Ralph Reed is a sleazy con artist who hides his predatory nature behind a mask of piety; Hannity is a slow-witted thug with a simple-minded view of the world that he takes straight from the religious. It was therefore rather delightful to see Christopher Hitchens plainly reject their ridiculous demand for a hypocritical expression of sorrow at the death of a rich old shaman.
I was particularly appalled at Hannity’s list of Falwell’s virtues that included founding Liberty University. If founding a compound where ignorance is encouraged to fester is one of his accomplishments, I will admit that he was much much more successful at it than Jim Jones, David Koresh, or Elizabeth Clare Prophet…but I refuse to regard it as positive on Falwell’s ledger sheet.
It was good to see how to handle the right-wing blowhards well, too: charge ahead, don’t allow them to force you into their frame, and talk right over their diatribes.
What makes the Liberty U gig doubly dubious is the fact that he had to take money from another hard right icon, the “reverend” Moon himself. And perhaps that makes it triply dubious, as Moon considers himself the embodiment of God (or just *a* god) on earth. So, basically, Falwell’s vision of Ignorance U was fulfilled by a false idol (I believe Commandment 1 was duly broken in the process), with the false idol’s money paying for essentially everything, since Falwell was broke.
All those years leading the supposedly great Moral Majority, and he had to farm it out to someone else to get it done. Now if only Hitchens would unleash himself upon Dobson, who’s arguably much more relevant to the discussion of propagating ignorance at the present time
Hitchens, Dawkins, and Harris are the sorts that give me hope.
Hannity is a particularly unpleasant, ignorance-worshiping slug, and Hitchens really did fine with him.
Still laughing over that. Reed is such a huckster and I loved that Hitchens went for the throat immediately upon hearing his name.
Hah!
That was great – I must admit, I generally don’t like Hitchens very much (though I’m not denying his talent his talent and eloquence) but that whole vid was brilliant. He totally dominated the screen.
To echo a comment a comment I read on a different forum, I think Dawkins just found his ‘bad cop’.
Mamma mia!! although I think his support of the very counter-productive Iraq invasion is weird as hell… I think over the last few days I’ve come to realize I might want to have Chris’s babies (huuummm — hope we can skip the normal steps one takes to that end — and anotomically I am challegned for the task to begin with — but nevertheless — you get the point)!! BRAVO CHRIS – appreciate your sobriety too!!
Seriously — it is time we say what we mean and mean what we say. It is time we helped move the US into the true 21st century.
I love that these gasbags try to critisize Hitchens for slamming the still-warm carcass of Falwell — by giving him a forum to do it all over again.
Hannity really shouldn’t be inthe same room with anyone with a 3-digit IQ.
You’re far too kind. Hannity is Rush Limbaugh wannabe without the flashes of wit that, as much as I hate to admit it, Limbaugh is able to show from time to time. (Back in the 1990s until around 2000 or 2001 or so, I used to be a regular listener; it’s not something I’m proud of, but there you go.) Not surprisingly, he trotted out the old “atheists like Mao and Stalin” bit.
Indeed.
If I were Hitchens, I would looked into the camera with an incredulous look and said something like, “You know what I think about Falwell; you know what I wrote about him after his death. What did you expect me to say when you invited me to be on your show?”
In reality, it’s all show biz. The producers, Hannity, et al all knew what Hitchens would say. In fact, they were counting on him saying bad things about Falwell and refusing to express any sorrow over his death, allowing them to become all puffed up with mock indignation at his “hatefulness.”
Abramoff… sheesh. Proofreading for the win.
“Not surprisingly, he trotted out the old “atheists like Mao and Stalin” bit.”
Its not surprising because it is true – they were atheists. Thats a point that rationalists still need to counter better in any debate with the religious, because it WILL get thrown at you. The best counter argument I’ve seen recently is the point that Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot etc were not religious but they were still men of faith – the faith being in their own political dogma. In no way were they individuals of reason or advocates of rationalism.
Back to Hitchins again – Mwahahahahahaha!
Can I say fuck?
Fuck Ralph Reed and his smug attitude. How old is that guy? He must be as old or a bit older than I am, and I was here in all my naiveté thinking that all these rich white evangelical creationist bastard politicians would die out and/or fade away in a couple of decades. Fuck him. He took my dream and pissed on it.
That’s a good point.
That Torquemada, Hitler, and Cortez were religious individuals is also a good counter. Martin Luther was a virulent anti-semite. And so on, and so forth.
It is interesting that atheists like Hitchens & PZ are constantly preaching that those who hold to religious beliefs are “intolerant” and “hateful”, and dismiss the fact that religion can in any way aid in leading a moral life.
Yet, after listening to the pure unadulterated hatred and intolerance the two of them spew at those who don’t cater to their ideals makes one wonder why more atheists aren’t completely rejecting their behavior.
I’ve read about some of the stuff that Falwell has said that I certainly would never agree with, but in comparison to how Hitchens and PZ carry on, I can’t imagine how they can condemn the man.
Sheesh…are you people completely blind? How is the PZ/Hitchen behavior any different than Falwell’s? PZ preaches hatred on a DAILY basis!
I’m curious how many of the Pharyngula readers actually watch this stuff on television. There’s precious little depth, if any, and mainstream news is such garbage. Why pay any attention to it at all? In my mind, it’s no different than reading Watchtower or something…
I loved Hitchens’ message but Hitchens looked like death warmed over and that certainly doesn’t help. I’m not implying that he needs to look like a model or anything, but he did look rather ghoulish, and coupled with not “respecting” Falwell’s death, probably didn’t go over very well with the viewing audience. TV is a visual medium.
