But, but... only Jews and Christian right-wing "fundie" Crusaders would question the flotilla, right? Wrong. "Boat People: Some questions for the "activists" aboard the Gaza flotilla," by Christopher Hitchens for Slate, July 4:
The tale of the Gaza "flotilla" seems set to become a regular summer feature, bobbing along happily on the inside pages with an occasional update. A nice sidebar for reporters covering the Greek debt crisis: a built-in mild tension of "will they, won't they?"; a cast of not very colorful characters but one we almost begin to feel we know personally. Such cheery and breezy slogans—"the audacity of hope" and "free Gaza"—and such an easy storyline that it practically writes itself. Since Israel adopts a posture that almost guarantees a reaction of some sort in the not-too-distant future, and since there was such a frisson of violence the last time the little fleet set sail, there's no reason for it not to become a regular seasonal favorite.
However, given the luxury of time, might it not be possible to ask the "activists" onboard just a few questions? (Activist is a good neutral word, isn't it, with largely positive connotations? Even flotilla, with its reassuring diminuendo, has a "small is beautiful" sound to it.) Most of the speculation so far has been to do with methods and intentions, allowing for many avowals about peaceful tactics and so forth, but this is soft-centered coverage. I would like to know a little more about the political ambitions and implications of the enterprise.
It seems safe and fair to say that the flotilla and its leadership work in reasonably close harmony with Hamas, which constitutes the Palestinian wing of the Muslim Brotherhood. The political leadership of this organization is headquartered mainly in Gaza itself. But its military coordination is run out of Damascus, where the regime of Bashar Assad is currently at war with increasingly large sections of the long-oppressed Syrian population. Refugee camps, some with urgent humanitarian requirements, are making their appearance on the border between Syria and Turkey (the government of the latter being somewhat sympathetic to the purposes of the flotilla). In these circumstances, isn't it legitimate to strike up a conversation with the "activists" and ask them where they come out on the uprising against hereditary Baathism in Syria?
Then again, Syria's other proxy party in the region is Hezbollah, which operates a state-within-a-state and maintains a private army on the territory of Lebanon. Senior associates of this group have recently been named in a U.N. indictment concerning the broad-daylight murder of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri in February 2005. Hezbollah's leadership and propaganda organs, while refusing all cooperation with the United Nations, are currently expressing undying solidarity with the Assad regime, which relies additionally on heavy support from the dictatorship in Iran. Again, the Hamas leadership seems compromised at best by its association with this local Tehran-Damascus axis. Surely there must be some spokesman for the blockade-runners who is able to give us his thinking on this question, too? At a time of widespread democratic and pluralist revolution in the region, Hamas imposes its own version of theocracy on Gaza and seems otherwise aligned with the forces that stand athwart the hope of continued and deeper change. Who wants to volunteer time to make this outfit look more presentable? Half the published articles on Gaza contain a standard reference to its resemblance to a vast open-air prison (and when I last saw it under Israeli occupation, it certainly did deserve this metaphor). The problem is that, given its ideology and its allies, Hamas qualifies rather too well in the capacity of guard.
Only a few weeks ago, the Hamas regime in Gaza became the only governing authority in the world—by my count—to express outrage and sympathy at the death of Osama Bin Laden. As the wavelets lap in the Greek harbors, and the sunshine beats down, doesn't any journalist want to know whether the "activists" have discussed this element in their partners' world outlook? Does Alice Walker seriously have no comment?
Hamas is listed by various governments and international organizations as a terrorist group. I don't mind conceding that that particular word has been used in arbitrary ways in the past. But what concerns me much more is the official programmatic adoption, by Hamas, of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. This disgusting fabrication is a key foundational document of 20th-century racism and totalitarianism, indelibly linked to the Hitler regime in theory and practice. It seems extraordinary to me that any "activist" claiming allegiance to human rights could cooperate at any level with the propagation of such evil material. But I have never seen any of them invited to comment on this matter, either.
The little boats cannot make much difference to the welfare of Gaza either way, since the materials being shipped are in such negligible quantity. The chief significance of the enterprise is therefore symbolic. And the symbolism, when examined even cursorily, doesn't seem too adorable. The intended beneficiary of the stunt is a ruling group with close ties to two of the most retrograde dictatorships in the Middle East, each of which has recently been up to its elbows in the blood of its own civilians. The same group also manages to maintain warm relations with, or at the very least to make cordial remarks about, both Hezbollah and al-Qaida. Meanwhile, a document that was once accurately described as a "warrant for genocide" forms part of the declared political platform of the aforesaid group. There is something about this that fails to pass a smell test. I wonder whether any reporter on the scene will now take me up on this.
When thugs like hitchens join the counter-Jihad it is maybe time to leave it.
Hitchens is a arrogant and hatefilled prick and only because he started a while ago of being aware of the real situation with islam and palestine is NOT a reason to welcome him with open arms, have you forgot how he bashed christianity and christians in general?
Now, as long as Hitchens wont write a book named "Allah is not great" and I bet he does NOT have the guts to do so, since he so far basically only picked on easy targets, the christians, he should not be part of an anti-jihad blog hosted by a christian!!!
The goal NEVER justifies the means, so in case someone want to come with, lets unite, I will say, no way, because in the eyes of those militant atheists christianity is just the second worse religion which also has to go and that is not acceptable!!!
But since Robert promotes the germany freedom party (Die Freiheit) which is also (besides anti-islamic)largly an anti-christian movment, I wonder where Robert really stands!
Robert should gain those atheists really a foothold in the anti-jihad movment and come to a certain power, they will for sure also attack christians, than you are also responsible, whether you like it or not and then you have to ask yourself if your standpoint against Islam superceeded your Love of christianity, you are a christian, right?
I personally think you dont care for the truth anymore, you just want islam gone, no matter what and thats sad, I expected more from you! But maybe I am all wrong, after all our western society is not based on judeo-christian values, its based on babarian head and heart plucking wikings, who burn children alive and praying to Thor or Odin, or worshipping earth & witchcraft, right?
Wow, so many opinions, its really hard to keep track, but only to those who have lost their one track. Sad, very sad.
As usual, Hitchens has done his home work, knows his subject and succinctly puts it all in perspective. It is a pleasure to read his comments and observations. I always had a gut feeling that this 'flotilla' business was stage managed to make it look like Israel was the culprit. I never bought the media affair in denouncing that beleaguered country. I am glad that Hitchens has written this article and he confirms my suspicions about the muslim conspiracy in the affair.
Thank you Mr. Robert Spencer for publishing it.
I knew about the whole flotilla thing since last year and i dont see where Hitchens discovered anything new. The IHH (the organisation which is behind the flotilla)was banned in Germany last year for their actions and that was in the news, for everybody to see.
Who needs Hitchens to understand the true goal of IHH and their so called "freedom" flotilla?
Does the truth nowadays have more weight when it is said by a particular person?
Again, I still dont understand how and why to give Hitchens any credit for writing something everybody already knows.
Is it because Hitchens could possibly convince some leftist?
Hitchens was, is and will stay a jerk and thats that.
@FreeSpirit
I have to respectfully ask whether you have read the chapter on the Koran and Islam in "God is not great" by Hitchens? The chapter definitely says "Allah is not great".
Also Marisol puts up this post with the introduction "But, but... only Jews and Christian right-wing "fundie" Crusaders would question the flotilla, right?", thereby making us aware of the purpose behind doing so.
I have to respectfully ask you if it would make a difference to Hitchenson Life to write the Book "Allah is not great" instead of "God is not great"?
Being truefull you must answer this question with YES and if you do, I dont see why you dont get my point.
I also could explain it to you like this:
The world suffers extremly by Islam, but Hitchens has nothing better to do than bashing christians and christianity and only dedicates a small percentage to Islam in his book "God is not great".
Would it be not better to dedicate the entire book on how Allah is not great and how Islam brings all that damage to the world and then write a chapter about his objections about christianity?
