Hitchens Dying Days Reading G. K. Chesterton

[djeter]

Too bad a healthy Hitch isn’t around for a rebuttal.

The rebuttal is Ralph C. Wood’s, the original polemic Hitchens’.

 

[mrajax]

In the wake of 9/11 and resurgence of political theology on the world scene, for Hitchens the greatest grievance he held against religion was the abuse of authority and the exploitation of fear that allows religious authorities to keep the believers under their control.

Few if any of the theists that debated him disagreed with him on those points. But of course for most of us theists, the abuses of theological dogma and ecclessiastical authority are an anathema to our morality and our faith too.

Hitchens remained singular in his insistence that power and abuse defined religion, and as such his arguments never really touched the reasons and nuances of religious belief in the modern world anyway.

He was one of the few people from the secular left that remained clear-headed in his thinking of religious abuses, and never allowed political correctness to through him off his game and start pandering to the myth of certain victimized religions. Ironically, his greatest platform was given to him via the religious right, who appreciated that someone existed among the secularists who at least partially broke free from the group think, the moral equivalency arguments, and the political correctness that have done so much to obscure the sources of evil in the world today.

What a load of rubbish to be frank. Clear headed? Hitchens only saw the evil religions did but refused to acknolwedge any of the good it did so away with the scietific progresses of the Catholic Church, away with it’s influence on morlaity in the western world, away with the reasons the crusades were actually done etc… thats not clear headedness, thats close mindedness. And I’m someone who acknowledges that people in the Church have done a ton of evil. I can make a top ten list of the worst moments in Catholic history but I also can make a top ten list of the ebst moments in Catholic history. He wasn’t a realist and while I can;t say anything about his personal life because I don’t care about it, his writings are arrogant, full of half truths and outright historical lies and in my opinion are some of the worst books ever created. Why would an atheist even want to read ‘ging’ since they are only the ideas of a man and not their own research and conclusions about religion and God?

Religion poisons everything? Without the Catholic Church, the pagan saxons and the vikings would still be duelling one another over honor and using red hot blades to decide whether a person is guilty or not. Without the Catholic Church, the Aztecs and the Incas would still be burying their children alive and making human sacrifices. Without the Catholic Church, concepts like chastity wouldn’t have entered into pedarasty filled Rome nor would the sciences and medicine have been studied without it’s help. So no, religion doesn’t poison everything and honestly, how can you say you lvoe God but hate the Catholic Church? It makes no sense. There is a huge diffirence between stating the truth and being mean spirited and Hitchens was nothing but mean spirited.

 

[buffalo]

Somewhat related -
The Heretic

Who is Thomas Nagel and why are so many of his fellow academics condemning him?

Last fall, a few days before Halloween and about a month after the publication of Mind and Cosmos, the controversial new book by the philosopher Thomas Nagel, several of the world’s leading philosophers gathered with a group of cutting-edge scientists in the conference room of a charming inn in the Berkshires. They faced one another around a big table set with pitchers of iced water and trays of hard candies wrapped in cellophane and talked and talked, as public intellectuals do. PowerPoint was often brought into play.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/sites...ers/WELL.v18-27.Mar25.Ferguson.CFPayne.jpgC.F. Payne

The title of the “interdisciplinary workshop” was “Moving Naturalism Forward.” For those of us who like to kill time sitting around pondering the nature of reality—personhood, God, moral judgment, free will, what have you—this was the Concert for Bangladesh. The biologist Richard Dawkins was there, author of The Blind Watchmaker, The Selfish Gene, and other bestselling books of popular science, and so was Daniel Dennett, a philosopher at Tufts and author of Consciousness Explained and Darwin’s Dangerous Idea: Evolution and the Meanings of Life. So were the authors of Why Evolution is True, The Really Hard Problem: Meaning in a Material World, Everything Must Go: Metaphysics Naturalized, and The Atheist’s Guide to Reality: Enjoying Life without Illusions—all of them books that to one degree or another bring to a larger audience the world as scientists have discovered it to be.

more…

 

[atheistgirl]

His published remarks about the latter show him to have been a deeply hateful person.

His criticisms of Mother Teresa and the behavior of her order have merit.

She took money from despots and criminals - money that didn’t belong to them to give in the first place - she left millions in the bank that could have been used to alleviate poverty, or at least not have untrained volunteers reusing needles. Her Order refused to have it’s accounts publicly audited claiming the money ‘‘belonged to God’’ The list goes on.

