Christopher Hitchens, militant pundit, dies at 62

The Washington Times ^ | December 16, 2011 | Hillel Italie

[markomalley]

Cancer weakened, but did not soften Christopher Hitchens. He did not repent or forgive or ask for pity. As if granted diplomatic immunity, his mind’s eye looked plainly upon the attack and counterattack of disease and treatments that robbed him of his hair, his stamina, his speaking voice and eventually his life.

“I love the imagery of struggle,” he wrote about his illness in an August 2010 essay in Vanity Fair. “I sometimes wish I were suffering in a good cause, or risking my life for the good of others, instead of just being a gravely endangered patient.”

Hitchens, a Washington, D.C.-based author, essayist and polemicist who waged verbal and occasional physical battle on behalf of causes left and right, died Thursday night at M.D. Anderson Cancer Center in Houston of pneumonia, a complication of his esophageal cancer, according to a statement from Vanity Fair magazine. He was 62.

[A_perfect_lady]

It doesn't bug me that people believe, it only bugs me when someone decent dies and they come to the thread smirking about what they think this person is going through now. It's RUDE. And nasty, and repulsive. That is when I start hating them. At that moment they become as grotesque as Muslims.

The other thing that bugs me is when they purr veiled insults in a wide-eyed, disingenuous tone while pretending only to voice a gentle concern for my well-being, like that tioga chick that was here earlier. It's like being needled by a sorority girl. But apparently that's modern-day Christianity.

[A_perfect_lady]

Look, no offense, but when you post a series of random quotes and links, I don’t read them. If you can address me directly and succinctly in your own words, that would be great. Otherwise, don’t put yourself through all the effort because I don’t even understand what your point is.

[grey_whiskers]

I've had the other kind, too. As once during the Reagan years when I happened to be walking across a college campus and a snaggle-toothed, bag-lady looking type (probably head of the womyn's studies department or similar) came up to me and asked if I'd like to discuss "revolutionary policies".

She burrowed in like a tick, oblivious to any subtle hints, so I finally dislodged her by saying that I thought David Stockman was a genius.

She immediately left in a huff.

Mission accomplished! :-)

But as far as being as grotesque as Muslims. No, they're not.

I don't recall anyone chanting "Jesus is Lord!" or "Hail Mary, full of grace!" while hijacking a loaded jumbo jet and flying it into a skyscraper.

Don't let your exasperation drive you into exaggeration :-)

(Back when I was an atheist, I remember turning on the TV to watch a long-awaited TV special only to find some religious broadcast in its place. After 10 minutes of roundly chewing them out, I took another look and realized I had misread the TV guide and my show hadn't been pre-empted at all. I still have to relearn that lesson from time to time.)

Cheers!

[A_perfect_lady]

I didn't say "as groteque as muslim terrorists." But your run of the mill sneering "You are dogs and pigs" type? Yes. I'm serious. Free Republic has loads and loads of religious threads. Catholic threads, devotional threads, prayer threads... they don't want us atheists on them, and once I figured out how to identify them, I never went on one again. If they could just have the DECENCY not to gloat over an atheist's death, they'd rise a lot in my regard. You know, they are better behaved when a liberal dies than when an atheist dies. That's just sick.

Now, I've said about six times on this thread exactly what about this disgusts me. Either people can read what I'm actually saying, or they are adding "stupid" to "rude." I'm sorry to be abrupt, but I'm just in no mood for this.

[Future Snake Eater]

If they could just have the DECENCY not to gloat over an atheist's death, they'd rise a lot in my regard.

This is just such a bizarre statement, I don't even know where to begin...

[grey_whiskers]

If they could just have the DECENCY not to gloat over an atheist's death, they'd rise a lot in my regard. You know, they are better behaved when a liberal dies than when an atheist dies. That's just sick.

"Let he who is without stones commit the first sin."

There are analogies here to the liberal / conservative response to scandals, but I get your point. As I said, I will not engage in apologetics with you.

Now, I've said about six times on this thread exactly what about this disgusts me. Either people can read what I'm actually saying, or they are adding "stupid" to "rude." I'm sorry to be abrupt, but I'm just in no mood for this.

People on FR (despite the claims of detractors from across the spectrum) tend to be far more politically astute than others. Hence the identification of "Muslims" with "Muslim terrorists" : I don't see too many Muslim missionary organizations to the infidels, and the outreach I have heard of, seems to be concentrated among the underclasses and disaffected, the better to undermine the West from within: cf. the charity works of Christianity such as hospitals, leper colonies, distribution of food and water, without attempting to recruit people to be terrorists.

It was not through inattention to your reading, but looking at a larger scale.

No offense was intended.

Cheers...and signing off for now.

[Ultra Sonic 007]

If we separate ourselves from Him (we who are made in God’s image) and endure the suffering that ultimately results from that action, is God to blame for it? We are, individually, free to cut ourselves off from our Creator, even if the action is ultimately self-destructive.

After all, Satan is the one who suffers most in the Hell of his own making.

[Ultra Sonic 007]

How is it bizarre? It’s poor manners to gloat over the death of anyone.

[Future Snake Eater]

1) The most “smug” thing I’ve seen about this event is “now he knows for sure.” That’s a statement of fact, hardly smug.

2) Why do atheists care in the slightest about death? There are no repercussions to it as far as they’re concerned. Even if a Christian jumped on here and declared “I’m so glad he’s burning in Hell!”, why would that mean anything to an atheist? He may as well be condemned to Neverland or the Matrix, right?

The entire thing is bizarre. Atheists getting all worked up over consequences they don’t believe in in places they think don’t exist...weird. I’m sure every atheist here is aware of the consequences if they’re wrong versus if the Christians are wrong.

Either they believe what they believe or they don’t—stop trying to have it both ways.

[Matchett-PI]

You wrote: "...when you post a series of random quotes and links, I don’t read them."bttt

That's too bad, since my series of quotes and links were NOT "random" They were in direct response to what you said is your "bottom line".

You wrote: " I don’t even understand what your point is."

My point is that, based on the perceptions you hold, you seemed only to have been exposed to "religion and its practitioners", rather than "Christianity".

Christianity is not intended to be a religion, but the cure for religion

<>

It is simply a truism that no one is more blind to his Christian assumptions than the anti-Christian atheist who is the beneficiary of 2000 years of Christian conditioning. Thus, he values all of the precious things that uniquely developed in the Judeo-Christian West and nowhere else: democracy, individuality, liberty, science, freedom of conscience, etc, but then attacks the metaphysical roots of these things -- as if any of them were developed by atheists living in purely secular cultures. In reality, the most atheistic cultures are tied (or is it hanged?) neck and neck with Islam for producing the most cruel and barbaric cultures (with the possible exception of primitive tribes). