl, by Anne Frank, chronicles the tragic experience of a Jewish family in the Nazi-occupied Netherlands, where the 13-year-old and her family hid until they were caught and sent to concentration camps in August 1944. The book has been challenged numerous times for sexually explicit passages, and, in 1983, the Alabama State Textbook Committee called for rejecting the book because it was “a real downer.”

 

That turn of phrase at the end deary me:

 

. Banning Anne Frank is absurd and offensive in itself, but this next one takes the piss for ironic rationalisation:

 

5. 2006: Charlotte’s Web, E.B. White

Even arachnophobes love Charlotte’s Web, a heart-warming tale about the friendship between a pig named Wilbur and a wordy barn spider called Charlotte. But a parents group in Kansas decided that any book featuring two talking animals must be the work of the devil, and so had E.B. White’s 1952 work barred from classrooms. The group’s central complaint was that humans are the highest level of God’s creation, as shown by, they said, the fact we’re “the only creatures that can communicate vocally. Showing lower life forms with human abilities is sacrilegious and disrespectful to God.”

 

from a religion whose origins story involve a talking snake and later includes a talking bush on fire. Fantastic.

[mockingbird_franklin]

 

 

Yougoslavia and the war on terror are two different situations. He blotted his copybook with his support of the neo con interventionist policy in the Middle East.

Hindsight is great, foresight is greater. Thousands of people from all backgrounds marched against the war in Iraq. Many knew of the disaster that it would become, many suspected the reasons to be false, nobody listened to them. Hitchens was not one of these people, and even with the benefit of hindsight he remained steadfast in his opinion, despite that opinion becoming more and more demonstrably absurd as the blood of millions was shed and non of his predictions became a reality.

Was he an intellectual? Well his education armed him with an impressive vocabulary, but I always found the content confused, on a number of subjects. However there was one subject he was quite clear on. His hatred of religion consumed him, and shaped his views, and if you hate, reason and logic is lost, and that is why he was so spectacularly wrong on 'the war of terror', and why in my opinion he's not 'awesome'.

 

 

 Yougo where?

Yes they are two different situations, I have to wonder if you actually read what I posted, if you did it certainly didn't get through.

 

That you found his content confused is in my view a reflection on you rather than him.

 

Of course they are two different situations, Yugoslavia interventions was about protection of human rights and life, Iraq was all about the threat to the petrodollar,  If saddam hadn't switched to the euro to sell it's goods (oil) he might still be in power today. It's the same reason the USA are on a collision course with Syria and Iran.

Edited September 24, 2013 by mockingbird_franklin