Tag Archives: Christopher Hitchens

Christopher Hitchens answers his own riddle

Posted on by
Reply

The riddle:

‘Can you name any moral action or ethical statement that could be made or performed by a believer but could not be made or performed by an unbeliever?’

The answer:

‘Here is my attempt to win my own prize. When Lech Walesa was starting his work in the Polish shipyards and the Polish Militia and the outer ring of the Polish Army were closing in on Gdansk, he was interviewed with his then fairly small group, and he was asked: “Aren’t you frightened, aren’t you afraid? You’ve taken on a whole powerful state and army – aren’t you scared?” And he said: “I’m not frightened of anything  but God or anyone but God.”
‘This came back to me, I thought, well, this meets my two criteria. It’s certainly a noble thing to have said, a distinguished thing to have said, and I certainly couldn’t have said it. So it does meet both my criteria.’

From here

The Canadian discharger

Posted on by
2

Of disgusting bile. The Canadian Charger is an “alternative” (alternative to sane, I presume) magazine that, according to the professor of communication studies, University of Windsor is one of the best examples of “alternative” – I’m going to add that to my annoying words list – media.Add an Image

In an August 13th missive, Joshua Blakeney, whose photo seems to be a portrait of someone sitting on a cluster of burst haemorrhoids without the benefit of an inflatable ring cushion, declares that Christopher Hitchens, through his oesophageal cancer, is receiving his just desserts:

On June 30, Vanity Fair journalist Christopher Hitchens posted on the magazine’s website that he has cancer of the esophagus. As I was contemplating this revelation, I couldn’t help feeling that the neoconservative armchair warrior was getting his just desserts.

The prospect of Hitchens having to cancel engagements at a time when an Israeli-American assault on Iran seems imminent is positive for humanity, I argue, because it deprives the war propaganda machine of one of its most erudite apologists.

I disagree with Christopher Hitchens’ views on Christianity – although less so his opinion of Islam – and his sniping at people like Mother Teresa and Jerry Falwell was inexcusable. Even though Blakeney excoriates this with considerable relish, it is but a sidebar to Hitchens’ true crimes: what Joshua Blakeney really can’t stomach  is that Christopher Hitchens “morphed from a “Trotskyite” into a Bush-supporting neoconservative”. And he supports Israel. Bring out the garlic and holy water.

The fact is, Christopher Hitchens is one of the most engrossing and bright political and social commentators of our time; agree with him or not, his cancer is a cause for sadness not rejoicing and, if it finally kills him, the world will be a less interesting place.

Christopher Hitchens ponders his mortality

Posted on by
1

A couple of interviews with Christopher Hitchens:

One of the interestingly wrong points that Hitchens makes is that if he does end up making a deathbed confession of faith, we should not take it seriously since it would be the product of delirium, pain, panic or chemically altered brain functions: in other words, it wouldn’t be the “real” Hitchens. For an atheist, though, where the material is the only reality, it would still be the “real” Hitchens, since the version of this over-inflated ego that exists in any moment in time is the only real one there is. For Christians a Lord Marchmain style deathbed conversion would be an occasion of rejoicing; for atheists one of lament – but atheists would not be able to wriggle out of it being a real statement of faith by a real Hitchens.

Watching these, it would take a hard hearted person not to feel sorry for him.

Christopher Hitchens diagnosed with cancer

Posted on by
1

From here:Add an Image

Christopher Hitchens diagnosed with cancer, cuts short his book tour

Christopher Hitchens is being treated for cancer, forcing the D.C. writer to cut short his latest book tour. In a statement released through his publisher Twelve, the British-born provocateur, 61, said that he has “been advised by my physician that I must undergo a course of chemotherapy on my esophagus. This advice seems persuasive to me.”

Now would be a good time to try praying for an atheist.