Hitchens was unapologetic, no nonsense and even spoke to the aburbidty of being asked to be a guest so he could speak his mind and then getting slammed for speaking his mind. It’s great to see someone speak to the truth and not sugarcoat it.
Oh He’ll fade out. He’s a gigantic scumbag. Just look up what he tried to do with Abramoff and insurance scams involving black churches.
Loved Hitchens’s closing remark. “If you gave Fallwell an enema he could’ve been buried in a matchbox.”
I think it’s just a priceless irony that Falwell harped on the sins of others while it was obvious that he indulged in gluttony. He liked to say that our tolerance of “sins” like homosexuality and abortion were ruining our country by courting the wrath of God, but there’s no debate abut the health effects of obesity. Furthermore, gluttony, as well as several other sins that Falwell practiced regularly, are among the seven deadly sins, which are held by Christians to lead to eternal damnation. Homosexuality and abortion didn’t make the list.
FTK, you’re so cute when you’re showing off your willful ignorance.
A Fox news person is calling for human decency?
Bwahahahahaha!
He’s going to be on Radio Open Source on Monday (a whole hour!).
http://www.radioopensource.org/marys-notes-may-17-2007/
As I like to put it, there is a world of difference between believing that there is no god and believing that there is one, and you’re it!
Hitchens jeering “Jack Abramoff” at Ralph Reed was the funniest thing I’ve seen in a long time. Gee, how could Hannity and Colmes have missed that part of the little weasel’s biography?
Forthekids–
Regarding “religion can in any way aid in leading a moral life”….
I have to disagree. While religion may yield the same result as a moral life; it does so with threats of violence against those who break these moral codes, and with false promises for those who hold to them.
In this way, religion gets people to live a moral life in much the same way you can get a small child to be behave for a short time– it offers either a “spanking” or some sort of “candy.” We don’t often expect a small child to understand the reasons behind our request, so the parent knows this is a shortcut to getting the result they want. At some point in time, though, most parents hope to see their child internalize these lessons and no longer require punishment or reward for correct actions.
However, religion never moves past this situation. It continues (and has continued, through nearly all of the world’s major religions) to offer this system of rewards and punishments. The result? Occasional moral behavior when someone feels they’re being watched, and childishness the rest of the time.
As for PZ, I suppose he’s a lot like the rest of us here– just tired of seeing wave after wave of people bound to such ignorant, medieval ways of seeing the world; especially when such belief holds us all back from a promising future.
First of all, what is it about being blind that would prevent someone from discerning someone’s moral character? The blind cannot see, but they are as perceptive as you or I. Well, as I, anyway.
Second, the difference between PZ’s and Hitchens’s behavior and that of Falwell is that the objects of their scorn have earned it by their deliberate words and deeds. As we all learned in Philosophy 101, the principle of tolerance is not advanced by tolerance of intolerance. We should oppose it with all our might.
Lovely stuff!
Hitchens, just by knowing his stuff and being able to speak with confidence had them all over the ropes, hannity resorting to the desperate haymaker of pol pot!!
As they say, if that was a boxing match the ref would have stepped in and stopped the contest.
What a bold and progressive moral stance those guys have – pointing out that one of their number was better than Mao or Stalin. If only all of us would aspire to such heights.
But on second thought, they say that Falwell “murdered” no one, but how many people did Stalin “murder” with his own hands (outside of war)? Pointing out how
gayskulaks are undermining the way of life – is that a crime all of a sudden?Did you catch Hitchens’s last jab?
“If you gave Falwell an enema, he could be buried in a matchbox.”
That sure would save a lot of trees.
I find it extremely difficult to be impolite. Mr Hitchens delights me with his unappologetic honesty. I think he is saying what many many people are thinking and it is so nice!
Yay! I think he’s ‘Emboldening’ me! Oh My!
Forthekids: there’s a big difference between intolerence of hateful and bad ACTIONS, or of irrationality that plays itself as the light and the way at the expense of justice and progress, or of frauds and cons…. and the intolerance of people for just being themselves, and/or who want to control their own bodies and lives in a free modern society. I should have been politely tolerant of Germans who promoted the Nazi agenda?!?!? I should have let their ideas have equal standinging in a rational and moral world? I should have let their absurd and dangerous ideas respectfully stand? I think you’d say NOT – at least I hope you would. On the otherhand I doubt PZ or Chris or I would castigate the German simply for being generic German, or wanting to live a life — even a pious one if they want – in the confines of their life. Yet Fawell built a fortune and power on making scapegoats out of “other” people simply being themselves or living appropriately FREELY.
PZ and most here do NOT preach hate or intolerance … they just advocate for rationality and modernity, and/or react to the seige of the intolerant on their hard won freedoms and knowledge.
You know, I think one of the problems in this debate is EXACTLY what FTK’s comment points out… that they don’t see or understand what’s going on. That hatred of IGNORNACE, FOLLY, and PREJUDICE is the same as hating Jews, gays, and women in dangerous or unfortunate pregnancies.
I wonder, if FTKs and others of that ilk, would have agreed with Reed’s criticism if Hitchens were exposing Hitler for his hatred of Jews, or Saddam for his repression of ethnic groups, or any other nasty, hateful piece of work that’s shaped our world in the last century (oops, Reed said half century, didn’t he?)
The whole idea that we sit in silence when there are these characteristics in society (misogyny, anti-Semitism, gay bashing , and prejudice of all kinds) and NOT refute those who carry them out is stupid…
FTKs, if you’re following in the footsteps of Christ I imagine you wouldn’t want to honor Falwell either. Didn’t Jesus, after all, overturn the con artists (er, money changers) fleecing the devout at the temple? Sounds like he wouldn’t have liked Falwell to much either.
