Americans United Vigorously Opposes Boehner’s Proposal to Fund Religious Schools

No Comments

January 26, 2011

Voucher Program Would Undermine Civil Rights And Civil Liberties And Add To The Budget Deficit

by Barry Lynn, Executive Director, Americans United for the Separation of Church and State

House Speaker John Boehner’s plan to subsidize religious schools in the District of Columbia would undercut civil rights and civil liberties and add to the federal budget deficit, while failing to improve education, according to Americans United for Separation of Church and State.

Boehner has announced that today he will unveil a bill that would resurrect and expand the controversial experimental D.C. voucher program, which pays for tuition at private schools for some students in Washington, D.C.

Americans United says the Boehner move is seriously misguided.

There is a great big DETOUR sign that warns of danger whenever government wanders into the religious realm—but reading isn’t one of the Tea Party’s favorite things to do, and danger is just their call to arms.

The country survived the John Birch Society and we will survive its reincarnation in the form of the Tea Party, but not without lots of cuts and bruises. These guys intend to do some damage.

“I can’t imagine a worse time to unveil a new federal subsidy for religious schools,” said the Rev. Barry W. Lynn, Americans United executive director. “This proposal would add to the federal budget deficit while subsidizing schools that indoctrinate and discriminate in hiring.

“Public funds should be directed toward improving public schools, not private schools (more…)

Israeli General Counsel Faces Tough Questions at UVU Speech

No Comments

Genelle Pugmire – Daily Herald | Posted: Saturday, January 22, 2011 12:25 am

Israeli Consul General Jacob Dayan stepped up to the podium at Utah Valley University to applause and stepped down to chants of protest on Friday.

Dayan addressed the need for the United States to stay strong and to continue its relationship with Israel as global changes occur.

“The U.S. needs to continue to be a leader. It is important for Israel to have a strong U.S. because we share U.S. values,” he said. “A perception of a weak U.S. hurts Israel. It is vital to see leadership in the U.S.”

In the audience there was a negative undercurrent as he talked of Israel being the only democracy in the region where there are equal rights and freedom of speech and where women are treated as equals.

Colleges and universities are becoming the bulwark of freedom in our country. It is where truth is forced into the open and authorities face true public scrutiny.

Congratulations to The Daily Herald for being at the speech and giving a full report, including those who would not let the propaganda stand unchallenged.

“Everyone at the end of the day wants freedom of speech,” he said. “I believe the revolution in the Arab world will come from the women.” He emphasized the difference between democratic Israel and the rest of nations in the region regarding the treatment of women.

Prior, during and after the talk, pamphlets, maps and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights were passed to the audience declaring Israel an Apartheid state in references to its practices in the West Bank, Jerusalem and Gaza.

A handful of people in the audience of about 100 raised questions about Israel’s treatment of Palestinians. He was asked if Palestinians in these areas have rights to own homes, move freely and (more…)

Tribune Urges Legislature to Adopt Housing, Employment Non-Discrimination Laws for Gays, Lesbians

No Comments

Salt Lake Tribune Editorial

Published: January 24, 2011 06:20AM

“In Iran, we don’t have homosexuals like in your country. … I do not know who has told you that we have it.”

— Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, speaking at Columbia University, September 2007

Legislators in Utah don’t quite have their heads in the same sand as the Iranian president when it comes to homosexuality. Most would admit that gays, lesbians and transgender Utahns do exist. But many Republican members of the Legislature ignore reality in another way: They don’t admit that LGBT Utahns are the victims of discrimination or that they deserve protection from those who would deny them their rights.

Like Ahmadinejad, these legislators, whether they admit it or not, are leaning on their religious convictions as justification for failing to extend government protections to these Utahns in the same way that ethnic and racial minorities, both genders, the elderly and religious groups are protected.

That kind of hurtful bias has got to end.

For the past two legislative sessions, Republicans have refused to seriously consider statewide laws banning discrimination in housing and employment. Fortunately, 10 city and county councils and several school boards have stepped up to do just that in the absence of a legislative conscience. A Salt Lake Tribune poll shows two-thirds of Utahns support a state-wide anti-discrimination law, and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints endorsed the law passed by the Salt Lake City Council in 2009.

Despite the fact that ten city and county councils have passed this ordinance already, (in many cases by unanimous votes of the councils) and despite the fact that 66% of all Utahns are in favor, and despite the blessing of the LDS Church, the fact remains that Utah’s legislature is not a microcosm of Utah’s cities and towns, or even (more…)

Proposed Bill Seeks Adoption Rights for Same Sex Partners

No Comments

By Rosemary Winters

The Salt Lake Tribune

Published: January 24, 2011 01:01AM

The labor was surprisingly fast and calm for twins. Kelley Beeny watched in awe as her partner of a dozen years gave birth to two boys: Ben and Sam, weighing about 3 and 5 pounds respectively.

“It’s unbelievable how you can love these little things so much,” Beeny recalls. “Falling in love with somebody is totally different from falling in love with your children. … It changes who you are.”

Her partner, Kaye Christensen, adopted Beeny’s surname soon after the boys’ birth. The twins, who were conceived with the help of a sperm donor, also share the name.

“They’re the Beeny babies,” Kelley quips.

Three-and-a-half years later, Kelley stays at home with the twins in Tooele while Kaye, 40, commutes to work in Salt Lake City. Kelley, 48, is the family’s “domestic goddess,” folding laundry, fixing meals and tidying the house. She listens to Ben spout his knowledge of train mechanics and sing Thomas the Tank Engine songs. She admires Sam’s latest finger paintings.

Both boys call Kelley “Mommy.”

But to the state of Utah, she is not their legal parent.

“It’s infuriating,” Kelley says. “I love my children just as much as anybody else. It’s no different just because we’re gay.”

Utah is one of two states with statutes that block same-sex couples from adopting children. (The other is Mississippi.)

Salt Lake City Democrats Rep. Rebecca Chavez-Houck and Sen. Ross Romero hope to offer a remedy to families like the Beenys during the 2011 session of the Legislature, which begins Monday.

In 2000, Utah adopted a law that prohibits individuals who are living in unmarried, sexual relationships — whether gay or straight — from adopting or fostering children. Gay men and lesbians who live alone may adopt.

After pushing to change the policy in the previous three sessions without ever getting to a floor vote, Chavez-Houck has narrowed her scope to protecting families like the Beenys.

We wouldn’t have to be making these kinds of fairness proposals if we would just make same-sex marriage legal.

This is a worthy effort by legislators Chavez-Houck and Romero, but it will be seen as a ‘foot in the door’ or a ‘nose under the tent.’ The fairness of it is obvious, but that doesn’t matter to most of the Utah legislators. If fairness mattered same-sex marriage would be permitted.

Introducing the bill also helps (more…)

Army Flunks Test on Separation of Church-State

No Comments

‘Don’t ask, don’t doubt’: Atheists angry over Army’s ‘Spiritual Fitness’ test

By Michael De Groote

Deseret News

Published: Monday, Jan. 17, 2011 12:02 a.m. MST

FT. BRAGG, N.C. — When Justin Griffith, an Army sergeant at Fort Bragg in North Carolina, saw his results from the Army’s mandatory Spiritual Fitness Test, he pounded his fist. Even though he was at work, he loudly read the assessment as other members of his unit gathered around to see what the commotion was.

“You may lack a sense of meaning and purpose in your life,” Griffith read from the assessment.

“Really?” Griffith said back at the computer.

“At times, it is hard for you to make sense of what is happening to you and others around you,” the assessment said.

“Really?” he said again.

“You may question your beliefs, principles, and values,” the assessment said.

But the things Griffith really questioned were whether it was possible for an atheist like himself to even pass a Spiritual Fitness test and whether the test violated the Constitution.

The Army gets an F grade when it comes to the separation of church and state. Spiritual fitness? What in the hell is that all about? What is a spiritual person? Someone who believes in spirits, other than wine? ghosts? Holy Ghosts? angels? devils? miracles? Where do guns rank in the spiritual test? If a soldier believes in God and Guns does (more…)

Judges Rule Christian Cross Korean War Memorial Unconstitutional in 20 Year Old Case

No Comments

By JULIE WATSON

The Associated Press

Published: January 4, 2011 09:19PM

San Diego • A war memorial cross in a San Diego public park is unconstitutional because it conveys a message of government endorsement of religion, a federal appeals court ruled Tuesday in a two-decade-old case.

A three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals issued the unanimous decision in the dispute over the 29-foot cross, which was dedicated in 1954 in honor of Korean War veterans.

The court said modifications could be made to make it constitutional, but it didn’t specify what those changes would be.

“In no way is this decision meant to undermine the importance of honoring our veterans,” the three judges said in their ruling. “Indeed, there are countless ways that we can and should honor them, but without the imprimatur of state-endorsed religion.”

Federal courts are reviewing several cases of crosses on public lands (more…)

Belief in God: A Reason for the Season

No Comments

(Eric Johnson’s op-ed piece that appeared in the Salt Lake Tribune generated another op-ed piece by Professor Clark from the University of Utah. It appears elsewhere on this blog. They both appear under the Science/Religion category))

A Reason for the Season (referring to Christmas)

By Eric R. Johnson

Updated: January 6, 2011 12:55PM
(Eric R. Johnson lives in Sandy and has taught high school and college classes in English and journalism for 18 years.)

In a Dec. 29 column titled “What if I just can’t believe the ‘Christmas story’?,” Robert Hammer claims that he is “99.9 repetend percent convinced that [God] does not exist.” While I won’t take any particular side with the Mormons, Catholics, Protestants, Jews, Muslims or any other religious group that acknowledges a Supreme Being, just because it is impossible to empirically prove God’s existence does not mean faith in a Higher Being is a losing proposition.

As Norman Geisler and Frank Turek write in their aptly-titled I Don’t Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist: “It’s virtually impossible to know everything about a particular topic, and it’s certainly impossible when that topic is an infinite God. So there has to come a point where you realize you have enough information to come to a conclusion, even if unanswered questions remain.”

I believe there are good reasons why God’s existence makes more sense than no God at all. For one, Hammer admits that he might be wrong, “but I strongly doubt that, too.” By not being so skeptical of his own skepticism, perhaps this mindset deceives him.