BUT NO, he put all the weight against the Bible and leaned almost soley on christianity! Why, because it is easy and not risky at all. If he was really for the truth he would never do that, he would go for the real thing, but we all know he did not do that, ergo he is a coward and a schmock!
Certainly his life would be in danger if he walked around with a sign on his back saying "Allah is not great!"...but Hitchens does not lean on Christianity mainly and on Islam only as a sideshow. He is against religion generally, and his attention is spread pretty evenly across the entire spectrum of religions ....when some get preferential treatment in detail it is because they are closer to him and examples are easier come by and because Western logic, reasoning and scientific scepticism offer him the possibilities for doing so.
And the intention of Marisol posting his piece here is to show that the atheists - oft presented here in less generous phrases - also have those who cannot see eye to eye with supremacist, anti-human Islam just because they happen to bash Christianity along with any other faith. Marisol did warn you, no one forced you to read it ;-)
Hitchens after all is not the usual kind of Academia who happily bash religion ...as long as it Christianity.
Hitchens has an unhealthy obsession with God, that's true. I'd love to be there when he meets the great celestial bouncer in the sky at the Pearly Gates. You better have a good lawyer with you Richard, cause I reckon M'Lud will cast you down. However, it is refresing to read his comments above There is no doubt in my mind that most of the motely crew aboard this flotilla are inspired by one of the oldest hatreds of them all against Israel, the collective Jew. That is why they are in bed with Hamas, an organisation which calls for the destruction of Israel and the murder of 6 million - ominious number - Jews.
Now you are making exuses and you are free to do so, but nothing you write refutes my points and only if hitchens write "allah is not great" and actually puplishes it, then I will welcome him in the ani-jihadist community, not before and for nothing less.
And I say it again, Christiopher Hitchens is a schmock, a jerk, and a bag of dicks, even if he ever writes "Allah is not great"!
I mean even his brother thinks that christopher is a troubled man ie. a drooly nutbag.
PS. It is absolutely UNTRUE that hitchens euqally bashes all religions, his all time favourite target is christianity and if you dont think so, you need a reality check!
One more thing;
you said something about that I am not forced to read it, thats true, but am i forced to to like it if I deceide to read it? Thats also a NO, ergo I have all the right to read somthing and rightfully bash it afterwards.
So far only muslims and leftist make statements such as, if you dont like it, dont read it, or "leave us alone, you dont want to agree, get lost", thats not the tone I am used to around here, but "everything must change" (a nice jazz tune btw) or not?
Thanks a very funny comment,I love the "mötley crew" comment and the heavenly "bouncer" is funny too and sure hitchens is right about the whole gaza thing, but aint nothing new to me, so hitchens should come up with something we all dont now yet, what do you think?
Very fluent prose and well written article. It was a pleasure reading it.
Though I wish he also added to his main train of logic (which being the declared ideology and behaviors of Hamas and it's allies), that fact that in the last flotilla, genocidal slogans were raised. He could have asked this too to flotillaites - where they stand on the slogan - "Khaibar Khaibar ya yahood .....", raised lustily by their predecessors.
Sanjay
Okay
As it has already been pointed out, the "God" in the title of "God is not great" applies to all gods.
Personally, I always thought the title sounded like it might be specifically countering the Islamic chant of allahu akbar (Arabic for "God is great").
What's more, I suspect that had Hitchens and the web been around a few hundred years ago there would have been comments of his to be found on www.inquisitionwatch.org warning of the dangers of Christian people like yourself who appear to be spitting feathers at "the outrage of outspoken atheism".
I am not willing to accept the tone you employ against me ...so shut up, will you?
Jeez, another one
FS, you seem like one of those radical/fundamentalist Christians who is trying to bully more moderate/mainstream Christians into your way of thinking.
You fail to understand that Robert is visionary in striving to build a very broad coalition among non-muslims, kind of like Ronald Reagan's 'big tent' philosophy-because Islam is a threat to all of us, Christians, Atheist, Hindu, Communist, Conservative, Liberal, etc, it doesn't matter-to muslims we're all infidels/kafirs who must be forcibly converted to Islam, subjugated or killed.
This is what will be required to defeat this evil death cult, so it's time to set aside our petty differences and work together for this one cause-the defense of our great civilization.
While we atheists (like me) and christians certainly have our differences, they are minor in comparison to the chasm that exists between us and muslims. In fact, it is impossible for Islam to build a healthy culture, it destroys them. This is why all freedom-loving people whatever their background, must oppose Islam until it disappears.
Well said, I'm pretty sure that's exactly what Hitchens intended by inverting that koranimal grunt slash war-cry "god is great." FreeSpirit forgets 'Allah' means god in arabic, according to muslims.
@Sanjay, I also love the way Hitchens writes-it gets my imagination (not just my intellect) going the way a good author does.
While Hitchens is still a bit more leftist than I'd prefer, he's still a brilliant man and it'll be a great loss to humanity when he's gone.
Yes many of us know of Hitchen's positions on many subjects from his embracing of socialism, and atheism while denigrating both judaism and Christainity. He has even argued with his journalist brother at times openly on the subject of religion. His Brother is a Christian and a conservative and 2 years younger (how different paths can be).
Hitchens is now dealing with cancer and the trauma it can bring may have changed some of his thinking over the past year.
He has written against the likes of Michael Moore and the behavior of Bill Clinton during the Monica Lewinski case.
As one reader pointed out above, no one has to read Hitchens if they feel it demeans their position on the subject of Islam. I read "Mein Kampf" nearly 25 years ago, does that mean I embraced Adolph Hitler? People read articles,commentaries, and books written by very disagreeable persons all the time. Listening to,and reading about other peoples opinions and why they form them is a valuable intellectual advantage for discussion. After all I would everyone read "the 36 articles of the Hamas Charter" to understand where Hamas is coming from.
Sorry but I think Mr.Free Spirit has got it wrong, we should always look at both sides of every argument no matter how repugnant the author may appear to us.
Hitchens is just another guy with an opinion, as is Freespirit...Who's opinion is better than another's opinion, is a matter of opinion...Hitchens is pretty good at stating his opinion, because some of it is fact, and his opinion is that the facts are correct...
Some of the leftists involved with the flotilla's are Rasool Obama's buddies, especially the terrorist Bill Ayers...
These people do not just want the 'Palestinians' to get an even shake, they also want the destruction of Israel...Turkey backs them up and gives them shelter...The entire enterprise is corrupt and evil oozes from it...That's more than an opinion, it is observable...
Allah is not only not great, Allah is a fake...He is simply the equally fake Moon god Sin, of Ur of the Chaldea's, given a name change and promotion by Mahound...Whatever happened to Al-Rahman?
OTT: Atheists only flourish because of the ethos of Judaeo-Christianity still existing in most western societies... taken at face value atheism has nothing to offer except eventual oblivion following upon a life of self interest.
Hitchens has displayed his obnoxious traits for years and is only becoming more 'reasonable' since being stricken with terminal cancer. Let us hope his conversation to rationality continues apace.
1st: If Hitchens means Allah by writing God, why not writing it in the first place!
2nd: "akbar" does not mean great, it means greater, therfore your eample about "God is not great" referes to "allah u-akbar" limbs, is deaf and blind, no way he meant that.
When hitchens say "God" he means the God of the Bible, it is obvious in his books and it is obvious in all his speeches, in a nutshell Hitchenses objects the God of the bible, at him is his hatred directed too and than he says: "oh by the way I hate all religion", yeah right!
hitchens main target was, is and will stay CHRISTIANITY and if me saying that, that makes me a fundamental christian so be it!
You seam to have NO glue whatsoever about history or christianity:
1st: inquisition did not exist 100 years ago, that was much longer ago, so read bit more before you try to be cute!
