Hitchens: The Iraq war is wrong and I believe in God
posted at 11:33 am on June 3, 2007 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
As the serpent promises: “Ye shall be as gods.” These may be the most important words in the whole Bible.
Take the enticing satanic advice, and you arrive, quite quickly, at revolutionary terror, at the invention of the atom bomb, at the torture chamber and the building of concentration camps for those unteachable morons who do not share your vision of a just world.
And also you arrive at the idea, embraced by Christopher, that by invading Iraq, you can make the world a better place.
I hesitated about mentioning this. Was it unfair, a jab below the belt? No.
Much of his book is devoted to claiming that religious impulse drives Man to do, or excuse, or support wicked and terrible things in the name of goodness.
Is this not a perfect description of the Iraq War, which he backed?…
If you do not worship God, you end up worshipping power, whether it is Kim Jong Il, Leon Trotsky or the military might of George W. Bush. In which case, God help you.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages:
Whether you agree with the Iraq War or not, what kind of moral imbecile would lump Bush together with the likes of Kim-Jong Il? I really don’t understand this type of mentality.
packsoldier on June 3, 2007 at 11:36 AM
If you can’t dazzle ‘em with your brilliance, baffle ‘em with your bulls**t.
Helloyawl on June 3, 2007 at 11:40 AM
Good thing it’s the other Hitch, eh? =)
Wicked unibrow he’s working on, btw.
docob on June 3, 2007 at 11:40 AM
Agreed.
amerpundit on June 3, 2007 at 11:44 AM
That was a fascinating read. I guess I expected ridicule or mockery of the book. But Peter gave a thoughtful, wise, and profound disagreement with Christopher’s book.
It didn’t personally attack his brother. It didn’t denigrate him. It is obvious reading this that he loves his brother.
This piece illustrates how a believer should argue his case, with thoughtful reason.
Really good.
Rightwingsparkle on June 3, 2007 at 11:46 AM
I read this yesterday; brothers are perfect foils.
Spirit of 1776 on June 3, 2007 at 12:05 PM
packsoldier,
I don’t think he was lumping Bush together with the likes of Kim-Jong Il. He was saying that it was just as wrong to “worship” the military might of the President as it is to worship anyone, including Kim-Jong. Which is true.
No one is more supportive of our military than I am. I love them and admire them. I think Peter’s mistake here is thinking that by doing that, we “worship” the military might we have here.
Rightwingsparkle on June 3, 2007 at 12:07 PM
Goofus and Gallant
Tru2my2 on June 3, 2007 at 12:12 PM
I agree, very well said. The picture was interesting, as well. I don’t know that I have ever seen Chris looking quite so miserable. I think he is a tormented man.
Glynn on June 3, 2007 at 12:23 PM
I wonder how many people looked at the headline and did a spit-take? Nicely done, AP.
I think Peter would be a better writer if he drank more.
Krydor on June 3, 2007 at 12:35 PM
America was founded on the belief that our freedom is from our Creator, not from the King or government. It also relied on the Christian principles of the people to “assist” with the running of the country. That is people practicing self-restraint and love of their neighbors as themselves is essential to ensuring that the love of power does not result in anarchy.
It can be debated that whether not wanting to take advantage of your neighbor is an original religious principle or not. However, history has shown us what happens when the State is substituted for God as the source of our rights and liberty and the object of our worship. I think that is what Chris Hitchens was writing.
Mallard T. Drake on June 3, 2007 at 12:41 PM
Sorry, wrong brother. “I think that is what PETER Hitchens was writing.”
Mallard T. Drake on June 3, 2007 at 12:42 PM
Thanks AP, that was a thoughtful and interestin essay.
I find it interesting that Christians again and again go back to the premise that since athiests have no belief in God, that there can be no basis for morality – “no north to the moral compass”, paraphrasing Hitchens.
If the athiest appeals to some sort of socially derived moral boundary, he is then accused by the believer of “moral relativism”.
But how does the believer square that with what I call “religious relativism” – various religions and sects have hundreds of conflicting and even contratictory moral pronouncements, most of them validated as “God’s morality”. To me, the unbeliever, this is just cloaking your socially derived morality in a false mantle of devine authority.
peski on June 3, 2007 at 1:07 PM
It’s a good article, but the closing is rather ironic, speaking of the trope of those “worshipping” Bush, this after a week in which a large portion of his “followers” have lost faith in him. Imagine if God or Kim had such fickle followers!
calbear on June 3, 2007 at 1:45 PM
Can someone translate that from the British??
MamaAJ on June 3, 2007 at 2:11 PM
………..╬………
abinitioadinfinitum on June 3, 2007 at 2:13 PM
Gosh, it sounds like Peter is trying to make this world a better place.
Dusty on June 3, 2007 at 2:51 PM
I may not agree with Peter Hitchens on the Iraq war, but he does lay quite the smackdown on his more famous brother here. Either way, the hot Hitchens on Hitchens action was… entertaining.
RightWinged on June 3, 2007 at 3:11 PM
If even British conservatives won’t support the war, we’re screwed.
WasatchMan on June 3, 2007 at 3:16 PM
Easy: 49% of the American population.
Tim Burton on June 3, 2007 at 3:50 PM
I read this yesterday and wondered how long before AP would offer another religious/atheist debating opportunity on a HA thread. Cleverly done AP! You should get a raise just for naming the headlines and the threads, seriously.
