Bridging the Hitchens’ Gap

For E Favorite:

If Maimonides was able to cure people and to prevent infections, then he was not ignorant of the germ theory of disease. True, he wrote "around" the issue by talking about bad blood, bile, etc. but unlike Hitchens, I think practical knowledge is demonstration of real knowledge.

By the way, on page 7 of his book he truly badmouths all these great thinker...the context is negative, and the one redeeming remark -- as you say -- is softpeddled with "may". If you really want to see his condescending arrogance, check out the things he says about Mother Teresa. And note, the "religion" that he considers so reprobate paid him money to be "Devil's Advocate". Not only that it gave him material for his book and then he bad mouths religious leaders as being fools -- Why? because they hired him?

Thank you, ALM. That was very insightful!

Our church is one, holy, catholic and apostolic. While modern pundits would say it is a "wide tent" I prefer universal, or catholic with both a small and large 'c'.

I can see its reach in my little parish in East London (England)--about 1/3 West Indian and their children--some formidable matriarchies there and such hats!-- 1/3 Cockney--Irish and their descendents-- and now about 1/3 rest of the Catholic world which in London means Poles and Lithuanians plus continental European--mostly Belgian and Dutch--professionals who live in the neighbourhood. The Brazilians have their own 11 am Mass at St Annes, a mile or so away, other LatAms attend some of the Spanish masses available throughout the city.

There are many more Eastern Europeans at Westminster Cathedral as well as the Ukrainian connection. It is a centre of help for asylum seekers from countries to the east of Poland, especially the Ukraine.

Still the Mass is the same, and we all pray for God's grace through the sacraments and sometimes just through *being* in a sacred space.

The Church is an enormous source of good will and grace for its flock. I believe that sincerely.

The problem with the way Hitchens asks the question is that, to him, the answer is obvious. But as all of you -- and the comments on the other threads -- have made clear, it makes no difference that a human institution should be man-made.
Religion is highly social, and I'm convinced that no two members of a given faith believe exactly the same thing. At its best, this forum gives us a glimpse in to what we all have in common.
I avail myself of the rituals of the Catholic church, but...intellectually and constitutionally, I have trouble believing that the pope or any other person could always be right.
Am I even a good Catholic? All I can say is that I pray for obedience every day.

Maimonides

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maimonides

was born in 1135 and died in 1204. That would make him *twelfth* century, not tenth.

I only mention this because of the typos that atheist posters saw fit to mention regarding Prof. Stevens-Arroyo's post:

Tit for Tat
And all that.

Eloist - You're right about Newmann, and to Hitchens credit, that he said these men "MAY have...been laughably ignorant...." I apologise for my failure to notice that "may."

You have it wrong about Maimonides, though. He was 10th century and Pasteur didn't discover the germ theory of disease until the 19th century.

I'm confused by your PT Barnum comparison. Hitchens, like any author, is just selling a book.

His premise - god is not great - is nothing new. Many people have thought that for centuries, despite intense pressure to believe in a supernatural god and a whole incredible set of myths.

Notwithsatnding the fact that many clergy are good, compassionate people, I think it's more correct to say it's the religious establishment that been selling tickets to the circus.

Thanks, Viejita...I guess :)

To E Favorite:

Newman and Maimonides were not "ignorant" of the germ theory of disease. Hitchens is wrong on that.

Newman certainly understood the place of the earth in the solar system. Hitchens is wrong on that.

Only Hitchens would laugh at a person who didn't understand what wasn't discovered. Just doesn't seem like a laughing matter.

P.T. Barnum had a lot of success in selling things to suckers.

You can call Speed123 a lot of things, but I don't think incoherent is one of them.

My comment to Stan was a bit harsh and I feel for all those who are abused in society; however, bigots and media like to portray this as a Catholic problem when it is a universal problem.

The majority of abuse happens within families and all bureaucracies handle this sensitive issue poorly - including public schools, and all denominations of faith.

Upon further review that last post came out a little meaner than intended. Sorry, but you do come off that way.

I take it that nobody in your family has never been molested by a priest.

My cousin was molested by a priest 6 years ago. Nothing happened to him, he was transferred to a different city. Nobody cared. So, it is a pretty big deal to my family and yeah, those priests and Cardinal Law should be doing time.

I was just wondering. Your posts seem a little incoherent and light on specifics. Maybe your just not very good at these things.

how can I compete with stuff like this, Olive?

special ed?

oh so witty...

fasinating spelling!

Speed123,

Are you in special ed?

In any case, fasinating contribution...low-five!

I am not an athiest. I am a Catholic.

Good one, Olive.

Atheist high-five!

E Favorite:

My guess is that the "Professor Stevens-Arroyo" entries were the work of Speed123. It seems to be about his level of writing.

PS - Stan,

Dan Brown called and said he thinks your onto a really good story on this one...cover ups, the Vatican etc., evading the law, conspiracy!

He will be in touch...

Its called CONTEXT Stan...that is what is missing. The media and you seem to like to portray this as a Catholic problem when it is much higher in other institutions.

Stop your hatefilled slander in regards to the Pope. While Law mismanaged the issue - he was never accused and is not up for trial. If you have a link to a news story that says otherwise I would like to see it.

Stan, just face it - you are very emotional/irrational on this issue and are bigoted against the Catholic Church (a institution with lower claims of abuse than all other major denominations). Its called slander....

Anthony M. Stevens-Arroyo – Was that really you? It sounded a lot smarter than a kid in the basement but a lot less distinguished than your credentials would suggest.

I happen to have a copy of Hitchens’ book right here, and turning to page 7, I see that he refers to Augustine, Aquinas, Maimonides and Newman as “mighty scholars” and goes on to mention them being “laughably ignorant” only in the CONTEXT of not knowing about “the germ theory of disease or the place of the terrestrial globe in the solar system….” Of course, this would apply to anyone before those discoveries were made. Everyone is ignorant of things they do not yet know about.