He actually felt sorry for Mother Teresa and said so, because he thought she was a pawn used by the Church for good PR. That was his opinion. He’s entitled to his opinion. And he’s entitled to express his opinion.

Some posters who constantly write about what a deeply hateful person he was, should, I think reflect on whether their attitude toward him reflect something of the hatred they claim was his reserve.

Sarah x

 

[John_Savage]

Is it normal for charities to investigate where their money comes from?

I think he’s right that the Church just wanted to use a woman who dedicated her life to those atheists didn’t care to help to show what a good Church it was.

Isn’t anybody who points to somebody on their side doing good being used?

 

[atheistgirl]

Is it normal for charities to investigate where their money comes from?

She accepted $1.25m from the convicted criminal Charles Keating!

When the Deputy DA of LA Paul Turley, pointed this out to her, and highlighted the fact this donated money wasn’t his to donate, and in fact had been stolen from people, many of whom were poor, he was ignored. She refused to account for, or return the money.

I think he’s right that the Church just wanted to use a woman who dedicated her life to those **atheists didn’t care to help **to show what a good Church it was.

Just atheists?

Nobody else?

Secular organizations like Calcutta Rescue set up by Dr Jack Preger have, in my view, done just as valuable work as any religious organization.

How about the humanist Responsible Charity, set up as a direct result of the abuses witnessed in some homes run by religious organizations?

You’ll find lots of atheists, humanists and secularists right in the thick of all humanities crises.

Sarah x

 

[Farsight001]

She took money from despots and criminals

Why is this a criticism? So the criminal, who uses their money for criminal activities, gives money to Mother Teresa, who uses it for charity, and now the criminal cannot use it to commit crimes. Out of the hands of the selfish who would use it for personal gain, straight into the hands of the giving who use it to help others. I completely fail to see the problem with that.

she left millions in the bank that could have been used to alleviate poverty, or at least not have untrained volunteers reusing needles.

I’m pretty certain that she didn’t run the finances of the order. Frankly, I doubt she knew how much was in the bank, but even so, it can take millions to open a new facility. Did it ever occur to you that the money was being saved for that purpose?

Her Order refused to have it’s accounts publicly audited claiming the money ‘‘belonged to God’’ The list goes on.

India has a lot of corruption. If you visit the country, you typically have to bribe the guy at customs to let you in, and then the guy at the baggage claim just to let you have your luggage, and you haven’t even left the airport yet! Allowing their finances to be audited could have been dangerous to their ability to keep those finances.

He actually felt sorry for Mother Teresa and said so, because he thought she was a pawn used by the Church for good PR. That was his opinion. He’s entitled to his opinion. And he’s entitled to express his opinion.

The problem, however, is that his opinion of Mother Teresa was consistently negative. He always assumed the worst. No matter what she did, he tried is best to find a problem with it, even when Occam’s razor would suggest that her reasons were good, he assumed bad anyway.

 

[buffalo]

HATING MOTHER TERESA

…But it is also the way Christopher Hitchens looks at Mother Teresa. His book, The Missionary Position: Mother Teresa in Theory and Practice, is a sequel to his British television “documentary” entitled “Hell’s Angel.” The sexual message implied in the book’s title demonstrates that Hitchens never escaped adolescence, and both the book and the film are designed to get the public to hate Mother Teresa the way he does. That he hasn’t fooled even the Village Voice, which took note of Hitchens’ hidden agenda “to prove all religion equally false,” must be disconcerting for the author. After all, if the alienated can’t be fooled, it’s time for Hitchens to pack it in.

…His book, by the way, is a 98 page essay printed on eight-and-a-half by five-and-a-half inch paper, one that is so small it could easily fit into the opening of a sewer. It contains no footnotes, no citations of any kind. There is a role for this genre, but it is not associated with serious scholarship, and it certainly isn’t associated with works that make strong allegations against public persons. Rather, it is associated with the gossip pages of, say, a Vanity Fair.

 

[atheistgirl]

Why is this a criticism? So the criminal, who uses their money for criminal activities, gives money to Mother Teresa, who uses it for charity, and now the criminal cannot use it to commit crimes. Out of the hands of the selfish who would use it for personal gain, straight into the hands of the giving who use it to help others. I completely fail to see the problem with that.

In secular terms, it’s called something like receiving or possession of stolen property

The money Keating donated was stolen money, money not his to give in the first place.

When this was pointed out to her by the Deputy DA and it was asked to be returned, the DA was ignored.

I do see a problem with that.

