The Sad Case of Christopher Hitchens's Hero-worshippers

November 3, 2010

By Peter Hitchens

"It's amusing, if frustrating, to see the response of dogmatic unbelievers to my brother's thoughtful and generous remarks. It is clear that many of them find such thoughtfulness and generosity repugnant in their hero (and some of these contributions are embarrassing in their sycophancy). They would much prefer him not to have said this."

Link to article


Tom said...

Notice, The Tariq Ramadan debate was removed from YouTube but is still embedded on this blog via another uploader. If you haven't watched it, download it or watch it while you can. Or pay $1,95 for the webcast.

Anonymous said...

Peter Hitchens just wishes he had as many (or even a fraction of) people who admired his work as much as we do CH's. Clearly the people who take the time to email PH in response to his articles don't necessarily speak for the CH fan community as a whole.

Anonymous said...

Thanks for the Tariq notice, will download now.
@anonymous: In regards to P. Hitchens, I think you're doing him a discredit - I get the feeling he's well aware of what people think of his brother. You may not agree with him (I don't, most of the time) but he's an honest thinker - and also, btw, someone his brother (the one you clearly admire so much) has called "a brilliant guy" - so if you're going to argue against him, please assert some logical claims and not the ad hominem and wearily predictable "he's just jealous!", which does everyone a

Anonymous said...

Peter doesn't have as many fans.
I'll give one reason for not having the debate between the brothers Peter said

QUINN: Well then, do you need religion to be moral?

PETER HITCHENS: Yeah, absolutely. Morality is what you do when you think nobody is looking. And there’s a lot of things I would do if I didn’t believe in God.

Yes he has been an atheist previously. I wonder how he behaved. And does he need permission to do good as well?

/ 1984

Anonymous said...

Sure, I got you. Let's just keep in mind "not having as many fans" and being wrong about an issue are not equivalent and shouldn't be confused. I think both CH and PH don't give a rat's ass whether or not they're the only ones who hold an opinion, which is one of the things I admire about them.

Anonymous said...

I agree. They are both independent thinkers.

Now, we can't avoid the psychoanalytic approach. Peter complained once (I'm paraphrasing), "why does everyone ask me if I'm living in my brother's shadow? why does no one ask the opposite?"

But it's not a very useful approach (never is). They both deserve to be taken seriously, to have their views taken at face value.

Incidentally, I wonder why Peter thinks that all or even most of Christopher's admirers are "unbelievers." That's a bit too facile. There are so many reasons to love Hitch.

Steve H said...

In the notorious debate between the two brothers in that US church a few years ago, Peter's answer to Christopher's challenge was to say that, when the Daily Express was bought by a porn baron, he resigned as a columnist at the paper. Whereas Christopher continued to write for the Express. So it was an act that a believer could perform but which a non-believer hadn't performed.

Of course what Peter fails to mention is that he left the porno-owned Express to write instead for the Daily Mail. So he rejects the naked human body and seeks comfort in the bigoted hatred of anyone who's different. Very religious indeed.

Anonymous said...

how to download hitchens/ramadan debate ?

ericLawrence said...

Posted this on the other post, but it appears this one is more lively.

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.

Tom said...

"how to download hitchens/ramadan debate?"

Google "how to download youtube videos" and you get a few options., keepvid, savevid...


Christopher reads from Hitch-22: A Memoir