Vatican to evangelise atheists – some atheists

Posted on by
2

From The Independent:

The Vatican is planning a new initiative to reach out to atheists and agnostics in an attempt to improve the church’s relationship with non-believers. Pope Benedict XVI has ordered officials to create a new foundation where atheists will be encouraged to meet and debate with some of the Catholic Church’s top theologians.

The Vatican hopes to stage a series of debates in Paris next year. But militant non-believers hoping for a chance to set senior church figures straight about the existence of God are set to be disappointed: the church has warned that atheists with high public profiles such as Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens will not be invited.

As a Christian I believe that no-one is beyond redemption: Christ died for all sinners. It is interesting, then, that the Catholic Church – which presumably believes the same thing – is planning on excluding some atheists from their evangelistic endeavours. The only sentient creatures whom we would normally view as excluded from Christ’s offer of salvation are the demons of hell led by Lucifer himself – in whose company the Catholic church seems to have placed Dawkins and Hitchens. A satisfying thought, but perhaps a tad harsh.

A new proof for God’s existence

Posted on by
Reply

Until recently the popular proofs for God’s existence have been the ontological, teleological, cosmological, and moral arguments.

Now we have the new atheists’ proof:

The best proof of God’s existence is the urge some writers feel to deny it. Since the instinct of writers is to make a noise, and denying something that isn’t makes none, they wouldn’t waste their time quarrelling with a nonexistent God.

Hitchens declares himself an anti-theist: he is against God; he hates him as the ultimate tyrant. Dawkins exhibits much the same loathing. None of the contemporary atheists have the grace or wit of their forebears like Bertrand Russell who, when asked what he would say to God if he was proved wrong said, “Not enough evidence, God, not enough evidence.” – a demonstration of wilful ignorance, but not hatred.

You can’t hate something that much if it isn’t really there, so it’s hard not to see the excessive protestations against an allegedly mythical Deity as anything other than the recycling of the age old rebellion: a proof, not a denial of God’s existence.

A new proof for God’s existence

Until recently the popular proofs for God’s existence have been the ontological, teleological, cosmological, and moral argument.

Now we have the new atheists’ proof:

The best proof of God’s existence is the urge some writers feel to deny it. Since the instinct of writers is to make a noise, and denying something that isn’t makes none, they wouldn’t waste their time quarrelling with a nonexistent God.

Hitchens declares himself an anti-theist: he is against God. If it turns out God is really there, he would hate him as the ultimate tyrant. Dawkins exhibits much the same loathing. None of the contemporary atheists has the grace or wit of their forebears like Bertrand Russell who when asked what he would say to God if he was proved wrong said, “Not enough evidence, God, not enough evidence.” – a demonstration of ignorance, but not hatred.

You can’t hate something that much if it isn’t really there, so it’s hard not to see the excessive protestations against an allegedly mythical Deity as anything other than the recycling of the age old rebellion : a proof, not a denial of his existence.

Roman Polanski, celebrity child rapist

Posted on by
Reply

From here:

A British woman came forward Friday alleging sexual assault against director Roman Polanski, who is currently under house arrest in Switzerland for the sexual assault of a 13-year-old girl in 1977.

In a press conference at her attorney Gloria Allred’s Los Angeles office, Charlotte Lewis, an actress who appeared in Polanski’s 1986 film “Pirates,” alleged that Polanski sexually abused her in the “worst way possible” when she was 16 years old. Lewis claims the attack took place in Paris in 1982, four years after he fled the U.S. to escape sentencing for the sexual assault of 13-year-old Samantha Geimer.

According to Lewis, now 42, Polanski was aware that she was 16 at the time when he “forced himself” on her in his apartment. The legal age of consent in France is 15.

“He took advantage of me,” Lewis said. “What I want is justice.”

The renowned defenders of the sexually innocent, Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens, are busy organising lawyers to force the extradition of Polanski so that he can face charges in the US and Britain.

No they’re not, I made that up.

Contrary to popular belief, Christopher Hitchens isn’t always wrong

Posted on by
2

From Slate:

French attempts to outlaw the burqa strike a blow for the rights of women.