2nd inquisition is not biblical, it was a political tool by the rulers of that time to control the ppl, thats also baisically what most ppl never seam to get. One needs to distort christian teachings in order to use it in any political way, to gain power and keep it etc. , the teachings of Christ is not political, BUT the teachings of Mohammed is almost soley political, nobody needs to tamper with islamic text in order to use it for politics.
As long as that huge difference is not understood, we wont be able to fight islam and exactly that difference is NOT understood by hitchens and obviously not by you either, because if it was, you would not made the comment you made!
"Shut up"?
Why?
Because you dislike my tone?
In what way did I offend you personally, when was my tone rude or profane against you?
Bring one valid example!
You are just mad because you could not refute me!
I did not personally offend you once, unless you find it offensive when someone does not share your opinion, I usually know that kind of MO only from muslims, so why dont you bring me ONE example where I personally offended you, or shut up, will you?
The only thing I'll toss into this is that Allah Ackbar means Allah is greater. IE greater than the gods of the christians jews and polytheist. There is no illah than allah is there is no god than Allah, not there's no god but god.
Allah is not god in Arabic but the personal name of the chief diety of the Pagan Meccan Kaaba, a moon god represented by a black stone.
You know what you full of ..., I rather not say it on the end you hate me ...
However, I did not bully nobody into nothing, you are a LIAR!
I said my opinion and I thought I am entitled to do so, you dont like it, fine, but your accusations are false!
I dont even read your full comment, I already know where the wind blows from when I read accusations like me being a fundamental christian and bully others and do this and that and anyway its all because of fundamentalism and if we could get rid of the fundies we all would be better off and so on and on with that foolish crap!
You, me and everybody else is a fundamentalist in one way or the other, there are fundamental christians, fundamental atheists, fundamental muslims, fundamental leftist, moderate muslims who are actually also fundamental, fundamental anti-fundamentalists etc etc tec.
Fundamentalist are NOT the problem, the basic teachings are the problem, or the solution!
Example: if fundamental christians base their life soley on the teachings of Christ, what could go possibly wrong, love your enemy, pray for those who curse you, the separation from church and state (render to cecar what belongs to cecar...) and on and on the list goes.
You would never have to worry about fundamentalist christians and just to prevent another stupid argument: so called christians who blew up abortion clinics are not following the teachings of christ either, ergo they are NOT fundamental christians!
so what could you possible object on a fundamental christian, I am asking because you seam to hate them quite a bit.
exactly and thats why "God is not great" cant possibly refere to "allah-u-akbar".
I almost forgot, the terms you are using are hardly understood by yourself, so let me help you here a little bit:
Fundanetal: means that something is base or build on something, like a house is build on a fundament!
radical: comes from latin (radix) and it means ROOT.
That means a christian whos faith does not ROOT in the teachings of christ, or does not have its FUNDAMENT in it, cant actually NOT really be a christian, DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT?
That means if it comes to religion there is no such thing as radical or moderate, someone is either a christian, a muslim, or a buddhist, or not, I hope you got that now.
But, but,.. thats not how you meant it, well in that case find another way to say it (good luck with that)but using inaccurate terms and language does not help your point of view, it rather makes it absurd.
To all those atheists out there, if you think christians would fight against islam shoulder to shoulder with you ppl who wave around slogans/books "God is not great" "the god delusion" or even worse anti-christian slogans, than THINK AGAIN!
Christianity fought for 1400 years against those islamic thugs, now if you want to jump on the bandwagon, ajust to us, not the other way around, than it was because of christians who shed their blood that vienna was not taken by muslims and that spain was taken back by, who? Christians, thats right!
Now your dear atheists, what good have you done so far, let me think ....
over 200 million murdered ppl within less than 80 years!
You dont believe it?
well do some research on Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Che, Castro, kim ??? (the korean guy) etc.
you atheist seam to forget all that very easy, but you are never shy to mention the middleages and what the catholic church did (against the teachings of christ), so whats the problem?
I bet it is short term memory disorder, or is it a lack of the ability of confession, just like the muslims???
I'd absolutely say: YES!
So, clean up your own back yard first and digest your own recent bloody history, with that you should be busy for the next century and hopfully you will shut up while doing some self finding, hopfully somewhere in india away from us, thanks!
FreeSpirit:
I asked you a perfectly polite question, respectfully and straightforward with no evil intention at all: you answer me by mockingly applying my manner of addressing you.
Already there and then it became uncomfortably obvious that you intended to shout my down by going for my person as well as what I had written.
You continue aggressively: "I dont see why you dont get my point [silly] ..I could also explain it to you like this [stupid]".
I wrote back politely explaining how I saw Hitchens in this matter, wondering if you always wrote to people unknown in this manner but already aware I had to be careful.
But you continue: "Now you are making excuses". Eh, for what?? And finally, after blasting Hitchens again: "You need a reality check".
I had been perfectly polite up to that point. You had not.
And now you cannot see why I take exception to this?
(Spare me a reply, please. It won't serve a purpose as I won't be here again. I always lose interest in discussions when someone applies invectives instead of arguments. I have already deeply regretted I let myself be reduced to this level, and you have my sincere apology)
You talk about "reason" yet you are convinced based on nothing more than ancient mythological texts that there's a magic invisible sky-daddy floating in space who made everything, while ignoring all the evidence to the contrary. Believing in gods is no different than believing in Santa Claus or the tooth fairy.
And FYI, morality, democracy, freedom, etc. existed in different cultures long before Judaism/Christianity came along. But given the barbarity we find in the bible, such as god's incitement to stoning, honor-killing and genocide, which Islam is based off of and given the centuries of Christians massacring non-Christians and taking their land, much as the muslims are doing today, the condoning of slavery and so forth, I think the last thing one could say about Christianity is that it is moral or evolved.
It is only thanks to the Enlightenment and separation of church/state, that civilization was able to advance out of the dark ages and achieve what we have today. Christianity had nothing to do with that-in fact it was setting up barriers every step of the way-ask Galileo, Darwin and other scientists who had to be subjected to Christian thuggery.
The only reason I join with Christians today in the battle against Islam is that Christianity has advanced enough that it is no longer the oppressive force it once was and we share very similar values. Otherwise if it remained the same as it was 300 years ago (or how Islam is today), then I'd be opposing it as well.
And by the way, we are all born atheists and you are an atheist with respect to other religions gods. You only came to believe in your Jewish god because your parents brainwashed you into it, just as mine did-before I was able to think critically.
If there was a god, there would be no debate between us. Do we debate the existence of the sun? Do we have two camps of people who support/deny it's there? I'm atheist because reason has lead me to the obvious conclusion after examining all the evidence, that there is no god. If you ever bothered to do the same instead of going along with your brainwashing, you'd be an atheist also.
It seems FreeSpirit is either a Christian or Muslim troll, trying to sow discord on this board, I wouldn't take him too seriously-he clearly has issues.
Take a chill-pill FreeSpirit, you sound pretty unhinged. I don't have time to wade through all your nonsense but I will address a couple of points that stood out.
The nascent Anti-Islamic movement consist of people from all religions and backgrounds and if you don't want to be a part of it, no one is forcing you to join us.
But I am glad that there are great people like Robert who lead by example and can set aside our differences because he recognizes that our civilization's survival is at stake. It is in all our interest to work together to defeat Islam-united we stand, divided we fall is a time-tested truism.
Don't confuse centrist atheists like myself with liberal atheists who are coddling our enemies. I have as much a bone to pick with them as I do with anyone who supports an ideology bent on our destruction.
Also don't confuse Communism-which is a political ideology that opposes Capitalism with Atheism-which is a philosophical position that rejects the existence of gods due to a lack of evidence.
Atheism has no church, holy book or a political agenda to conquer believers. We simply affirm that all religions are mythologies. Communism however has an agenda for conquest and while they are atheists, they have killed atheists who support capitalism.
There, I helped you become a little more smarter/informed, but to educate you more, I'd have to charge by the hour.