Sarah x

 

[atheistgirl]

…His book, by the way, is a 98 page essay printed on eight-and-a-half by five-and-a-half inch paper, one that is so small it could easily fit into the opening of a sewer. It contains no footnotes, no citations of any kind. There is a role for this genre, but it is not associated with serious scholarship, and it certainly isn’t associated with works that make strong allegations against public persons. Rather, it is associated with the gossip pages of, say, a Vanity Fair.

You’ve been listening to the Catholic League guy lol

As Hitchens said to him live on TV, refute any of his claims and prove him wrong.

He didn’t

Sarah x

 

[tonyrey]

I am NOT looking for debate, but I did want to comment on something here.

I read `god is not GREAT’… twice.

My impression is that though he did not disprove god, he did (in MY opinion) point out how religion CAN poison things. He had some valid points. From my reading, it was clear he was an… how does one say… angry person in the way he attacked god. I think his main error was equating religion with god. God is not a religion, and I think Hitch missed that point.

On a personal note, his book got me watching his debates, where I was able to come across Kreeft and Lennox; both of whom were persuasive to me, opening the way for my return to the catholic faith.

Demonstrating that once again good comes out of evil! In this case one man’s hatred inspires another man’s love…

 

[mrajax]

I myself never read any of Hitchens works on Madre Teresa and frankly, I have my doubts on her sanctity becuase of the poor conditions of the hospitals she worked at. Of course, I didn’t do much research into this matter and certainly am not going to use Hitchens as a basis who even if his criticism of Madre Teresa were correct, insulting her at her own funeral when BBC at an ultra low point asked him to speak at was a truly loathesome move. And unlike atheist fundies, I do not take Madre Teresa’s supposed lack of sanctity as an indication that Catholic charity is indeed lacking. We have a zillion other saints like John Bosco and Euphrasia Pelletier who worked amongst poor children, Bishop Zumaraga who fought for native American freedom, etc… who through their hard work show that the idea that Catholic charity is destructive is rubbish in it’s purest form.

Because someone refuses to debate someone else when challenged to doesn’t mean they lost. There are a ton of reasons why people refuse to debate like lack of experience in religious debates or lack of study or lack of skill in a certain language (which frankly explains that compeltely retarded ‘debate’ and Hitchens and Stephen Fry partook in against a politician with no experience debating religion and a Bishop who hardly understood english. What a low blow.) So no, Bill Donohue or whatever his name is didn’t prove himself or us inferior to refusing a debate. He has some things I disagree on but it’s not like he’s Hitchens with his patethic hatred of everything religious now is he? I myself wish to enter the debate scene and defend the Catholic Church but I’d only do that after I become a master of philosophy at some seminary or catholic university somewhere to show atheist fundies that I know what I am talking about.

He actually felt sorry for Mother Teresa and said so, because he thought she was a pawn used by the Church for good PR. That was his opinion. He’s entitled to his opinion. And he’s entitled to express his opinion.

I bet he felt so sorry for her he went out into the streets in tears saying how evil our church was for ‘cashing in on the good PR’. And while people do take things too far sometimes with making their religion look good, Hitchens feeling sorry for Madre Teresa would have been enough of a shock to destroy the entire universe. It’s just impossible.

 

[mrajax]

She accepted $1.25m from the convicted criminal Charles Keating!

When the Deputy DA of LA Paul Turley, pointed this out to her, and highlighted the fact this donated money wasn’t his to donate, and in fact had been stolen from people, many of whom were poor, he was ignored. She refused to account for, or return the money.



Just atheists?

Nobody else?

Secular organizations like Calcutta Rescue set up by Dr Jack Preger have, in my view, done just as valuable work as any religious organization.

How about the humanist Responsible Charity, set up as a direct result of the abuses witnessed in some homes run by religious organizations?

You’ll find lots of atheists, humanists and secularists right in the thick of all humanities crises.

Sarah x

It is true that secularists have done a ton of good, maybe even as much as religious people have done. Of course, what does that really say about secular idealogy? Did these people do it because they were secular or because they had their own ideas about morality and what is right? The same can be said with Catholic saints: John Bosco helped poor children because he didn’t want to see them grow up into bad people. Father Gerald Fitzgerald founded homes for Priests with personal problems like alcaholism and pedophilia. But these people in one way or another were inspired by Catholic morals; they helped people both spiritually as well as physically whereas Preger got his own good morals by other ways. Both groups have things happen to them that shaped their way of life.