The best point Hitchens made is that, if you admire Falwell for his charitable work, you ought to give the same credit to Hamas and Hezbollah.
Thanks for posting these YouTubes!!
I normally dont watch CNN/FOX/whatever, so I would have totally missed these Hitchens goldmines! Oh my god Im going to be cracking up about the enema–>matchbox comment for weeks! AAAAAAHAHAHAHAHA!
Hitch is a prolific writer – and (whether you agree with his argument, or not) his style is delightful, complex, and engaging.
When GiNG came out, I hit up half.com for copies of a lot of Hitch material. His book on Jefferson is fascinating and brilliant. His “Letters to a young contrarian” are a bit tricky reading but contain some amazing thought-gems of antitheistic reasoning. And I was enthralled and appalled by his “The Missionary Position” – a debunking of Mother Teresa. Reading all this material, one realizes that Hitch has put as much humanistic thought into his reasoning as Dawkins has put scientific thought. Unlike Dawkins, Hitch is immune to the DI-style scientific nitpicking about details of evolutionary biology. Personally, I feel Hitch’s approach is the more devastating as a result.
“I do not envy the believers their faith. I am relieved to think that the whole story is a sinister fairy tale; life would be miserable if what the faithful affirmed was actually the case.
Why do I say that? Well, there may be people who wish to live their lives under a cradle-to-grave divine supervision; a permanent surveillance and monitoring. But I cannot imagine anything more horrible and grotesque. It would be worse, in a way, if the supervision was benign. (I have my answer reading if I turn out to be mistaken about this: at the bar of judgement I shall argue that I deserve credit for an honest conviction of unbelief)
…
I touched upon the threat of hell with which the devout have always reinforced their ostensibly kindly recommendations, but just consider for a moment what their heaven looks like. Endless praise and adoration, limitless abnegation and rejection of self; a celestial North Korea.”
How can one argue with *THAT*, I ask?? In the context of faith, it’s *TRUTH* – all one can throw against that argument is, “Yeah, but you’ll LOVE IT.”
Several have commented on Hitchens’ support for the Iraq war as being hard to swallow.
Indeed, it is. But let me say this: Hitchens does not hold an opinion lightly. He has spent a great part of his life thinking about Islam and its effects, the holy land, politics, racism, and religion. From other things I’ve heard him say, I know that he’s not simply a rightwing patsy on this issue. I don’t agree with all of his logic, either, but damn it – the man is far better educated and experienced than I am on the topic. I value his opinion greatly, and it’s clear that he has a horror of Islamic nuttery and a deeper understanding of the implications of the Sunni/Shia divide than most of us ever will.
I also wish we had stayed out of Iraq, but I’m not so dismissive of Hitchens’ thoughts as to simply say “well, I’m glad he’s on my side about religion and Jefferson and Mother Theresa and Poverty and gun control and antismoking laws… but I’ll utterly discount his thinking about the middle east.” That would be a huge mistake. Hitchens is someone it’s almost an honor to disagree with, but only an absolute fool would dismiss him as having no solid basis behind his position.
That was the most satisfying TV I have seen in some time. It’s like Hannity & Reed were PYGMIES+DWARVES, going up against a Tyrannosaurus.
:,(
Please ban FTK.
for the children…
Isn’t Liberty U the one that gave ignorant uneducated bigot inHannity an honorary degree? No wonder he mentions it, no real school would stoop so low.
Stephen Colbert gets to the heart of intolerance in this clip. It would be hilarious if it weren’t, of course, absolutely true.
I think FTK wants to go in the Dungeon.
Maybe it’s become a badge of honour among those like her.
When Reed was accusing Hitchens of undermining civility and debasing discourse by not showing respect for the pain of Falwell’s family, and Hannity was accusing him of being mean and indecent, I was wishing Hitchens would bring up the point that Falwell showed no such consideration for the families of young men dying in AIDS hospices when he repeatedly proclaimed that they were suffering horribly as a punishment from God, and that Falwell himself, in more candid moments, admitted to cynically manipulating the media with comments calculated to be controversial and sensational. Decency, respect for those suffering and dying, and civil discourse were not things valued by Falwell.
Max: Damn right.
Funny FTK yammers about intolerance – this is the hypocritical dimwit that tends not to even let comments see the light of day on her blog…
Protecting children by dismissing ignorance should hardly be considered as “preaching hatred.”
Is it me, or does Hitchens seem more sober since Falwell croaked?
David Livesay:
I really like your response to the “Stalin-was-an-atheist” fallacy and, if you don’t mind, I’ll adopt it word-for-word (with attribution when practicable). I wrote a blog post based on it, and I would like to invite you to read it and comment on it.
(I apologize for blog-whoring, but my blog is in its infancy and I have a strong parental instinct to foster its growth. :-) )
Oh, man, I think Hannity and co. have finally met their match…I never thought I’d see the day when someone so honest and secure in his opinions would make it onto TV. Between Hitchens and John Stewart, I may actually have a little hope for America.