It's "reasonably safe to say that the flotilla leadership works in close harmony with hamas" which is an intentional accusation that the flotilla is a supporter of terrorism. Ha! In reality the flotilla has nothing to do with hamas. Their attempt to deliver "negligible quantities of aid" is more importantly aimed at bringing international attention to the appalling conditions in Gaza. But according to Israel and the west, Gaza is "flourishing with water parks and restaurant"! Well then I invite all of u and ur children to move to Gaza. In addition, the "disgusting fabrication" of the elders of Zion, which zionists have dedicated unprecedented amounts of money and effort to supress a single document may in in fact be racist in nature. But undoubtedly contains a truthful depiction of the current state of jewery today. Clearly seen in Jewish control of the most powerful countries in the world US and UK. Also I find it kind of curious that every single rival country to the state of Israel, Iran, Iraq, Syria, Palestine, Lebanon is on the tippy top of US and UK's shit list. Coincidence? I think not
I'm with you totally on this Steffen. In all the time that I have been reading JW you have been civil and informative. Today is no exception.
I once commented at this site on a sentence handed down to the terrorist who broke into the Muahammad cartoonist's house. I implied the sentence was ridiculously low. I was upset at the time but I'm sure it didn't show in my posting.
You had the decency to reply to me (thank you), and explain why my reasoning was wrong (thank you very much) and you did so without invective, innuendo or phrasing that could be misconstrued as deprecating, condescending or accusatory.
In short, you disagreed, without saying so, and in a polite way in order to inform me to a valid reason for the 'light' sentence. I learned something from your response.
I think we all have to understand that we are on the same side, that each of us has our own way of finding and viewing the truth BUT the truth we all have found generally accords.
We all must be adult enough to understand that when someone disagrees with us they are not making a moral or intellectual malediction or value judgment against us. We are not being corrected, we are being informed that an alternate or even a complementary idea exists.
If we don't try our damnedest to be decent with one another we are hurting someone else, Robert Spencer. He has graciously given us a forum to share our knowledge, our ideas and possibly our activism.
Let's not abuse his hospitality and above all, let us not give anyone who opposes Jihad Watch something to point at as evidence that the site is of dubious value. If we ever do that we have hurt our benefactor.
Your comment is based on your assumptions and if you see a mock in everything somebody who disagrees with out writes than you must have a lot of strifes in your life.
However, it was YOU who said "shut up", but yet you say that I wanted to shout you down, interesting, very interesting!
To make my point clear, Hitchens or any other atheist here and elsewhere is an arrogant piece of sh*t!
Why, because every atheist is a totalitarian, that means:
Atheist can not just say, "I dont believe in God" they have to say "There is no God and we dont need to proof its non-existance, periode".
If they would just say: "I dont believe in God, but I cant proof that I am right" that would make them into an agnostic, would it not? + I would never have a problem with that!
Again, atheist are trash, they have to be right, no matter what, they also claim they have moral values, but based on what, yesterday so, today different and tomorrow something else, whatever fits best, ergo: trash!
back to Hitchens: you seam to like that guy and I can understand since he seam to agree with you, what I wonder about is, that when he mocks christians and he really mocks christians a lot and openly, you seam to have no problem with that, but when I supposedly mocked you (which I did not) you get offended, dont you think thats a bit hypocritical, I mean you obviously have one set of rule for the bad fundi christian (me), which is: "he better be perfectly polite or else ..." and the other set of rule is: "hitchens and other atheist scums can mock the hell out of over 2 billion ppl but that's fine and christians should fi9ght the good fight with him, regardless what hitchens thinks of them". yeah right!
Now how do you feel now, mr hypocrite, something more to say?
We should all be careful with our comments that we don't come across as crazy as the fanatics we're monitoring.
The point here surely is that we belong to a society that respects the rights of others to personal freedom, including following the religion of their choice (although 'providing that follows those same principles' was unfortunately omitted from the Bill of rights). If Muslims were not bent on imposing their all-encompassing religion on the world at whatever cost, we wouldn't need this website. Similar horrors have been perpetrated in the name of Christianity in the past too.
We need to respect each other on this site, and not lose the common goal. We are on the same side.
Typical thug response from you here!
It is alsways the same you you .. well I rather not say it, if you dont have any points to make in return you must get personal, with: chill pill and what not.
The point is that atheism has left the most bloody trail behind and nobody, not even the muslims can compare with that, they needed much longer to murder over 200 million ppl and that number is a fact, some historians even say that atheism cost 260 million ppl's life, but hey lets try it again!
It does not matter that atheism failt already so often: national socialism failt, communism failt, second wave of communism is about to fail and on and on we go and who is to blame?
atheists thugs, now why in the world would even anyone even admitt that he/she is an atheist, shouldnt ppl be ashamed of its sticky down to the ground evil history?
No they are not, why, no confession, they have to be right plus they are ALWAYS offended about anything and those two latter points is a also a point of intersection atheists have in common with muslims.
One more thing, muslims also dont really believe in God, they actually believe in mohammed and they do worship him all the time, just like the nazis worshipped Hitler and the communist worshipped stalin and Co. and thats why i get all that shit from you guy because hitchens is your idol and I do the blasphemy against him and thats why you act a fool!
So you arrogant ... what are you gonna do next, stone me for having a different opinion?
Seriously atheist to me on the same page as muslims, its not a secret that a high percentage of muslim-helping leftists are atheist and a high percentage counterjihadist are christians, what does it tell you? go figure you jackass!
I understand what you are saying, but you must face the truth and the truth is; one must pervert the teachings of christ in order to commit horrable things, in the case of islam one can take the teachings straight from the quran without perverting it and the hoor is there without any changing of doctrine this is the truth and that needs to be understood, especially from the atheists, but they dont want to understand it, even smart guys like pat condell does not seam to get this point and thats sad and as lomg as that is not understood nothing will change!
I'm afraid I don't believe in the teachings of Christ any more than I do the teachings of Muhammad. What I do believe in are the VALUES of Christ, which make up the values of much of the free world.
In the meantime, can I suggest you cut down on your coffee intake.
In my previous comment, I cut something out (intentionally).
I was about to note that some of my friends' eyes roll up when I try to inform them about the issues with Islamization and in the same breath mention Jihad Watch.
They usually brush me off with I've seen that site and if you read what the 'members' say you will know they are all a bunch of racists, religious bigots and scatological psychopaths.
I realized that hunting down the examples my friends gave me would take me too long on Google so I didn't mention the problem.
I no sooner did my posting and went to today's JW article on Dearborn
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2011/07/ex-dearborn-resident-indicted-in-attempt-to-carry-out-bombing-in-israel-for-hizballah.html
when I saw this:
No one complains about the methods that the mooselips employ to ensure their dominance in their countries. Be-headings, stonings, riots and burning places of worship, seem to be an effective strategy of suppressing "undesirable" elements of society. The UN et., all never utter one word against them. Since none of these methods are prohibited, maybe we should employ the same in our(Christian)countries! why can't we burn mosques? Why not attack anyone wearing mooselip garb? Why not ban their holy books, because they cause consternation? Why not kill every mooselip in the country? Wouldn't it be nice?
Now, maybe the author was trying to be funny or ironic but there is no way of knowing that. Even if it was intended as a jest, it is beyond the pale.
Now how much credibility does the site have with comments like that? This kind of racism and psychopathy must be crapped upon every time it happens so that the public can see that JW don't get stigmatized as racists, bigots, or psychopaths.
This is harmful to Robert Spencer's cause. That is not what he is about but his enemies will use it to 'prove' it is. Knowing how P/C works, there will be plenty in Canada and the US who will believe Robert's enemies. Why wouldn't they? The evidence is right before their eyes.
Fitna is no thug, FreeSpirit. His posts are, with regularity, on point and well written.
I would add that in this fight against Islamic supremacist designs people of various beliefs should be welcomed. Whether Christian, Jew, Hindu, Buddhist, Sikh, agnostic, atheist et al., folks who see Islam for the totalitarian ideology that it is should not seek divisions among themselves. It should be obvious that we sink or swim together.
Yes, there are some atheists out there who are obnoxious with their atheism, but the same thing could be said of some Christians, who wear their religion on their sleeve and are ordinarily insufferable because of this. Good people can come from a myriad of belief systems and all those who see Islam for the menace which it is should not go around excluding folks in this fight free peoples are in for the preservation of liberty. I would close by noting that one can be non-religious without being anti-religious. I am such a person, an agnostic of long standing, who nonetheless finds much good in many religions, particularly Christianity and Judaism, because they place such an emphasis on the dignity and worth of the individual, thus working quite well with democratic tenets. Well, this is enough for now.
I agree with you, PETER SHEARER, that the weakest link of Jihad Watch is the occasional poster who goes over the top and spouts venom and the like towards Muslims en masse (though I would still defend the right of such a person to do so, as Robert Spencer, a real believer in free speech, does). Remaining cool, rational, knowledgeable and unbending in what is deemed right and sensible is the optimum way to proceed. Those who remain clueless or apathetic about the Islamic threat to liberty will hold critics of Islam to a much higher standard than they do Muslims. It's unfair (not terribly bright either), a double standard to be sure, but that is the way of things often times and thus being as smart as possible in the way Islam is criticized should always be what guides those who post here regularly at JW.
You believe in the value of christ but not in his teachings, yeah that makes a lot of sense.
Needless to say that you also dont get the point I was making, I doubt that you even know the teachings of christ, let alone his values!
Your "coffee comment" only shows that you dont have any real arguments, you had to go down that personal road.
Sure I was also personal with others here, but the difference is, I never started being personal.
You can say and post here whatever you want to, the fact is that atheism has brought nothing good so far, only over 200 millions murdered human beings, but for some reasons that fact (some historians even say that nazis and communist [both atheists] combined, murdered over 260 million humans beings) is rarely ever addressed and i wonder why.
I actually dont wonder why.
Typical atheists and also typical muslim, both have a lot of points of intersection such as:
its never our fault,
we are always offended,
we are right, but we dont need evidence
everybody who opposes us has to murdered or declared insane
I am sure there is more, but it is late and i want to go to bed soon.
PS. I grew up in atheist/communist east germany and I had to suffer under atheist thugs and what you atheist guys say around here is exactly what I heard back then, the only difference between them thugs and you thugs is that they were in charge and had power and you have no power and that is good that way and it shall never change, because we all know what happens when atheist are in charge!
I can perfectly respect what you stand for, I have no problem whasoever with you being an agnostic, but to me fitna is a thug and I will tell you why i think that way.
I said it in my previous comment, I heard all that talk before, in matter of fact the comments from the atheists around here are almost word for word exactly what I heard about 25 years ago. I heard the same BS in east germany from the same type of ppl, the only difference between the thugs in east germany and them around here is that the thugs in east germany had the power to legally jail, torture and murder you and thats exactly the same thing those atheist here would do to anyone who dares to expose them and their lies if only they had enough power, history proves me right.
Hopefully atheists will never again gain any significant power! That also should make clear that I would never ever fight together with atheist against islam, because I would waste all my energy to watch my back, cant trust those thugs, 1st they remove islam and then right after that they will bring christianity down and thats a fact!
BTW: by atheists I mean real atheists, those ppl who say "there is definitely no God and whoever says otherwise is insane", I am talking about those guys. if someone says "I dont believ in God, but I could be wrong, but still dont believe" is not really an atheist to me. Just to make that clear.
Well, Bernard,since you raise someone's need for a lawyer...
"...And if anyone sins, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the Righteous." (First Letter of John 2:1). A large part of Christianity is Jesus' mediatorial work on behalf of his people.
Thanx Wellington.
Actually, I wasn't arguing for suppressing free speech. I was arguing for using it.
So anytime someone goes over-the-top, the viewpoint gets smacked down as it deserves to. I get worried about the old adage that silence is consent (or assent).
What I'm suggesting isn't too different from the disclaimers at the beginning of a DVD where the producer of the DVD indicates that the views expressed in the bonus features may not necessarily represent his views.
So, the original over-the-top comment stays, per free speech, but others at JW make it clear that the view definitely don't match theirs, also free speech.
Perfect symmetry and it gives Robert evidence to shoot down anyone who accuses him of hosting a site for 'very disturbed Islamophobes'
Hitchens is certainly out-speaking, however one looks at it. His passion and eloquence appeal very much to a lot of people. Even christians! One only needs to look at his continuing sales-figures. Being an atheist, i don't actually mind the god-bashing, i believe it's an epitome of free-speech, but i appreciate completely the 'value' that faith plays in the lives of some people. One only has to look at islam to see the power of faith. Obviously, faith 'works' and motivates in many ways, good and bad. Hitchens must be given credit for his courage of conviction, when it comes to speaking out against islam, especially. His arrogance is what drives-him, enables him to communicate coldy and concisely. The confidence he exhudes when public-speaking brings people in and spares no punches. Another brave voice, as Robert, Pamella, Geert, et al; the list grows slowly but surely. Give the man his due....
As one of the resident "Christian fanatics" (I extend a nod and greetings to FreeSpirit) here, I am actually heartened that Christopher Hitchens is able to break ranks with most of the rest of the Left.
Still, I can understand something of FreeSpirit's anger, and when he reveals he was raised in Eastern Germany, I feel I can understand it more. People like Hitchens have dominated Western discourse for a century, and I can't see them as innocent of having done much to strip away Western civilization's moral armor and confidence.
I have been following this website for quite a while and have never seen the comments of this kind. Maybe I missed a few or maybe, just maybe Hitchens tends to bring out the best/worst in people.
I myself do not like how smug he can be but I respect his work and how he forces you to really think. We need all the friends we can get, and I do believe that he can be a valuable ally in the fight against this ideology disguised as a religion. He has been quite outspoken about the fight against Islam for a long time and been a huge supporter of the Iraq War since it's inception, in large part because of 9/11. He has been arguing in journals and on television against people he usually aligns himself with, not being afraid to call it what it really is - tyranny.
History is drowning in bloodshed. The who is worse fight only wastes time and proves that everyone is complicit if you go back far enough.
We need to stay focused on our goal of preserving our freedom or we will end up with our own Geert Wilders trial any day now.
Yes, well said, and not before time either. Someone commented before about coming across as christian-fundamentalists and there's definitely a smattering of that! And saying that Atheists wouldn't fight "shoulder to shoulder" in a 'just' war is naive and bordering on silly.
I'm a complete Atheist, i'm confident there's no god.
In fact, i don't even care if there is a god!
I don't need a god to make me good man; i am just a good man without a god (these days!).
But i do know a lot of other Atheists, who, like me, would unreservedly bear-arms to the face of a dangerous ideology like militant, fundamental-islam. Or nazism
Just saying....
FreeSpirit, it's obvious you're an anti-atheist hatemonger, you use the same kind of rhetoric that muslims use against non-muslims in order to defame and silence them.
In your lunatic world view, an individual who's used their intellect to decide to be an atheist is automatically a 'thug' or a mass-murderer. Your posts mostly consist of ad hominem attacks against atheists on par with the things Nazis said about the Jews to dehumanize them so they'd be easier to cart off to ovens and gas chambers.
Since you're pulling numbers out of your ass, why not claim atheists killed a billion people? You have no proof for these wild claims. Show me any evidence of atheists committing genocide in the name of spreading Atheism.
You can't because it's never happened. Again while Communists happened to be atheists, they killed to establish Communism-not Atheism. As I said before they murdered atheists who were pro-Capitalists.
There is nothing within our philosophical position that would lead to killing non-atheists. There were however decrees by Christians and the Catholic church to genocide non-Christians and take their land.
