All Comments (32)

Hi! I'm John Strass and i like your site!
cheap viagra
Thank you!

I'd suggest rather than 'shout louder', the one who wants to really hear, LISTEN LOUDER.

As if ANYONE would be even slightly interested in the opinions of an evil criminal, who has changed his crimes from burglarly to the insidious altering of minds through his biggoted religious zealotry to other criminals! Put this man back in prison!!

The Republican Party is basically an organized crime syndicate.

Isn't the idea of Christian redemption wonderful, Mr. Colson? It provides bullet-proof moral cover for scoundrels who have proven themselves to phonies, frauds and felons.

-- SCAM

Chuck's a hoot. Only the Catholic Church, a small 'unofficial' number of the Society of Friends, and some individual Unitarians ministers, took a stand against slavery. All other Amercans religions took public and vocal positions supporting the Biblical right of the 'superior' white race to own slaves.

But hold on...not one, not even the Unitarians, publicly supported women's suffrage, and almost all railed against such and abomination.

The 700 club does it to this day. Aren't you aligned with them Chuckster?

Reasonable writes:
"the Bible is a progression in time, and the reformation of Christianity has progressed to where you can't really justify the rants against Christians that practice true Christianity where slavery, hate, and injustice are not part of the culture anymore."

Mr. Chuck and others would maintain that the bible is the unerring, unchanging, word of god. No room for evolution there.

Father O'Marlowe writes: "Hitchins is foolish if he thinks a little logic will stand bteween (sic)me and my God.

I agree. Religion is inherently illogical and the true believer isn't likely to be swayed by logic.

The Southern Baptists split off because they were not allowed slave owners to be missionaries. The fact that slavery in chrisrian societies survived unhampered for the first seventeen centuries of the CE when church influence in government was strongest certainly contradicts Mr. Colson

The Southern Baptists split off because they were not allowed slave owners to be missionaries. The fact that slavery in chrisrian societies survived unhampered for the first seventeen centuries of the CE when church influence in government was strongest certainly contradicts Mr. Colson

The Southern Baptists split off because they were not allowed slave owners to be missionaries. The fact that slavery in chrisrian societies survived unhampered for the first seventeen centuries of the CE when church influence in government was strongest certainly contradicts Mr. Colson

Some of the religionists' comments to Hitchens were cogent and competent, but sadly Mr. Colson's comments do not fall into that category. Many of the suffragettes and most of the leaders were non-Christians and nontheists. Read "No Gods, No Masters" by Annie Laurie Gaylor. The Christian Bible manifestly does not denounce slave-trading, but accepts it as a common practice of the time. The Tenth Commandment commands humans to not covet their neighbors' slaves. The Confederate South justified slavery using the Christian Bible. Paul does say in the New Testament to treat one's slaves nicely, as you would a brother--but don't free them. Early Christians certainly did not work to abolish slavery. Only Gnostic Christians gave equal rights to women, not the Orthodox Christians from which all modern Christians are descended. Slavery was a common practice of the Spanish Conquistadors. Slavery in Latin America was halted before the U.S. did the same thing due to Enlightenment influence. Colson is right about Wilberforce, except he doesn't mention that many English Christians opposed him. Again, Enlightenment influence led to the abolishment of slavery in the Commonwealth, not Christianity. Since Colson doesn't have the facts on his side, he shouts louder...in a particularly mendacious way.

It seems to me that Mr. Hitchens is very simplistic and is in fact manifesting the very bigotry he professes to abhor. We don't judge a race, any race, by the worst among its members, nor should we judge religions by its worst examples. Mr.Hitchens, if khe wants to be honest, rational and objective, ought to look first at what a religion teaches and exhorts, and then at what the best of its practitioners do. Those who founded our nation were strongly religious, and found in religion the very basis of a free society. Those who have lead the civil rights movement were for the most part religious. Mr. Hitchens is, in my opinion, simply not objective.