Also, as one who witnessed my fair share of non-religious organizations dedicated to exposing the sex abuse cover ups done by Catholic Bishops, you know what? While I fully support them do us all a favor and don’t lump them together with labels like secularist or atheist as they are not. Preger himself lets people of all religions help him so it’s not really an atheist organization right? Just as it isn’t right to say that becuase Madre Teresa fed the poor than Catholicism is automatically good so it isn’t right to say that just because DR. Preger fed the poor than atheism is all good.

 

[Della]

His criticisms of Mother Teresa and the behavior of her order have merit.

She took money from despots and criminals - money that didn’t belong to them to give in the first place

Plenty of corporations and governments filled with corruption give to charities all the time. Do those charities demand such organizations give an account of their assets or demand they open their books to them? No, they don’t. Mother Teresa never asked anyone about their morals or finances, either. If they wanted to give, she accepted and left their criminal hehavior, if any, to the legal prosecutors/police to handle.

• she left millions in the bank that could have been used to alleviate poverty, or at least not have untrained volunteers reusing needles. Her Order refused to have it’s accounts publicly audited claiming the money ‘‘belonged to God’’ The list goes on.

Millions in the bank? If the order’s accounts were not made public how did Hitchens know this? Did he have some secret way of knowing how donated money was spent/invested? If he had no sources for his assertions why should we believe him? Because he said so?

He actually felt sorry for Mother Teresa and said so, because he thought she was a pawn used by the Church for good PR. That was his opinion. He’s entitled to his opinion. And he’s entitled to express his opinion.

Actually, it wasn’t the Church that made her world known, the Nobel committee and the media did that. Also, whenever the Church investigates anyone for sainthood, they do a throrough job of it. They never take the word of supporters alone–they dig into a person’s life to make sure there’s nothing unworthy of elevation. The Church assigns a person to be the “devil’s advocate” to try to find fault. That person takes his role very seriously, and brings any charges before the Church. Everything is weighed carefully before a decision to go on to the next phase in the process of canonization proceeds.

Some posters who constantly write about what a deeply hateful person he was, should, I think reflect on whether their attitude toward him reflect something of the hatred they claim was his reserve.

Sarah x

I agree we shouldn’t hate anyone no matter how much he disagrees with us or what calumnies he might bring against us. Jesus commanded us to love our enemies and do good to those who spitefully use us. I do not hate Mr. Hitchens or anyone else in this world. Like me, he was a poor sinner in need of a Savior. I often pray for folks who hate believers, as well as for believers–that we believers will be an example of love to everyone no matter who he is, says, or does.

 

[Farsight001]

In secular terms, it’s called something like receiving or possession of stolen property

The money Keating donated was stolen money, money not his to give in the first place.

When this was pointed out to her by the Deputy DA and it was asked to be returned, the DA was ignored.

I do see a problem with that.

Sarah x

And the evidence of this is? It seem strange that a Deputy DA in America contacted Mother Teresa in India and demanded the money’s return considering he has no jurisdiction there. And by what justification do you say he was ignored? Failure to reply (which is exactly what happened) is not the same as being ignored. Perhaps she failed to reply because the message never got to her, so she had no idea? But again, Hitchens WANTS there to be a problem with her, and will automatically assume the worst in each scenario.

You’ve been listening to the Catholic League guy lol

As Hitchens said to him live on TV, refute any of his claims and prove him wrong.

He didn’t

Sarah x

Why bother? If someone tried to convince me that the sun revolved around the earth, I would likewise brush him off and not bother trying to prove him wrong. Declination to respond does not mean that one cannot. As you called them, they were merely claims. It was always Hitchen’s responsibility to support his claims with solid evidence. Without any, there is no substance to respond to. And considering the extraordinary nature of the claim (being that there were hundreds of news reports and multiple documentaries that went in depth into her life and her order), he required extraordinary evidence, which he never really provided.

When Hitchens was asked why he was writing so poorly of Mother Teresa, his response was simply “I just don’t like her.” No claim to truth, or that she had made too many mistakes not to expose. Just that he didn’t like the woman and wanted people to think poorly of her. If thats his real motivation as he himself admitted, I can’t bring myself to trust a word he says about the woman.

 

[buffalo]

**from the huffington puffinton no less…
**

A Response To Mother Teresa’s Critics

…On a more practical note, I have volunteered twice with the sisters of the Missionaries of Charity, in Calcutta and in Cuzco. I have therefore been able to experience first hand the work these women do as they follow the example set by Mother Teresa.