So, Professor, you misrepresented what he said, quoting him out of context. Anyone who writes peer reviewed articles knows that’s unethical. But maybe you’re applying different standards here because it’s just a blog or because Hitchens isn’t in your league and doesn’t deserve your respect. It’s still dishonest – and so easy to check. The book is on the bestseller list. When I was at the bookstore today they were wheeling in a cartload of them. Many people reading this blog can turn to page 7 in a flash and confirm what it says.

If that was really your post above, I think you owe us another one, confirming it was you and addressing the issue I raised. If it was not you, please let us know that too – and please disregard my comments.

Speed123,

You did not actually address anything that I wrote in my last post. Why are you responding to issues that I did not bring up?

I have had no problem responding to your's. Here goes.

No, I do not hate anything or anybody. I walk in the light my friend. Yes there are child molesters in every faith. I realize that, as does every other reasonable adult human being. Again, I did not address that in my post.

I NEVER believed in WMDs in Iraq or in any of our idiot, man-child President's position there. Another item that I did not bring up in any of my posts.

Yes count me as someone who is against any and all child molesters. I would hope that all decent people everywhere would agree on that. Well apparantly everyone except the Pope.

I do not know the source of your numbers but I do think that the number on public school employees is high. 15%, think about thoses numbers.

I am against mis-management by all those institutions as well. So what? Again, I never brought any of those institutions up nor did I say, claim or otherwise insinuate that the Catholic Church is the only institution, religious or otherwise that employs child molesters.

What I did say very clearly is that the Pope is now, yes RIGHT now giving aid and comfort to a very well known child molester, Cardinal law. This is not an opinion or a point of view. It is an undeniable, unassailable fact.

Cardinal Law is being shielded from prosecution in Massachusetts on charges of child molestation and covering up child molesting priests who were under his supervision.

He did that for decades.

He admitted to it.

Process that. Seriously, think that one through.

And as for your idiotic assertation that LAW is in a minor position akin to being in an outpost in the Artic....He help lead the freakin' ceremonies at the last Popes funeral. He was front and freakin' center. Don't you remember the criticism? I sure do. He was al over the television helping with the festivities!! (he should have been doing time in the state pen)

And since when in the world of the Catholic Church is the VATICAN.

Yes, the VATICAN!!!

considered an "equivalent to an outpost in the artic"? Did you actually write that?!?

Besides which I do not care if he actually was sent to a small church in the Artic. He is still evading prosection in a foriegn country that will not extradite him. When you help a criminal evade prosecution, you are then a criminal yourself. There is no gray area here. The Pope is aiding a known and confessed child molester.

He should have to face his trial.

Stan, Stan, Stan...

Do you belive all that the media tells you?

Still believe that there are WMDs in Iraq I suppose...that the war in Iraq was justified by connections between saddam and al queda?

Hate authority I suppose such as the church; yet you see corporate media as the spoken word? The truth that will set you free?

The media and those who own it have their own agenda and they happen to particually dislike the Catholic Church or any other institution that does not succumb to moral relativism and consumer culture.

Here is the context - thanks to Prof Arroyo - to abuse across all society:

Accused Catholic clergy: 4%
Accused Protestant clergy: 8%
Accused Jewish Rabbis: 11%
Accused public school employees around 15%

What about all of the mis-management by these institutions???

PS - Law is in some obscure position that is equivalent to an outpost in the artic - away from policy or major issues.

Sorry folks, I cannot spell today.

Time for a nap.

"consummate anti-Catholic bigot"? I am sure that might come to a big surprise to my wife and her Catholic family.

Speed123,

It seems as though you understanding of the word consummate is a bit liberal.

I merely pointed out to the good prefessor that his beloved church aided in the filight of a notorious criminal: The child molester, Cardinal Law.

Law was due to be tried in Massachusetts for child molesting and aiding other child molesting priest over the past several decades.

He admitted to it, he did it he is/was a criminal.

Cardinal Law was a very bad man.

Today, Cardinal Law has a cushy job at the Vatican arranged for him by the last Pope. You know, the Pope who everyone seems to think should be a saint.
Now I am not an expert on saints but I am pretty sure that none of the other shielded child molesters from prosecution.

No Speed, you and many other Catholics might not appreciate my bringing this rather uncomfortable subject up, but I happen to find it interesting.

So I bring it up from time to time to allow some of my Catholic friends to explain this, or rather rationalze this situation.

Sadly it is all true.

As an American citizen I am outraged.

If you are not outraged thenb you are a sick and twisted as Cardinal Law and his ilk.

I had a busy night last night!

Well I think there is a difference, especially in the US, between personal belief and political/civic action based on belief - this includes atheism as well.

Seperation of church and state and our consititution protect you and your "mailbox" and me and mine respectively.

I am not tampering or trying to change your mind about the existence or condition of your box...it is you who are trying to make mine disappear!

I am willing to be civil about it - just wondering how you can say that the mail box on my personal property is gone (without evidence)?

Speed 123 blew up my mailbox last night with a homemade bomb.

At least that's what I firmly believe. Now I'm going to have Speed 123 arrested for the crime. It's up to Speed 123 to prove my belief is false. If it's not proven false, Speed 123 goes to jail. It's not my burden to prove the claim, but the burden falls squarely on Speed 123 to prove I'm wrong. In fact, no matter what I claim Speed 123 did, my claim remains undeniably true until proven otherwise. Speed 123 also shaved my dog clean in the night, and buried a pirate ship in my front yard.

Prove you didn't. Does that sound fair, Speed 123?

I hear academia is a tough field these days so I guess they are not mutually exclusive states. :)

However, I would hazard a guess that Stan is not a prof and is writing a basement somewhere...

Speed 123,

You ask, "Are you a professor?

Or are you writing from your mother's basement?"

Why "or"? Are these two states contradictory?

CRH

If someone believes in God...and you or Hitchens say that this false...I think the burden is on those who wish to negate personal belief.

However, Hitchens will probably be too busy counting hundreds to address this issue.