On history's tombstone of Colson, these his words will be engraved:

"Few things are so deadly as a misguided sense of compassion."
Charles Colson

"I'd walk over my own grandmother to re-elect Richard Nixon."
Charles Colson

Colson believed ends justify means. He still does.

Yeah, it's interesting that all this preaching comes not just from a convicted felon, but one who was a self-described "hatchet man" during the reign of the second-most corrupt and vile President in US history. He's tried to work his way back into power via the unconstitutional "office of Faith Based Initiatives", by meeting with Dear Glorious Leader concerning results of studies of recidivism rates and "Faith".

Colson's true colors can still be identified, when W. Mark Felt was identified as the legendary "Deep Throat" who helped ultimately send Colson and others to jail, Colson in his most X-tian way said Felt should have just shut up rather than doing the right thing and helping to end the Nixon Reign of Error.

Chuck Colson, a true "Christian" in the image of Torquemada and other "religious" leaders in history whose main tenet of their religion was "Convert or Die", but actually just sought power in its rawest form. What a nice guy, why he even gets to have a place in American discourse is beyond me, much less a column in the Washington Post, unless they feel guilty about their part in sending him off to the Maxwell Correctional Facility.

Blair R.:

Positive and negative things religious folks have done? Both are greatly exaggerated, the positive more than the negative no doubt.

What percentage of the money collected by churches actually goes to charity? I suggest it's trace at best. A poor person waiting for help from religion would certainly starve to death first. Positive acts by religion folk are a smoke screen.

Before you jump with Salvation Army or Union Rescue Mission make sure they really are churches and not real charitable folk using religion to avoid government and religion interference, and, of course, improve donations. Ministries are operated for the benefit of the minister and no one else. Mr Colson is no exception to that rule, with all that consolation for convicted criminals.

Lies that cause people to have faith, (in ministers) are moral and legal. As "Chuck" can testify to from personal experience, other lies and especially those done under oath are immoral, are criminal acts and punishable by imprisonment too.

I suppose things like stained glass and crystal cathedrals are positive, for somebody. They don't do much to feed the hungry or gain one's civil rights. The ACLU is a better place to go when constitutional rights are violated by far.

Ahhh..Charles Colson the man who helped Nixon find Jews in government and demote or fire them. Why don't you write about THAT? Hypocrite. The Post shouldn't even give a convicted felon like yourself this space. Isn't there someone who didn't do time for helping Nixon that could write columns here?

RELIGION POISONS EVERYTHING IT TOUCHES!!

New DISPATCHES Documentary by UK's Channel 4 about Persecution of former muslims in UK who chose to embrace Jesus Christ as their Lord and Saviour.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OXF-rJAOHGQ

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NLqpDRYWE6M

(Find the last 2 parts in utubes related column)

There is no compulsion in religion??? Some of the most courageous people on earth are ex-Muslims.

Yes Hitchins is foolish if he thinks a little logic will stand bteween me and my God.
The reason my faith is so secure is that I know it is on another level from logic and reason and overrated rationalism.
There's more to life than making sense. Sense is for the weak and unsteady.
The highest virtue is accorded those who believe in the least likely,and the most seemingly silly.
Any fool can believe in logic and earthly common sense.
It takes a man of true Faith to believe in the apparently ridiculous.
The Lord understands because he is The Lord.

The historical argument for OR against organized religion is questionable at best. There is a long list of positive things that people professing one religion or another have done, and an (at least) equally long list of negative things. So who cares? It's a pointless argument.

The fact remains that it is fundamentally irrational and unreasonable to believe in a magic man in the sky who created the universe and oversees us all. You might as well believe in the tooth fairy - it's an equally baseless and intellectually simple proposition. People accept the coersion they're raised with since birth to believe in god and call it "faith," and then declare their "faith" to be beyond all question by reason.

I will believe in someone's god when he gives the slightest actual evidence of his existence. But I won't hold my breath.

