http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/the_tls/tls_selections/religion/article2400899.eceHaven’t read this. Looks interesting.
http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/the_tls/tls_selections/religion/article2400899.eceHaven’t read this. Looks interesting.
Since 1963, AMERICAN ATHEISTS has been the premier organization laboring for the civil liberties of Atheists, and the total, absolute separation of government and religion.
Copyright 2012. All materials contained on this site, whether written, audible or visual are the exclusive property of American Atheists.
I really love it when they send the unarmed to a battle of wits. If they hadn’t devolved, there would have been tails literally set firmly between the legs on this one. Keep ‘em running, Hitchens!
Wow, Dawkins almost makes Hitch sound like a wolf you could trust to watch over the sheep…unless they start talking!!!
Can’t believe the two haven’t met. That really must be remedied, I think.
I love this line by Hitchens, which I put in bold. The rest of the paragraph is for context, in response to the old Hitler, Pol Pot, Stalin were atheists meme.
The article is from Sept.2007.
They have met. There is a video discussion between Dawkins,Dennet, Harris, and Hitchens on the Dawkins web site. Look under, The Four Horsemen.
Obeah
Ack! Thanks. I didn’t even look at the date. And I have seen the 4 Horsemen ads, though I haven’t watched the vid(s?). What can I say? I had an attack of teh stoopid.
Not stoopid, just brain fart
They met at the AAI Convention last year. They all signed my Bible.
Given that Hitchens obviously recognizes the connection between religion and imperialism it is more than puzzling that he supported the evangelical and Israeli backed Invasion of Iraq. Has he clarified his position in a way that makes him look like anything but a jewish supporter of aggression against Arabs for fun and profit. Come on Hitch, it’s more than a little transparent.
Dadnabbit! I knew I should have come. That’s pretty cool.
What,
The fact is that I had never heard of Hitchens. But, I do know of Dawkins, and though I have never read any of his books, assuming they are written for those sitting on the fence of the issue of religion, I have seen a number of his interviews and was struck by his ability to eloquently make a point and back it up with inarguable fact. His endorsement of Hitchens has made me curious enough to look at him more closely.
If it turns that what you say is true, that he supported the war in Iraq, then he would be little different from me. I was like Eve, when the serpent spoke to me, I believed that Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, that being a state sponsor of terrorism ($20000 paid to the family of every Palestinian suicide bomber) that it was only a matter of time until he made his statement on our soil. And I heard and understood the arguments that France, Germany, and Russia made, that Hussein was the bottle cap preventing all out civil war, but I thought the risk was outweighed by the necessity of prevention.
I know now that the Iraq war was probably the greatest blunder in American history. But, they lied to me, and I have come to forgive myself for my stupidity, and have added yet another tier to my fence of skepticism and distrust of our government.
NeoWolfe
neowolfe,
Just curious, but…
How is it any different that Saddam was paying $20,000 to the families of Palestinians that had ‘martyred’ themselves in what Americans don’t fully understand, is an ongoing war with their occupiers, Israel, and the US Government paying dead American soldier’s families $400,000 in Servicemembers Group Life Insurance, (SGLI) when they were killed in an illegal war of agression in Iraq? Doesn’t that make US state sponsors of terrorism? Just ask any Shia or Sunni what the last 5 plus years have been like and I’m sure they will say it has been pretty terrifying.
Ren,
These are all valid points, that’s why debate is so noisy when it comes to the middle east.
I guess I would say that I can see some diffence in the fact that Palestinian suicide bombers deliberately target civilian crowds, and not military targets. I think that’s an important distinction.
As far as an illegal war, the invasion of Iraq was sanctioned by the UN general assembly. But, our time there has expired. To be legal, we need to leave now. And let me add another caveat, the UN was lied to just like we were.
Orthodox Jews believe in what we refer to as the Old Testament, which clearly details a genocidal military campaign through “the land of milk and honey” in order to establish the nation of Isreal. Given that, and allowing for any claims of descendance from those massacred tribes, one could certainly argue that it was ours and they took it away from us. Now give it back.
But, that’s not the case. The conquering Muslim armies came from the Persian Empire. But, arguing legal deed to the soil is stupid. It was part of the spoils of war divided by the victors of WW2. The US wanted a staunch ally in the middle east, the piece of land was awarded by global legal contract, and while the lines of its legal residence, and it’s occupied territories have shifted over the years, history shows they were immediately attacked from all sides, and had no choice but to establish buffer zones.
