wnyc.org / 93.9fm / am 820

Comments

• [1] Jamie Boyer from Manhattan May 08, 2007 - 11:16AM

  I don't think this is a resurgence of atheism or anti-theism. These ideas have been around in 8-16% of the population for many decades. It's just that non-religious people tend to be skeptical of organizations and it's like "herding cats" to get them organized. I think the prevalence of evangelical religion in society has caused many people to finally speak out.

  
  
• [2] Margaret Fell from Queen, NY May 08, 2007 - 11:19AM

  Mr. Hitchens has again referred to Bayard Rustin as a secular socialist. While he certainly was a socialist, he was not secular in Mr. Hitchen's sense: Mr. Rustin joined the Religious Society of Friends (Quaker) and was, indeed, a member at the time of his death. Just a factual correction, with... perhaps... implications.

  
  
• [3] Esther from New Jersey May 08, 2007 - 11:22AM

  I was disappointed to find that Christopher Hitchens seems to have dropped the ball last night. He kept lapsing into arguing the awfulness of the idea and the implications and the practice of religion (the subject of his book), rather than the existence of god, which was presumably the point of the discussion. Mr Sharpton kept pointing this out, and I have to admit he was right. The fact that religions ruin everything doesn't mean there is no god, unless you subscribe to the belief that a god is inherently a good thing. This itself is actually a religious belief.

  Ultimately, it should be the burden of the believers who posit such an unlikely being to demonstrate its existence, not the burden of skeptics to disprove it. It's simply the application of Occam's Razor. NOT invoking a diety is the more parsimonious explanation, from a naturalistic standpoint.

  
  
• [4] Jsun Laliberte from Brooklyn May 08, 2007 - 11:39AM

  I, to, believe that Organized Religions have a historical nack for ruining civilizations and stiffle intellectual thought. The claim that if God does exist, God would only exist as a tyranical dictator is grossly simplific. Religions are interpretations created by man to control the populuses and give "moral direction" in order to stabilize communities.

  If God or the unnamable universal energy which is described as God exists, it can only be completely ambivilant towards humanity. Tyrany is a human concept, not a "Godly" one.

  
  
• [5] Gil Carlson from NJ May 08, 2007 - 05:28PM

  I think Mr. Hitchens does quite well with his argument until he gets to the point where he discusses having one of his daughters attend a Quaker school, something to the effect that they are a little religious, but not overly so. This undermines his whole proposition that morality is distinct from religious instruction and can be divined without it. Then he compounds this admission by stating that he abhors the idea of "non-resistance" to evil and that he "hates" the enemies of civilization and that "they should be killed". This is simply a recipe for fascism. In Hitchen's system who would determines whom the enemies are? It seems to me that the West went down this road before in the '30s and the results by simple math weigh more heavily than any number of crimes he can lay at the feet of religion.

  
  
• [6] eric henderson from brooklyn May 08, 2007 - 08:10PM

  The chilling part was to hear the answer to Mr. Lehrer's last question when he asked Mr. Hitchen's whether he himself was on some sort of proselytizing mission and he said yes and then proceeded to call for the removal of this "trash" (religion) from being taught.

  Chilling because it is not intellectually honest as he makes himself the very religious fundamentalist proselytizer that he despises. He describe Christians as forcing their ways on people. That can't be true for a Christian who believes the bible as we are just told to tell people and then to leave them to their own free will.

  For the record, Jesus also had a problem with those folks, the religious fundamentalists (i.e. the media, not academic, definition of that). Read the first chapter of Isaiah. And then in the new testament, Jesus shows love for the world (me and you) but chastisement for the bible-toting goody-two-shoes.

  That must tell us that there is a real group of Christians who simply live the bible, tell the world about Jesus and don't try to force anyone to believe...in the same manner that Jesus did not try to force anyone. By definition, that would cancel the very idea of free will.

  Jesus only warning for the world (all of us) was to accept him now, before our final day.

  Christians are commanded to tell, not to argue, and if people don't believe then we must simply keep moving, telling other people.

  No need for self-righteous marches against abortion, pornography, gays, etc. Just witness and let the Spirit speak to people as He will. That is love, not judgment.

  
  
• [7] Andrew Tannenbaum from Amityville, NY May 09, 2007 - 07:28PM

  While extolling hating your enemies, Mr. Hitchens fails to differentiate between enemies with a conflict of interest and enemies who have a wanton disregard for human life (the criminally insane or a wild bear for instance - imagine loving a bear as it mauls you?). The church, and the Society of Friends in particular, see turning the other cheek as a way to end the cycle of violence that was inherited from our animal instinct. It is a rational way to stand up to rational people who will eventually respond to non-violence. One saying that shows the fallacy side of violence is "he who fights by the sword, dies by it". Jesus, members of the church and others who have laid their life on the line for a cause see this as a more effective way to produce change. I don't think this refers to exposing person or family to violent criminals where there is wanton disregard for human life. We are talking about conflict of interest - where nations rise up against nations, as well as among neighbors or brothers and sisters. While much misinformation abounds on both sides of the Christian question, one thing if for sure and sums up the above:

  Christianity is simply against evoltution, not the theory of evolution.