…

The Canadian academics conclude that, based on many books they read but zero visit to the Missionaries of Charity, Mother Teresa was a lot more helpful to the Catholic Church than to the people she said she was helping, and that a lot more should be taken into account before the Vatican decides to make her a saint (she’s on the fast track to become one.)
I mean, come on! What do we need to be a saint? Who even really believe in miracles? Mother Teresa created 517 missions in 100 countries, helped hundreds of thousands of people, and inspired generations of volunteers all over the world: to me that’s a far bigger miracle than the one the Church credits her with (that she cured a woman who was suffering from intense abdominal pain)!
So to all the Mother Teresa haters: if you don’t like her, that’s your right and I respect it. But please, do not waste all this time writing studies or articles on her that have no other value than being controversial enough to be published. Pick your battles. Surely there are a lot worse people than her in this world who deserve your energy! And if Mother Teresa did such a bad job helping others, why not save that time spent criticizing her to instead try to make a difference in this world?

 

[atheistgirl]

Millions in the bank? If the order’s accounts were not made public how did Hitchens know this? Did he have some secret way of knowing how donated money was spent/invested? If he had no sources for his assertions why should we believe him? Because he said so?

The testimony of some of her own nuns who were tasked with banking the money and writing receipts and thank you notes to donors. They’ve been linked to in other threads here regarding Mother Teresa.

I understand peoples desire to defend her.

I’ve said on other threads I have nothing but admiration for her total commitment to her vocation.

No matter how much I might disagree with somebody, I will always credit them and voice my admiration for a person of integrity and commitment.

What I will never understand is the almost pathological aversion of some to any form of criticism of her or her order.

My view is there are serious and valid criticisms to be made.

Sarah x

 

[tonyrey]

from the huffington puffinton no less…

A Response To Mother Teresa’s Critics

…On a more practical note, I have volunteered twice with the sisters of the Missionaries of Charity, in Calcutta and in Cuzco. I have therefore been able to experience first hand the work these women do as they follow the example set by Mother Teresa.

…

The Canadian academics conclude that, based on many books they read but zero visit to the Missionaries of Charity, Mother Teresa was a lot more helpful to the Catholic Church than to the people she said she was helping, and that a lot more should be taken into account before the Vatican decides to make her a saint (she’s on the fast track to become one.)
I mean, come on! What do we need to be a saint? Who even really believe in miracles? Mother Teresa created 517 missions in 100 countries, helped hundreds of thousands of people, and inspired generations of volunteers all over the world: to me that’s a far bigger miracle than the one the Church credits her with (that she cured a woman who was suffering from intense abdominal pain)!
So to all the Mother Teresa haters: if you don’t like her, that’s your right and I respect it. But please, do not waste all this time writing studies or articles on her that have no other value than being controversial enough to be published. Pick your battles. Surely there are a lot worse people than her in this world who deserve your energy! And if Mother Teresa did such a bad job helping others, why not save that time spent criticizing her to instead try to make a difference in this world?

Negativity reigns supreme in the ranks of the Godless like Richard Dawkins! They are compelled to attack because they have nothing to defend…

 

[Della]

The testimony of some of her own nuns who were tasked with banking the money and writing receipts and thank you notes to donors. They’ve been linked to in other threads here regarding Mother Teresa.

I understand peoples desire to defend her.

I’ve said on other threads I have nothing but admiration for her total commitment to her vocation.

No matter how much I might disagree with somebody, I will always credit them and voice my admiration for a person of integrity and commitment.

What I will never understand is the almost pathological aversion of some to any form of criticism of her or her order.

My view is there are serious and valid criticisms to be made.

Sarah x

I have no doubt Mother Teresa had her faults–who doesn’t? She went to confession just like every other Catholic, including the pope. It’s not that she must be defended at all costs against any idea that she never made a misstep, but rather against the pathological need to trash her at every opportunity that some seem to have, including Hitchens. It’s not right and just a bit crazy, if you ask me.

 

[Samson33]

Negativity reigns supreme in the ranks of the Godless like Richard Dawkins! They are compelled to attack because they have nothing to defend…

Nobody has to listen to this if they don’t like hard rock music, but I think it perfectly describes the mentality of Dawkins/Harris/Hitchens. the chorus goes “I’m pessi-mystic, I’m so fatalistic, I don’t believe a thing, I’m nihilistic, I’m Pessi-mystic of what tomorrow brings”
Alice is awesome.

youtube.com/watch?v=A7e_MvS0bzk