Oh Speed123,

I have made no claims as to the existance of God or the accuracy of the Bible. I have no burden of proof. Besides how can one prove that something or someone that nobody has ever seen does not exist?

Sorry, but the burden of proof exists for those who insist it to be true.

Ah, Stan, the consummate anti Catholic bigot.

Are you a professor?

Or are you writing from your mother's basement?

And, CWS, please enlighten us all with your proof that God does not exist.....

CWS: Don't ask him for proof or evidence. Like Jack Nicholson actually said, he "can't handle the truth." Or more accurately, like he misquoted, he "can't stand the truth."

"Anthony Stevens-Arroyo", 1:03 pm

I noticed you used the words proof and evidence in your rather pithy response. I am sorry, maybe I missed it, where was YOUR proof and evidence again?

You know, God, the afterlife, accuracy of the Bible, etc.

Proof and evidence along those subjects would be nice.

Please enlighten...

Ah, Anthony,

Spoken like a true man of God. I am sure jesus is pleased.

BTW, how is Cardinal Law doing at his job in the Vatican? Thank goodness the last Pope (you remember the "saint") chose to let that poor, misunderstood child molester of the hook from his impending trial in Massachusetts.

Justice indeed.

Thank you, Stan D. for correcting the "e" with an "o". Also "It" should be "If" and ",r" should be inverted.

These are the type of corrections that carefully avoid substance, reasoning, logic, proof, evidence, and rational discourse. Of course, when you write blogs to vent emotional deprivation, insults and dismissals are fine. If it helps you get through the night, I'm glad to oblige.

To the poster who just pretended to be Anthony Steven-Arroyo, you're not doing him any favors with such a lame post.

On the other hand if it was truly from Mr. Stevens-Arroyo then you just made yourself look awfully petty and insecure.

BTW it's Jack Nicholson, "Professor"

“Why would anyone wish to cross over on this man-made bridge?” In his mind, the question is merely rhetorical; but even a first-grader knows the answer: “To get to the other side.”

Very good. And seemingly harmless in a humans-are-naturally-inquisitive sort of way. However, it is the case that religious leaders teach people that the only way to get across the bridge is to violently shove others aside and toss other people over the rails.

That's why the bridge to nowhere is better off being burned.

“Why would anyone wish to cross over on this man-made bridge?” In his mind, the question is merely rhetorical; but even a first-grader knows the answer: “To get to the other side.”

Very good. And seemingly harmless in a humans-are-naturally-inquisitive sort of way. However, it is the case that religious leaders teach people that the only way to get across the bridge is to violently shove others aside and toss other people over the rails.

I get a column in these On Faith blogs and it would seem unfair to try and have the last word. I have learned a great deal from bloggers who are generally both sharp witted and opinionated. After spending so many years as a professor, I am content to have people react to an issue out of their own guts rather than simply accept everything because the “teacher” said so. My ego doesn’t require that everyone agree with me.

Just a few clarifications for this column as well as previous and future ones are merited here.

Mr. Hitchens did not read my books but pronounces a death sentence on what I wrote, so why can’t I do the same? Or is it supposed by some that being British makes him superior to me, a Puerto Rican?

Mr. Hitchens’ list of books does not include a single one that was published by “peer review,” that is, judged by qualified scholars in the field and considered to advance knowledge in the field. This is a requirement for a professor with a doctorate in theology. The list offered on a blog merely proves my point. (Unfortunately, the blogger doesn’t realize that he has verified rather than refuted me.)

But I don’t want to be “cute”. Let me respond like Jack Nickelson: “You want the truth, you can’t stand the truth!”

Mr. Hitchens’ latest book cites John Cornwall as his authority on Pius XII (pg. 239), yet Cornwall book has no standing in the academy because of stupidities like saying “I remember how we all felt when in 1942...” Cornwall was born in 1941, so his memory is invented. But if you are an essayist you can cherrypick any statement, any book and offer it as “proof” for your position. Only the uninformed fall for this. It the next time you need a surgical operation on your heart you call the plumbe,r I would understand how you would prefer the opinion of an essayist to that of a scholar.

If you want to understand what self-centered, non-scientific opinion is like, consider the titles to some of the chapters in this Hitchens’ book: “Religion Kills,” “Why Heaven Hates Ham,” “The New Testament Exceeds Evil...”. Besides being vicious and ill-spirited, Hitchens’ confuses myths with fable (pg. 167, et passim) so that what is symbol and poetry is held to literal scientific language – and then he constantly criticizes religion for not being scientific enough! By changing the premise of the argument to suit his fancy, Hitchens disqualifies his book from serious consideration as a reputable academic publication.

And why would anyone countenance the arrogance of an essayist who writes (pg. 7) that “Aquinas, Maimonides and [Cardinal] Newman were...laughably ignorant”? Disagree with their thinking, if you will, but any decent person would recognize that Aquinas, Maimonides and Newman were anything by “laughably ignorant”.

I would not waste my time refuting such nonsense from Hitchens or anyone else. If some bloggers prefer not to think and suck up to writers like Hitchens who tell them what they want to hear, I simply don’t care: it’s a free country.

"Atheists rear atheists"

True. But people who don't believe in the Seven Flying Heads of Widdi-Widdi rear children who also don't believe in the Seven Flying Heads of Widdi-Widdi. In fact, it's probably not even mentioned at all, because I just made it up.

The difference between atheist parents and religious ones is that religious parents ADD thoughts to children's minds and atheists simply decline to foist fallacious ideas on their offspring.

"Religion can be compared to a bridge we build to link our earthly existence with the great beyond." Key words in Mr. Stevens-Arroyo's sentence are "WE BUILD." In other words, religion is man-made. Not a novel concept, Mr. S-A; I believe Christopher Hitchens has said it before you.

Angela, when you say, "May God's peace find you and cover you through Jesus Christ so that you may repent and be at peace. I will pray for you" does it occur to you that this could be perceived as intolerance when aimed toward someone who obviously doesn't share your faith?

Mr Mark - you are relentless. Please keep it up.