I think Hitch provides, in his articles and books, a perfect signpost of who we should hate: Not the deluded person in the pew who has been conned into thinking that faith is a virtue, but the leader who does or should know better and co-opts his followers’ ignorance for his own ends. It is acceptable, and perhaps morally imperative to hate James Dobson, D. James Kennedy, Ralph Reed, Pat Robertson, Joe Ratzinger, and the like (I confess that Billy Graham gets a pass from me because I used to work for him and I actually liked him–“I am large; I contain multitudes”). I am thoroughly intolerant and an unrepentant elitist. Any rationalist in this culture who is not is simply not paying attention. And I do not see how concern for humaneness, truth, and progress can help but lead to a hatred of the enemies of those values. That’s not a call for violence or oppression, but it is a call for zeal. Hitch is a model of that zeal–perhaps not perfect, but damned good.
As for religion engendering or promoting morals, the only “morals” it does that for are the ones it made up. Mostly that has to do with grovelling before undetectable despots and activities with genitals. It’s been 50,000 years since any healthy, functioning human has had to be told that murder, theft, and deception within one’s tribe are wrong, or that one should generally treat others as one wishes to be treated. Unless not boiling baby goats in their mother’s milk, trimming baby penises, or wasting a good part of every day hunched on a rug are considered moral advancements, religion has provided precisely nothing–possibly excepting the motivation to act abominably against the out-group.
It seems Fred Phelps will be picketting Falwells funeral.
Icing on the cake.
Fox is trying to make news out of Hitchens… not Falwell’s death.
If they were smart (never happen in the real world) they’d have ignored Hitchens and moved straight into coverage of “Falwell – A Man and his Works” dribble.
Giving Hitchen’s air time will only spread his point of view, and while it may rally the Ignorant Right against him, he’s one of the guys that thought going to Iraq was a good idea. Do they really want to pick a fight with him?
If you gave Falwell an enema…
Well that mental picture has completely ruined my evening.
He had to abbreviate the put down.
Should of started… “Jerry Falwell was so full of shit that…”
Now on Bill Maher’s show you would of gotten the full joke.
I’ve heard people make the claim that Stalin and Mao were religious in their own ways, and I think it glosses over a crucial piece of information about the nature of atheism: simply being an atheist doesn’t inform anyone of what you do believe, only what you don’t. It tells others nothing about your ethical stances on any subject, where the people of any given religion at least give a general idea of theirs through their self-identification. I think it far more accurate to say that Mao and Stalin’s politics informed their ethical stances in much the same way Christianity informs the Christian’s, and not that their politics were therefore a religion.
That’s it. I’m going right out to buy Hitchen’s book. The man deserves my money.
Hitchens pretty much made a train wreck out of Hannity by exposing him for the frothy-mouthed, confrontational, hypocritical, little whelp he truly is.
“I knew Reverend Falwell, Christopher. I know the good work that this man has done.”
“Tell me about it. It takes a lot to make me cry.”
Man… That’s beautiful.
Wow. I haven’t followed Hannity very much, but I assumed he had at least a modicum of intelligence. “You’re mean!” is not exactly the height of ethical debate.
And I love it when Republicans talk about “elevating the civil discourse in this country.” My irony meter just blew itself to smithereens.
Fred Phelps, picketing Falwell’s funeral? I can’t wait for the YouTube videos.
I’m torn between whether this cartoon, this one or this one is my favorite takedown of the “oh intolerance!” defense against criticism. I’m not sure whether it’s a disingenuous attempt at reappropriating traditionally left language of oppression, or if the people flinging the accusation really can’t tell the difference between criticism and intolerance.
Actually I’d rather he didn’t. I really don’t want Falwell to get any sympathy whatsoever.
True story, I once saw PZ cut down a tree just because it grew a brance in the shape of the virgin mary. Talk about hate!
The new atheist logo: an enema nozzle, coiled hoze, and bag.
http://www.healthandyoga.com/gif/h_img/2_quart_b.jpg
Motto: Stick It Up Your Ass, Religious Gasbags.
FTK: I’ve read about some of the stuff that Falwell has said that I certainly would never agree with, but in comparison to how Hitchens and PZ carry on, I can’t imagine how they can condemn the man.
Gee, could it be because of what Falwell said?
Here’s a taste:
The Bible is the inerrant … word of the living God. It is absolutely infallible, without error in all matters pertaining to faith and practice, as well as in areas such as geography, science, history, etc.
You’ll be riding along in an automobile. You’ll be the driver perhaps. You’re a Christian. There’ll be several people in the automobile with you, maybe someone who is not a Christian. When the trumpet sounds you and the other born-again believers in that automobile will be instantly caught away — you will disappear, leaving behind only your clothes and physical things that cannot inherit eternal life. That unsaved person or persons in the automobile will suddenly be startled to find the car suddenly somewhere crashes…. Other cars on the highway driven by believers will suddenly be out of control and stark pandemonium will occur on … every highway in the world where Christians are caught away from the drivers wheel.
There is no separation of church and state. Modern US Supreme Courts have raped the Constitution and raped the Christian faith and raped the churches by misinterpreting what the Founders had in mind in the First Amendment to the Constitution.
I hope I live to see the day when, as in the early days of our country, we won’t have any public schools. The churches will have taken them over again and Christians will be running them. What a happy day that will be!
I do not believe the homosexual community deserves minority status. One’s misbehavior does not qualify him or her for minority status. Blacks, Hispanics, women, etc., are God-ordained minorities who do indeed deserve minority status.
The abortionists have got to bear some burden for this [9/11] because God will not be mocked. And when we destroy 40 million little innocent babies, we make God mad. I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People for the American Way — all of them who have tried to secularize America — I point the finger in their face and say, “You helped this happen.”
You no doubt agree with him and don’t understand why some of us get so upset with this crap. To my mind, anyone who preaches tolerance for people who spew this hateful, bigoted nonsense is a deluded fool and worse.
Wake up!
