[T]he Russian Orthodox Church was the patron of Czarist autocracy, helped spread The Protocols of the Elders of Zion to the West, and compromised with the Stalin regime just as it had been allied with earlier serfdom and chauvinism. It is now part of Vladimir Putin's sinister exercise in the restoration of Russian supremacism and dictatorship: an enterprise that got off to a good start when our President admired Mr. Putin's crucifix and "looked into his soul".

Christopher Hitchens, On Faith: Guest Voices

Hasn't atheism killed more people in history than any religion?

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09...

But the truth is Hitchens is a fake. He is a narrow-minded bigot who would restrict the rights of certain undesirable types.

If you can find an actual quote from Hitchens that says that Falwell's right to free speech should be restricted, or anything of the kind, I'd like to see it.

So what is your vision for society? A utopia where an educated elite micromanages the thinking of a non intellectual herd?

I don't know where you are getting your ridiculous ideas.

My vision of society is one where people are smart enough to distinguish truth from bullshit on their own. Utopia indeed.

>Did you ever publicly criticize Falwell for the stupid thing he said? Or did you let him get away with besmirching the reputation of your faith? If the latter, you are the one who should be apologizing, not Hitchens. If you wonder why intelligent people identify Christianity with ignorance, hatred, and yahooism, you have yourself to blame along with the Falwells of the world.

As a matter of fact, as far back as the mid 1980's, I have been involved in some public criticism of Falwell. But who am I? I have no power to coerce change in another person and even if I did it would be morally, and legally wrong for me to do so. As I said earlier:
"People have the right to believe in something that other people think is irrational or just plain ridiculous. The US constitution agrees with me. The first amendment guarantees to any person living in this country the "˜free exercise' of religion. The constitution does not stipulate what kind of religion it is. It can be good, bad, silly, superstitious or stupid. Furthermore, religion is not simply something that is to be tolerated in a free open society like ours it is a fundamental right."

In other words, Falwell had a constitutional right to what he believed and what he said and the way he believed and said it. His followers had the constitutional rights to be (in your words) idiots and follow his teaching and preaching. Furthermore, it was not simply a freedom of religion, but a matter of the freedom of speech, the freedom of press and the freedom of assembly.

Ironically, on the surface Hitchens seems to agree with me here. In the speech quoted by Keiths he said:

>If one person gets up and says, "You know what? This Holocaust "” I'm not sure it even happened. In fact, I'm pretty certain it didn't. Indeed, I begin to wonder if the only thing is that the Jews brought a little bit of violence on themselves." That person doesn't just have a right to speak; that person's right to speak must be given extra protection, because what he has to say must have taken him some effort to come up with, might contain a grain of historical truth, might in any case give people to think about why do they know what they already think they know? How do I know that I know this except that I've always been taught this and never heard anything else?"

So, a Holocaust denier is someone whose beliefs and freedom of speech are to be tolerated and respected, but someone like Falwell isn't? Explain to me what the difference is?

Personally I think we have operating here what I call the "kook" factor. Holocaust denier's and Flat Earthers can be tolerated because they are so ridiculous and marginalized that they pose no foreseeable threat to society. Someone like "Moral Majority" founder Falwell, on the other hand, who was able to influence millions of people, became a genuine threat to people who disagreed with his political and religious views. In other words, Hitchens will talk all day long about defending the constitutional rights certain kinds of kooks so that it will appear that he is a defender of western democratic values and human rights. But the truth is Hitchens is a fake. He is a narrow-minded bigot who would restrict the rights of certain undesirable types.

So what is your vision for society? A utopia where an educated elite micromanages the thinking of a non intellectual herd? I am kind of curious to what you think.

You seem to have some reading comprehension difficulties. I did not make any accusations against tens of millions of Christans "” I said that Christianity had become identified with hatred and idiocy, and that this is at least in part the fault of ordinary, non-hating, non-idiot Christians,

OK, try this. Atheism has become identified with hatred and idiocy, and that this is at least in part the fault of ordinary, non-hating, non-idiot atheists. My comprehension is fine. So is my understanding of the Archie Bunker mentality that provokes your guilt by association logic.

