Meanwhile, in Hitchensville, theres a particularly hilarious response to Paul Ps ongoing exposure of Peter Hitchens corrupt, opportunistic and oscilating apologizing for the Putin regime from a Mr Greenwood... I did write out a whole point by point refutation of Paul Ps response to this article but then I thought why bother. Like the state of North Korea he has built up so many fortifications against thought and logic that I think we should just let him be. Its easier that way and to be honest we shouldnt try to confuse him too much lest all the crossed wires in his brain catch fire. However I am thankful to you Peter for taking the time to answer your detractors in such detail as it benefits your already fine arguments and illuminates us all no end. Ha ha. In other words, Ill just point out how rubbish Paul Ps arguments are, but wont have the guts or the gumption to explain why, and so will just say that they are not even bothering with. How many times have I heard this before lol. A vacuous, fascististic intolerance of someone elses right to express their opinions. But the funniest sycophantic Hitchensian response comes from the usually witless Jerry Owen, Paul P, I cant help but notice the uncomfortable wriggling and squirming you are afflicted from of late on the recent tragedy of a plane crashing in the Ukraine. Your tack is accusing all and sundry of conspiracy theories without having evidence of your own to win the debate. Might I suggest with all due respect you stick to what you are known here for being exceptionally good at...promoting the conspiracy theory of atheism? The conspiracy theory of atheism. Ha ha. Thats quite good. The religionists who promote the biggest conspiracy in human history (the existence of god), accuse those who do not believe in the one particular version of the Christian god that they imagine is sat on a cloud tallying the fall of every sparrow and disapproving of fortnightly bin collections, of not only disbelieving in any god, but of all ganging up to undermine Christianity. Its a very old chestnut, but claiming that atheism is a conspiracy is just like saying that atheism is a religion or belief system which is just like saying *not* stamp collecting is a hobby. Its even more absurd than Peter Hitchens claim that the theory of evolution is an anti-Christian plot. I have always maintained that even when Peter Hitchens is *right* about something, it is almost always for the *wrong* reasons. And I am always somewhat bemused to find that some people who vehemently oppose Hitchens bizarre reality-denying opinions on one subject, will apologize for him on others. For instance, there are those who rightly condemn Hitchens nonsensical, fact-free and entirely subjective opposition to cannabis, and yet will support his equally phoney, disingenuous and insidious defence of organized religion, simply because they themselves have some phoney, disingenuous and insidious reason to defend organized religion. There are even those who have a genuine faith in god - you know, they actually believe - but who still support Peter Hitchens defence of Christianity, even though Hitchens membership of the Christian cult has nothing do with having a genuine belief in god, and everything to do with using a state appointed religion as a political weapon with which to control the behaviour of the masses. Even more bizarre is that there are those who claim that both Peter Hitchens and his late brother spoke with one mind on Christianity, and the need to use it to oppose creeping Islaminfication, when the Hitchens brothers were diametrically-opposed on all aspects of the religious debate. The claim made by some is that Christopher Hitchens was less hostile to Christianity than to Islam, and that somehow Peter Hitchens is totally and absolutely opposed to Islam. This made even more bizarre by the fact that conservative Christians like Peter Hitchens (and many at the Mail), often claim that it is Christianity that is singled out for assault by people like Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins because the anti-theists somehow fear reprisals from hardline Muslim extremists, or even that they simply do not want to offend moderate Muslims out of concerns for political correctness. The claim is even made that the law itself now treats anti-Muslim comment more seriously than anti-Christian comment, when we are all free to rubbish all forms of organized religion in the UK. In reality, Christopher Hitchens did have a special loathing of Christianity, because it is the faith he had most contact with throughout his life. And his discovery, at about the age of 2, of the uniquely hypocritical nature of most conservative English Christians. Similarly, Richard Dawkins appears to spend more time attacking Christianity, because, as every devout Christian conservative will claim, we are a culturally Christian country, and that the Church of England is wedded to the State, and that we have a couple of dozen bishops sat in the House of Lords because of it. Thus, Christopher Hitchens was four-square behind the liberal intervention in the Balkans because a Muslim minority was being persecuted by the fascist Christian majority. Unlike Hitchens junior, Hitchens senior was not contrarian just for the sake of it. Christopher was actually consistent in his quest to bring about justice in the world, and though having a personal desire to see organized religion extirpated from existence, he would still defend a religious minority being persecuted by a fascist majority. That is the essence of secularism. And far from opposing creeping Islamification, as I have said for many years now, Peter Hitchens has far more in common with conservative Muslims than he does with the vast majority of Christians in his own church. And Hitchens is increasingly voicing his approval of hardline Islamic practice as a way of attacking the increasingly liberalized and moderate Christian church. Only last week on Sunday Morning Live, Hitchens stated his belief that the timing of the Commonwealth Games should have been changed out of respect for Ramadam. After all, according to Hitchens, God comes before sport. Lol. To say that he would prefer children went on religious pilgramages than attending rock concerts is something that you would expect to hear a hardline Imam hollering in a mosque than any modernday reverend in a Christian church. But thats what Peter Hitchens would like, and thats why even conservative Catholicism is too liberal for him now. Theres no way that Peter Hitchens would ever become a Muslim. But he wants to turn his nationalistic Christian sect into something very similar to hardline Islam. And whilst piously and bombastically arguing that Britain needs Christianity to tame its hedonism, liberalism and embracing of globalization, he never mentions all of the genital mutilations, wife-beating, child murder, general misogyny, conflict, war and terrorism that comes with any form of hard-line, politicized religious extremism.
Posted on: Sat, 26 Jul 2014 02:20:08 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015