The cluelessness of the panel in that clip made me wonder what Debbie Schlussel and her followers had to say about this. Oh. My. Gawd. It’s like a little diverticulum of concentrated hate and ignorance over there. I wonder if Olbermann emboldened her by naming her as one of the worst people in the world last month. Now she seems to be playing it up for attention, kind of putting the “whore” in media whore. No offense to actual prostitutes of course.
Speaking of diverticula and pains in the ass, I see that FTK is back. I find it funny that someone who, according to a post above, doesn’t allow comments on her blog and who posts abortion photos on a teenager’s blog thinks that she has anything relevant to say about intolerance and hatred. Then again, it doesn’t have to make sense when we are talking about residents of bizzaro world does it?
Max Udargo, you just got my Molly vote.
I was going to say, “Hey, let’s let a couple weeks before we point out many shortcomings of Falwell’s life.”
Respect for the family and all that rot.
But you made me realize, When’s the last time Falwell let a body cool? I can’t remember one time. He was relentless.
Let the criticism rain down from minute 1. I confess, I felt no sadness at Falwell’s passing. And, you know what? If he knew about me, and I had died while he was still alive, he’d have let my body cool for 8 seconds before he mentioned the room they have for me in Hell (my wife isn’t white! Gasp!).
So, screw it, let the rain fall. He had it comin’.
Falwell family, I only regret that your relative said and did so many mean things in his life, and got filthy rich in the process, selling myths.
Goin’ to vote for Max now.
I’ve just put Hitchens’ book on my enormous wish list.
FTK, PZ Myers contemns the contemptible. The televangelists who persuade my disabled cousin to max out her credit cards should be in almost the same category as the con artist who persuaded my doddering father to “lend” her his life savings.
And make no mistake: religion kills. When “faith healing” delays going to a doctor, it is on the same level as homeopathy–simply delaying effective treatment. As Mark Twain said, God never cures a disease until just after some scientist has worked out how to do it and put the cure into practice. Then God steps in and takes the credit.
And the apalling maternal death statistics in Romania very clearly told the story of what happens when abortion is banned, no matter how religious the reasons.
Some people deserve to be told that they are harming the innocent. Those who spread harm should be uncovered. Fleecers of the gullible should not be respected. Wrapping themselves in the flag or the Bible does not give anyone a free pass to make the world a more miserable place.
When I say, “I hate racial prejudice and racial descrimination,” that’s not hate speech. It’s condemnation of hateful attitudes and actions. See the difference?
Penn and Teller did their eulogy to Mahatma Gandhi.
Then you can go on to their one about Mother Teresa. Hitchens also wrote a good book on her being a fraud, “Missionary Position”.
I think the line where he pulls the comeback to Hannity’s “look at all his good deeds” crap by saying that we should then honor hamas and hezbollah terrorists, then leading into the “friend of jack abramoff” line, sealed the deal that despite the disagreement i have with hitchens on a lot of issues, I want him on my side in any debate.
I have an early edition of the State of the World Atlas, which I highly recommend. (Here’s the Amazon U.S. link–I’m too lazy to look up alternatives.) One of the maps was relgions of the world, which listed “secular religions” such as Maoism and Marxist-Leninism. It makes sense — they are treated as unquestionable, inerrant truths.
He had to abbreviate the put down.
Should of started… “Jerry Falwell was so full of shit that…”
Nah. Understatement (and making the hearer work it out for themselves) is often the soul of humour.
It was perfect for Hitch to repeatedly point out that the sole reason he was asked to appear on “Hannity” was quite obviously to express precisely the same views on Falwell that he’d already expressed on CNN. It broke the spell that these shows tend to cast on their viewers–that they’re watching a real debate rather than a predictable rehashing of talking points–and it cut Hannity and Reed down to their actual size. Loved the “Abramoff” stuff, too. Too often the non-neocon guests on FNC programs are so intent on not appearing shrill or liberal that they do not have the balls or the wherewithal to call out clowns like Ralph Reed for their myriad crimes, hypocrisies, and lies. Let’s hope Hitchens’ recent performances embolden others who have been intimidated into politeness by O’Reilly and Hannity in the past.
What hate speech? I think this is a helpful hint from old Jerry: never pick a born-again Christian as the designated driver!
Please do not ban Forthekids. He’s a sycophant over at Uncommon Descent, but banning him here would smack of Uncommon Descent tactics. I think PZ is better than that.
Debbie the Harpy:
“That’s important because it will be one of the things–if anything works–that stops Muslims from taking over and transforming the nation: the strong Christian traditions our country maintains and that Falwell helped protect by establishing one of the most momentous political movements of our time.”
I just can’t wrap my mind around the idea that we should fight one fundamentalist religion with another. Especially since they see eye-to-eye on so many things.
Monado:
“The televangelists who persuade my disabled cousin to max out her credit cards should be in almost the same category as the con artist who persuaded my doddering father to “lend” her his life savings. ”
I rather wish Hitchens had played up this angle more when enumerating reasons why it was good that Falwell is dead. That was the only problem I had with this clip, he should have had a bit more ammunition. Other than that, it was just the sort of take-no-BS talk that we need more of in this BS-infested culture. And way to turn their tactics against them. I’ll see your Joseph Stalin and raise you a Jack Abramoff! I think I may have woke my neighbor when he mentioned the World’s Tiniest Violin.
I suppose it’s progress that Hannity didn’t mention Hitler in his silly little attack. Sorry, Sean, I guess that one’s still yours.
Monado:
Quoted for accuracy.
I think that Hannity was quite shocked to find himself in combat with a tiger and no whip in hand. He will require great coddling and fawning from his minions to soothe his incredible ego.