The French legislators who seek to repudiate the wearing of the veil or the burqa—whether the garment covers “only” the face or the entire female body—are often described as seeking to impose a “ban.” To the contrary, they are attempting to lift a ban: a ban on the right of women to choose their own dress, a ban on the right of women to disagree with male and clerical authority, and a ban on the right of all citizens to look one another in the face. The proposed law is in the best traditions of the French republic, which declares all citizens equal before the law and—no less important—equal in the face of one another.

In contrast, Bishop Barry Clarke – a bellwether whose proclamations I routinely use as a litmus for ideological buffoonery – unsurprisingly opposes a similar ban in Quebec:

MONTREAL – A bill that would bar a woman wearing a face veil from receiving government services is an attack on women’s rights in the guise of defending equality of the sexes, say the Anglican diocese of Montreal and the Simone de Beauvoir Institute.

In a statement approved Monday night by local clergy and Bishop Barry Clarke, the diocese said the bill erodes freedom of religion guaranteed under the Quebec and Canadian human-rights charters.

How Christopher Hitchens copes with futility

Posted on by
1

Albert Camus in his novel, The Plague, makes the point that without God humans live in an indifferent, incomprehensible universe that has no rational meaning or order. Camus’ solution to this little problem is not resignation or stoicism but to fight back even though it may be with the knowledge that the fight is futile. For an atheistic existentialist, life’s meaning is found not in overcoming, but in struggling against  the apparent evil in the natural order of things. This struggle in the certain knowledge of ultimate failure defines man’s freedom: he is not merely a puppet of the natural order that created him.

I think this is a daft way to live but, as can be seen in this exchange with William Lane Craig, it seems to be an energising principle behind Christopher Hitchens’ attempt to live with the futility of his own existence. The difference between Camus and Hitchens is that, whereas Hitchens never tires of expressing his hatred of all things Christian, Camus had a grudging respect for believers who lived by their Christian principles.

Homosexuality a major cause of priestly paedophilia in the church

Posted on by
1

From Lifesite News:

A must-read paper produced by Human Life International Research Director Brian Clowes has closed the book on the question of whether homosexuality in the priesthood is a root cause of the clerical sexual abuse crisis.  Citing numerous research studies, Clowes demonstrates that homosexuality is strongly linked to sexual abuse of minors, and that celibacy is definitely not a cause of pedophilia.

Clowes cites studies, including:

– Homosexual Alfred Kinsey, the USA’s preeminent sexual researcher, found in 1948 that 37 percent of all male homosexuals admitted to having sex with children under 17 years old.

– A recent study published in the Archives of Sexual Behavior found that “The best epidemiological evidence indicates that only 2.4% of men attracted to adults prefer men.  In contrast, around 25-40% of men attracted to children prefer boys.  Thus, the rate of homosexual attraction is 6-20 times higher among pedophiles.”

– A study in the Archives of Sexual Behavior found that, “Pedophilia appears to have a greater than chance association with two other statistically infrequent phenomena.  The first of these is homosexuality … Recent surveys estimate the prevalence of homosexuality, among men attracted to adults, in the neighborhood of 2%.  In contrast, the prevalence of homosexuality among pedophiles may be as high as 30-40%.”

– A study in the Journal of Sex Research noted that “… the proportion of sex offenders against male children among homosexual men is substantially larger than the proportion of sex offenders against female children among heterosexual men … the development of pedophilia is more closely linked with homosexuality than with heterosexuality.”

– A study of 229 convicted child molesters published in the Archives of Sexual Behavior found that “eighty-six percent of [sexual] offenders against males described themselves as homosexual or bisexual.”

If the Roman Catholic church does weed out homosexual priests to protect children, will those howling for blood – the dripping with sanctimony Hitchens-Dawkins conglomerate – applaud or shriek “homophobia”. Let me guess.