The reason some people so identify is explained by their own ignorance and hatred. Bigotry is alive and well and evidenced by blanket hate-filled accusations against tens of millions in the USA alone who consider themselves Christians.

You seem to have some reading comprehension difficulties. I did not make any accusations against tens of millions of Christans — I said that Christianity had become identified with hatred and idiocy, and that this is at least in part the fault of ordinary, non-hating, non-idiot Christians, of which I'm sure there are many, who are perfectly willing to stand by and let people like Falwell, Pat Robertson, Ted Haggard, Ken Ham, and this Drake guy become the public face of their religion.

It's a mystery to me — I assume that the majority of Christians are not hateful ignorant fanatics. Yet they seem perfectly willing to let themselves be led by them. Where are the non-hateful, non-idiot Christian leaders? A few decades ago Christianity produced people like Martin Luther King Jr and William Sloane Coffin, not to mention the Berrigan brothers. These were Christians who were not afraid to challenge Caesar, rather than sucking up to him the way the Christian right does today.

Mind, not being a Christian or religious it doesn't bother me that much that you've let your faith become debased. But it really ought to bother you.

If you wonder why intelligent people identify Christianity with ignorance, hatred, and yahooism, you have yourself to blame along with the Falwells of the world.

The reason some people so identify is explained by their own ignorance and hatred. Bigotry is alive and well and evidenced by blanket hate-filled accusations against tens of millions in the USA alone who consider themselves Christians.

What in the world is Hitchens supposed to apologize for?

For being an insensitive jerk. Falwell has grieving family members for one thing.

Everything he wrote about Falwell was spot on.

Proving you don't have to be religious to be arrogant and judgemental.

Falwell was a public figure who made his reputation and fortune peddling ignorance and hatred, and to pretend that he is somehow immune from criticism after death is puerile. He deserves no courtesy.

Fine. I'll remember that the next time the target is someone you feel more kindly disposed toward.

Falwell was a public figure who made his reputation and fortune peddling ignorance and hatred, and to pretend that he is somehow immune from criticism after death is puerile. He deserves no courtesy.

You said:

Now I should explain I have never been a supporter of Falwell or his ministry. Indeed, as a Christian myself I have found some things he said to be an embarrassment to the cause of Christ.

Did you ever publically criticize Falwell for the stupid thing he said? Or did you let him get away with besmirching the reputation of your faith? If the latter, you are the one who should be apologizing, not Hitchens. If you wonder why intelligent people identify Christianity with ignorance, hatred, and yahooism, you have yourself to blame along with the Falwells of the world.

BTW, if you want to start trying to disassociate Christianity from hateful, lawbreaking, superstitious yahoos, you can start by doing something about this guy:

Instead of responding to Americans United's concern of illegal activity, Drake issued yesterday afternoon a plea to his supporters to join in "imprecatory prayers" (curses) every morning for Americans United and its staff.

"In light of the recent attack from the ememies (sic) of God I ask the children of God to go into action with Imprecatory Prayer," Drake said, in an Aug. 14 press statement issued from the First Southern Baptist Church of Buena Park. "Especially against Americans United for Seperation (sic) of Church and State."

Drake singled out two Americans United staff members whose names appeared as contacts on the press release. The pastor's missive said the imprecatory prayers should "specifically target" Americans United Communications Director Joe Conn or Communications Associate Jeremy Leaming.

In a section of his press release called "How To Pray," Drake includes a long list of biblical citations that call on God to smite enemies. For example, the alleged enemies of God "shall be judged," "condemned," and "his days be few"¦." Additionally, supporters should pray that the enemy's "children be fatherless, and his wife a widow," and "his children be continually vagabonds, and beg; let them seek bread also out of their desolate places."

"Let there be none to extend mercy unto him," Drake quoted, "Neither let there be any to favour his fatherless children.":