And he’ll need to steer clear of any kind of enema.
I don’t ban people for being wrong, or stupid. I do ban them for being obnoxious and repetitive, or for just regularly hopping into threads and tossing out a trollish mal mot grenade and then running away and ignoring the possibility of discussion.
From what I’ve seen of FtK, she’s an obtuse nitwit who rides her hobbyhorses hard, and would be a prime candidate for banning…but her infrequent appearances make her inanity trivially ignorable.
Fishy (#11), Ralph Reed is 45 years old.
I was astonished at what Reed chose to label “transcendent values” that he claimed Falwell stood for. Stripping away the code language, they were: Opposition to abortion; Opposition to gay marriage; ‘support’ for Israel, and one or two others that I missed while boggling at those three.
Hitchens already took apart Falwell’s position on Israel, but I think it shows how wacko the religious right has become that opposing reproductive rights and hatin’ on the gays are “transcendental”.
Hitchins will be interviewed for an hour by KQED’s Michael Krasny on their “Forum” radio program, Thursday 5/24, either 9am or 10am PDT (not yet specified). Forum page includes real-time streaming link, and a link to Forum archives as mp3 files downloadable by the following day.
I have this great widget for OS X that let’s you tune into almost any NPR station in the country. It’s called Rabbit Radio. Get it!
http://www.lsmason.com/software/rabbitradio.html
I’m going to listen to Hitch if I didn’t miss it.
For my money (Chinese Hell Dollars, if you must know) the best response to “Pol Pot and Stalin” is to point out, as Sam Harris did, that the destruction wreaked by these dictators “was not caused by people refusing to believe things on insufficient evidence”. This is more than just a rephrasing of the self-deification or “secular faith” argument, it has the advantage of putting forward one of the chief virtues of rational atheism: healthy skepticism.
Perhaps it would have been more constructive for Hitchens to say something “My condolences to his family in their grief, but I cannot myself grieve for the man because of the evil he has done.”
That being said, I am 100% behind his desire to tear Falwell’s legacy a new one, and to expose him and all those like him for the disgusting hypocrites they are. Christ put it very well when He told the Pharisees “Because of you, the Gentiles speak evil of God.”
There’s plenty in the Bible to condemn Falwell and all his ilk to the eternity of shrieking agony they’d promised to so many others, if only people could be bothered to look for it. The most powerful weapon against religious totalitarianism was the Printing Press, which gave the common people (the not insignificant fraction who could actually read back then) easy access to the Bible, revealing the parts of it they hadn’t been told and consequently what total frigging hypocrites their Pulpit-pounding lords and masters were.
The scary thing is that Falwell’s congregations were supposedly made up of God-fearing Christian men and women who, if they were half as righteous as they said they were, ought to have read the Bible cover to cover; and consequently would have had it clearly shown to them that much of what their God disapproves of was going on in front of their faces. And even if they couldn’t stand up to his face, you’d think they could vote with their feet. The fact that they did not do so says something horrifying, and even making atheists out of them with the wave of a magic wand wouldn’t change that scariness.
jackd, you make some good points. I too noticed that stupid-ass Hannity labeled support for Israel a “transcendent value.” That makes absolutely no sense. Support for a contingent country that will clearly not exist permanently and has not always existed is a transcendent, and therefore by definition, eternal value? DOes Hannity even know what transcendent means?
I know, I know, dumb question.
Whoops, was it Reed that sad that? Anyway, the point stands.
Wow. Great job by Hitchens…I especially loved the parallel between Hamas and Falwell (although, of course, Hamas probably does far more significant humanitarian work than Falwell, while also doing more visible evil). For that performance I almost forgive Hitchens his cheerleading for the Iraq war.
David Livesay @ #20, bullfighter @ #42, ifriit @ #49:
Stalinism/Maoism/etc seems much more like Falwellism than deism does; I find it bizarre that the latter two have one word to describe them and are considered the same thing differing only in details while the former is considered completely unrelated. I think we need some sort of phylogenetic tree for memes, to get rid of these stupid polyphyletic descriptors like “religion”.
Or put another way, “Substituting the words ‘historical inevitability’ and ‘general secretary’ for the words ‘god’ and ‘prophet’ doesn’t make it not a religion.”
Hannity is also another O’Reilly wanna be. Notice the hand jestures and the incredulous stupidity. He’s “laying down the law a la the no spin zone.” Yeah right, give me a fucking break.
“It was good to see how to handle the right-wing blowhards well, too: charge ahead, don’t allow them to force you into their frame, and talk right over their diatribes.”
It’s the way I do it.
inHannity was good not to mention Hitler. Here a few statements by Hitler compared to our homegrown Falwells.
http://theoldbill.typepad.com/thebackroom/2007/01/theocrats_neoco.html
The best point Hitchens made is that, if you admire Falwell for his charitable work, you ought to give the same credit to Hamas and Hezbollah.
I thought he should have gone a step further and asked Hannity and Reed if they took a few days to express their condolences to the family of Saddam Hussein after he was executed. After all, that was the point they were making – that it was cruel to the families not to be nice about it.
These clowns obviously thought they could resort to the typical and dishonest nonsense they dish out without thinking on a daily basis. No, not this time. And it was a bracing and completely delightful experience to watch Hitch throwing their sordid ball right back in their court.
These meddling, intellectually dishonest, pathetic Christians thought they were going to SHAME Hitch into getting with the program of make-believe mourning and not talk about what is important, that Falwell was a dangerous and hateful bastard? These Christian ‘masters’ do not yet grasp that their fear and shame inducing tactics don’t work on rational folks like it does on their brainwashed minions.