He also complains that if he’s wrong he will confidently question God in the end with, “O Lord, why hast thou forsaken me?” Yet how did the Almighty forsake him? Psalm 19 proclaims, “The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands.” “General revelation” makes God’s existence abundantly clear.

Imagine if someone made a claim that a particular ballpoint pen had no designer. Do the insides of the pen — including the spring, the reservoir, and the clicker — just magically appear in exact order to form a functional instrument?

Obviously, somebody designed each intricate piece. In the same way, the universe’s cosmological design screams for a Designer.

Another reason for the existence of God is time. Those who claim that time is infinite must consider the “Kalam Cosmological argument,” a complex tool constructed by Muslim philosophers in the Middle Ages. How, they asked, could we ever have arrived at “today” if time consists of an infinite past?

If the universe did begin 12 billion years ago from nothing, then how did “something” (the first cell) get created if “out of nothing, nothing comes”? And the idea that things progress rather than digress when left in their natural state defeats the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

I believe the very existence of moral values is one more dilemma for nontheists. After all, from where do morals come?

Do they emanate from Mother Nature (the conscience)? What right does something lesser than I have to bind me absolutely?

Some would argue that others can determine morals through governmental laws, but is society always right? I think not, especially in light of Nazi Germany, the slavery and “back-of-the-bus” South, and Kim Jong-il’s North Korea. Maybe I can determine morals. But what if my name is Jeffrey Dahmer or Brian David Mitchell? If moral relativism is correct, then who really has the right to tell these men that they were immoral? Only something above us — a Moral Lawgiver — can determine right from wrong.

Notice that I’m not arguing for a particular God or saying that all theists (representing any number of religions) necessarily know or practice what is moral. I’m merely stating that there must be some set of objective moral laws that exist.

Finally, while Hammer says he has tried but apparently never experienced the Almighty, I have. By itself, I agree that this is not a good reason for him or anyone else to become a believer. Yet this very fact, which is real to me, is just as strong as Hammer’s perspective that God doesn’t exist because he never experienced Him. One of us is wrong. The consequences could be immense.

Skeptics need to refrain from throwing the baby out with the bath water. You may not have had a good experience with your church, with others who called themselves theistic believers, or with major tragedies that have occurred in your life. Yet God’s existence doesn’t hinge on your knowledge or experience.

You do not “lack capacity for this kind of faith.” It’s atheism that requires so much more faith. Therefore, go where the evidence leads.

Eric R. Johnson lives in Sandy and has taught high school and college classes in English and journalism for 18 years.


Empirical Evidence Weighs Heavily Against An Interventionist God

No Comments

Science and the empirical evidence against a divine being

By Gregory A. Clark

Published: January 8, 2011 01:01AM
(Gregory A. Clark is an associate professor in bioengineering at the University of Utah. He has been teaching and conducting empirical scientific research for over 30 years.)

It is curious but telling that theists who so stoutly proclaim evidence for the existence of an Almighty God then fail to provide any. Of course, this depends on the definition of the word “evidence,” as it does on the definition of “God.”

Eric R. Johnson (“A reason for the season,” Opinion, Dec. 31) and Brian David Mitchell are among those who claim that they have personally experienced the Almighty.

We initially failed to post the opinion piece by Eric Johnson, but since we are posting this eloquent response by Dr. Clark we felt we should also post the opinion piece by Eric Johnson.

Of course, Brian David Mitchell’s testimony of the existence of God is a matter of public record. For those who don’t make the connection he is the visionary who kidnapped a 14-year old girl and married her on instructions from ‘God.’

Their statements could be entered as “evidence” in a court of law. But such claims do not constitute “evidence” for God in the objective, scientific meaning of the word.

As soon as considerations move from God as a metaphor into real-world specifics, scientific evidence becomes directly relevant. In reality, compelling empirical evidence indicates that the interventionist God of “Mormons, Catholics, Protestants, [and] Jews” (among others) does not exist — at least if the Bible is the literal word of God, as one-third of Americans believe.

Scientifically, the Bible is wrong from the very first sentence, and goes downhill from there. The earth was not formed “in the beginning” of the universe; fruit trees did not grow on earth before the sun and stars; birds and sea mammals did not precede land insects and reptiles.

The empirical evidence indicates a fundamentally different order. Likewise, there is no physical evidence that Yahweh (or Zeus, or Thor) hurls lightning bolts from the sky, causes rain via divine intervention, or stops the sun (more…)

Deseret News Feature Story: Michael McConnell

No Comments

By Jamshid Ghazi Askar

Deseret News

Published: Sunday, Jan. 9, 2011 12:55 a.m. MST

Twenty-one years ago Michael W. McConnell was an up-and-coming professor at the University of Chicago Law School writing a complicated article about the legal meaning of “free exercise of religion” for the Harvard Law Review. During the revision process a law review student editor left such an impression on McConnell that he convinced Chicago Law School to grant the student a faculty fellowship upon graduation.

“He was an unusually good editor,” McConnell recalls. “He entered into the project in a way that I think helped me to make it a better article from the point of view of what I wanted it to be. He had some very intelligent organizational suggestions and was just very impressive.”

The Harvard Law Review editor who caught McConnell’s eye was Barack Obama.

“We had the opportunity of chatting quite a bit, and I knew he was planning to return to the south side of Chicago,” McConnell said. “It just seemed like a natural (fit) to connect him with the law school.”

In a vacuum, McConnell’s interaction with Obama could seem somewhat extraordinary. But playing an integral role in the ascension of a future president of the United States cannot be considered mere coincidence when placed within the greater context of McConnell’s career. Rather it’s indicative of a pattern in the life of the former University of Utah professor, because time and again McConnell has demonstrated a propensity for gravitating toward interesting assignments and compelling individuals.

McConnell has held jobs in which he reported directly to superiors such as Rex Lee, Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, and for two years he even held top-secret military clearance. In 2001 George W. Bush nominated McConnell to the 10th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals (one of a handful of appellate courts just below the U.S. Supreme Court), and after seven years on the bench he stepped away from the 10th Circuit to assume the prestigious directorship of the Stanford Constitutional Law Center, a key position at one of the best law schools in the country. On two separate occasions in 2005 he was on the short list of candidates for a seat on the U.S. Supreme Court, and throughout his career he has argued a dozen cases before the Supreme Court about issues like freedoms of religion and speech.

Along the way, McConnell, who is one of America’s most important conservative thinkers, laid down deep roots in Utah. His family lived in Salt Lake City from 1996-2009; he taught at the U full-time from 1997-2002 and part-time thereafter until leaving for Stanford.

“When Michael left we lost one of our great intellects at the law school,” said Paul Cassell, a professor at Utah’s S.J. Quinney College of Law and a former federal judge. “We have other (great intellects) as well, but Michael had a national reputation as one of the leading constitutional scholars in the country.”

Faith dominates the intellectual landscape of McConnell’s life. A devout Christian belonging to a Presbyterian congregation, he chooses from among five different translations of the Bible depending on the purpose of his study. He co-edited “Christian Perspectives on Legal Thought,” published by Yale University Press.

As a member of the Deseret News Editorial Advisory board, McConnell brings judicial experience and razor-sharp legal expertise from a conservative, faith-based perspective that is nationally respected and sought after.

“I think that the greatest divide in American culture is not the difference between faithful members of one religion and another,” McConnell said. “But rather, (it’s) between all believers and those who are either indifferent or hostile.”

The story of Michael McConnell begins in suburban Louisville as the younger of two children. His father was a chemical engineer, his mother a homemaker. He earned the rank of Eagle Scout and actively participated in his Christian church. During high school he propelled his debate team to a state championship and wrote for the school newspaper.

“I was not an athlete,” he said. “I ran JV cross country one year. It was very hard, and not very pleasant.”

McConnell went to Michigan State on an academic scholarship. He double-majored in political philosophy and economics, eventually rising to become Opinion Editor of the university’s 35,000-circulation student newspaper. During the summers, McConnell returned to Kentucky and worked as a reporter for his hometown newspaper, the Louisville Courier-Journal.

“I was really debating between law school and journalism as career paths,” McConnell said. “But one thing I noticed while working at the Courier-Journal was that a number of the young reporters whom I most admired burned out and went to law school. So it occurred to me that maybe it was smarter to just go to law school from the beginning.

He applied to only two law schools, earning acceptance from both Yale and Chicago. He chose the latter primarily for two reasons: he found Chicago’s economic approach to the analysis of law to be quite attractive, and Chicago offered him a significantly better financial package than Yale.

“I went to Chicago because I got a full-ride scholarship there,” McConnell said. “(Yale) didn’t offer me much money, and we were not a wealthy family.”

It was while still at Michigan State that McConnell met his future wife, Mary. Near the end of Michael’s law school, the couple married six days after Mary returned stateside from a Rhodes Scholarship to Oxford University.

After graduating from law school in 1979 McConnell served two prestigious clerkships, first for Judge J. Skelly Wright on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit and then for Justice William J. Brennan Jr. at the U.S. Supreme Court. Thereafter McConnell burnished his Conservative credentials with a stint in the Office of Management and Budget early in the Reagan administration followed by two years as an assistant Solicitor General to Rex Lee, the future president of BYU.

“I worked with (Lee) very closely at the Justice Department,” McConnell said. “He was truly one of the great lawyers of the 20th Century, just enormously intelligent and able to express ideas clearly and forcefully.”

McConnell returned to Chicago Law School in 1985. From 1988-90, he additionally served on a part-time basis as one of three members on the President’s Intelligence Oversight Board that held top-secret intelligence clearance and reported directly to the Commander in Chief.

In 1996 the McConnells, searching for a more family-friendly environment for their three young children, opted to leave Chicago and came to Salt Lake City.

“Unlike some non-Mormons in Utah, I find Mormon culture quite welcoming and attractive,” McConnell said. “While there are some important theological differences, for us it’s not an uncomfortable or unwelcoming environment. I’d rather have a people around who are involved in their religion and are interested in it.”

While teaching at the U., McConnell developed close relationships with several of his fellow faculty. Debora Threedy, a contracts professor and scholar in feminist legal theory whose political views diverge from McConnell’s, nevertheless became fast friends with both he and his wife because of a mutual affinity for hiking. Threedy and the McConnells maintain cabins in southern Utah near Capitol Reef National Park, and to this day they still get together and go hiking or have dinner when they’re at their cabins.

