We had to go to war to save the iraqi people from brutality. We have to stay at war because we went in for the right reasons. The whole thing was a humanitarian enterprise, and asking that it be done in a more humanitarian manner is tantamount to being a genocidal fascist yourself. We’re there to save these people from the tyranny of religious fundamental terror, dammit.

Which is why he supported George W. “Jesus told me to lie because he really wanted this war” Bush and his party of bible-thumping unbelievers (because you can’t convince me that it’s just by coincidence that there are that many randian supermen with deep religious faith in the world) in taking out the only secular country in the middle east with the support of the country that finances Wahhab (and lets them impose their religion with clubs) and the Taliban’s BFF in Pakistan.

Because it doesn’t matter how much damage Christopher Hitchens does to the world, as long as his intentions were pure and his dogma unsullied and the liberals who earned his scorn and wrath by knowing him too well to think as well of him as he does himself are put in their proper place.

Which appears to be at the feet of Christopher Hitchens, the piece of shit the universe revolves around /ann lamott

http://www.commonwealmagazine.org/article.php3?id_article=1962

Bingo-ditto! I cut that paragraph to repaste it, then noticed that the previous commenter already cited it. Hitchens has the mental machinery of a very bright man, but he is compromised by a bloviating arrogance unchecked by a more humble, circumspect recognition of others as beings with 3-dimensional mental lives that occassionally include wisdom born of experience.

The upshot is that Hitchens is very much the fanatic who imagines a better world if he could only cut out those cancerous others (the religious) as if it would cure the disease that animates his own attraction to the fanatical.

Bingo! Absolutism has many guises (Stalin, hello!). I myself am an atheist, however, I have no problem with religion insofar as it is what provides some form of meaningfulness to one’s life (my meaningfulness is just not metaphysically based, that’s all– “faith” if you will– though personally I dunno if I could accept that term, but I understand what you mean, Maha).

It is only in its absolutist forms that I find any religious or political movement dangerous. Hitchens’ critique totally misses the point, becuase he’s looking at one particular manifestation of absolutism & saying that THAT is the problem.

And while it is quite easy to point quite a lot of instances of religious totalitarianism, there are those such as Gandhi, MLK, Bonhoeffer and others who based their ethical actions on their faith, their own religious foundation. Or does Hitchens just brush that under the rug?

Something I never tire of saying (even now as an atheist), an idol is not merely made of wood, stone or metal. It is made of concepts, words & slogans. And some people will sacrifice friends, family & neigbours to that idol (figuratively & literally). And sometimes that idol may be in the name of a political (secular) revolution or even “Jesus” or “Allah.”

When the “god” trumps human life & dignity, then you have an “idol.” For me, my “atheism” means not merely the rejection of a metaphysical entity called “God” but of all forms of absolutism. And yet, I see my own atheism as having more in common with someone like Thomas Merton or MLK than with Dawkins or Hitchens. But that’s just me.

“…but when people are so all-fired determined to make their perfect future come to pass…” It seems to me that the key word, and perhaps biggest problem, lies in the word ‘their.’ And I still can’t understand why ‘their’ future must not only come to pass but must invalidate anybody else’s ‘future’. I get fear operating here, but I don’t get the basis for the fear. Anyone have an answer?

As an aside, I do remember a sister-in-law of mine, not particularly ‘religious’ - at least not a fanatic - say that she wouldn’t attend Hal Holbrook’s “An Evening with Mark Twain” because she was AFRAID it would ’shake her faith.’ She is a bright, well-educated, well-informed woman whose reasoning abilities, however, went south when up against her ‘faith.’ I mentioned the account because it seems to me to be an example of fear in operation.