Hitch needs to continue taking on the buffoons on mainstream media and blasting some fresh air into the stagnant, suffocating, mindless atmosphere of American television.
I’m looking forward to watching this clip when I get home (blocked at work).
Hitchens was on “On Point” last week – again speaking soberly and directly about his views vs. those of the religious fundies. He takes down a fundamentalist preacher with about one sentence. Quite lovely to listen to.
Christopher Hitchens – On Point (npr broadcast):
http://www.onpointradio.org/shows/2007/05/20070511_b_main.asp
For those of you interested, Hitchens was here in Austin, TX this week and debated a leading “compassionate conservative” at the University of Texas. It’s streaming audio put up by our local NPR/Public radio station. I haven’t been able to find a video yet.
http://kut.org/items/show/8394
I don’t know what to think about that. I like what Hitchens said, but it seems a little too much like he’s taking Ann Coulter’s lead – making the most outrageous comments he can think of to get publicity for a book. (“…buried in a matchbox.”) Unlike Coulter, I actually do think Hitchens means what he says, but interviews like this leave me with the feeling that everyone is insincere. Apathy usually takes hold after that, which is ironic if you think about it. It’s a wonder I bothered to comment at all.
Funny thing about China. Mao still is the only person on any denomination of Chinese currency. His picture is everywhere. He is deified and treated as the savior of the state and of the Chinese people. I can’t decide if its Augustan style emperor worship or if he is the chinese Jesus – a little of both I guess. Stalin was the same way to the Russian people – until Krustchev and co. could denounce him and start a historical “revision”.
I guess my point is that Mao and Stalin both told their respective subjects that their lives sucked and the only way to salvation is through them. They created theocracies where each man made himself the primate and the principal object of worship. theocracies.
That last enema shot by Hitchens was great.
Are there two Hitchens? One who’s a drunk war apologist and the guy in this video?
Meh, maybe he’s trying to make up for the apologist thing.
The enema joke was adolescent and vulgarian, even delivered in a baritone English accent. Hitchins got down and dirty in Fox fashion and he came out with a Colterish aroma. Since Hitchens is a staunch supporter of the Iraq war, I’m sure he’ll get plenty of time in the saddle as a Fox guest pundit. Fits right in.
I liked when whats-his-name jumped in before the commercials: “… and later, an unbelievable video of a toddler …”
Your descriptions of Sean Hannity are all dead-on; unfortunately, that was Alan Colmes leading the discussion.
I just listened to the “On Point” broadcast with Hitchens that was linked to a few comments up. Excellent program; I’d really like to hear some of their other shows. The best part was when one of the preachers was going on something like “the true god would not tell people to blow up mosques”, and the host of the show just intervenes with “There’s an awful lot of christian soldiers.” And then silence. Amazing.
I’d be interesting on seeing the figures on how many Fox News viewers actually know who Pol Pot was. Everybody knows that the only evil ones in Southeast Asia were those damn Vietcong ;)
Sorry for the double post…
I find it contemptible how all the conservative/evangelical commentators on Falwell’s death call him “Doctor Falwell”. I quick Wikipedia check reveals that he only held three honorary degrees, one of which was a Doctor of Divinity, which shouldn’t even be considered a doctorate when actually “earned”.
I don’t watch this stuff, but does anyone remember the bit where a Catholic priest went after Hannity? The common thread is a constant chip-on-the-shoulder readiness to take offense. He can say anything he likes, but the moment you fail to honor him he’s outraged, hurt. What these people have discovered — Limbaugh has the same trick — is a way to transfer any political dispute whatsoever into an argument about how you’ve offended them. It’s effective because, as Sacha Baron Cohen has discovered, you can be as outrageous as you like in an interview and your interviewees will be paralyzed by worry lest *they* appear rude.
Hitchens is shameless enough to say OK, I’ll *really* offend them. It was an awful thing to say but that’s the point.
I just listened to the “On Point” broadcast with Hitchens that was linked to a few comments up. Excellent program; I’d really like to hear some of their other shows.
I believe the same host did Vonnegut a while back.
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/latenightlive/stories/2007/1896960.htm
Looks like it might not be available anymore!
Hitchens has certainly mastered the art of 5 min politically charged TV interviews.
That doesn’t work because of the different ways meme and gene evolution work. Species that have diverged very rarely (if ever) recombine (Dollo’s Law makes it very difficult for them to ever again come close enough to be capable of merging), but memes can adopt parts of other memes with no restriction.
An ideology like Falwell’s belongs in the superstition taxon *and* the authoritarian taxon, which is why they don’t work as clades (neither is a proper subset of the other). Stalin was a (possibly) non-superstitious authoritarian and Buddha was a (possibly) non-authoritarian superstitious person; it’s when you combine the two that you get really horrific results like crusades and inquisitions and witch hunts. (Although Stalin was pretty horrific all by himself, on a per capita basis I think he loses to some of the religious massacres.)
I thought Fox’s choice of Falwell videos was interesting. He didn’t look distinguished in any of them, he looked pompous and just bad. His mouth constantly moving made him look ridiculous.
I wonder if someone at Fox did that on purpose.
I notice one talking head (I’m never sure which one it is) kept referring to Doctor Falwell. I’m assuming it was honorary? Probably from Liberty?
I thought I heard Hitchens sneer at that at one point.
The best way to respond to charges about “atheists like Stalin and Mao….” is to point out that they are non sequiturs: literally, they do not follow. Whether or not Stalin and Mao killed anyone and whether or not they were atheists, those two concepts share no causal relationship.