“I think Michael’s a very thoughtful and kind person,” Threedy said. “He gives me hope that liberals and conservatives can find middle ground, because I’m very liberal and Michael is considered fairly conservative. Although sometimes I will disagree with him about how one should go about it, I think we both have the best interests of society at heart.”

Even among his peer law professors, McConnell carried a reputation for exceptional intelligence and mastery of the law.

“One of the things that’s amazing about Michael is his breadth of knowledge,” Cassell said. “He’s not just somebody who specialized in an obscure field of law, but he has command of a wide range of subjects. … You run into certain people in a lifetime that make you say, ‘Wow, the wheels on that guy are just turning faster than anything I’ve ever seen before.’ I’ve run into two people like that during my life — one is Justice (Antonin) Scalia on the U.S. Supreme Court, and the other is Michael McConnell. On both the intellectual wheels turn so rapidly that it’s a pleasure to watch them work.”

In 2005, while McConnell was balancing the 10th Circuit with teaching part-time, a pair of Supreme Court vacancies arose. With his reputation as one of the country’s preeminent conservative jurists and the same Republican president still in office who had nominated McConnell to the 10th Circuit, the national media buzzed about him being on the final list of candidates to replace Chief Justice William Rehnquist or Justice Saundra Day O’Connor. John Roberts and Samuel Alito, however, ultimately filled the vacancies.

“I would’ve loved to do it — I won’t deny that,” McConnell said. “But … I didn’t get all bent out of shape. I know both John Roberts and Sam Alito, think very highly of them, and think that the President chose well.”

Stanford approached McConnell in 2009 with an offer to become director of its Constitutional Law Center. With his window for a Supreme Court nomination likely having passed, he accepted the Stanford position and resigned from both the 10th Circuit and the University of Utah.

The McConnells are now empty nesters. They enjoy a close relationship their two Keeshond dogs and continue to avidly hike during regular visits to their cabin in southern Utah, where they recently spent Christmas with their adult children.

In addition to continuing work on freedom of religion, McConnell is working on constitutional issues involving the Federal Reserve Board and giving a lecture this winter at Harvard on the constitutional thought of the first Treasury Secretary, Alexander Hamilton.

“The work on the court was extremely rewarding,” McConnell said. “But it’s very demanding in the sense that the volume of reading and thinking about the cases is pretty much your life. Now I’m able to read and think and write about things of my own choice.”

E-mail: jaskar@desnews.com

© 2011 Deseret News Publishing Company | All rights reserved

Debate: Christopher Hitchens vs. Tony Blair: Be It Resolved- Religion Is a Force for Good in the World

No Comments

Will U.S. Support U.N. Resolution to Condemn Israeli Settlements? No, Of Course Not! Israel Owns U.S. Vote

No Comments

By Philip C. Wilcox, Jr.

The Middle East Channel | ForeignPolicy.com

January 5, 2011

The Obama administration will face a moment of truth in deciding how to vote on a U.N. Security Council resolution condemning Israeli settlements under international law now being drafted on behalf of the Palestinians for presentation early this year. But the administration’s thwarted efforts to freeze settlements, the huge obstacle settlements pose to a two-state peace, Israel’s aggressive expansion of settlements, and the need to restore U.S. credibility as a peace maker are all powerful reasons for supporting this initiative.

Nevertheless, the State Department has said it prefers that settlements be resolved through negotiations as “the only viable path” for ending the conflict. This position is also being pressed by Israel and domestic groups that support Israeli policies unconditionally, and by the House of Representatives which has already called for an American veto of U.N. resolutions not approved by Israel. The Obama administration has not yet said how it would vote on such a resolution. It still has time to decide that the U.S. should vote yes, for compelling reasons.

President Obama may pretend to be considering a vote to condemn Israel’s settlement policy, but that’s just part of the façade. The world knows how the U.S. will vote, and Netanyahu isn’t worried about it at all. Israel owns the U.S. votes in the United Nations. Our veto vote in the United Nations is Israel’s life line. It sustains its arrogance, its brutality, its injustice, its intransigence.

The U.S. has a bizarre relationship with Israel. It could fairly be described as abusive. We give and give and give and get slapped on the face time and time again, and we keep going back for more beatings. Never once has it failed. Israel has been calling the shots with the U.S. for over 50 years now and every cry of divorce (more…)

Debate: Tony Blair vs. Christopher Hitchens- Be It Resolved: Religion Is Force for Good in the World

No Comments

Posted by Jon Bernstein – 27 November 2010 09:59

Christopher Hitchens vs. Tony Blair

Be it resolved, religion is a force for good in the world.”

Part One

UPDATE: You can watch a video of the debate here.

You may need to set aside the rest of your day to get through this, but here in full is the transcript of the long-anticipated Munk Debate between Christopher Hitchens and the former prime minister Tony Blair. The motion: “Be it resolved, religion is a force for good in the world”. No prizes for guessing who was arguing for and against.

The debate was hosted Nov. 26th  in Toronto, Canada, in front of an audience of 2,600. Reports suggest that touts were selling tickets for up to C$500.

According to post-debate voting on the Munk Debates website, Hitchens won the argument against the motion by 68 per cent to 32 per cent. A pre-debate poll showed that 57 per cent were against the motion and 22 per cent were for it – demonstrating, I guess, the impressive debating skills of both men.

We will try to post the video of the debate, but the written transcript is even more valuable. Both men defended their positions very well.  Of course, one of them had the easier argument to make and the other one did very well with what he had to work with.

CHRISTOPHER HITCHENS: Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. Thank you very much to the Munk family, great philanthropists for making this possible. Seven minutes, ladies and gentlemen, for the foundational argument between religion and philosophy leaves me hardly time to praise my distinguished opponent, in fact I might have to seize a later chance of doing that!
I think three and a half minutes for metaphysics and three and a half for the material world won’t be excessive, and I have a text, and I have a text and it is from, because I won’t take religious texts from a known extremist or fanatic, it’s from Cardinal Newman, (more…)

Ret. Col. Gary R. Stephens Blasts Congress, Gays

No Comments

(Published in the Salt Lake Tribune Public Forum on December 29, 2010 01:01AM) (Also appeared in the Standard-Examiner in Ogden, Dec. 21, 2010)

Congratulations to Rep. Jim Matheson and the 111th Congress, which just voted to lower the standards of our military (80 percent favorable rating) to that of Congress (13 percent favorable). It’s no coincidence that most of the politicians voting never served in combat. Congress’ vote legitimized sodomy as normal and acceptable, elevating and celebrating it!

When at the crossroads, this “District of Criminals” (as some of us in the Pentagon called Congress) took the wrong fork. Working backward from preconceived conclusions, and unmoved by reason, evidence, timeless standards and history, they pandered for votes. Now the military is forced to reflect their shameful, upside-down, politically correct values.

Pentagon reports repeatedly voice concern that allowing gays to serve openly would lead to widespread and overt displays of effeminacy and disruptive, unhealthy conduct. As a combat officer with 30 years of experience, I know that commingling of out-of-the-closet gays and straights is a disaster in the making.

The only moral and practical solution to the impeached former President Bill Clinton’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy is to reinstate the total ban on gays in the military.

This Congress is unwanted, unclean and a disaster! Have they no shame?

Retired Col. Gary R. Stephens

Layton

There is one thing to his credit. He signed his name. He thought ‘Retired Colonel’ would give him some credibility on the issue and a reason to express his strongly held view. What he didn’t say was that he is also a ‘ recently retired LDS Mission President.’

Since its very difficult to discern a grain of charity or kindness in his letter the church leaders are probably pleased that he used ‘Retired Colonel’ instead of ‘former mission president.’ His letter was certainly absent any portion of the Spirit of the Lord.

In fact, in all liklihood the brethern are squirming (more…)

Biographical Sketch: Christopher Hitchens

No Comments

Christopher Hitchens

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Christopher Hitchens

Hitchens in 2007
Born Christopher Eric Hitchens
13 April 1949 (1949-04-13) (age 61)
Portsmouth, Hampshire, England, UK
Occupation Writer and pundit
Nationality British (until 2007)
American/British
Alma mater Balliol College, Oxford
Genres Polemicism, journalism, essays, biography, literary criticism
Spouse(s) Carol Blue (1989–present)

Eleni Meleagrou (1981–1989)

Children Alexander, Sophia, Antonia
Relative(s) Peter Hitchens (brother)

Influences[hide]

George Orwell, Thomas Paine, Thomas Jefferson, Karl Marx, Rosa Luxemburg, Joseph Heller, Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Noam Chomsky, Edward Said, Salman Rushdie, Vladimir Nabokov, Richard Llewellyn, Aldous Huxley, PG Wodehouse, Evelyn Waugh, Paul Mark Scott, James Fenton, James Joyce, Albert Camus, Oscar Wilde, Conor Cruise O’Brien, Martin Amis, Kingsley Amis, Ian McEwan, Leon Trotsky, Colm Tóibín, Bertrand Russell, Wilfred Owen, Isaiah Berlin [1]

Christopher Eric Hitchens (born 13 April 1949) is an English-American author and journalist whose books, essays, and journalistic career span more than four decades. He has been a columnist and literary critic at The Atlantic, Vanity Fair, Slate, World Affairs, The Nation, Free Inquiry, and became a media fellow at the Hoover Institution in September 2008.[2] He is a staple of talk shows and lecture circuits and in 2005 he was voted the world’s fifth top public intellectual in a Prospect/Foreign Policy poll.[3][4]

Hitchens is known for his admiration of George Orwell, Thomas Paine, and Thomas Jefferson and for his excoriating critiques of, among others, Mother Teresa,[5] Bill and Hillary Clinton, and Henry Kissinger. His confrontational style of debate has made him both a lauded and controversial figure. As a political observer, polemicist and self-defined radical, he rose to prominence as a fixture of the left-wing publications in his native Britain and in the United States. His departure from the established political left began in 1989 after what he called the “tepid reaction” of the European left following Ayatollah Khomeini‘s issue of a fatwā calling for the murder of Salman Rushdie. The September 11, 2001 attacks strengthened his internationalist embrace of an interventionist foreign policy, and his vociferous criticism of what he called “fascism with an Islamic face.” His numerous editorials in support of the Iraq War caused some to label him a neoconservative, while Hitchens insists he is not “a conservative of any kind.”[6]

Identified as a champion of the “new atheism” movement, Hitchens describes himself as an anti-theist and believer in the philosophical values of the Enlightenment. Hitchens says that a person “could be an atheist and wish that belief in god were correct,” but that “An antitheist, a term I’m trying to get into circulation, is someone who is relieved that there’s no evidence for such an assertion.”[7] He argues that the concept of God or a supreme being is a totalitarian belief that destroys individual freedom, and that free expression and scientific discovery should replace religion as a means of teaching ethics and defining human civilization. He wrote at length on atheism and the nature of religion in his 2007 book God Is Not Great.

