Opinion of Christopher Hitchens

[DemPGH]

In totality, despite some disagreements, a massive FF.

I've heard him more than I've read him because I don't sit around reading atheist books, but it's really important IMO that secularists have voices in the public sphere.

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

Insisting that one has to hold your own position on religious issues in order to be properly good or smart or enlightened or whatever is 'intellectually tyrannical' regardless of what that position is exactly, and by that standard Hitchens's views constituted 'intellectual tyranny', albeit of a relatively benign kind compared to the kind that he (sometimes rightly) inveighed against because he had no power to actually force them on anybody. It's difficult to conclude that a hypothetical Hitchens who held power would have been a particularly tolerant ruler, even though it's also difficult to conclude that he would have been as bad some of his pet targets.

I could get into how pointlessly insulting it is to imply that those of us who derive community and meaning from religious organizations only feel that way because we've been 'intellectually tyrannized' into it, but the person who introduced that concept to this thread was Memphis the Mendacious and he actively doesn't care about what religious people actually experience except when it suits his preconceptions so I won't.

Hitchens vehemently fought for the right of David Irving to publish his viciously anti-Semitic (ah hem) theories on the Holocaust because he felt so strongly about the right of individuals to express themselves.  

Tell me, Madeline, would you be particularly worried about your right to worship freely in a hypothetical America run by me?

[RFayette]

FF for his opposition to Ray Comfort, Todd Friel, & company, though I don't really agree w/ his atheism.

I love his smashing of Todd Friel on his radio show:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fG2ffBV4VbE

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

Insisting that one has to hold your own position on religious issues in order to be properly good or smart or enlightened or whatever is 'intellectually tyrannical' regardless of what that position is exactly, and by that standard Hitchens's views constituted 'intellectual tyranny', albeit of a relatively benign kind compared to the kind that he (sometimes rightly) inveighed against because he had no power to actually force them on anybody. It's difficult to conclude that a hypothetical Hitchens who held power would have been a particularly tolerant ruler, even though it's also difficult to conclude that he would have been as bad some of his pet targets.

I could get into how pointlessly insulting it is to imply that those of us who derive community and meaning from religious organizations only feel that way because we've been 'intellectually tyrannized' into it, but the person who introduced that concept to this thread was Memphis the Mendacious and he actively doesn't care about what religious people actually experience except when it suits his preconceptions so I won't.

Hitchens vehemently fought for the right of David Irving to publish his viciously anti-Semitic (ah hem) theories on the Holocaust because he felt so strongly about the right of individuals to express themselves.

Okay, I wasn't aware of that (I don't generally give the subject of David Irving much thought). Consider that statement retracted. Edited original post to reflect this.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Not really, no. I'd be mildly worried about whether or not my values would be taken seriously in public policy debates, but I don't really want to go into politics any more anyway (two years in New England municipal government at a young age will do that to you), so no harm no foul.

EDIT: I'll say I respect Hitchens's writing on the subject of Bill Clinton. The disingenuous nature of the impeachment proceedings against him really doesn't excuse...a whole host of things about him, really, and Hitchens was relatively unusual among people of his general ilk in recognizing that and being willing to back it up. His insight into the quasi-religious nature of the way North Korea is ruled is also valuable, although I don't think it's entirely accurate to describe it as 'theocratic' in that the organization of the levers of power more closely resembles the Japanese parafascism that North Korea was initially founded in the wake of opposing than anything else. (Japanese parafascism used religion in many ways, but putting it in a position of genuine authority was not one of them.) That is, Hitchens's model of understanding North Korea is a lot more sophisticated and accurate than the shallow 'they're commies because they used to say they were and were in the Eastern Bloc once upon a time' take that still dominates popular discourse on the subject, but it's still somewhat hamstrung by his bêtes noires.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Can't say I miss him.

[afleitch]

No idea why this is here, but i won't move it yet until it sort of dies down.

I wrote this before he died;

A very intelligent man. The only problem, it is said that many people have with Chris Hitchen's argument re religion (which is the one that he is recently known for) is that it is given by Chris Hitchens. Only it is not; it is an argument made by countless people over centuries. It is not original but neither has it been successfully disarmed. When he argues as part of a team with different personalities this becomes move evident.

For the record the fact that his atheism is all he is known for (to the extent a topic about him appears on this particular board above others) is quite a pity. His earlier works are enjoyable.

[TDAS04]

HP.

[Oakvale]

FF, particularly for the reason that Oakvale has already mentioned. I also see that Nathan has brought up Hitchens' excellent writing on the Clintons. No one, to my knowledge, has articulated a better critique of the Bill Clinton presidency than Christopher Hitchens has. If Hillary is elected is 2016 it'll be a tragedy that he won't be here to write about it.

Also, I always enjoy going back to his writing and television appearances - e.g. this joint interview on CSPAN, with Andrew Sullivan, is an absolute joy.

Yes, I'm glad Nathan brought that up - I completely overlooked the delightful critiques of the Clintons. There's an excellent documentary about Hitchens from the late 90s which has amazing scenes of him being congratulated by placard-waving proto Tea Partiers.

I highly recommend Ice Spear et al read No One Left To Lie To.