If you look at the history books, Christianity has killed anywhere between 100-150 million people and the Colonialists who conquered places like India and South America were all Christians.
If what you said was true and atheists were mass-murderers, why are there 2 billion Christians in the world, 1.5 billion muslims, 1 billion Hindus and so forth?
You accuse us of being genociders and yet history proves the exact opposite, that it is religions which have spread largely this way. This is why 80% of the US population is Christian, not atheist, you moron.
Now despite what has happened in history, I don't hold anyone today accountable for things other people did in the past. When I hear of Christians being persecuted by Muslims in Egypt or Pakistan for example, it bothers me just as much as if they would've been Atheists. Not only because I used to be a Christian, but because I know most Christians have the same values I do for the most part.
In case you weren't aware and as other members have sensibly pointed out already, JihadWatch is about informing ALL non-muslims about the threat that Islam poses to us and our civilization, as well as bringing us together to stand united against our common enemy.
Now if you want to be a part of an exclusively Christian anti-Islamic organization, then go find one somewhere else and stop trying to create animosity and divisions here, it won't work. I'm quite happy to support Robert and other Christians who are like-minded.
If we Christians, Atheists, ex-Muslims, Hindus and others can get along swimmingly here, then perhaps we're not the problem, you are-even consider that?
And another thing....
I can't quite grasp why some 'believers' appear to be terrified of Atheists. Atheiophobia?
Are Atheists a threat to blind-faith and belief?
I don't think so. Most atheists want a quiet (but god-less) time like everyone else, without the need for any form of super-naturalism.
Ad nauseum....
[typo in my post above: ever, not 'even']
Thanks Wellington, as a long-time admirer of your thoughtful and erudite posts, I appreciate the endorsement and the kudos. Of course I concur with what you stated as well. In order to win this war, it will require all of us to set aside our personal beliefs and work together, otherwise we will be easily defeated.
We can see the consequences of such division in a broad sense throughout the free world, where liberals/leftists largely support Islam, while conservatives oppose it. If liberals saw Islam the same way we did, it would very quickly be expunged from our nations and we probably wouldn't even be discussing it. This is an important lesson for those of us within the anti-Islamic movement, we cannot allow ourselves to be divided over petty differences.
FreeSpirit et al,
There are a large number of anti- jihadist who also assert that ALL religions are fake/man made and that includes chritianity, judaism, hinduism, buddhism, jainism, sikhism etc.
Whilst we assert that all religions are fake we do differentiate between fakes. The likes of chritianity, judaism, hinduism, buddhism, jainism, sikhism etc. do not cause an issue because these fake religions deal primarily in the spiritual realm.
Islam on the other hand, aside from being a fake religion, is also a fascist, totalatarian political force hell bent on destruction of free people all over the world.
So when writers like Hitchens talk about God etc it is a comment on fake nature of all religions. However you all will note that Hitchens has been consistent in his commentary on fascism etc for over a decade now.
Please kindly do not make this a religion issue. We are all fighting a fascist ideology pretending to be a religion seeking cover behind the word religion.
No , I didn't say I believed in the value of Christ. I said I believed in many of Christ's (i.e. Christian) values. That shouldn't be so hard to reconcile. I believe in good and bad; in right and wrong. Skeptics could argue that's because I was brought up a Methodist, but I really don't see that Christianity has a monopoly on being a nice person. I work with many Hindus, who are peace-loving too. And I consider myself to be closer to real Christian values than many of the gun-toting ultra-right Evangelists who seem to think that God has a political agenda in their favor.
You are right that many of us who call ourselves Atheists should be more accurately labeled as Agnostic, although the latter tends to be interpreted as 'ripe for conversion' by strangers who knock on your door on a Friday morning to ask how you feel the world is going. So I describe myself as a 'Devout Atheist', which seems to get the point across that I have strong views, give the subject plenty of thought, and now would you go away please because some of us have to actually work for a living.
When you mention your background, it's easier to see your viewpoint. Enforced atheism is just as bad as enforced religion. My own geographic location and the era into which I was born has graciously allowed me the luxury to form my own views without too much confrontation, and I will fight for the right of everyone to do the same. That's the only point we seem to differ on - it's the fact that it makes you so angry that worries me.
Everyone asks the questions "Why are we here?", "Is there a greater being that created us?" and "Just what exactly happens after we die?" The answer is that nobody knows, but for most folk that's not good enough. So, some enterprising individuals who saw the opportunity to control the masses came up with a few off-the-peg religions. The trouble is that none of them are without their weird bits - "I'm sorry, you to cut off my WHAT?"; "That looks less like a god to me than a stone you've just daubed orange paint on"; and "What am I supposed to do with all those virgins if my genitals have been blown away?" So the world is split into two. Those who suspend their disbelief in order to have the important questions in life answered, and the others who defer judgment until the whole picture starts to become more coherent. Trouble is, the more someone suspends their disbelief, the more vehemently they feel have to protect the rest. It's a pretty weak religion that needs to do it by force.
This was actually a very astute and important piece of writing by Christopher Hitchens. What a pity this whole discussion has been sidelined into a discussion on atheism.
Brother Free Spirit:
I'm writing this because I'm also a Bible-oriented Christian and also think that by and large, Christopher Hitchens has been an utterly appalling man.
Don't speak of Mr. Spencer as if he is "Fuehrer" or "Caliph" of the anit-jihadist movement who admits or forbids entry into it. He is just someone aware of the danger, acting as a journalist who reports on matters of interest to those bothered by the Islamic assault on the West. Over the years, I've noticed that the people he gets into fights with are those who've first attacked him.
I believe Mr. Spencer reported on Christopher Hitchens' criticism of the Gaza flotilla to note that not all on the ideological Left have followed the anti-Israel Party Line. Spencer has been a constant critic of actions like the Gaza flotilla, and is simply interested that someone else is also criticizing it. Since Spencer has identified himself as an Eastern Rite Roman Catholic and has written a book on why Islam isn't the "religion of peace" and Christianity is, his mindset is probably a lot closer to people like us than to Christopher Hitchens.
Still, since you say you were raised in Eastern Germany, I understand your anger at a man like Hitchens. Parts of my family also got bad treatment at the hands of 20th century totalitarianism, too. I was US Vice Consul in Guangzhou, China for two years and made some trips into Communist Laos and Viet Nam on official business. I've spoken with Christians and Muslims who suffered persecution for what most people here would view as legitimate religious concerns. In China, I enjoyed a hearty chuckle at the paranoia sweeping the Chinese Communist Party when a bunch of old foreign Communist "friends" resident in China who were Jewish started going "frum" (fromm, auf Hochdeutsch) in their old age, some people in Kaifeng started saying they were "Youtai Ren" (Jews) instead of "Han Ren"; for it was in the early '90's, and the Chinese Communists noted what happened to Soviet Big Brother when the Jews started asserting their identity. To people like fitna and his list of victims of Christianity, I can only say that it took Christians a millennium and a half to tote up the numbers of victims which "Scientific Materialism" racked up in a single century.
Back to Hitchens. Also, I am bothered by the flippant unwillingness to truly interact with actual Christian belief that I see in such writers. And he never stops to think for a moment that the horror he feels at things like the Spanish Inquisition or the assaults on the Jews in the Rhineland during the Crusades are simply ghosts of a Christian past that saw man as bearing the image of God; and that those who are more advanced in shedding their Christian past might well see mass murder of inconvenient people as a simple practicality for protecting social cohesion.
So, don't give up on Jihad Watch or Mr. Spencer. And, I think that people like you who've been on the receiving end of one kind of totalitarian abuse have things to teach the rest of us.
Shalom.
Freespirit: What's your problem? You got something against atheists? Wanna string up Hitchens? Behead him? Castrate him? He's an excellent writer and he's helped to blow the lids off of all sorts of ghosts and goblims, including Allah, God, Wontonka, and the whole overpopulated graveyard of deities once itemized by H.L. Mencken. And I might note that there are far too many "God-fearing" and "God-blessing" Christians who read and post on JH. It gets a little old. So, call me an atheist in a foxhole.