Though Hitchens retained his British citizenship, he became a United States citizen on the steps of the Jefferson Memorial, on 13 April 2007, his 58th birthday.[8] His latest book, Hitch-22: A Memoir, was published in June 2010.[9] Touring for the book was cut short later the same month so that he could begin treatment for newly diagnosed esophageal cancer.[10]

[edit] Life and career

[edit] Early life

His mother Yvonne and father Eric (1909–1987) met in Scotland while both serving in the Royal Navy during World War II, Yvonne as a “Wren” (a member of the Women’s Royal Naval Service),[11] and Eric as an imperialistic, “purse-lipped and silent” Commander, whose ship had sunk Nazi Germany’s Scharnhorst in the Battle of North Cape.[1] His father’s Naval career required the family to move and reside in bases throughout the United Kingdom and its dependencies, including in Malta, where his brother Peter was born in Sliema in 1951.

Because Yvonne argued that “if there is going to be an upper class in this country, then Christopher is going to be in it,”[12] he was educated at the independent Leys School, in Cambridge, and then later at Balliol College, Oxford, where he was tutored by Steven Lukes, and read philosophy, politics, and economics. Hitchens was “bowled over” in his adolescence by Richard Llewellyn‘s How Green Was My Valley, Arthur Koestler‘s Darkness at Noon, Fyodor Dostoyevsky‘s Crime and Punishment, R. H. Tawney‘s critique on Religion and the Rise of Capitalism, and the works of George Orwell.[11] In 1968 he took part in the TV quiz show University Challenge.[13] Hitchens has written of his homosexual experiences when in boarding school in his memoir, Hitch-22.[14] These experiences spilled over into his college years when he allegedly had relationships with two men who eventually became a part of Margaret Thatcher‘s government.[15]

In the 1960s, Hitchens joined the political left, drawn by his anger over the Vietnam war, nuclear weapons, racism, and “oligarchy“, including that of “the unaccountable corporation“. He would express affinity to the politically charged countercultural and protest movements of the 1960s and 70s. However, he deplored the rife recreational drug use of the time, which he describes as hedonistic.[16]

He joined the Labour Party in 1965, but was expelled in 1967 along with the majority of the Labour students’ organization, because of what Hitchens called “Prime Minister Harold Wilson‘s contemptible support for the war in Vietnam”.[17][clarification needed] Under the influence of Peter Sedgwick, translator of Russian revolutionary and Soviet dissident Victor Serge, Hitchens forged an ideological interest in Trotskyist and anti-Stalinist socialism.[11] Shortly thereafter, he joined “a small but growing post-Trotskyite Luxemburgist sect”.[18] Throughout his student days, he was on many occasions arrested and assaulted in the various political protests and activities in which he participated.

He then became a correspondent for the magazine International Socialism,[19] which was published by the International Socialists, the forerunners of today’s British Socialist Workers Party. This group was broadly Trotskyist, but differed from more orthodox Trotskyist groups in its refusal to defend communist states as “workers’ states“. This was symbolized in their slogan “Neither Washington nor Moscow but International Socialism“.

[edit] Journalistic career (1970–1981)

Hitchens left Oxford with a third class degree.[20] His first job was with the London Times Higher Education Supplement, where he served as social science editor. Hitchens admits that he hated the job and was later fired, recalling that “I sometimes think if I’d been any good at that job, I might still be doing it.”[citation needed] In the 1970s, he went on to work for the New Statesman, where he became friends with, among others, Martin Amis and Ian McEwan. At the New Statesman, he acquired a reputation as a fierce left-winger, aggressively attacking targets such as Henry Kissinger, the Vietnam War, and the Roman Catholic Church.

In November 1973, Hitchens’ mother committed suicide in Athens in a suicide pact with her lover, a former clergyman named Timothy Bryan,[11] in what was initially thought to be a murder scene, after overdosing on sleeping pills in adjoining hotel rooms with Bryan slashing his wrists in the bath to be sure. Hitchens flew alone to Athens to recover her remains. While there he reported on the Greek constitutional crisis of the military junta that was happening at the time. It became his first leading article for the New Statesman. Hitchens stated his belief that his mother was pressured into taking her own life under the fear of his father becoming aware of her infidelity, in an already strained and unhappy marriage, and with both her children now independent adults.[21]

[edit] American career (1981–present)

After immigrating to the United States in 1981, Hitchens wrote for The Nation where he penned vociferous critiques of Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush and American foreign policy in South and Central America.[22][23][24][25][26][27][28] He became a Contributing Editor of Vanity Fair in 1992,[29] writing ten columns a year. He left The Nation in 2002, after profoundly disagreeing with other contributors over the Iraq War. There is speculation that Hitchens was the inspiration for Tom Wolfe‘s character Peter Fallow, in the 1987 novel The Bonfire of the Vanities,[24] but others — including Hitchens — believe it to be Spy Magazine‘s “Ironman Nightlife Decathlete” Anthony Haden-Guest.[30][31]

Hitchens spent part of his early career in journalism as a foreign correspondent in Cyprus.[32] Through his work there he met his first wife Eleni Meleagrou, a Greek Cypriot, with whom he has two children, Alexander and Sophia. His son, Alexander Meleagrou-Hitchens, born in 1984, has worked as a researcher for London think tanks the Policy Exchange and the Centre for Social Cohesion. Hitchens has continued writing essay-style correspondence pieces from a variety of locales, including Chad, Uganda[33] and the Darfur region of Sudan.[34] He has visited all three countries in the so-called “Axis of Evil“: Iraq, Iran and North Korea. His work has taken him to over 60 countries.[35]

In 1989 he met Carol Blue, a Californian writer, whom he later married, and with whom he had a daughter, Antonia. In 1991 he received a Lannan Literary Award for Nonfiction.[36]

Prior to Hitchens’s political shift, the American author and polemicist Gore Vidal was apt to speak of Hitchens as his “Dauphin” or “heir”.[37][38][39] In 2010 Hitchens attacked Vidal in a Vanity Fair piece headlined “Vidal Loco,” calling him a “crackpot” for his adoption of 9/11 conspiracy theories.[40][41] Also, on the back of his book Hitch-22, among the praise from notable writers and figures, a Vidal quote endorsing Hitchens as his successor is crossed out with a red ‘X’ and a message saying “NO C.H.”

His strong advocacy of the war in Iraq had gained Hitchens a wider readership, and in September 2005, he was named one of the “Top 100 Public Intellectuals[42] by Foreign Policy and Prospect magazines. An online poll ranked the 100 intellectuals, but the magazines noted that the rankings of Hitchens (5), Noam Chomsky (1), and Abdolkarim Soroush (15) were partly due to supporters publicising the vote.[43]

In 2007, Hitchens’s work for Vanity Fair won him the National Magazine Award in the category “Columns and Commentary”.[44] He was a finalist once more in the same category in 2008 for some of his columns in Slate, but lost out to Matt Taibbi of Rolling Stone.[45]

[edit] Views

[edit] Literature

Hitchens writes a monthly essay on books in the Atlantic Monthly[46] and contributes occasionally to other literary journals. One of his books, Unacknowledged Legislation: Writers in the Public Sphere, is a collection of such works, and Love, Poverty and War contains a section devoted to literary essays. In Why Orwell Matters, he defends Orwell’s writings against modern critics as relevant today and progressive for his time. In the 2008 book Christopher Hitchens and His Critics: Terror, Iraq, and the Left, many literary critiques are included of essays and other books of writers, such as David Horowitz and Edward Said.

During a three-hour interview by Book TV,[1] he named authors who have had influence on his views.

This section requires expansion.

[edit] Politics

Main article: Christopher Hitchens’s political views

Hitchens became a socialist “largely [as] the outcome of a study of history, taking sides … in the battles over industrialism and war and empire.” In 2001, he told Rhys Southan of Reason magazine that he could no longer say “I am a socialist.” Socialists, he claimed, had ceased to offer a positive alternative to the capitalist system. Capitalism had become the more revolutionary economic system, and he welcomed globalisation as “innovative and internationalist.” He suggested that he had returned to his early, pre-socialist libertarianism, having come to attach great value to the freedom of the individual from the state and moral authoritarians. The San Francisco Chronicle referred to Hitchens as a “gadfly with gusto”.[47] In 2009 Hitchens was listed by Forbes magazine as one of the “25 most influential liberals in the U.S. media”.[48] However, the same article noted that he would “likely be aghast to find himself on this list”, since it reduces his self-styled radicalism to mere liberalism.

In 2006 in a town hall meeting in Pennsylvania debating the Jewish Tradition with Martin Amis, Hitchens commented on his political philosophy by stating “I am no longer a socialist, but I still am a Marxist“.[49] In 2009, in an article for The Atlantic entitled “The Revenge of Karl Marx“, Hitchens frames the late-2000s recession in terms of Marx’s economic analysis and notes how much Marx admired the capitalist system he was calling for the end of, but says that Marx ultimately failed to grasp how revolutionary capitalist innovation was.[50] Hitchens was an admirer of Argentine revolutionary Ernesto “Che” Guevara, commenting that “[Che's] death meant a lot to me and countless like me at the time, he was a role model, albeit an impossible one for us bourgeois romantics insofar as he went and did what revolutionaries were meant to do — fought and died for his beliefs.”[51] In a 1997 essay, however, he distanced himself somewhat from some of Che’s actions.[52]

He continues to regard both Vladimir Lenin and Leon Trotsky as great men,[53][54] and the October Revolution as a necessary event in the modernization of Russia.[18][24] In 2005, Hitchens praised Lenin’s creation of “secular Russia” and his destruction of the Russian Orthodox Church, describing it as “an absolute warren of backwardness and evil and superstition”.[18] In an interview with Radar in 2007, Hitchens said that if the Christian right‘s agenda were implemented in the United States “It wouldn’t last very long and would, I hope, lead to civil war, which they will lose, but for which it would be a great pleasure to take part.”[55]

The years after the fatwa issued against Salman Rushdie also saw Hitchens looking for allies and friends. In the United States he became increasingly critical of what he called “excuse making” on the left. At the same time, he was attracted to the foreign policy ideas of some on the Republican right that promoted pro-liberalism intervention, especially the neoconservative group that included Paul Wolfowitz.[56] Around this time, he befriended the Iraqi dissident and businessman Ahmed Chalabi.[57] In 2004, Hitchens stated that neoconservative support for US intervention in Iraq convinced him that he was “on the same side as the neo-conservatives” when it came to contemporary foreign policy issues.[58] He has also been known to refer to his association with “temporary neocon allies”.[59]

Hitchens speaking at a September 2000 third party protest at the headquarters of the Commission on Presidential Debates

Hitchens would elaborate on his political views and ideological shift in a discussion with Eric Alterman on Bloggingheads.tv. In this discussion Hitchens revealed himself as a supporter of Ralph Nader in the 2000 U.S. presidential election, who was disenchanted with the candidacy of both George W. Bush and Al Gore.[60] Prior to September 11, 2001, and the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan, Hitchens was highly critical of Bush’s “non-interventionist” foreign policy. He has also criticized Bush’s support of intelligent design[61] and capital punishment.[62][62]

Following the September 11 attacks, Hitchens and Noam Chomsky debated the nature of radical Islam and of the proper response to it. In October 2001, Hitchens wrote criticisms of Chomsky in The Nation.[63][64] Chomsky responded[65] and Hitchens issued a rebuttal to Chomsky[66] to which Chomsky again responded.[67] Approximately a year after the 11 September attacks and his exchanges with Chomsky, Hitchens left The Nation, claiming that its editors, readers and contributors considered John Ashcroft a bigger threat than Osama bin Laden,[68] and were making excuses on behalf of Islamist terrorism; in the following months he wrote articles increasingly at odds with his colleagues. This highly charged exchange of letters involved Katha Pollitt and Alexander Cockburn, as well as Hitchens and Chomsky.

Hitchens made a brief return to The Nation just before the 2004 U.S. presidential election and wrote that he was “slightly” for Bush; shortly afterwards, Slate polled its staff on their positions on the candidates and mistakenly printed Hitchens’ vote as pro-John Kerry. Hitchens shifted his opinion to “neutral”, saying: “It’s absurd for liberals to talk as if Kristallnacht is impending with Bush, and it’s unwise and indecent for Republicans to equate Kerry with capitulation. There’s no one to whom he can surrender, is there? I think that the nature of the jihadist enemy will decide things in the end”.[69]

Although Hitchens defends Bush’s post-September 11 foreign policy, he has criticized the actions and alleged killings of Iraqis by U.S. troops in Abu Ghraib and Haditha, and the U.S. government’s use of waterboarding, which he unhesitatingly deemed as torture after being invited by Vanity Fair to voluntarily undergo it.[70][71] In January 2006, Hitchens joined with four other individuals and four organizations, including the ACLU and Greenpeace, as plaintiffs in a lawsuit, ACLU v. NSA, challenging Bush’s warrantless domestic spying program; the lawsuit was filed by the ACLU.[72][73][74] In February 2006, Hitchens helped organize a pro-Denmark rally outside the Danish Embassy in Washington, DC in response to the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy.[75]

In the 2008 presidential election, Hitchens in an article for Slate would state, “I used to call myself a single-issue voter on the essential question of defending civilization against its terrorist enemies and their totalitarian protectors, and on that “issue” I hope I can continue to expose and oppose any ambiguity.” He was critical of both main party candidates, Barack Obama and John McCain. Hitchens would go on to support Obama, calling McCain “senile“, and his choice of running mate Sarah Palin “absurd”, calling Palin a “pathological liar” and a “national disgrace”.[76]

Hitchens has described Zionism as being based on “the initial demagogic lie (actually two lies) that a land without a people needs a people without a land“, and he went even further saying “Zionism is a form of Bourgeoisie Nationalism” when debating the Jewish Tradition with Martin Amis at a Town hall function in Pennsylvania.[77] Hitchens supports Israel‘s right to exist, but has argued against what he calls Israel’s “expansionism” in the West Bank and Gaza and “internal clerical and chauvinist forces which want to instate a theocracy for Jews”.[78] Hitchens would collaborate on this issue with Edward Said, in 1988 publishing Blaming the Victims: Spurious Scholarship and the Palestinian Question.

Hitchens actively supports drug policy reform and has called for the abolition of the “war on drugs” which he described as an “authoritarian war” during a debate with William F. Buckley.[16] He has supported the legalization of cannabis for both medical and recreational purposes, citing it as a cure for glaucoma and as treatment for numerous side-effects induced by chemotherapy, including severe nausea, describing the prohibition of the drug as “sadistic”.[79] On the issue of abortion, Hitchens prioritizes in affirming that he believes a fetus should be regarded as an “unborn child”, but opposes the overturning of Roe v. Wade and supports the development of medical abortion techniques, and fundamentally believes in access to contraceptives and reproductive rights in order to prevent surgical abortion altogether.[80]

Other issues Hitchens has written on include his support for the reunification of Ireland,[81][82] abolition of the British monarchy,[83] and his condemnation of the war crimes of Slobodan Milošević[84] and Franjo Tuđman[85] in Yugoslavia, and the Bosnian War.[86]

[edit] Specific individuals

Main article: Christopher Hitchens’ critiques of public figures

Over the years, Hitchens has become famous for his scathing critiques of public figures. Three figures — Bill Clinton, Henry Kissinger, and Mother Teresa — were the targets of three separate full length texts, No One Left to Lie To: The Triangulations of William Jefferson Clinton, The Trial of Henry Kissinger, and The Missionary Position: Mother Teresa in Theory and Practice. Hitchens has also written book-length biographical essays about Thomas Jefferson (Thomas Jefferson: Author of America), George Orwell (Why Orwell Matters) and Thomas Paine (Thomas Paine’s “Rights of Man”: A Biography).

However, the majority of Hitchens’s critiques take the form of short opinion pieces, some of the more notable being his critiques of: Jerry Falwell,[87] George Galloway,[88] Mel Gibson,[89] Tenzin Gyatso, the 14th Dalai Lama,[90] Michael Moore,[91] Daniel Pipes,[92] Ronald Reagan,[93] Jesse Helms,[94] and Cindy Sheehan.[18][95][96][97][98][99][100]

[edit] Religion

See also: God Is Not Great

Hitchens and John Lennox at the “Is God Great?” debate in Alabama

Hitchens often speaks out against the Abrahamic religions, or what he calls “the three great monotheisms” (Judaism, Christianity and Islam). He said: “The real axis of evil is Christianity, Judaism, and Islam”. In his book, God Is Not Great, Hitchens expanded his criticism to include all religions, including those rarely criticized by Western secularists such as Hinduism and neo-paganism. His book had mixed reactions, from praise in The New York Times for his “logical flourishes and conundrums”[101] to accusations of “intellectual and moral shabbiness” in the The Financial Times.[102] God Is Not Great was nominated for a National Book Award on 10 October 2007.[103][104]

Hitchens contends that organized religion is “the main source of hatred in the world”,[105] “[v]iolent, irrational, intolerant, allied to racism, tribalism, and bigotry, invested in ignorance and hostile to free inquiry, contemptuous of women and coercive toward children”, and that accordingly it “ought to have a great deal on its conscience”. In God Is Not Great, Hitchens contends that;

“above all, we are in need of a renewed Enlightenment, which will base itself on the proposition that the proper study of mankind is man and woman [referencing Alexander Pope]. This Enlightenment will not need to depend, like its predecessors, on the heroic breakthroughs of a few gifted and exceptionally courageous people. It is within the compass of the average person. The study of literature and poetry, both for its own sake and for the eternal ethical questions with which it deals, can now easily depose the scrutiny of sacred texts that have been found to be corrupt and confected. The pursuit of unfettered scientific inquiry, and the availability of new findings to masses of people by electronic means, will revolutionize our concepts of research and development. Very importantly, the divorce between the sexual life and fear, and the sexual life and disease, and the sexual life and tyranny, can now at last be attempted, on the sole condition that we banish all religions from the discourse. And all this and more is, for the first time in our history, within the reach if not the grasp of everyone”.[106]

His book made him one of the four major advocates of the “new atheism“, and an Honorary Associate of the National Secular Society,[107] Hitchens said he would accept an invitation from any religious leader who wished to debate with him. He also serves on the advisory board of the Secular Coalition for America,[108] a lobbying group for atheists and humanists in Washington, DC. In 2007 Hitchens began a series of written debates on the question “Is Christianity Good for the World?” with Christian theologian and pastor, Douglas Wilson, published in Christianity Today magazine.[109] This exchange eventually became a book by the same title in 2008. During their book tour to promote the book, film producer Darren Doane sent a film crew to accompany them. Doane produced the film Collision: “Is Christianity GOOD for the World?” which was released on 27 October 2009.

On November 26, 2010 Hitchens appeared in Toronto, Canada in a debate sponsored by the Munk Foundation over religion with former British Prime Minister Tony Blair, a Roman Catholic convert. Blair argued religion is a force for good, while Hitchens was against it. Preliminary results on the Munk website said 68 per cent of the votes backed the proposition (Hitchens’ position) before hearing the debate, and 32 per cent against (Blair’s position), with numbers remaining more or less the same after the debate. [110] [111] [112]

Hitchens has been accused by William A. Donohue of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Liberties of being particularly anti-Catholic. Hitchens responded, “when religion is attacked in this country […] the Catholic Church comes in for a little more than its fair share”.[113] Hitchens has also been accused of anti-Catholic bigotry by others, including Brent Bozell, Tom Piatak in The American Conservative, and UCLA Law Professor Stephen Bainbridge.[114][115] When Joe Scarborough on March 12, 2004 asked Hitchens whether he was “consumed with hatred for conservative Catholics”, Hitchens responded that he was not and that he just thinks that “all religious belief is sinister and infantile”.[116] Piatak claimed that “A straightforward description of all Hitchens’s anti-Catholic outbursts would fill every page in this magazine”, noting particularly Hitchens’ assertion that U.S. Supreme Court Justice John Roberts should not be confirmed because of his faith.[115]

Regarding his own religious background, Hitchens was raised nominally Christian, and went to Christian boarding schools but from an early age declined to participate in communal prayers. Later in life, Hitchens discovered that he was part Jewish. According to Hitchens, when his brother Peter Hitchens took his fiancée to meet their maternal grandmother, Dodo, who was then in her 90s, Dodo said, “She’s Jewish, isn’t she?” and then announced: “Well, I’ve got something to tell you. So are you.” She said that her real surname was Levin, not Lynn, that her ancestors had the family name Blumenthal, and were from Poland.[117] In an article in the Guardian Unlimited on 14 April 2002, Hitchens says he could be considered Jewish because Jewish descent is matrilineal. His mother was born and raised Jewish, but for reasons known only to herself, decided to conceal this from everyone once she married, and it is believed she never even told her husband of her Jewish upbringing, and her mother aided in this concealment. Peter Hitchens has researched the family tree and says they are one thirty-second Jewish (by ancestral descent), and his great-great grandfather was Nathan Blumenthal of Kempen, Prussia, who emigrated to Leicester.[117]

[edit] Personal life

Hitchens after a talk at The College of New Jersey

[edit] Marriage and children

Hitchens married Eleni Meleagrou, a Greek Cypriot, in 1981. They had two children, Alexander and Sophia. Hitchens left Meleagrou for Carol Blue, an American writer, in 1989.[23] They have one daughter, Antonia.

[edit] Relationship with younger brother

Hitchens’ younger brother by two-and-a-half years, Peter Hitchens, is a Christian and socially conservative journalist in London. The brothers had a protracted falling-out after Peter wrote that Christopher had once joked that he “didn’t care if the Red Army watered its horses at Hendon” (a suburb of London).[118] Christopher denied having said this and broke off contact with his brother. He then referred to his brother as “an idiot” in a letter to Commentary, and the dispute spilled into other publications as well. Christopher eventually expressed a willingness to reconcile and to meet his new nephew; shortly thereafter the brothers gave several interviews together in which they said their personal disagreements had been resolved. They appeared together on the 21 June 2007 edition of BBC current affairs discussion show Question Time. The pair engaged in a formal televised debate for the first time on 3 April 2008, at Grand Valley State University.[119]

[edit] Health and lifestyle

[edit] Smoking and drinking

A June 2006 profile on Hitchens by NPR stated: “Hitchens is known for his love of cigarettes and alcohol — and his prodigious literary output.”[26] However in early 2008 he gave up smoking, undergoing an epiphany in Madison, Wisconsin.[120] His brother Peter later wrote of his surprise at this decision.[121] It was while writing his memoir Hitch-22 that he resumed smoking cigarettes and continued until his cancer diagnosis. Hitchens admits to drinking heavily; in 2003 he wrote that his daily intake of alcohol was enough “to kill or stun the average mule”, noting that many great writers “did some of their finest work when blotto, smashed, polluted, shitfaced, squiffy, whiffled, and three sheets to the wind”.[122]

Anti-war British politician George Galloway, on his way to testify in front of a United States Senate sub-committee investigating the scandals in the U.N. Oil for Food program, called Hitchens a “drink-sodden ex-Trotskyist popinjay“,[123] to which Hitchens quickly replied, “Only some of which is true”.[124] Later, in a column for Slate promoting his debate with Galloway which was to take place on 14 September 2005, he elaborated on his prior response: “He says that I am an ex-Trotskyist (true), a “popinjay” (true enough, since the word’s original Webster’s definition is a target for arrows and shots), and that I cannot hold a drink (here I must protest).”[125]

Oliver Burkeman writes, “Since the parting of ways on Iraq [...] Hitchens claims to have detected a new, personalised nastiness in the attacks on him, especially over his fabled consumption of alcohol. He welcomes being attacked as a drinker ‘because I always think it’s a sign of victory when they move on to the ad hominem.’ He drinks, he says, ‘because it makes other people less boring. I have a great terror of being bored. But I can work with or without it. It takes quite a lot to get me to slur.’”[126]

In his 2010 memoir Hitch-22, Hitchens wrote: “There was a time when I could reckon to outperform all but the most hardened imbibers, but I now drink relatively carefully.” He described his current drinking routine on working-days as follows: “At about half past midday, a decent slug of Mr. Walker’s amber restorative, cut with Perrier water (an ideal delivery system) and no ice. At luncheon, perhaps half a bottle of red wine: not always more but never less. Then back to the desk, and ready to repeat the treatment at the evening meal. No ‘after dinner drinks’ — ​most especially nothing sweet and never, ever any brandy. ‘Nightcaps’ depend on how well the day went, but always the mixture as before. No mixing: no messing around with a gin here and a vodka there.”[127]

[edit] Cancer

On 30 June 2010, Hitchens postponed his book tour for Hitch-22 to undergo treatment for metastatic esophageal cancer[128] that has spread to his lymph nodes and lungs.[129] He first made the announcement of his diagnosis in Vanity Fair magazine. In August, Hitchens discussed his diagnosis with Anderson Cooper on CNN. He told Cooper that the long-term prognosis is far from positive and that when you use cigarettes and alcohol, which he has used heavily, you “make yourself a candidate” for the disease. He also says not to credit any reports that he repented with God. Speaking with The Atlantic‘s Jeffrey Goldberg, Hitchens stated that he would be a “very lucky person” to live another five years.[130]

[edit] See also

Atheism portal
Biography portal
Liberalism portal
Journalism portal
Politics portal
Socialism portal
University of Oxford portal

[edit] Film and television appearances

As referenced from the Internet Movie Database, Hitchens Web or Charlie Rose.[131][132][133]

Year Film
1984 Opinions: “Greece to their Rome”
1988 Frontiers
1993 Everything You Need to Know
1994 Tracking Down Maggie: The Unofficial Biography of Margaret Thatcher
1994 Hell’s Angel
1996–2010 Charlie Rose (13 episodes)
1998 Princess Diana: The Mourning After
1999–2002 Dennis Miller Live (4 episodes)
2002 The Trials of Henry Kissinger
2003 Hidden in Plain Sight
2003–2009 Real Time with Bill Maher (6 episodes)
2004 Mel Gibson: God’s Lethal Weapon
2004–2006 Newsnight (3 episodes)
2004–2010 The Daily Show (4 episodes)
2005 Penn & Teller: Bullshit! (1 episode)
2005 The Al Franken Show (1 episode)
2005 Confronting Iraq: Conflict and Hope
2005 Heaven on Earth: The Rise and Fall of Socialism
2005–2008 Hardball with Chris Matthews (3 episodes)
2006 American Zeitgeist
2006 Blog Wars
2007 Manufacturing Dissent
2007 Question Time (1 episode)
2007 Your Mommy Kills Animals
2007 Personal Che
2007 Heckler
2007 In Pot We Trust
2008 Discussions with Richard Dawkins: Episode 1: “The Four Horsemen”
2009 Holy Hell
2009 Presidency
2009 Collision: “Is Christianity GOOD for the World?”

[edit] Bibliography

Main article: Bibliography of Christopher Hitchens

[edit] References

  1. ^ a b c Christopher Hitchens In Depth Book TV, 2 September 2007 – List of writers can be seen @ 1:13:10
  2. ^ Christopher Hitchens on Sarah Palin: ‘A Disgraceful Opportunist and Moral Coward’ | PoliticalArticles.NET
  3. ^ Prospect (26 July 2008). “Intellectuals—the results”. Prospect. http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/2008/07/intellectualstheresults/. Retrieved 4 September 2009.
  4. ^ Duncan Campbell (18 October 2005). “Chomsky is voted world’s top public intellectual”. The Guardian. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/oct/18/books.highereducation. Retrieved 4 September 2009.
  5. ^ http://www.slate.com/id/2090083/
  6. ^ Eaton, George. The New Statesman Interview: Christopher Hitchens www.newstatesman.com, 12 July 2010. Retrieved November 7, 2010.
  7. ^ Andre Mayer (14 May 2007). “Nothing sacred — Journalist and provocateur Christopher Hitchens picks a fight with God”. CBC. http://www.cbc.ca/arts/books/nothing_sacred.html. Retrieved 29 June 2008.
  8. ^ “God Is Not Great” author, Christopher Hitchens talks about religion, politics, and becoming an American Greater Talent Network, 10 July 2007.
  9. ^ Hitch-22: A Memoir (Hardcover) Amazon.com product information page: Hitch-22: A Memoir. An edition was published in Australia by Allen and Unwin in May: ISBN 978-1-74175-962-4
  10. ^ Peters, Jeremy. “Christopher Hitchens to Begin Cancer Treatment”, The New York Times, 30 June 2010.
  11. ^ a b c d Walsh, John. The Independent. “Hitch-22: a memoir by Christopher Hitchens” Retrieved 28 May 2010
  12. ^ Lynn Barber Look who’s talking The Observer, 14 April 2002
  13. ^ Blake Morrison I contain multitudes, The Guardian, 29 May 2010
  14. ^ Hitchens, Christopher, Hitch-22 (Allen & Unwin, 2010) p. 76 ff.
  15. ^ Levy, Geoffery, “So Who Were the Two Tory Ministers Who Had Gay Flings with Christopher Hitchens at Oxford?”, Daily Mail, 6 March 2010, accessed 30 May 2010
  16. ^ a b Hoover Institution[dead link]
  17. ^ Long Live Labor – Why I’m for Tony Blair Slate, 25 April 2005
  18. ^ a b c d Heaven on Earth – Interview with Christopher Hitchens PBS, 2005
  19. ^ International Socialism: Christopher Hitchens “Workers’ Self Management in Algeria” (1st series), No.51, April-June 1972, p.33 Encyclopedia of Trotskyism, 25 October 2005
  20. ^ Alexander Linklater (May 2008). “Christopher Hitchins”. Prospect Magazine. http://www.prospect-magazine.co.uk/article_details.php?id=10157. Retrieved 17 February 2009.
  21. ^ Barber, Lynn (13 April 2002). “Look who’s talking”. The Guardian (London). http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2002/apr/14/politics. Retrieved 1 April 2010.
  22. ^ For the Sake of Argument by Christopher Hitchens Interview with Brian Lamb for the show Booknotes, an author interview series on C-SPAN (some biographical information) 17 October 1993
  23. ^ a b The Boy Can’t Help It In-depth interview and profile] in New York Magazine, 19 April 1999
  24. ^ a b c “Free Radical”, interview in Reason by Rhys Southan, November 2001
  25. ^ Christopher Hitchens Atlantic Monthly, 2003
  26. ^ a b Guy Raz, Christopher Hitchens, Literary Agent Provocateur, National Public Radio, 21 June 2006
  27. ^ He Knew He Was Right New Yorker, Profiles, 16 October 2006
  28. ^ Christopher Hitchens Notable Interviews – video interview 2007
  29. ^ Christopher Hitchens – Contributing Editor Vanity Fair
  30. ^ Timothy Noah, Meritocracy’s lab rat Slate, 9 January 2002
  31. ^ Annabel’s – the magazine Vogue UK, 15 July 2004
  32. ^ At the Rom: Three New Commandments She Does The City, 30 April 2009
  33. ^ “Childhood’s End”, Vanity Fair, September 2006
  34. ^ “Realism in Sudan”, Slate, 7 November 2005
  35. ^ Christopher Hitchens Twelve Publishers
  36. ^ Detailed Biographical Information – Christopher Hitchens, Lannan Foundation. Retrieved 27 April 2010.
  37. ^ Andrew Werth (January/February 2004). “Hitchens on Books”. Letters to the Editor. The Atlantic. http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2004/01/letters.htm. Retrieved 17 February 2009.
  38. ^ John Banville (3 March 2001). “Gore should be so lucky”. The Irish Times. http://osdir.com/ml/politics.leftists.monkeyfist/2001-04/msg00016.html. Retrieved 17 February 2009.
  39. ^ Gore Vidal on Christopher Hitchens YouTube
  40. ^ Christopher Hitchens (February 2010). “Vidal Loco”. Vanity Fair. http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/features/2010/02/hitchens-201002. Retrieved 24 June 2010.
  41. ^ Youde, Kate (7 February 2010). “Hitchens attacks Gore Vidal for being a ‘crackpot’”. London: The Independent. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/news/hitchens-attacks-gore-vidal-for-being-a-crackpot-1891753.html. Retrieved 17 February 2009.
  42. ^ Prospect/FP Top 100 Public Intellectuals Results Foreign Policy, registration required
  43. ^ The Prospect/FP Top 100 Public Intellectuals Foreign Policy, registration required
  44. ^ 2007 National Magazine Award Winners Announced Press release, Magazine Publishers of America, 1 May 2007
  45. ^ National Magazine Awards Winners and Finalists Magazine Publishers of America
  46. ^ Authors – Christopher Hitchens The Atlantic
  47. ^ FIVE QUESTIONS FOR: Christopher Hitchens SF Gate
  48. ^ “The 25 Most Influential Liberals In The US Media”. Forbes.com. 22 January 2009. http://www.forbes.com/2009/01/22/influential-media-obama-oped-cx_tv_ee_hra_0122liberal_slide_13.html?thisSpeed=30000. Retrieved 23 November 2009.
  49. ^ Martin Amis Christopher Hitchens a conversation about Antisemitism and Saul bellow Part 3 YouTube
  50. ^ The Revenge of Karl Marx The Atlantic, April 2009
  51. ^ Just a Pretty Face? The Guardian, 11 July 2004
  52. ^ Hitchens, Christopher (1997), “Goodbye to All That”, The New York Review of Books, 17 July 1997
  53. ^ Amis, Martin (2002). Koba the Dread. Miramax. p. 25. ISBN 0786868767.
  54. ^ “Great Lives – Leon Trotsky”, BBC Radio 4, 8 August 2006
  55. ^ Godless Provocateur Christopher Hitchens Pledges Allegiance to America
  56. ^ “That Bleeding Heart Wolfowitz”, Slate, 22 March 2005
  57. ^ “Ahmad and Me”, Slate, 27 May 2004
  58. ^ Johann Hari, “In Enemy Territory: An Interview with Christopher Hitchens”", The Independent, 23 September 2004.
  59. ^ Christopher Hitchens, “The End of Fukuyama”, Slate, 1 March 2006
  60. ^ On Whether Christopher Hitchens Was Wrong Bloggingheads.tv, 14 October 2008
  61. ^ Belz, Mindy. “According to Hitch”, World Magazine, 3 April 2006
  62. ^ a b “A War To Be Proud Of” Weekly Standard, 5 September 2005
  63. ^ Of Sin, the Left & Islamic Fascism The Nation, 8 October 2001
  64. ^ Blaming bin Laden First The Nation, 22 October 2001
  65. ^ Chomsky Replies to Hitchens The Nation, 15 October 2001
  66. ^ A Rejoinder to Noam Chomsky The Nation, 15 October 2001
  67. ^ Reply to Hitchens’s Rejoinder The Nation, 15 October 2001
  68. ^ Taking Sides The Nation, 26 September 2002
  69. ^ My Endorsement and Osama’s Video: The news in Bin Laden’s comments had nothing to do with our election Slate, 1 November 2004]
  70. ^ “Believe Me, It’s Torture”, Vanity Fair, August 2008
  71. ^ On the Waterboard Vanity Fair, 2 July 2008
  72. ^ Lichtblau, Eric. “Two Groups Planning to Sue Over Federal EavesdroppingThe New York Times, 17 January 2006; Retrieved on 5 November 2009
  73. ^ Statement – Christopher Hitchens, NSA Lawsuit Client
  74. ^ Hitchens, Christopher (7 August 1999). “Gov. Death”. Salon.com. http://www.truthinjustice.org/govdeath.htm. Retrieved 10 May 2009.
  75. ^ Pareene, Alex (4 February 2006). “Instant Team Party Crash: Legoland Uber Alles”. wonkette.com. http://wonkette.com/156915/instant-team-party-crash-legoland-uber-alles. Retrieved 9 Dec 2010.
  76. ^ Hitchens, Christopher “Vote for ObamaSlate, 13 October 2008; Retrieved on 5 November 2009
  77. ^ “Frontpage Interview: Christopher Hitchens Part II”. Front Page Magazine. http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=11253. Retrieved 9 May 2007.
  78. ^ “Arafat’s Squalid End”. Slate. http://slate.com/id/2109860/. Retrieved 9 May 2007.
  79. ^ Just a Pretty Face? by Sean O’Hagan, The Observer, 11 July 2004
  80. ^ Belief Watch: Pro-life Atheists NewsWeek
  81. ^ Galloway vs. Hitchens: The Transcript endusmilitarism, 16 September 2005
  82. ^ These Men Are “Peacemakers”? Ian Paisley and Gerry Adams make me want to spew Slate, 2 April 2007
  83. ^ Hitchens, Christopher End of the line The Guardian, 6 December 2000
  84. ^ “In Defense of WWII: Chapter 5 of 5″. Youtube. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VB9uqI62ikA. Retrieved 7 September 2008.
  85. ^ “Shed No Tears for Milosevic”. FrontPage Magazine. 14 March 2006. http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=C83A870D-93BE-4ACD-B8E0-E082B1D313C0. Retrieved 7 September 2008.
  86. ^ Bodansky, Yossef (1996). Some Call It Peace: Waiting for the War In the Balkans. International Media Corp. Ltd. ISBN 0952007053.
  87. ^ Video: Christopher Hitchens (15 May 2007) appearance on Anderson Cooper 360 YouTube
  88. ^ Unmitigated Galloway Weekly Standard, 30 May 2005
  89. ^ Mel Gibson’s Meltdown Slate, 31 July 2006
  90. ^ His material highness Salon.com article by Christopher Hitchens
  91. ^ Unfairenheit 9/11 Slate, 21 June 2004
  92. ^ Christopher Hitchens “Daniel Pipes is not a man of peace“, Slate, 11 August 2003
  93. ^ “The stupidity of Ronald Reagan”. Slate. http://www.slate.com/id/2101842/. Retrieved 9 May 2007.
  94. ^ Christopher Hitchens “Farewell to a Provincial Redneck” Slate, 7 July 2008
  95. ^ Christopher Hitchens, Cindy Sheehan’s Sinister Piffle, Slate, 15 August 2005
  96. ^ Mommie Dearest Slate, 20 October 2003 – Hitchens’s op-ed for Slate regarding Mother Theresa
  97. ^ Living in Thomas Jefferson’s Fictions NPR, 1 June 2005 – Hitchens’s NPR discussion regarding Thomas Jefferson
  98. ^ Why Orwell Still Matters BBC News, 3 July 2002 – Hitchens’ BBC Video Essay in support of George Orwell
  99. ^ Transcript: Bill Moyers Talks with Christopher Hitchens PBS, 20 December 2002
  100. ^ Edward Luce (11 January 2008). “Lunch with the FT: Christopher Hitchens”. Financial Times. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/8e37cd84-bcb6-11dc-bcf9-0000779fd2ac.html. Retrieved 12 January 2008.
  101. ^ Michael Kinsley In God, Distrust New York Times Book Review, 13 May 2007
  102. ^ Here’s the hitch by Michael Skapinker in The Financial Times
  103. ^ Associated Press[dead link]
  104. ^ Hardcover Nonfiction New York Times Bestseller list, 3 June 2007
  105. ^ Free Speech onegoodmove, March 2007
  106. ^ Hitchens, Christopher (May 2007). God is not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything. New York: Twelve Books. p. 283.
  107. ^ Honorary Associate: Christopher Hitchens National Secular Society
  108. ^ Biography – Christopher Hitchens Secular Coalition for America Advisory Board
  109. ^ “Is Christianity Good for the World?” Christianity Today, 8 May 2007
  110. ^ [http://news.ca.msn.com/top-stories/cbc-article.aspx?cp-documentid=26520521 Hitchens apparent winner in religion debate. CBC News. Retrieved Nov 27,2010}
  111. ^ Munk Debates Website
  112. ^ Tony Blair debates religion with Christopher Hitchens in Canada, Wikinews.
  113. ^ Look Who's Hammering Mel August 1, 2006
  114. ^ Hood, John Hollowed Be Thy Name Miami Sun Post
  115. ^ a b Tom Piatak, The Purest Neocon: Christopher Hitchens, an unreconstructed Bolshevik, finds his natural home on the pro-war Right, The American Conservative, 2005-10-10
  116. ^ Scarborough County Transcripts for March 12, 2004
  117. ^ a b Look who's talking The Observer, 14 April 2002
  118. ^ Christopher Hitchens,Oh Brother, Where Art Thou The Spectator, 12 October 2001, from FindArticles.com
  119. ^ "Hitchens v. Hitchens: Faith, Politics & War". Grand Valley State University. http://www.gvsu.edu/hauenstein/index.cfm?id=3425B4C3-DA0C-48A1-FDE23503A04A3318. Retrieved 29 March 2008.
  120. ^ Edward Luce, Lunch with the Financial Times, 11 January 2008
  121. ^ Hitchens, Peter (5 April 2008). "Hitchens vs Hitchens ... Peace at last as a lifelong feud between brothers is laid to rest". The Daily Mail. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=557443&in_page_id=1770. Retrieved 8 April 2008.
  122. ^ Christopher Hitchens, Living Proof, Vanity Fair, March 2003
  123. ^ Unmitigated Galloway , The Weekly Standard, 30 May 2005
  124. ^ "There's only one popinjay here, George", Evening Standard, 19 May 2005
  125. ^ George Galloway Is Gruesome, Not Gorgeous, Slate, 13 September 2005
  126. ^ Oliver Burkeman, War of words, The Guardian, 28 October 2006
  127. ^ A Short Footnote on the Grape and the Grain, Slate, 06 June 2010
  128. ^ [1], Washington Post, 30 June 2010
  129. ^ [2], Vanity Fair, September 2010
  130. ^ Goldberg, Jeffrey (2010-08-06). “Hitchens Talks to Goldblog About Cancer and God”. The Atlantic. http://www.theatlantic.com/culture/archive/2010/08/hitchens-talks-to-goldblog-about-cancer-and-god/61072/. Retrieved 2010-09-17.
  131. ^ “Christopher Hitchens”. Internet Movie Database. http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0386899/. Retrieved 6 April 2010.
  132. ^ “Hitchens Web”. http://www.hitchensweb.com/. Retrieved 7 April 2010.
  133. ^ “Charlie Rose”. http://www.charlierose.com/. Retrieved 17 August 2010.

[edit] External links

Wikiquote has a collection of quotations related to: Christopher Hitchens
Wikimedia Commons has media related to: Christopher Hitchens

Profiles

Articles by Hitchens

Persondata
Name Hitchens, Christopher Eric
Alternative names
Short description Author, journalist and literary critic
Date of birth 13 April 1949
Place of birth Portsmouth, England, UK
Date of death
Place of death

Retrieved from “http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Hitchens

Categories: 1949 births | Living people | Alumni of Balliol College, Oxford | American atheists | American biographers | American essayists | American journalists | American Marxists | American media critics | American people of Polish descent | American people of English descent | American political pundits | American political writers | American humanists | Anti-Vietnam War activists | Atheism activists | British republicans | Cancer patients | English atheists | English biographers | English essayists | English humanists | English journalists | English immigrants to the United States | English Marxists | English people of Polish descent | English political writers | English socialists | Genital integrity activists | Marxist journalists | Naturalized citizens of the United States | Old Leysians | People from Portsmouth | Slate magazine people | Socialist Workers Party (Britain) members | The Nation (U.S. periodical) people | University Challenge contestants

Hidden categories: All articles with dead external links | Articles with dead external links from May 2010 | All pages needing cleanup | Wikipedia articles needing clarification from November 2010 | All articles with unsourced statements | Articles with unsourced statements from April 2010 | Articles to be expanded from April 2010 | All articles to be expanded

Seattle Quashes Israel-Palestine Advertisements on Buses

No Comments

Facing an outcry, city officials bar planned bus ads against ‘Israeli war crimes’ and retaliatory responses decrying ‘Palestinian war crimes.’

By Kim Murphy, Los Angeles Times

December 25, 2010

Forget billboard battles over the existence of God — holiday advertising proposed for next week on Seattle buses zeroed in on the mother of all arguments, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Reacting to an international outcry, King County executive Dow Constantine cancelled both the original proposed bus billboards and a retaliatory response. “Israeli War Crimes — Your Tax Dollars at Work,” was set against a backdrop of bombed-out buildings and dazed civilians in the Gaza Strip. The proposed response decried “Palestinian war crimes” and featured an Israeli bus in flames.

This is an inevitable problem when permitting advertising on government property as a source of revenue. It is not appropriate for the government to be in the role of censoring advertisements, and it may even be inappropriate to be selling advertising space in the first place. These are difficult questions, but once Seattle opened the buses for advertising it also opened itself up to controversy.

The question boils down to the legal issue of free speech: are the ads like yelling ‘Fire’ in a crowded theatre?

“The escalation of this issue from one of 12 local bus placards to a widespread and often vitriolic international debate (more…)

A Shameful Thought of the Day

No Comments

A Shameful Thought for the Day

by Richard Dawkins

Was it for this that I broke the habit of years and accepted the Guardian’s invitation to listen to Thought for the Day [1]? Was it for this that the BBC, including the director general himself, no less, spent months negotiating with the Vatican? What on earth were they negotiating about, if all that emerged [2] was the damp, faltering squib we have just strained our ears to hear?

We’ve already had what little apology we are going to get (none in most cases) for the raped children, the Aids-sufferers in Africa, the centuries spent attacking Jews, science, women and “heretics”, the indulgences and more modern (and tax-deductible) methods of fleecing the gullible (more…)

Hatch Skips Vote on DREAM Act, Pleases No One

No Comments

Hatch skips DREAM Act vote he calls “cynical exercise”

Published: Monday, Dec. 20, 2010 6:40 p.m. MST

SALT LAKE CITY — Sen. Orrin Hatch said he skipped a vote on the failed DREAM Act over the weekend because it was a “cynical exercise in political charades” by the Senate’s Democratic leadership.

The act, intended to help undocumented youths earn citizenship by attending college or serving in the military, failed 55-41 on Saturday with the support of just three Republicans, including Sen. Bob Bennett, R-Utah.

In today’s Senate where Republicans are filibustering everything, the 55 vote majority is not enough for the bill to pass the 60 vote requirement.

Bennett was one of three Republicans (more…)

Catholic Church Mired in Another Scandal, This Time Laundering Money Instead of Pedophilia

No Comments

By Victor L. Simpson

Associated Press

Published: Saturday, Dec. 11, 2010 6:33 p.m. MST

VATICAN CITY — This is no ordinary bank: The ATMs are in Latin. Priests use a private entrance. A life-size portrait of Pope Benedict XVI hangs on the wall.

Nevertheless, the Institute for Religious Works is a bank, and it’s under harsh new scrutiny in a case involving money-laundering allegations that led police to seize €23 million ($30 million) in Vatican assets in September. Critics say the case shows that the “Vatican Bank” has never shed its penchant for secrecy and scandal.

The Vatican calls the seizure of assets a “misunderstanding” and expresses optimism it will be quickly cleared up. But court documents show that prosecutors say the Vatican Bank deliberately flouted anti-laundering laws “with the aim of hiding the ownership, destination and origin of the capital.” The documents also reveal investigators’ suspicions that clergy may have acted as fronts for corrupt businessmen and Mafia.

The documents pinpoint two transactions that have not been reported: one in 2009 involving the use of a false name, and another in 2010 in which the Vatican Bank withdrew €650,000 ($860,000) from an Italian bank account but ignored bank requests to disclose where the money was headed.

The new allegations of financial impropriety could not come at a worse time for the Vatican, already hit by revelations that it sheltered pedophile priests. The corruption probe has given new hope to Holocaust survivors who tried unsuccessfully to sue in the United States, alleging that Nazi loot was stored in the Vatican Bank.

The relationship between the Catholic Church and the Italian government, and in fact all governments, is very strange. That the Vatican is considered a separate government and thus a law unto itself (more…)

Bad News for Minorities, Justice; Iowa Voters Oust Three Supreme Court Justices

No Comments

December 2010 Featured

By Rob Boston

Americans United for Separation of Church and State

About a week before the Nov. 2 election, Family Research Council President Tony Perkins sent an e-mail to supporters plugging a bus trip to Des Moines, Iowa.

Why was the Washington, D.C.-based FRC road-tripping in the Hawkeye State?

The message, sent under the auspices of FRC Action, laid it out: Three Iowa Supreme Court justices who had voted to strike down the state’s ban on same-sex marriage in 2009 were facing retention elections. FRC and its Religious Right allies aimed to take them all out.

And they did. On Election Day, Chief Justice Marsha Ternus and Justices Michael Streit and David Baker failed to garner 50 percent support to stay on the court.

This was very sad news for America. When the judiciary, the principal safety valve for minority rates, is co-opted by the majority it also puts in jeopardy the fundamental and basic rights of minorities. Majority votes are a distinguishing and important part of democracy, but the surviving grace of the constitution is its human rights clauses that cannot be over ridden by majority vote.

This action designed to deny basic human rights to a minority is a threat to the constitution and now all minorities of any category are in danger, including the very people who engineered this campaign.

Religious groups who organized this effort (more…)

New York Times Editorial Praises Utah Compact on Immigration Policy

No Comments

Published: Monday, Dec. 6, 2010 11:13 p.m. MST

The following editorial appeared in the New York Times Dec. 4.

Not all the political news this year involves the rise of partisan extremism and government by rage. There has been lots of that. But maybe there is a limit, a point when people of good sense and good will band together to say no. As they have just done in Utah.

Political, business, law-enforcement and religious leaders there have endorsed what they call the Utah Compact. It is a statement of principles meant to address, with moderation and civility, “the complex challenges associated with a broken national immigration system.” What a welcome contrast it draws with the xenophobic radicalism of places like Arizona.

The signers, who hope to influence the shape of state immigration policy, include the mayors of Salt Lake City and Salt Lake County, the state attorney general, two Republican former governors, a former United States senator, and the Roman Catholic Diocese of Salt Lake City, the Chamber of Commerce and a host of other civic groups and citizens. The prominent and powerful Mormon Church did not sign on but issued a “statement of support” calling the compact “a responsible approach to the urgent challenge of immigration reform.”

A clearer expression of good sense and sanity than Utah’s would be hard to find. It says immigration is an issue between the federal government and other countries — “not Utah and other countries.” It says local police agencies should focus on fighting crime, “not civil violations of federal code.” Because “strong families are the foundation of successful communities,” it opposes policies that unnecessarily separate them. It recognizes immigrants’ value as workers and taxpayers.

It ends by urging a humane approach (more…)