Some Hitch zingers

Originally posted by rwingett

Having said that, though, Hitchens was my least favorite of the "New Atheist" authors. His turn toward the right was a mark against him, and his endorsement of 'W' in 2004 (however slight) was inexcusable. Conservatives are the greatest threat to mankind, not religion.

The war-mongering relative to Iraq was a significant blot. Then the revelation that he was quite literally a bum-chum of the Oxonian Cameron set, and his unrequited love for Martin Amis, put things sharply in perspective: Hitchens was a vain alcoholic Tory blowhard, who could destroy, but never build.

Originally posted by stevemcc
I agree with the thrust of this comment but nothing is more conservative than religion, especially 'big' religion, and Hitchen's abhorance of the "islamofascist" entity looks at the difference between Bush and Kerry as trivial. I think he has a point.

Hitchens helped construct the Islamofascist bogey-man that got W his war. Had he not succumbed in agony to oesophageal cancer, he could have been had up for aiding and abetting crimes against humanity.

Originally posted by stevemcc
I agree with the thrust of this comment but nothing is more conservative than religion, especially 'big' religion, and Hitchen's abhorance of the "islamofascist" entity looks at the difference between Bush and Kerry as trivial. I think he has a point.

That's not necessarily true. There have been plenty of religious left wingers over the years, just as there have been some atheists whose politics I've despised. The most obvious cases are Martin Luther King Jr. and Ayn Rand. Despite being an atheist, I consider myself to have more in common with King (the Christian) than with Rand (the atheist). In fact I despise Rand utterly.

It is my contention that dividing the world along the theist/atheist axis is the wrong way to go. The world should be divided along the conservative/liberal axis. The fact that someone is a Christian is irrelevant to me. What matters is to what social use one applies their Christianity.

Unfortunately, these days there seem to be many more conservative Christians that liberal ones. I think part of the reason for that lies with the secular crowd themselves. By shunning both liberal and conservative Christians equally, they've pretty much pushed most Christians into the conservative tent over the years.

Originally posted by rwingett
[b]
It is my contention that dividing the world along the theist/atheist axis is the wrong way to go. The world should be divided along the conservative/liberal axis. The fact that someone is a Christian is irrelevant to me. What matters is to what social use one applies their Christianity.

First, I appreciate the thoughtful response. The axis you refer to I might distinguish as a 'moral' axis, reserving the word religious for the organizational entities that I think of as 'conservative'. The organizations that formally justify violence against non-believers (the Christian crusades, Sharia Law, to name only two) are always worthy opponents. Hitchen's strong abhorance is neither manufactured, nor unworthy, despite the kant that arises when people like "W" are discussed, which is a separate subject.

Originally posted by stevemcc
First, I appreciate the thoughtful response. The axis you refer to I might distinguish as a 'moral' axis, reserving the word religious for the organizational entities that I think of as 'conservative'. The organizations that formally justify violence against non-believers (the Christian crusades, Sharia Law, to name only two) are always worthy opponents. Hi ...[text shortened]... ite the kant that arises when people like "W" are discussed, which is a separate subject.

By aiding conservatives, you are causing greater harm than the evil you are supposedly fighting. By endorsing Bush, Hitchens was promoting an unequivocal evil in order to fight an entity (religion) that is often, but not necessarily, evil. He made the wrong choice.

Originally posted by rwingett
By aiding conservatives, you are causing greater harm than the evil you are supposedly fighting. By endorsing Bush, Hitchens was promoting an unequivocal evil in order to fight an entity (religion) that is often, but not necessarily, evil. He made the wrong choice.

3 catagorical sentences. Not at all what I expected. The common element of 'bad' conservatism is its tendency to be doctrinaire.

Despite not sharing many of his views I've always taken great delight in reading his musings on politics and religion, he was undoubtedly a master of his trade and his wit and observational acuteness will be missed.

Originally posted by stevemcc
3 catagorical sentences. Not at all what I expected. The common element of 'bad' conservatism is its tendency to be doctrinaire.

What else would you possibly expect? Conservativism = evil. They are virtually synonymous. Any dalliance with conservatism, however slight, is a step into the heart of darkness.

Although there is a high correlation between conservativism and religion, one does not necessitate the other. Therefore, on the face of it, one cannot know if a religious person is evil. But it follows automatically that a conservative person will be the quintessence of evil.

Originally posted by rwingett
What else would you possibly expect? Conservativism = evil. They are virtually synonymous. Any dalliance with conservatism, however slight, is a step into the heart of darkness.

Although there is a high correlation between conservativism and religion, one does not necessitate the other. Therefore, on the face of it, one cannot know if a religious person ...[text shortened]... evil. But it follows automatically that a conservative person will be the quintessence of evil.

I haven't heard anyone define evil since the inquisition. I'm sorry but I'm not buying your religion, to say nothing of your logic.

Originally posted by stevemcc
I haven't heard anyone define evil since the inquisition. I'm sorry but I'm not buying your religion, to say nothing of your logic.

Not buying into my religion? Is that how you compartmentalize those with whom you disagree, by defining them as being religious? Well, your fixation on religion is sadly misplaced. The proper issue of consideration here is politics - your grasp of which seems to be rather tenuous. Until you grasp the commonsense fact that conservatives are the root cause of all evil in the world today, you'll continue to be mired in your increasingly outlandish world view.