Christopher Hitchens and Genocide- by Justin Raimondo

Christopher Hitchens and Genocide- by Justin Raimondo:

You know the paranoiac stereotypes of atheists held by many fundamentalists, about how they’re basically out to destroy religion? It turns out that Christopher Htichens, one of the most prominent spokesmen for modern atheism, is out there advocating the slaughter of Muslims just because they’re Muslim — because Islam is a particularly pernicious form of Theism, which is itself evil and must be stamped out. No kidding. Presumably Jews and Christians get a pass for now, but right now he considers us to be in a “clash of civilizations” against Islam, and he thinks nuclear weaponry would be a great next move in the conflict.

Because of this apocalyptic agenda, he favors Rudy Giuliani for president — he seems likeliest to take us in the genocidal direction of which Hitchens approves.


10 thoughts on “Christopher Hitchens and Genocide- by Justin Raimondo”

  1. This makes me sad. I, generally, support the ideas of the “new atheists” and the “evangelical atheists” but when it gets to this point (and links in the article you point to about Hitchens’ drunken rage), it proves a couple of things:

    1. Crazies in every camp.
    2. Atheism is becoming indistinguishable from religion
    3. The only answer is compassion, that peace will only be found through peace.

  2. It seems as if he’s not just a “crazy” in the camp, but one of the leaders of the movement, no? The “evangelical atheists” are Hitchens and a few other guys, and that’s it…

  3. That is something I’ve noticed about the “evangelical atheists.”

    While I haven’t read their books, I have heard them interviewed and the impression I’ve gotten is that they don’t see religion simply as a delusion (which would be fine), but a danger. Sam Harris (as heard on Fresh Air), for example, seemed to be arguing that moderates were just as dangerous as fundamentalists because the existence of moderates puts fundamentalists on the extreme end of something respectable.

  4. I don’t largely agree with the positions of the New Atheists, mostly because, in my experience, they display such incredibly wide gaps in basic reasoning. I’m particularly troubled by the number of scientists who don’t seem to understand the basics of the philosophies of science. This crackpot hardly surprises me.

  5. I do think that there is something to the Harris’ idea that moderate religionists make it difficult to confront extremist religionists by making it difficult to confront religious thinking in general.

    Certainly we can see that evidenced-based practice in our lives is very,very useful and religious practice generally doesn’t follow this model. And I’m sure that when given an opportunity to trust science or faith for a very tangible cause (like getting to work or stopping an arterial bleed) each one of us will rely far more on science than religious faith.

    Mental illness is founded in non-rational thinking , not connecting the dots “properly.” I don’t see anyone advocating that mental illness should be “tolerated.” We see those people as suffering and we are moved by compassion. I’m not exactly sure how religious thinking (non-rational beliefs that don’t adhere to what our normative models) differs greatly from this. Bear in mind when I say this I’m trying to be delicate and at the same time I, myself, enjoy a rich spiritual life. No offense intended.

    I don’t want to start a flurry of posts here, so this will be my last comment on this topic.

  6. Moab, everything you’ve said is based on vastly oversimplifying a very complex topic, which is what “rationality” and “empiricism” are, even what science is. If you work with two very simplistic categories, in one of which is Science, Rational Thinking, Connecting The Dots Properly, Medicine, and Evidence-Based Practice (whatever that means) — and of course Atheism — and in another is Faith, Mental Illness, Irrationality, Non-Evidence-Based Practice, Woo-Woo, and of course Religion, well, it makes one of those sound pretty good, and the other sound pretty bad.

    But that’s as simpleminded as the claim that there can be no ethical or moral practice without a belief in God. And as wrong.

    Surely simplemindedly shoehorning the world into artificial dichotomies to make an ideological point isn’t Rational?…

  7. I’m a filthy liar, as it seems I am posting again. =)
    Agreed, Ed, I am oversimplifying without a doubt. And no doubt it leads to inaccuracies and does an injustice to the topic at hand.

    However, it does seem that without simplifying it is nearly impossible to have a conversation about the topic.

  8. If by “a conversation” you mean “approving of other people’s unjustifiable oversimplifications,” I agree with you!

Comments are closed.