Mr. Colson

I was brought up Catholic. How come the man we worship as god never condemned slavery? I am talking about Jesus. he condemned everything else.

Slavary is the result of man's sin - that they don't love their neighbor as themselves or love God with all their heart and mind etc.

Those like Mr. Mark , Bgone, and GeorgiaSon Henry James etc don't realize or care to admit that the Bible is a progression in time, and the reformation of Christianity has progressed to where you can't really justify the rants against Christians that practice true Christianity where slavery, hate, and injustice are not part of the culture anymore.

Blame the culture, not the message of the Bible- which in the gospels illustrates in action the great love God has for all humankind. This is why Jesus came and died for us all and you can't fathom it due to your own egos.

Chuck has it right for sure, and lowering yourselves to name calling just shows your own insecurities.

BTW-
The hoax, Mr Bgone, is anyone that gives your several postings and links to your third rate website any credence.

Dear Reverend, Christian Reconstructionist, Colson,

I must say, that you are either entirely ignorant of history regarding slavery and the struggle women have made for a few centuries, or you an abject liar. Which is it?

It is laughable that you start with suffragettes, rather than ADMIT that agnostics, atheists, and freethinkers led the way in the fight for a woman to have any rights at all. If you take up the 'struggle' with the later part of the 19th century, as you did, it was only about then that the good Christian ladies saw just how evil the Bible ideas were. Those 'good' ladies saw the light of reason, and starting jumping on board, found a way to make such appeals more 'popular,' and there we go.

I'm sure you'll say Elizabeth Caty Stanton was a good Christian gal eh? Have you ever read her 'Woman's Bible?' Obviously you have not. Shame on you for continuing to crank out such revisionist history.

Now, of course, such 'claims' as you make surely keeps funneling in the cash from your fundamentalist friends. Not content with the influx of Christian fundamentalist cash, you then seek to take in the tax dollars of those who know your vision of the world to be false, and who deplore the hatred so intrinsic to your religion.

Thanks Georgiason AGain and Again

for giving vivid testimony and evidence of the absurdity/outright historical contradictions of Mr Colson's fantasy story of the slavery and women's rights.

You are exactly right:

either Colson or the editors should come on and say

"Just kidding."

Colson's column would make a perfect script for Stephen Colbert and Jon Stewart if there were ANY reason to take him seriously.

Why is he here?

"Chuck" says, "When you don't have the facts on your side -- or the law, I was taught in law school -- shout louder. This is all Mr. Hitchens is doing."

He could have shouted a lot louder than he did, this time. He could have added to his list of obvious characteristics of traditional religions that they are all Devil worshipers. And he could have backed that up by repeating what it says at http://www.hoax-buster.org/sellyoursoul which is the only proper reading of the Bible, like me.

Jesus is the son of that being in the burning bush. So he could add that only Devil would sacrifice His only begotten son and note that Almighty God can get what IT wants without any help at all from people. But he didn't, this time.

When Jesus came to your rescue Mr Colson were you trying to wiggle out of a crime, one against all the people of the United States of America? Which supernatural being do you suppose comes to the rescue of criminals, God or Devil?

Surely Mr. Colson, or someone in charge of On Faith, will shortly post a follow-up saying "April Fools!" Surely Mr. Colson did not mean this to be taken seriously. It's so absurd, I worry that any response will give it more worth than its due. Like I'm rising to Mr. Colson's bait. But what the heck:

1. "The Christian Bible" denounced slave traders? How does a Bible, an inanimate object, engage in some act? More to the point, as a native Georgian whose forefathers fought in the Civil War, I am only too well aware that the Bible--including most particularly the New Testament--was used big time by slave owners and their apologists until the very end to not only to defend slavery but to depict it as an honorable institution fully sanctioned by the Bible. They need only cite the very words of God where he at length described the proper treatment of slaves, thereby approving its existence as long as it was properly practiced.

And St, Paul, of course, also spoke unambiguously of slavery as a perfectly legitimate practice. you need only do a very cursory search of the historical record to find the constant use of his words to justify American slavery, emanating from American pulpits. It was Christianity's sanction of slavery that helped guarantee its existence. If Christianity opposed slavery, how in God's name did it exist for 300 years on a continent and in a country populated almost exclusively by Christians? How many American slave owners were atheists or agnostics?

If women's rights being championed by Christians during its early years is so significant, how was it that we had to wait until well into the 20th Century before women were even guaranteed the right to vote?

The Spanish conquerors' horrendous and brutal treatment of the native population is so well recorded and known, raising that time and place as an example of Christian enlightenment can only be treated as a cruel joke on Mr. Colson's part. His spirit as a Nixon henchman lives on. Some papal bull on slavery does not amount to a pitcher of warm spit in influencing the Spanish experience in the New World.

And I point out the logical progression of thought that the very fact that Mr. Colson can highlight the name of one man leading the fight against the slave trade in England in the 19th Century begs the obvious question: what were the opinions of the millions of other English Christians, that it took one voice crying in the wilderness to spark action--to deal with a practice Mr. Colson told us a few sentences prior that Christianity had turned against thousands of years before!

Thank you, Mr. Colson, for boosting the reputation of Mr. Hitchens by emphasizing that he is an opponent of Chuck "Dirty Tricks" Colson, former but obviously unrepentant Nixon goon.

Surely Mr. Colson, or someone in charge of On Faith, will shortly post a follow-up saying "April Fools!" Surely Mr. Colson did not mean this to be taken seriously. It's so absurd, I worry that any response will give it more worth than its due. Like I'm rising to Mr. Colson's bait. But what the heck:

1. "The Christian Bible" denounced slave traders? How does a Bible, an inanimate object, engage in some act? More to the point, as a native Georgian whose forefathers fought in the Civil War, I am only too well aware that the Bible--including most particularly the New Testament--was used big time by slave owners and their apologists until the very end to not only to defend slavery but to depict it as an honorable institution fully sanctioned by the Bible. They need only cite the very words of God where he at length described the proper treatment of slaves, thereby approving its existence as long as it was properly practiced.

And St, Paul, of course, also spoke unambiguously of slavery as a perfectly legitimate practice. you need only do a very cursory search of the historical record to find the constant use of his words to justify American slavery, emanating from American pulpits. It was Christianity's sanction of slavery that helped guarantee its existence. If Christianity opposed slavery, how in God's name did it exist for 300 years on a continent and in a country populated almost exclusively by Christians? How many American slave owners were atheists or agnostics?

If women's rights being championed by Christians during its early years is so significant, how was it that we had to wait until well into the 20th Century before women were even guaranteed the right to vote?

The Spanish conquerors' horrendous and brutal treatment of the native population is so well recorded and known, raising that time and place as an example of Christian enlightenment can only be treated as a cruel joke on Mr. Colson's part. His spirit as a Nixon henchman lives on. Some papal bull on slavery does not amount to a pitcher of warm spit in influencing the Spanish experience in the New World.

And I point out the logical progression of thought that the very fact that Mr. Colson can highlight the name of one man leading the fight against the slave trade in England in the 19th Century begs the obvious question: what were the opinions of the millions of other English Christians, that it took one voice crying in the wilderness to spark action--to deal with a practice Mr. Colson told us a few sentences prior that Christianity had turned against thousands of years before!

Thank you, Mr. Colson, for boosting the reputation of Mr. Hitchens by emphasizing that he is an opponent of Chuck "Dirty Tricks" Colson, former but obviously unrepentant Nixon goon.