I think that confrontinging religionists who make assertions with little or no basis in fact is an important first step in insisting on honesty and accountability in any discussion about religion. Too bad it's come to this, but definitely time to change it.

Anthony M. Stevens-Arroyo's comments demonstrate that, when your case is too weak to attack the idea (religion poisons everything), then you attack the source, in this case Christopher Hitchens. It only works with those who have prejudged.

bdm

Yoyo
You are absolutely accurate about the social and cultural aspect of religion. Not only do we tend to choose a faith similar if not identical to that of our parents, but when disillusioned by our family faith, we tend to find a culturally friendly alternative.

The problem is not religion per se, but the wrong religions -- those based on faith and monotheistic lawgivers are the destructive ones. Buddhism, Confucianism, and Daoism seem better alternatives than simple rejection of rituals and ceremonies. Keep religion; just get the faith and the diety concept out of it... or have thousands of 'imaginary friends' as the Hindus do. Westerners seem 'stuck' on their three religions (Christianity、Islam, and Judaism). Maybe it is simply time to cast a wider net and broaden our horizons.

PforProphet opines:

"pogroms, crusades, and jihads, not to mention the oppression and violence perpetrated in the name of 'divine right to rule', and 'carrying christ to the infidel' among many, many other gruesome chapters of history."

Hmmm...perhaps you are confusing religion with politics carried out in the name of religion?

Atheists are great at SOUNDING rational and intellectual - must get your cue from Hitchens and Freud before him - yet leaving out embarassing facts of your own:

The same way you credit crusades etc to religion, I will credit 100 million dead by rational, scientific and ATHEIST communism in the last one hundred years!

Stop pointing fingers and attempting to infantilize...it makes you look stupid.

IF YOU COMPARE DAVID ARONOVITCH AND HITCHENS,
THEY LOOK LIKE TWINS SEPARATED AT BIRTH.

LISTENING TO THEM, ONE CAN ONLY SUSPECT THEY
HAVE SIMILAR ETHNIC/CULTURAL BACKGROUNDS:

PROBABLY EASTERN EUROPEAN JEWISH, FAR-LEFT TYPES.

PLAYING CONTRARIAN GETS HIM MORE FREE PUBLICITY.

Anthony M. Stevens-Arroyo's premise that there is, indeed,"the other side," begs a question: I know what you're trying to say, Mr. Stevens-Arroyo. What evidence do you have to support it?
And one last thought. Was Thomas Aquinas one of those, The Earth is Flat guys?

Hitchens is dead right in general; religion as we know it has overwhelmingly been a force for evil in history. The charity programs enacted and drug addicts saved hardly register when weighed against the literally millions of lives lost because of pogroms, crusades, and jihads, not to mention the oppression and violence perpetrated in the name of 'divine right to rule', and 'carrying christ to the infidel' among many, many other gruesome chapters of history.
That said, Hitchens is disappointingly narcissistic and short-sighted in decrying all forms of religion as opiates and cons.
It cannot be denied that a fundamental need in humans exists to connect with the universe at large, and to attempt to do so is to be left staring into an abyss of meaningless and yawning blackness, shouting into a space where the only audience is yourself. Contrary to Hitchens' assertion that this is what takes real guts and that spirituality is merely denial of the facts, faith in spite of doubt is the truest courage, and relying on only the evidence of our senses is not only self-aggrandizing, but cowardly as well. In refusing to admit there is much beyond our knowledge, we fail to eschew the comfort of familiar human experience for the reality of a universe that is staggeringly wide, and, even if it is mostly empty, surely contains more wonders and oddities than even the most powerful imagination can conceive.
Oh, and in a final note to the editor, please do your best to remove the bigoted rants from this space. Serious debate is no place for excited apes who claim to speak for saviors and saints but can barely operate their own brain cells well enough to type...

Dont forget:

Atheists rear atheists...

You think "indoctrination" is a one way street, right?

When Voltaire said that if there were no god the people would have to invent one....he was suggesting of course that that is precisely what happens.
The concept of religion as groupthink supports this way of seeing things. One generally believes what ones group believes.
Mormon families rear mormon children.
Hutterites bring up little hutterites.
Shia muslims rear their children to become big shia,
and Sunnis rear Sunnis. Catholics produce catholic kids,protestants protestant kids,and so on.
Most of us are indoctrinated in childhood...never
to see reason again.
As far as we know there is no supernatural world
or a place called paradise where we go to play golf when we die.As far as we know we just die.

Gaby, check this page for a link to Jozevz:
http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendID=29294327

I suspect our friend here is enjoying a metaphysical and gentle leg pull!

That link will allow you to join his youthful circle of friends too.

Anthony M. Stevens-Arroyo's comments demonstrate that, when your case is too weak to attack the idea (religion poisons everything), then you attack the source, in this case Christopher Hitchens. It only works with those who have prejudged.

bdm

Angela -

Sorry about the typos. I meant to write,

"Have you read anything written by Mr Hitchens...etc"

Dear Angela -

How you read anyhing written by Mr Hitchens, including his latest book, "god is not great," or are you relying on second-hand information to form your opinion?

Please answer honestly.

Thanks in advance.

I share amply, the view of Christopher Hitchens.
I belong to this thought of school, That Human, have largely manufactured religion, and impose, spread it around the world on cripple human, do not forget church was one time the main ruler on earth.

love
Mapuel

Of course it is manmade. That's a no-brainer 4 me.

Jozevz

May God's peace find you and cover you through Jesus Christ so that you may repent and be at peace. I will pray for you.

Wow, I didn't read this entire thread, but how sad. It is a shame that hate found its way to this board. I love Jesus Christ, the Son of God, but I hate no man and blame no one for the choices all people make everyday on how to live their lives from their spiritual beliefs to their moral behavior. It is sad when people "come out the closet" with intolerance and then others react in more intolerance and hate. Rather you're a Jew or a Christian, if you believe in one God, guess what, He's not on the side of any of that kind of crap. It's shameful.

