Opinion of atheist liberals who admire Christopher Hitchens

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

It's pretty awful. Hitchens was a murderous imperialist neocon of the worst order. For anyone to oppose that but love the guy just because he said lots of bad things about Christians is so absurd and short-sighted. It makes as much sense as loving Ayn Rand for her Christian-hating.

[afleitch]

Murderous?

Let's be honest here. Hitchens, Dawkins etc are the poster boys of certain brands of Christians who can't really be bothered engaging with atheism/agnosticism or unbelief. Nothing anyone has argued about god or the lack of evidence for is new or unique and no one claims otherwise. But you would think, from detractors that atheists didn't exist until we heard the clarion call from the mountain from Hitchens et al. We are their children and are therefore tainted by them. So that's why we get irate and banal regurgitated topics like this. Over and over and over again. Take some effort and expand your horizons.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Yeah, it seems to me that the only people who give a sh*t about Hitchens are atheist-bashers.

[WalterMitty]

i love hitchens.  so ff, naturally.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

i love hitchens.  so ff, naturally.

But you also defended torture and Bush's foreign policy a lot, so that's not surprising.

[bedstuy]

I think Christopher Hitchens was a good writer and an insightful, smart person.  I don't idolize him or agree with his views 100%.  And I'm a liberal.  Why does that bother you?  Is it OK to be a liberal who hates radical Islam and Christian fundamentalism?  Is it OK to be a liberal who is more hawkish than Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul?

Also, who did he murder?  And how is he imperialist?  I'm curious. 

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I've decided try not to let Hitchens bother me more than he merits.

[H. Ross Peron]

i love hitchens.  so ff, naturally.

But you also defended torture and Bush's foreign policy a lot, so that's not surprising.

Hitchens opposed waterboarding after undergoing one himself.

[freefair]

Also, who did he murder?  And how is he imperialist?  I'm curious.  

I'm not a Neocon and think that Iraq was a mistake, but his other socialand religious Ideas in general were pretty on the money. The Ayn Rand comparison is invalid becuase Hitchens also remained on the centre-left on all other issues, economic and social. Is it ok to say someone is a bad person just because you don't agree with one aspect of their politics now? if so, sensible, rational discourse in the democratic world is doomed.

[DC Al Fine]

Silly. In the realm of atheist thought there are so many better options out there. It's like calling Joel Osteen your favourite Christian thinker.

[TNF]

New Atheists and their spokespeople = HP

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Hitchens was an awful prick, atheist or now.

[Nhoj]

Yeah, it seems to me that the only people who give a sh*t about Hitchens are atheist-bashers.

You clearly haven't been to reddit.

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

As one... total FF's.  He's incredible logical, even where we differ, and is not afraid to bash religion for the comprehensive social poison that it is.  

Hitchens is incredible and I love that I have hours and hours of his material available to me which I have not yet gotten to, despite the fact that he is dead.  

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aePgiW0Km_0

EDIT: and he clearly evolved into a center-leftist on economics over time, and he was bashing Reagan in the early 90s WAAAAAAAAY before it was cool. 

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I think Christopher Hitchens was a good writer and an insightful, smart person.  I don't idolize him or agree with his views 100%.  And I'm a liberal.  Why does that bother you?  Is it OK to be a liberal who hates radical Islam and Christian fundamentalism?  Is it OK to be a liberal who is more hawkish than Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul?

Also, who did he murder?  And how is he imperialist?  I'm curious. 

He wasn't just more hawkish than those types, he was basically an out and out neocon, who endorsed Bush in 2004. Murderous foreign policy and imperialism are basically the hallmarks of neoconservatism.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

I find Hitchens... interesting. Not that I've put much research into him. Just reading one Newsweek article and maybe part of a wikipedia page. In any case, I'll just apply my poll answer to the "atheist liberals" portion of the question.

[bedstuy]

I think Christopher Hitchens was a good writer and an insightful, smart person.  I don't idolize him or agree with his views 100%.  And I'm a liberal.  Why does that bother you?  Is it OK to be a liberal who hates radical Islam and Christian fundamentalism?  Is it OK to be a liberal who is more hawkish than Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul?