This is not the first time the Hitchens brothers have debated in writing or actually holding live debates. It’s like the Matalin/Carville machine.
It’s Christopher – he abhors being called Chris, as he claims that Christopher is the name he was given by his parens.
He’s not miserable – he likes that carmudgeony persona – it serves him very well.
I like both Hitchenses and am glad we have them. They’re like many other families, just with more courage and talents on display. They both earn a good living that way and we have much to consider while analyzing them.
Entelechy on June 3, 2007 at 4:58 PM
…his parents, of course
Entelechy on June 3, 2007 at 5:00 PM
This premise about Christians is only partly true. What is true is that without a belief system there can be no basis for morality. While religious people define their belief system as religion, atheists define their belief system as something else.
What Christians “go back to”, is pointing out that atheists really do embrace a religious-like point of view, often of their own making, and often with themselves at the center rather than a deity. The point is, if everyone’s belief system is based on a different focal point we end up with a chaotic mess. It doesn’t matter what your morals are, it only matters whether your morals conflict with mine. It is this seemingly chaotic mish-mash of moral ideologies that we call moral relativism.
Primarily because our morals are not socially derived. It is a logical contradiction to argue that people holding to specific beliefs direct opposed to others are embracing any kind of religious relativism.
The fact that you believe the mantle of Devine authority to be false is a predetermined supposition on your part confusing what religious morality is really based on. Various religions and sects with conflicting moral pronouncements do try to embrace all views, however this causes the same problems as Atheist attempting to embrace all views under one big relative umbrella.
But what you are arguing against is not the religious people who are also relativists, but against those who hold to specific beliefs. In the end, the fact that we do not embrace a relativistic point of view of religion and morality is what makes our religious ideologies so incompatible with your atheist ideologies.
Lawrence on June 3, 2007 at 5:05 PM
Kim Jong Il pretty much claims that he IS god, doesn’t he?
His kind usually do (make that claim). Furthermore, there appears to be a LOT of Koreans that WANT to believe it.
Meanwhile, I am fairly certain that W. would be laughed out-of-office if he made that sort of claim. In fact, W.’s claim on the Presidency is tenuous, at best. The liberals claim that he’s not even the REAL President. Some say Al Gore is the REAL President, and others say that Dick Cheney is REAL power behind 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.
This guy’s argument is so weak, it’s pathetic.
CyberCipher on June 3, 2007 at 5:29 PM
I just have to wonder if a commenter here would be banned for intentionally misrepresenting a post for the express purpose of provoking a fight.
hmmmm
TBinSTL on June 3, 2007 at 5:30 PM
OT but close. Cleveland Cavaliers victory over Detroit Pistons last night means Cleveland will be playing for a pro sports championship. Even the atheists must understand this as a sign of the end times. Go Cav’s!
Buck Turgidson on June 3, 2007 at 5:37 PM
Oh please. That tired and silly argument that without God you can’t be moral and that you’ll turn into Stalin–that’s your idea of a smackdown? To my mind, it’s just ad hominem at one step removed. I’m sure there’s an argument to be had here on religion versus atheism, but this certainly isn’t it.
student on June 3, 2007 at 5:48 PM
No, but if that’s your interpretation of all of what he said, simply because you only read the excerpt, then that’s your decision.
RightWinged on June 3, 2007 at 6:18 PM
Read the Hitchens/Wilson debate over at Christianity Today. It gives a good example of what we’re talking about.
PRCalDude on June 3, 2007 at 7:38 PM
Yep, that was a good example… none of the same old, tired logical fallacies to see here, move along…
elgeneralisimo on June 4, 2007 at 1:19 AM
Christopher Hitchens has it right about the Iraq War. Peter Hitchens has it right about God.
Christopher Hitchens was recently interviewed by David Horowitz and Peter Collier; the interview appears on David Horowitz’s frontpagmagazine.com. At one point, Christopher Hitchens remarks that if he did not know better about God (supposedly) not existing, he would say that American soldiers are doing the work of God. The truth is that American soldiers are doing the work of God.
Phil Byler on June 4, 2007 at 10:44 AM
Ah, I see we’ve moved from ad hominem at one step’s remove to the real thing. As far as I can see, Peter Hitchen’s *best* argument is the one I described and I’m sorry, but it’s not a very good one. Perhaps you’d care to enlighten us on what argument you think constitutes the smackdown.
student on June 4, 2007 at 11:07 AM
Again, if you are going to choose not to read the entire thing, I’m not going to waste my time on this. Ad hominem? A little sensitive are we?
RightWinged on June 5, 2007 at 1:49 AM
Well, let’s see. In recent threads you have said that I’m not smart enough to understand your arguments, that I can’t read, and now, apparently, that I’m too lazy to read. So yeah, ad hominem.
Not at all because as folks brighter than I have observed, it’s always enjoyable being the target of an ad hominem because then you know you’ve won the argument. And so, once again, as usual, we have:
If this happened once or even rarely we could write it off as, “he believes what he believes and doesn’t suffer fools gladly,” but when it happens almost every time, we’re justified in concluding that your arguments are all bluster and that when called on that, you pick up your ball and run from the field.
student on June 5, 2007 at 12:32 PM
Alright, see ya later Mary.
RightWinged on June 5, 2007 at 4:19 PM
Comment pages: