"One of the things that kept me away from my desk during the second half of October was a visit to Washington, during which I had a conversation with my left-wing atheist brother Christopher, sponsored by a fine body of men and women called the Pew Forum."
Read Peter's blog post http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk
3 comments:
This seems to me highly blown out of proportion. The challenge is this: Name any moral action or ethical statement that could be made or performed by a believer but could not be made or performed by an unbeliever. The full statement, "I'm not frightened of anything but God or anyone but God" could not be made by a nonbeliever only because it professes a fear of god. However, given the context of the situation, the noble part of the statement, the part which demonstrates fine personal qualities and ideals, appears to be fully encompassed within the first five words. Would not an equally noble response had been "I'm not frightened of anything but the suffering and demise of my comrades" and just leave the whole god bit out? Both the believer and the nonbeliever could have opposed the militia fearlessly and both could have made statements regarding their fearlessness. To say that this represents an ethical statement that could not be made by a nonbeliever is to say that "I'm frightened of God" is an ethical statement. Religion still poisons everything.
"Religion still poisons everything."
Except of course, the fearless stand in question ;)
We need Christopher Hitchens comments and commentary inn this crazy world. Hopefully the new treatment will be effective. Best wishes, Gene Evans
Post a Comment