Also, who did he murder?  And how is he imperialist?  I'm curious. 

He wasn't just more hawkish than those types, he was basically an out and out neocon, who endorsed Bush in 2004. Murderous foreign policy and imperialism are basically the hallmarks of neoconservatism.

He was certainly wrong about supporting the invasion of Iraq and President Bush's reelection.  I'll grant you that.  We can debate the definition of "imperialist," "neo-con" and "murderous."  But, those are ultimately that's just an ad-hominem argument based on a few labels.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

And those things alone permanently taint him to me. If someone wants to overlook those, I'd prefer the reason be better than "is an atheist" and "is also a giant dick about it".

[Lurker]

EDIT: and he clearly evolved into a center-leftist on economics over time, and he was bashing Reagan in the early 90s WAAAAAAAAY before it was cool. 

What? No. If anything, he "evolved" in the other direction (though economic policy was never his forté).


Hitchens was certainly a great and often hilarious writer, though most of his contributions from 2002-06 (during which he served as nothing but the most extreme cheerleader for Bush foreign policy, and made enemies of most of his former friends) should best be forgotten.

[Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook]

Negative.

[bedstuy]

And those things alone permanently taint him to me. If someone wants to overlook those, I'd prefer the reason be better than "is an atheist" and "is also a giant dick about it".

He wasn't polite or deferential, for sure.  But, the mission of a writer isn't to be nice.  It's to be provocative and interesting.  Was he a "giant dick" in his stance as an atheist?  I don't see how specifically.  What did he do to religious believers that's so bad? 

Christians seem to think we owe them a certain amount of deference and respect for their beliefs, maybe because they're the majority in America.  Or least they think we need to cop to a type of mealy-mouthed ecumenicism that says that all religions are worthy of special status and are beyond criticism. 

Personally, I don't care that much about what other people believe.  Certainly compared to the New Atheists, I'm more complacent with people holding beliefs that I find silly and illogical.  But, living in a world where terrorists are actively trying to kill me because of their religious beliefs and fundamentalists want to deny me my civil rights, because of Jesus or something, I appreciate people who call those idiots out.  That's what I like about Christopher Hitchens' ideology.  But, certainly, if religious people all acted like civilized human beings, I would have less common cause with him. 

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

And those things alone permanently taint him to me. If someone wants to overlook those, I'd prefer the reason be better than "is an atheist" and "is also a giant dick about it".

He wasn't polite or deferential, for sure.  But, the mission of a writer isn't to be nice.  It's to be provocative and interesting.  Was he a "giant dick" in his stance as an atheist?  I don't see how specifically.  What did he do to religious believers that's so bad? 

Christians seem to think we owe them a certain amount of deference and respect for their beliefs, maybe because they're the majority in America.  Or least they think we need to cop to a type of mealy-mouthed ecumenicism that says that all religions are worthy of special status and are beyond criticism. 

Personally, I don't care that much about what other people believe.  Certainly compared to the New Atheists, I'm more complacent with people holding beliefs that I find silly and illogical.  But, living in a world where terrorists are actively trying to kill me because of their religious beliefs and fundamentalists want to deny me my civil rights, because of Jesus or something, I appreciate people who call those idiots out.  That's what I like about Christopher Hitchens' ideology.  But, certainly, if religious people all acted like civilized human beings, I would have less common cause with him. 

The problem with Hitchens is that:

1-He didn't really make a distinction between fundamentalists and more tolerant and liberal believers and
2-He took the position to the extreme of thus deciding that Bush's foreign policy was good....although even that flies in the face of logic since supporting the Iraq War meant toppling one of the most secular governments in the Middle East.

So basically he was a dick, and an illogical one who took his views to some awful and unforgivable conclusions.

[Old Man Svensson]

As far as I'm concerned, the "enlightened idols" of atheism - Hitchens and Dawkins - are both complete tools, and their worshipers total hypocrites.

[© tweed]

I can't confirm that I've ever met one.

[RedSLC]

Massive HPs. People like them are one of the big reasons that so many people perceive atheists as rapid anti-theists, even though the majority do not think that way.