Surely Mr. Colson, or someone in charge of On Faith, will shortly post a follow-up saying "April Fools!" Surely Mr. Colson did not mean this to be taken seriously. It's so absurd, I worry that any response will give it more worth than its due. Like I'm rising to Mr. Colson's bait. But what the heck:

"The Christian Bible" denounced slave traders? How does a Bible, an inanimate object, engage in some act? More to the point, as a native Georgian whose forefathers fought in the Civil War, I am only too well aware that the Bible--including most particularly the New Testament--was used big time by slave owners and their apologists until the very end to not only to defend slavery but to depict it as an honorable institution fully sanctioned by the Bible. They need only cite the very words of God where he at length described the proper treatment of slaves, thereby approving its existence as long as it was properly practiced.

And St, Paul, of course, also spoke unambiguously of slavery as a perfectly legitimate practice. you need only do a very cursory search of the historical record to find the constant use of his words to justify American slavery, emanating from American pulpits. It was Christianity's sanction of slavery that helped guarantee its existence. If Christianity opposed slavery, how in God's name did it exist for 300 years on a continent and in a country populated almost exclusively by Christians? How many American slave owners were atheists or agnostics?

If women's rights being championed by Christians during its early years is so significant, how was it that we had to wait until well into the 20th Century before women were even guaranteed the right to vote?

The Spanish conquerors' horrendous and brutal treatment of the native population is so well recorded and known, raising that time and place as an example of Christian enlightenment can only be treated as a cruel joke on Mr. Colson's part. His spirit as a Nixon henchman lives on. Some papal bull on slavery does not amount to a pitcher of warm spit in influencing the Spanish experience in the New World.

And I point out the logical progression of thought that the very fact that Mr. Colson can highlight the name of one man leading the fight against the slave trade in England in the 19th Century begs the obvious question: where were the millions of other English Christians, that it took one voice crying in the wilderness to spark action--to deal with a practice Mr. Colson told us a few sentences prior that Christianity had turned against thousands of years before!

Thank you, Mr. Colson, for boosting the reputation of Mr. Hitchens by emphasizing that he is an opponent of Chuck "Dirty Tricks" Colson, former but obviously unrepentant Nixon goon.

News Flash: Colson hits new heights of Irony

Mr Colson, whose "reasoning" in his columns here has created a new and laughable definition of logic,

criticises Hitchens, who, provocateur status aside, is 1,000 times more intelligent and learned than Mr C.

I can well understant that Colson is unable to follow Hitchen's train of thought. But please...

Two points of fact:

the bible is riddled with justifications of slavery.

and 99% of the christian preachers in America said not one harsh word about slavery before 1860.

And I Can NOT believe that Mr Colson would attempt to represent ANY religion as favorable towards women.

Jesus yes. Christianity: ever heard of the Catholic Church?

A non-essentialist & non-reductivist but nonetheless historically informative definition of 'religion' would have been helpful - - -

X is a religion if X has at least a majority of the following characteristics: . . . . . . . . .

Otherwise claims about the vices or virtues of religion-as-such or a particular religion are worthless and only invite self-serving defensiveness from the so-called "faithful" of all "faiths", religious & non-religious, naturalist & non-naturalist, X & non-X!

As it was once well put, all of us live by "the substance of things unseen, the evidence of things hoped for", that is, that part of each person's web of beliefs in which we each, respectively, put our ultimate trust, only to be vindicated or not by living by those beliefs.

They is a gonna be hell to pay for you, sonny boy. Nixon's Southern Strategy mandates affecting a faux Southern accent. Childrens do learn; sunday-go-to-meetin' bible beating dialect ain't good enuf for the high and mighty likes of you.

"Odd, isn't it, that all of the suffragettes were Christians?"

Only if that is significantly different from the proportion of women in that period and class who were also Christians - otherwise it is simply average.

"Equally odd, the Christian Bible denounced slave traders at a time when the slave trade was in fashion."

I expect you can quote chapter and verse, but there always seem to be other chapters and other verses, verses which do not denounce slavery:

"Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ;
...
Knowing that whatsoever good thing any man doeth, the same shall he receive of the Lord, whether he be bond or free."