While I never stand in the way of anyone and their steadfast views, I love the write-up up top by Anthony M. Stevens-Arroyo on this. He hits it. You don't know what you haven't experienced.

I’m a Christian (I love the Lord), but I wouldn’t try to convert a Buddhist or an Atheist, and I wouldn’t write a book to try to invalidate their beliefs. I have too much faith in my Lord for that—God gave each man a measure of faith. Once presented with the option to believe or not to believe, the choice is individual. This Hitchens guy made a choice, but he doesn’t make the rules or set the standard on how the rest of us should think or feel on the subject of God or religion.

Great writing doesn’t make him an authority on anything, and it surely didn’t make him wise in his choice of a topic to expound on. Yes, many religious rituals are man made. Loving God and being connected to Him runs much deeper.

Does what work, Officeman?

Does this work?

Great post, Edwin!

Edwin:

I love you man. Pass the hit.

I got news for you Edwin and your quote from School of Rock..."sticking it to the man"

the Jews are the "man"

Media and banking = mind and pocket book.

Nuff said.

ANONYMOUS/JUSTICE SEEKER, your hate for Jews echoes in the chambers of this blog. You are an anti-Semite. Period. I am pro-Palestinian in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but one issue alone does not permit me, at least logically, to dislike an entire race of people.

Also, allow me debunk your ridiculous rant. Just by reading in Genesis about the theme of the Fall, one can see that the very 1st position men elevated women to was that of a temptress. She is to blame for Man's Fall. Then, in the New Testament, we see Paul prohibiting women from teaching Christianity and speaking while in church (cf 1 Cor 14, 34-35;1 Tim 2, 12). Anonymous, women are seductive creatures that men desire & loose reason, at times, for them. We are logical animals my friend, but do not forget that we are also mammals. There is an animal instinct to pro-create inside all of us. Just like our ancestors, the primates. You speak of sex as if it is a curse. Kubrick did no worse by creating "Lolita" than "X" porn director did in filming any XXX flick. Persoally, I think you should try to get laid more often. I promise you that the ecstasy that an orgasm provokes is a natural sexual high, & God would approve of it. That is why he provided you w/ sexual organs & mental desires. No need to repress it. Just enjoy. Read the British Romantics on this subject of sexual repression.

About undermining Christ, get a grip. Ridiculing a guy w/ all of that dogma he carries is just a natural reaction to ANY PERSON WHO DOESN'T BELIEVE IN SUPERSTITIONS-in this case, Christianity. To some of us, the logical ones, or secular progressive, or liberals, or Lefties, or whatever term Fox News branded us this week, the thought that another human is the Son of a God, was born from a virgin, walked on water, died & resurreted 3 days later, sounds naive, & at times scary. And I am ommitting the fact that after 2000 years, some people still cling on to the notion that Rabbi Yeshua-that's right Anonymous, the dude was a full blooded Jew-is coming back. Jesus, like every human being to ever exist, is subject to scrutiny as well as ridiculing.

And last, please cultivate some Mary Jane. It will help you take the 6 foot stick out of your a**!! If you have a problem w/ Cannabis, talk to our Creator. He, or She, made the PLANT. Again, try cannabis, & I promise you that your mind will expand beyond your TV, church, buffet line, or whatever repressed activity you are into.

In conclusion, stop blaming Jews for "corrupting" America. Every side has its opposite. To your faith there is our logic & reason. To your rigid Christianity, televangelists, & W, we have our Hollywood Jews. Leave our Jews alone.

Now, let me leave you w/ some cold facts:

1. Jesus is dead & he is never coming back. I got history on my side on this one.

2. Jesus, your prophet, was a Jewish Rabbi, who specifically addressed issues pertaining to Judaism only. Also, he never left instructions to create a new sect under his name. If he is truly coming back, as you believe that he will, than I suggest you stop your anti-Semite stand. He might not like that. Just a thought.

3. Our faith beyond death is unknown to us all. Neither I nor you know what is ahead. We must learn to cope w/ this world & not w/ an imaginary heaven, or hell, after death.

4. Sex is great. I can testify on this one. In Borat's terms: "I like!!"

5. Drugs, I am only speaking of MJ in this case, expand your mind. Man-engineered drugs-such as alcohol, coke, heroin, PCP, & crystal method-can lead to abuse, & in turn, abuse can lead to crime or death. No doubt. However, and again, MJ is a natural by-product of the earth. I have never seen anyone overdose from it, and I have never seen anyone die from it. I testify for it!!

Peace,

Edwin

PS: Rock is only dangerous to you b/c it is-in Jack Black's immortal words in "School of Rock", or as you might want to call it, "another Hollywod flick from the Jewish menace in Hollywood"-about STICKING IT TO THE MAN!!

Correction:

I see that I have referred to Prof Arroyo as a "doctor" in some of my above posts. His listed credentials say no such thing. Sorry for the mistake.

Any religion that advocates killing, slavery and oppression of other's not of that faith should not exist. I don't see why this is a problem, we all want peace, right? Religion that advocates these things is not a vehicle for peace and love. It's okay for that religion to kill, inslave and oppress their own followers, but it should not happen to those of use that do not believe in that faith or it's system of hate.

Hi Jacob,

May lots of PHOTONS shine on you this beautiful day!!!

((((((((((Praise all ECLATi-ONs)))))))))

It's odd how you revert to first grade analogies, for that'a about the level of understanding of the human condition one must maitain in order to keep faith in Santa's other side of bridge. The idea of there being an other side of the bridge, a great beyond, is incredibly selfish. Do you think you are so important as to have a supernatural afterlife? Really? Your interest in immortality is somewhat self focused, no? And the truth can be one person's experience. Sorry bout that, but herds are often wrong. Deluded, like a crowd. Of sad, insecure folk, the bulk of religious types today. Forget about bridges, religion is fraud, threatening hell, and promising heaven, for about 10% of your nut. Are you too a fraud? Is this life not good enough? Do you need more? Need is funny huh? Enjoy this life, take responsibility for you life, and stop defrauding people.

Or are you paid for your religisou nature?

Att: S I L A S, et al, Greetings,

"The Age(s) of HASSLING Over a Name For who's Religion tastes better is near"

Thank G-d the Apocalytarians are Here, The great ECLATARIAN SOCIETY that Was Promised in them Five (5) Major INFIXUS BOOKS of old song, that magicaly became a NEW-SONG {like a New Butterfly vamping away from an Old Caterpillar corpse) and Eclati-On's are growing by the tens of thousands now, but eventually into Billions and then into ONE-UNIVERSAL-RELIGION-system there will evolve via O.U.R.S. "Book of ECLAT" etc...

The arguement is point less. Anthony believes that religion is man made and his belief is better than the belief in a religion. I guess he is contradicting his belief by saying that his belief is better than another's belief. How Ironic!

speed123 writes:
"Hi Mark,

I have seen Prof Arroyo respond on here before but to honest as opposed to loaded questions."

Sorry, but it is Prof Arroyo who has loaded the questions, not me. My questions are asked as honestly as those of anyone else on this blog, and I challenge you to show me how this particular question of mine has even the faintest whiff of dishonesty to it.

You say that in the past, Prof Arroyo HAS answered questions put to him by the peanut gallery. Fine. Here's his chance to clarify, expand or revise his remarks on what appears to be an outright lie. If he can show me to be in error, more power to him. I will stand corrupted...er...corrected, if needs must.

It's not your job, Speedy, to act as apologist for the good doctor. He can take care of himself...or maybe not...

Dear Melanchthon -

As I noted to Speedy, some On Faith columnists do take the time to respond to we anonymous posters. Yes, they are selective in their responses, but they don't eschew all responses.

I think that the good Dr Stevens-Arroyo has made a statement that is false on its face. Worse, he has used this false statement as THE basis for his present column. Assertations based on a lie are usually not to be trusted, and I don't see why the good doctor should be given a pass for making such lies just because he is a religionist.

All I am asking is that he back up his claims with something besides the empty rhetoric, false statements and glaringly dishonest conclusions of his column currently on display.

Were he any kind of a man, he would retract the column immediately, to salvage his own reputation, if nothing else.

Sadly, we all know that the column will remain as printed, no further dialogue will ensue from the good doctor, and I'll be forced to conclude that it is the good doctor - not Mr Hitchens - whose writings are driven by unlettered and undisciplined self-centeredness.

HARK! Who there? "Warm Heart" is in the Cyber Air. Ya!

Hi Mark,

I have seen Prof Arroyo respond on here before but to honest as opposed to loaded questions. I have also seen Corssan; however, Dominic seems to only reply to Concerned Christian ...., who I swear was a former teaching assistant or student the way he/she kisses the professors ass.

It is incredibly ignorant to list Nietzsche with Pol Pot, Stalin, and Jeffrey Dahmer.

PEACETROLL:

Why don't you just leave the "Peace" off your name and become "TROLL". It would suit you much better.

I could not agree more...w/ Hitchens!!

Dear Speedy -

Hi. How's tricks?

I doubt that Anthony will answer my questions, questions that challenge his rather bald-faced assertations. I would note that some columnists here - Susan Jacoby, John D Crossan, et al - do take the time to respond to comments made by we in the peanut gallery. That doesn't seem to hold true for the columnists here who are the biggest apologists for religion. They prefer to treat their On Faith columns like a verbal drive-by shooting.

Re: the list of Hitchens biographies. I imagine it will remain a rhetorical question until and unless Anthny deems to make a response and offer proof that supports his own assertations that every thing Hitchens writes is about...Hitchens.

Again, I'm not holding my breath.

ummm... "Mr. Mark"?

It's not that your points and postings aren't interesting or helpful. Your perspective is certainly as valuable as any other, if coming across as a little defensive.

The only thing... the "panelists" like Dr. Stevens-Arroyo (not 'Anthony') never participate in the later conversations. Nor, really, should they, given all of the actual psychosis and unthinking polemic (not your comments, but others)found on these pages. So, don't take offense if the good Doctor doesn't write back to you.

Do you think the Professor has time/patience to answer your personal questions, Mark?

Also, nice list of biographies there; was that a rhetorical quesiton?

If you can't attack the message, attack the messenger. Isn't that in scripture?

If you want to talk about the Siviets, you should learn more about them. They had no such belief about creating a new man based on reason. They wanted to create a new man based on Marxism-Leninism. Not the same thing.

I'm quite human, thank you, and I am a pacifist. No war, no torture in frame of reference. I went to jail for being an atheist right here in the U.S. but you would probably not even want to know about those little atrocities.

Well, I still haven't received an answer from Anthony to my earlier question. Should I wait?

Further to Anthony's statement that, "His writings turn on the axis of his own experience, twisting a theme every which way to examine how or if it relates to Mr. Hitchens’ own encounters."

OK, I'll bite, Anthony: please demonstrate the truth of your statement by telling me how it relates to these books by Mr Hitchens:

2006 Thomas Paine's "Rights of Man": A Biography, Books That Shook the World Series, Atlantic Books, ISBN 1-84354-513-6

2005 Thomas Jefferson: Author of America, Eminent Lives/HarperCollins, ISBN 0-06-059896-4

2002 Why Orwell Matters, Basic Books (US)/UK edition as Orwell's Victory, Allen Lane

2000 Unacknowledged Legislation: Writers in the Public Sphere, Verso

1987 Imperial Spoils: The Curious Case of the Elgin Marbles. Chatto and Windus (UK)/Hill and Wang (1988 US) / 1997

1984 Cyprus, Quartet, (revised editions as Hostage to History: Cyprus from the Ottomans to Kissinger, 1989 (Farrar Straus & Giroux) and 1997 (Verso)

Thanks in advance for your lettered response.

Andrew states:

"I was also taught that rigorous application of reason to moral questions never results"....

I believe the Soviets had the same intentions and guidelines, Andrew. They wanted a "new man" based on REASON.

So did the Jacobins before the Reign of Terror.

Are you human, Andrew...do you make mistakes and can reason be used to justify war and torture?

YES, just look at Iraq...

Speed:

I disagree with almost everything you post, but Hitchens is an embarassment to atheists everywhere. I was raised as an atheist, and I remain hard core to this day, but I was also taught that rigorous application of reason to moral questions never results in support for war or torture or any of the other atrocities Hitchens supports. But, then, I was also raised as a pacifist.

Interesting list of examples of atheists. All mass murderers except Nietzsche who never killed anyone and is one of the most thoroughly misunderstood writers in history.

I wish that Prof. Arroyo had a best selling book on religion; however, I doubt he would prositute himself like Hitchens or use the intellectual dishonesty that is key to this type of hysterics and big book sales.

As for Hitchens, what an idiot! I love how the Post and Slate give him tons of publicity...typical

As for religion posioning everything, considering Hitchen's fondness for violent communist leaders - a la Trotsky - and unfailing support for the modern Neo Con movement a la IRAQ, I don't think that his opinion is valid or objective.

Well you neo-zionists are doing one hell of a job in the world view now: Latest report card given here....

***************************************
Israeli forces committed "war crimes" and other "serious violations of international humanitarian law" in their 34-day war against Hizbullah last summer, Amnesty International said Wednesday.

"The Lebanon war was a continuation of a practice that displays contempt for human life by the army and the state leadership, first and foremost regarding the lives of Lebanese civilians of which 1,200 died during the war, but also with the lives of Israeli citizens," said Amnesty's Israel director, Amnon Vidan, in presenting its annual 2007 global report at a press conference in Tel Aviv on Tuesday. The report was embargoed until Wednesday.

"The Winograd Committee asked many questions but none about the decisions to attack civilian targets, the use of cluster bombs, or any other concerns about the harm caused to the Lebanese civilian population. Is this not indicative of the fact that these things simply do not matter to us?" he asked.

The human rights group also accused soldiers and settlers of committing "serious human rights abuses, including unlawful killings, against Palestinians, mostly with impunity." It also criticized Israel for deepening the poverty in Palestinian territories by withholding customs duties, and widening a network of blockades and other travel restrictions.

**************
Source (IsraelJpost.com):

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1178708665690&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

Submitt to the AMERICAN ECLATi-ON REPUBLIC now or Perish in your photon fonite heuristical midst later!

I don't believe that our friend Anthony has read Hitchens book. Why let a little thing like that stop him from commenting on it?

One need only look at the Middle East to see the pointlessness of professing ones own God over another.

As for Christians, ask the Native Americans or enslaved black and brown people about about how innocent they are.

I do not fully side with Hitchens on his views of religion (or his foolish assessment of the Iraq war), but sadly, he does have some valid points and raises some interesting questions about the damage done by mankind to mankind in the name of God.

I think if this just turns into a forum where clearly disturbed people can just dump their insanity then perhaps WaPo should consider terminating this dialog.

I think if this just turns into a forum where clearly disturbed people can just dump their insanity then perhaps WaPo should consider terminating this dialog.

"A conversation about religion" presupposes a special place for religion in conversation. We don't have a special section here for those who believe black cats are bad luck, or the earth is flat, but we do for the superstition which is called "religion". Of course, unless it is unpopular, in which case it is called a "cult."

Hitchens and the others questioning our unquestioning support of religion deserve praise, not cheap shots from the pro-superstitionists.

Check this out.

If zionism aint at the root of most world problems, I aint writting this.

I'll start with the slave trade. Freedom of speech is a beautiful thing,yes?!!!!! Spread truth!!!

******
The critics curiously use a Harvard English teacher, Henry Louis Gates, to offer historical clarity. Gates exhibits no evidence that he even read the book in his oft-quoted NY Times opinion. His willingness to make asinine historical claims with the glaring absence of support from reputable Black or Jewish historians proves Adam Clayton Powell's axiom: "Harvard has ruined more negroes than bad whiskey."

Overwhelming Evidence

The history that the old "Black-Jewish Coalition" clumsily avoids is the entire three century history of Jewish presence in South America and the Caribbean. But other highly acclaimed Jewish scholars have not been so blind:

*Lee M. Friedman, a one-time president of the American Jewish Historical Society, wrote that in Brazil, where most of the Africans actually went, "the bulk of the slave trade was in the hands of Jewish settlers."
*Marcus Arkin wrote that the Jews of Surinam used "many thousands" of Black slaves.
*Herbert I. Bloom wrote that "the slave trade was one of the most important Jewish activities here (in Surinam) as elsewhere in the colonies." He even published a 1707 list of Jewish buyers by name with the number of Black humans they purchased.
*Cecil Roth, writer of 30 books and hundreds of articles on Jewish history, wrote that the slave revolts in parts of South America "were largely directed against [Jews] as being the greatest slave-holders of the region."
*"I gather," wrote Jewish scholar Wilfred Samuels, "that the Jews [of Barbados] made a good deal of their money by purchasing and hiring out negroes..."
*According to the Jewish historians, all Barbadian Jews owned slaves - even the rabbi had "the enjoyment of his own two negro attendants."
*In Curaçao which was a major slave trading depot, Isaac and Susan Emmanuel report that "the shipping business was mainly a Jewish enterprise."
*Says yet another Jewish writer of the Jews of Curaçao, "Almost every Jew bought from one to nine slaves for his personal use or for eventual resale."
*Seymour B. Liebman in his New World Jewry, made it clear that "[t]he ships were not only owned by Jews, but were manned by Jewish crews and sailed under the command of Jewish captains."
*Moshe Kahan stated bluntly that in 1653-1658, " Jewish-Marrano merchants were in control of the Spanish and Portuguese trade, were almost in control of the Levantine trade...were interested in the Dutch East and West Indian companies, were heavily involved in shipping; and, most important, had at their disposal large amounts of capital."
*In Brazil, where most of our kidnapped ancestors were sent, Jewish scholar Arnold Wiznitzer is most explicit about Jewish involvement:

"Besides their important position in the sugar industry and in tax farming, they dominated the slave trade. From 1636 to 1645 a total of 23,163 Negro slaves arrived from Africa and were sold for 6,714,423 florins. The West India Company, which monopolized imports of slaves from Africa, sold slaves at public auctions against cash payment. It happened that cash was mostly in the hands of Jews. The buyers who appeared at the auctions were almost always Jews, and because of this lack of competitors they could buy slaves at low prices. On the other hand, there also was no competition in the selling of the slaves to the plantation owners and other buyers, and most of them purchased on credit payable at the next harvest in sugar. Profits up to 300 percent of the purchase value were often realized with high interest rates....If it happened that the date of such an auction fell on a Jewish holiday the auction had to be postponed. This occurred on Friday, October 21, 1644."