Think of how many famous killers have three names: Lee Harvey Oswald, John Wilkes Booth, John Wayne Gacy, Mark David Chapman….should we fear men with three names? No, because their names have nothing at all to do with their murders. Likewise, whatever drove those dictators to kill, it was not their atheism – it could’ve been their communism, their authoritarianism, whatever; it doesn’t matter. The point is that being atheist had nothing to do with it. It does seem, however, that many religious killers are specifically motivated by their religion to kill, so there IS a causal relationship there.
BJN (#91) says “Hitchins got down and dirty in Fox fashion and he came out with a Colterish aroma.”
Indeed.
My father always said “When you wrestle a skunk no one comes away smelling good.”
Applies to wrestling foxes too, I suppose.
I too would recommend having a listen to this audio stream with Hitchens talking to a Baptist Minister and a more thoughtful Theologian (plus sundry callers and a very reasonable host/compere).
http://www.onpointradio.org/shows/2007/05/20070511_b_main.asp
Thanks for posting that link Mary.
Anyone else notice that Hitchens was completely drunk? I mean, really, he was plastered. Dude was off his game. His interview with Cooper was much better. And the hair…
Good interview:
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/latenightlive/stories/2007/1919949.htm
Late Night Live
May 10, 2007
“A conversation about the apparent atheist backlash to the apparent rise in religious fundamentalism – the backlash indicated by several current books attacking what Richard Dawkins calls ‘the god delusion’. In this program the celebrated writer and committed atheist, Christopher Hitchens tells Phillip he has put out a challenge to preachers across America to come out and debate him.”
WNYC (Brian Lehrer Show), May 8, 2007:
Losing his Religion
Christopher Hitchens author of the new book, God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything, how he stopped believing in God at the age of 9.
http://www.wnyc.org/stream/ram?file=/bl/bl050807dpod.mp3
I notice one talking head (I’m never sure which one it is) kept referring to Doctor Falwell. I’m assuming it was honorary? Probably from Liberty?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerry_Falwell#Personal_life:
Although he sometimes used the title “Doctor,” Falwell held no earned doctorate. He held three honorary degrees: an honorary Doctor of Divinity from Tennessee Temple Theological Seminary an honorary Doctor of Letters from California Graduate School of Theology, and an honorary Doctor of Laws from Central University in Seoul, South Korea.
Re: Wrestling skunks – that’s all well and good, guys, but honestly, if someone doesn’t tackle that skunk and punch it in the face every now and again, it’ll stink up everything it can reach as soon and as often as it can. And worse, those who get stunk can begin to produce the smell themselves if you’re not careful.
So it’s like a zombie skunk odor virus. Punch the head vampire in the face every now and again or the whole media conglomerate will become even more infected with zombie skunk odor virus than it already is.
Now that I’ve tortured this metaphor to death and then flogged its corpse, it all falls back to the ‘appeasers’ problem. Do you let Hannity alone because he’s a stinking jackass blowhard, hoping he’ll go away, or do you take him down on his own show over and over until he’s fired?
Now skunk wrestling is a problem, isn’t it?
In this instance, it would seem that Hitchens comes to the contest already furnished with an aroma all his own. I find it edifying to stand upwind and at a distance and watch the fur fly. Like garbage collection, Hitchens is performing a significant public service at little inconvenience to the rest of us.
OTOH, perhaps my greater concern is my perpetuation of an unfortunate stereotype of skunks. They really are the very model of you MYOB and they’ll mind theirs; preachers they are not. By any comparison skunks are good animal citizens altogether.
Hitchens is on because he’s a perfect villain for the Fox audience- the accent, the atheism, the slovenly drunken appearance. He’s a cartoon character for them. They loathe him and cheer as Hannity sticks it to him. What good does he do by being on this show?
#82 Or put another way, “Substituting the words ‘historical inevitability’ and ‘general secretary’ for the words ‘god’ and ‘prophet’ doesn’t make it not a religion.”
Quite; or, to continue in that vein, substituting the terms “Dictatorship of the Proletariat” and “Classless Society” for “Tribulation” and “Heaven on Earth,” and “counter-revolutionary” and “revisionist” for “infidel” and “heretic.”
#105 Think of how many famous killers have three names: Lee Harvey Oswald, John Wilkes Booth, John Wayne Gacy, Mark David Chapman….should we fear men with three names? No, because their names have nothing at all to do with their murders.
Actually, they do, but it goes the other way: these men are known by all three of their names because they’re famous killers. Lots of people have middle names, but very few people go by all three. Before they became killers, Lee Harvey Oswald was known as just “Lee Oswald,” Mark David Chapman as “Mark Chapman,” etc.
Falwell never killed anyone? Did his rhetoric incite any of the murderers of abortion doctors? Has his stance against contraceptives contributed toward any infanticide or postpartum child murder? Has his insistence that gays are vile inspired any of the numerous homophobic slayings? I mean how many people has Bush killed now, and all without ever seeing any combat.
Just because the hand that held the rope was not his I’m not sure the body shouldn’t be laid at his feet.
I’m sorry, but just now I’ve finally been able to see this interview in its entirety.
“If you gave Falwell an enema, he would have been buried in a matchbox.”
Shimmies, Hitch! That was priceless! :-)
I guess I’m not a very nice girl.
Ric: Ah, but they probably do know what transcendent means. They just for some reason have this “thing” for a group who their ilk 100 years ago would probably have treated the way they do Muslims etc. today.
Kristine: Sometimes “nice girls” are overrated anyhow …