Kepha:
You keep referring to Robert Spencer as an "Eastern Rite Roman Catholic". He is actually a Melkite Greek Catholic. Please correct this in future posts.
FreeSpirit said,
You seem to assume that any atheist who does not believe in having the State imprison believers in lunatic asylums (as in the formerly communist East Germany) is not really an atheist, but only an agnostic. You also seem to think that anyone who expresses a belief in atheism, but admits to any uncertainty whatsoever, is not really an atheist, but an agnostic. In distinguishing that way, you are not distinguishing sufficiently.
An agnostic doesn't merely have a smidgen of uncertainty. Uncertainty is the main protagonist of his metaphysics. One can hold to a theory, whether atheism or another, without having to be a fanatical about it. Yet you write as if the only alternative to fanaticism is complete agnosticism/uncertainty. But you are mistaken. Between those two extremes, there are an infinite number of degrees of certainty.
One can hold to a theory modestly, non-fanatically, without thus being reduced to mere agnosticism about that theory. One can even have a tremendous degree of legitimate certainty, without that crossing over into fanaticism or refusal to admit one's fallibility. A characteristic of some great human beings is precisely a capacity to achieve -- legitimately -- a tremendous degree of conviction without thereby banishing all uncertainty or crossing over into fanaticism.
Is there any absolute limit to how much a human being can enhance his/her integrity? I doubt it. And therefore I think there is no upper limit to how self-confident one can legitimately become, so long as one always remains conscious of one's imperfections and potential to develop further. And with increasing self-confidence come increasing degrees of certainty, though of a non-fanatical sort that paradoxically acknowledges continuing uncertainty.
You have been hurling imprecations against a subset of atheists, while you are talking as if they were not a subset, but the whole. In fact you are mixing up fanatical atheists with the more general class of atheist. The fanatics, of whatever belief system, pretend to be exempt from the fallibility of the human condition.
Many atheists are open to "spiritual" experiences that might alter their atheism in some important respects. The most spiritual, non-material experience of all is to love truly and deeply. One who is fortunate enough to be in circumstances that gift one with the capacity to love deeply, discovers, if the love is intense and deep enough, that there is in such love something that is in some ways akin to some definitions of "God."
Thus one begins to discover, from direct experience, not that God is a "big daddy in the sky" controlling everything, but that the world is not only material, that matter is a sort of coagulation of something immaterial, is at bottom akin to mind, to intelligence, to feeling, to self-sustaining presence without a material cause or source, and that a certain kind of intensification of creativity -- such as happens in intense, sober, love, where not merely the intellect, but also the heart and the will are brought into transformation -- that such creativity reveals something in us that transcends death, and for which death is only a transformation. We thus directly experience something eternal in us that abides despite complete inner transformation.
That aspect of "religion" has been missing from the fascinating discussion on this comments thread. "Religion" can involve more than belief. It can involve non-material experience. If you have not experienced it, or if you have, but have forgotten it because it happened when you were too young, then to you the world may be nothing more than material particles or waves in random interactions.
Many "religious" people have only the beliefs they have been taught, and in that they are not so different from atheists, who also have only their beliefs about what lies at the foundation of things. But it is possible not to go by mere belief, possible to one degree or another to directly participate in the ultimate foundation of the world, to experience something of its infinite life and color and variety and plurality of beings, and its unity.
When one has experienced non-material, or spiritual realities, then one develops a new respect for the established religious traditions, one begins to see something of what they are based on, one seeks to distinguish what in them is most true. And one may even come to find a home in one of the traditions and develop a mellow, non-fanatical conviction that that the best parts of that tradition are true. Non-fanatical, because a conviction held with modesty and consciousness of one's own human fallibility.
@ Kepha, I'm rowing back on the good lawyer bit for Hitchens when he reaches the Pearly Gates. I just remembered that Jesus ran the money lenders and the lawyers out of his fathers house in Jerusalem - always a good start.
He has issues with lawyers, did the son of God. This was back before the time Muhammad started developing an eye for seven-year-old girls - or was she nine? Muslim girls hitting ten were left on the shelf in those days, considered a bit over the hill they were.
If the second coming (first for Jews) does happen I reckon Jesus will be dissapointed - Jerusalem is crawling with lawyers these days.
I am in favor of Steffen Larsen, Fitna, Wellington and others and in opposition to Free Spirit in this heated but very interesting altercation.
My first thought was that to me it was the message that counted and that Free Spirit way too much considered the messenger. I see this as a logical fallacy. Free Spirit could have argued that although (s)he despised the messenger, that still left a great message!
Which gratified me a lot, almost elated me. it gave me good context and insight.
Then of course I also saw the weak link in Hitchens "masterpiece-message", the link between the "activists" and HAMAS. And only through HAMAS with Assad, Iran and Hezbollah. If it were unequivocally true that the activists and HAMAS are at least cooperating and on good relations, then those activists are a bunch of unbelievable hypocrites. Racists perhaps even to single out the Israeli's for protesting against, when so many more humans, muslims are being maltreated and oppressed by those they cooperate with.
And to me the cooperation and connection between the activists and HAMAS is unequivocally true. And HAMAS must profit and HAMAS is NOT held to account at all or remotely sufficiently for it's massive responsibility for the blockade and misery in Gaza.
But of course the activists will wriggle out of this connection by saying that they are not in cahoots with HAMAS, that they do this only for the poor innocent people of Gaza.
Innocent, all of them? What, can't they take at least some reasonable decisions? Are the Gazans not stupid and mean to behave like they do towards Israel now? If Israel were the brute as they paint it, even then should not the Gazans behave more wisely in their policies towards it? Why do they keep angering strong lions the way they do anyway? I know, they do it because of their wretched religion!
Actually, I'm not that down on lawyers. As I said, the New Testament describes Jesus as our "advocate" in heaven. Also, as a freelance translator, I find that lawyers pay me pretty well.
You've saved me a lot of typing as I agree with most everything you said. One precision is the the Muslims were responsible for the mass killings in India. In fact their grand jihad lead to the deaths or 80,000,000 Hindus. This is more than the entire body count from World War II and happened centuries ago when world population was much smaller.
Religious faith is a willing suspension of rationality for questions concerning the 'supernatural.' Most religious people manage to compartmentalize these ideas and are able to deal rationally with other questions. It seems that FreeSpirit has yet to master the art.
People like FreeSpirit remind us what is so wrong with the virulent strand of religion: an inability to accept others with different opinions about the nature of reality, even when fighting a much greater threat. Worse, he is attacking not the typical MC-PC leftist atheists who despise JihadWatch, but atheists that subscribe to the idea of defending Western civilization and its values (based on Christianity) in the face of foreign aggression. The pro-Western civ atheists found here should be the least of his worries.
We should recognize that people like him are the norm in Muslim countries, and also that he would be one of the more liberal Muslims, since the vitriol against atheists stops far short of advocating murder and violence.
We should also recognize that Christianity itself is not all good: it also probably led to some quite disturbing ideological developments. Some people are obviously taking the whole universalist brotherhood of man envisioned by Christ a bit too far. In fact, one can argue that current liberal atheism has its origins in the protestant-universalist-calvinist branch of Christianity. The only real change is dropping God and the supernatural, but the bulk of their hyper-egalitarian beliefs remained the same.
Take liberal open-borders PC/MC universalism away, and the whole Islamic problem in the West crumbles like a stack of cards. Islam is only a problem in the West because multicultural elites, with their faith (a perversion of Christian ideals), allow it to be.
FreeSpirit wrote:
When thugs like hitchens join the counter-Jihad it is maybe time to leave it.
Hitchens is a arrogant and hatefilled prick and only because he started a while ago of being aware of the real situation with islam and palestine is NOT a reason to welcome him with open arms
.............................