You may not recognized their right to be there, but it’s all legal by global agreement, and those who thought they could out flank, out think, or out plan them have had their hats handed to them. But now they want Isreal to give back the buffer zones. They have, on many occasions already shown, that they are willing to do that, on the extremely reasonable condition, that the enemy quit threatening the thriving democracy that they built with their own hands.
Personally, I think that’s something we all want for our homes.
NeoWolfe
NeoWolfe,
Although I don’t agree with your asessment of the Israel/Palestine situation, you make a powerful argument and I support your right to your opinion.
I personally would have established Israel in Bavaria, as punishment to the Germans for their misdeeds. Why should the Palestinians pay the price for Nazi atrocities? Because the God of the OT gave that piece of land to them?
I respectfully disagree. If you will remember back to the passage of the first and only resolution (regarding the current war) it basically said disarm, or else. (Funny story: He didn’t have any WMD, and even told us as much. Isn’t that a riot?)
But back to my story. The first resolution didn’t spell out what ‘OR ELSE’ meant. That is why we went back to the UN for a second resolution giving us the authority to invade. Had we gotten that resolution, then the current war in Iraq, no matter how much I disagree with it, would be LEGAL. However, we did not get that resolution.
Upon attempting to whip all the other countries in the UN into line to vote for said second resolution, it became obvious that three of the five permanant members of the security council, France, Russia and China, were either going to veto it, or abstain from voting. Only the U.S. and Great Britan as well as an unknown (to me) number of revolving members were going to vote in the affirmative.
Seeing as how it takes a yes vote from all twelve members of the security council to approve a resolution, we decided we didn’t need one after all, and that the first one was good enough.
I realize this holds about as much water as the Gobi Desert, but even Kofi Annan called the war illegal. Go figure.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3661134.stm
while not in favor of the invasion i must protest this kowtowing to the united nations.the decision to go or not go to war must be based solely on the national interest not the whims of corrupt foreign fascists.
reason,
I’m sorry you feel that way. Funny how we use the UN to do our bidding around the world, as long as we can browbeat them into going along with our cause. Once they refuse to do our bidding for us, they are (insert derogatory term here.
Personally, I hate the UN, but we are signatories to numerous international treaties, and it is those treaties that determine what constitutes a legal war, not the president, not the congress, and certainly not American public opinion.
Ren,
I think imagining yourself at odds with me is probably a result of the fact that we just met. The idea that after six million brutally murdered, the Jews would agree to make their home land in Bavaria, while, just in a degree, that is ironically appropriate, is not one they could believe in as a culture.
Nor would it have been by the Germans, now that we lost the war, Jews are our bosses. Rediculous.
You use the term “illegal” to define wars, but then you denounce the UN. Please give us a definition of “legal” in your mind.
NeoWolfe
Neowolfe
Is that really what you thought in 2003? Wholey crap! BushCo promised to go back to the UN and have them “Put their cards on the table” but when most of the big 5 let BushCo know that there was no way that they were going along with the invasion BushCo chickened out and didn’t go to the UN. Wow. I thought that by now this would be common knowledge.
NeoWolfe,
Yes, I do denounce the UN, but so do most Americans. That doesn’t stop our government from using the UN as a tool to do our bidding around the globe. Besides, just because I hate the UN, does not negate all our signatures on treaties that govern wheather or not a war is legal.
For a war to be legal, we must first either be attacked by said country we are going to war with. Or,
be overtly threatened by same country, and we get a UN resolution authorizing action.
I didn’t sign the treaties. I just know that, as signatories to all these treaties, we are required by international law to adhere to them.
Ren,
I think I see your point. But one, we were told the lie that we were presented with clear and present danger. Then, the same lie was presented to the UN who responded by sanctioning the invasion.
I guess I was making the point that it was not illegal because it was sanctioned. You are making the point that the clear and present danger was a lie. I think the fact is that we got caught in semantics, and that actually we totally agree.
NeoWolfe
Neo
No they DID NOT. In no way did the UN sanction the invasion. Did you see my last post? Did you see Ren’s post? We both clearly laid out the history of Feb and March 2003. If you think the UN sanctioned the invasion point to the UN resolution. And don’t point to 1441. It did not sanction an invasion. BushCo knew it didn’t and that is why he was going to go back to the UN. He chickened out because the big five weren’t going for it. He then pulled out the weapons inspectors who doing an excellent job searching for alleged WMD and he invaded. There is no debate on these events. They are the facts.