Source:
http://www.wakeupfromyourslumber.com/node/1763

There is, of course, a tendency I've noted in Christianity to ascribe no good motives or character to anyone outside it: in their belief, it would be 'self-centered' to do all kinds of things most humans want to do that may simply be no big deal to them:

And when Christians or their institutions do something bad, it's simply they weren't Christian *enough,* but when someone else does something bad within half a mile of non-Christianity, it's the non-Christianity's fault.

Systemic abuse in the Church? Blame homosexuals! Blame the victims for speaking up and 'causing all that distress!'

As for saying homosexuals are 'evil,' well, careful. Some gay kid with severe mental problems might believe you.

Dear Anthony -

From your comments above, I can't help but get the impression that you didn't actually read Hitchens' "god is not great." Anybody who has read the book - a book teaming with historical references - could not have written, "His writings turn on the axis of his own experience."

Maybe you could post a quick note to disabuse me of my observation.

PeaceTroll:

What did I say to you yesterday?

Professor Stevens-Arroyo,

Your essay is very well written and, I imagine, is as good or better than Mr. Hitchens's writing.

However I question your including the serial killer Jeffrey Dahmer in your list of atheists.

If you google either "Jeffrey Dahmer religion" or "Famous Members of the Church of Christ" you will find this:

"Dahmer was born into a family of devout members of the Stone-Campbell denomination known as the "church of Christ" or "Churches of Christ." He was an active churchgoer until the age of 5. After that, Dahmer was never again actively religious or a regular churchgoer until after his arrest and imprisonment.

"After being imprisoned for his crimes, Dahmer sought out the church of his childhood and petitioned to be re-baptized in the Church of Christ. This caused some controversy, but he persisted until he was able receive this rite, which he was apparently sincere in requesting. Shortly after being re-baptized into the Church of Christ, Dahmer was murdered by his cellmate...."

Best wishes to you.

Hint: Justice-Seeker demonstrates for us one of the common ways it can go wrong, above. :)

(apologies for the careless editing, above, though, I got distracted. With corrections: )

I think we get into trouble when we start saying the "bridge" is perfect, 'better than man-made' and must not be questioned or examined.

That's too often the *implication* of certain forms of religion, which, I don't think, disqualifies them as spiritual practices, but certainly this doesn't excuse the inherent problems when they're used as an 'unquestionable' way to exert domination over others in one form or another.

Certain no other so-absorbing a venture would be allowed to take such priority over human rights and freedoms, and responsible treatment of the world around us ...for such unverifiable gains.

Constantly bringing up people called 'Atheist' (Who smacked all the hate and paranoia into Stalin in the first place?) doesn't absolve 'religion' of where it's gone horribly wrong... every time, it seems, as a form of government.

The entertainment industry has long been used by the Jews who own it to lower moral standards and destroy good values.

The popular music of the 60's to the present time encourages young people to use drugs, and attacks normal family structures. The TV and movie industry has been used to promote every kind of sexual perversion, and to manipulate youth into not respecting their elders. The entertainment industry has undermined Christianity. Movies and TV programs have of course in recent years been promoting bad feelings against Muslims, by portraying them in negative ways.

Sexual Perversion: 'Lolita' by Stanley Kubrick, 'Crash' (1998) by David Cronenberg.

Undermine Christianity: 'Jesus Christ Superstar', 'The Last Temptation of Christ', and 'The Greatest Story Ever Told', which portrays Christ as just a man who taught people to have faith.

Jewish Singers Undermining Christianity: Paul Simon "Blessed", Leonard Cohen "Suzanne'.

Promoting Drug Use: The Rolling Stones with their Jewish manager Klein, The Beatles with their Jewish manager Epstein, Jewish performer/songwriters Bob Dylan "everybody must get stoned") and Grace Slick (Jefferson Airplane) and many others.

Promoting destruction of the family and relationships: Jewish Carly Simon "The Way I Heard it Should Be", Paul Simon "50 Ways"

There are many, many more examples. Younger people can come up with more current examples.

The Jewish Supremacists hate the good values that still exist in Muslim countries. They would love to go in to Iran and use the entertainment industry to undermine healthy Muslim values, and promote sexual promiscuity, perversion, homosexuality, drug use, materialism, and other vices.

justice seeker | Mon, 2006-12-25 07:46

Ooooh, SNAP!

I think we get into trouble when we start saying the "bridge" is perfect, 'better than man-made' and must not be questioned or examined.

That's too often the *implication* of certain forms of religion, which, I don't think, disqualifies them as spiritual practices, but certainly this doesn't excuse the inherent problems when they're used as an 'unquestionable' way to exert domination over others in one form or another.

Certain no other so-absorbing a venture would be allowed to take such priority over human rights and freedoms, and responsible treatment of the world around us.

Constantly bringing up people called 'Atheist' (who smacked all the hate and paranoia into Stalin in the first place?) doesn't absolve 'religion' of where it's gone horribly wrong... every time, it seems, as a form of government.

Must read

http://www.wakeupfromyourslumber.com/node/309

Christopher Hitchens is wrong

ZIONISM POISONS EVERYTHING.