Oh, pfft! Christopher Hitchens is hardly just joining the counter-Jihad *now*.
In the first couple of years following 9/11, I was desperate to find some real information about Islam, rather than the white-washed apologia that was all too common both then and now.
Some of the first really sane writing on Islam, Jihad, and Muslim aggression that I found was the work of Christopher Hitchens. It was, in fact, through a link to one of his articles that I discovered the excellent anti-Jihad writings of Theodore Dalrymple, and through a link on one of his articles that I discovered Jihad Watch.
Now, Hitchens *can* be a gadfly at times, and I hardly agree with him on all matters. But I could say the same for the brave and principled Theo Van Gogh, who was murdered for standing up against Jihad.
More:
To make my point clear, Hitchens or any other atheist here and elsewhere is an arrogant piece of sh*t!
.............................
There are many atheists here who are the staunchest of anti-Jihdists. Hugh Fitzgerald was for many years assistant Director of Jihad Watch.
Wellington, Fitna, Steffen Larsen and many other who have written on this thread have shown their commitment against Jihad for many years—*as well as* their respect to other posters here, including many people of faith.
Jihad is a global threat, and needs a response from all good people—Christians, Jews, Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, agnostics, *and* atheists. Referring to an entire group of anti-Jihadists as "arrogant piece[s] of sh*t" is neither useful nor accurate.
As for Hitchens, I am impressed. The man is seriously ill, and yet still finds the strength to come out, eloquently as always, against the forces of Jihad. Kudos to him!
Peter
yes, that one **is** worrying.
There have been comments like that, every now and again, 'planted' with malice aforethought.
The best course of action, whenever you see a really suspect comment, is to email Marisol (poke around on the homepage and you should find the info on how to email her, as well as Spencer) and give her 1. the text of the comment that bothers you and 2. the thread in which it occurred, so she can go check and, quite often, delete it.
Comments of that kind have been deleted before now.
There have been comments that *I* have reported, in the past, which seemed to me to be - as you put it - beyond the pale, and which have been, on due consideration, deleted.
This article is good. The fact that the Hamas Charter refers approvingly to that vile fabrication (and plagiarism, to boot) "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" needs to be made over and over and over. It needs to become common knowledge throughout the western world. At present, it is *not*.
There is another article by Mr C Hitchens that I respect and that I liked enough to copy and keep. I will reproduce it here, since 7 July 2005 is only a few days ago.
The article was written in white hot fury and clarity, the day after the mass-murderous Muslim jihad bombing of London on 7.7.2005.
I think personally it may go down in history as the best thing he ever wrote.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2005/07/08/we-cannot-surrender-115875-15713152/
WE CANNOT SURRENDER
By Christopher Hitchens 8/07/2005
States which shelter these killers will know no peace
'SOMEWHERE around London at about a quarter to nine yesterday morning, there must have been people turning on their TV and radio sets with a look of wolfish expectation.
I hope and believe that they were disappointed in what they got. There just wasn't quite enough giggle-value for the psychopath.
'It must have been infernal underneath King's Cross, but above ground no panic, no screaming, no wailing and beating the air, no yells for vengeance.
'I'm writing this in the early aftermath, but I would be willing to bet there will have been little or no bloody foolishness, either: no random attacks on mosques or shops or individuals.
'After all, devices on our buses and tubes are an open proclamation that the perpetrators don't care if they kill Muslims. Which, of course, is part of the point.
'When we use the weak and vague word "terrorism" we imply indiscriminate cruelty directed at civilians.
"Sadism" or "fascism" or "nihilism" would do just as nicely: all the venom that lurks just on the sub-human level of the human species.
'In a tightly interwoven society, all that this poison has to do is ally itself with a certain low cunning.
'People are afraid of plane crashes and of heights: in that sense 9/11 was the perfect strike on the collective unconscious. People are likewise afraid of fire and of crowded or subterranean conditions: the mind of the fascist is naturally attuned to exploit such dreads. I am guessing the planners of this coordinated atrocity hoped for more mayhem than they got, but the casualty figures are in a sense beside the point.
'WE all knew this was coming, and that one day a homely and familiar name like Tavistock Square would become a synonym for barbarism. The good old red London bus, a worldwide symbol of our capital, ripped to shards in an instant.
'Random and "senseless" though such violence may appear, we also all know it expresses a deadly ideology; indeed that in some ways it is that ideology.
'The preachers of this faith have taken care to warn us that they love death more than we love life. Their wager is that this makes them unstoppable. Well, we shall have to see. They certainly cannot prove their point unless we assist them in doing so.
'My American friends have been impressed by the composure of the Londoners they have seen on the screen: I bet London Transport runs again rather sooner than US airlines resumed flying after 9/11.
'I remember living in London through the Provisional IRA bombing in the 70s. I saw the very first car-bomb explode against the Old Bailey in 1972. There was no warning that time, but after a while a certain etiquette developed.
'And, even as I detested the people who might have just as soon have blown me up as anyone else, I was aware there were ancient disputes involved, and that there was a potential political solution.
'Nothing of the sort applies in this case.
'We know very well what the "grievances" of the jihadists are.
'The grievance of seeing unveiled women. The grievance of the existence, not of the State of Israel, but of the Jewish people. The grievance of the heresy of democracy, which impedes the imposition of sharia law. The grievance of a work of fiction written by an Indian living in London. The grievance of the existence of black African Muslim farmers, who won't abandon lands in Darfur. The grievance of the existence of homosexuals. The grievance of music, and of most representational art. The grievance of the existence of Hinduism. The grievance of East Timor's liberation from Indonesian rule.
'All of these have been proclaimed as a licence to kill infidels or apostates, or anyone who just gets in the way.
'FOR a few moments yesterday, Londoners received a taste of what life is like for the people of Iraq and Afghanistan, whose Muslim faith does not protect them from slaughter at the hands of those who think they are not Muslim enough, or are the wrong Muslim.
'It is a big mistake to believe this is an assault on "our" values or "our" way of life.
'It is, rather, an assault on all civilisation.
'I know perfectly well there are people thinking, and even saying, that Tony Blair brought this upon us by his alliance with George Bush.
'A word of advice to them: try and keep it down, will you? Or wait at least until the funerals are over.
'And beware of the non-sequitur: you can be as opposed to the Iraq operation as much as you like, but you can't get from that "grievance" to the detonating of explosives at rush hour on London buses and tubes.
'Don't even try to connect the two. By George Galloway's logic, British squaddies in Iraq are the root cause of dead bodies at home.
'How can anyone bear to be so wicked and stupid? How can anyone bear to act as a megaphone for psychotic killers?
'The grievances I listed above are unappeasable, one of many reasons why the jihadists will lose.
'They demand the impossible - the cessation of all life in favour of prostration before a totalitarian vision.
'Plainly, we cannot surrender. There is no one with whom to negotiate, let alone capitulate.
'We shall track down those responsible. States that shelter them will know no peace.
'Communities that shelter them do not take forever to discover their mistake.
'And their sordid love of death is as nothing compared to our love of London, which we will defend as always, and which will survive this with ease."
arrgh! preview is my friend!
A couple of corrections to the posting immediately above.
First, the sentence reading "The fact that the Hamas Charter refers approvingly to that vile fabrication (and plagiarism, to boot) "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" needs to be made over and over and over" should have been "The fact that the Hamas Charter refers approvingly to that vile fabrication (and plagiarism, to boot) "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" needs to be stated over and over and over."
Secondly, the sentence reading "I will reproduce it here, since 7 July 2005 is only a few days ago" should have been worded "I will reproduce it here, since the sixth anniversary of 7 July 2005 was only a few days ago."
Thanx DDA, I wasn't aware that this could be done. I will make sure to save your reply so I can refer to it if the need arises.
Hopefully, I will never have to contact Marisol.
Have a nice day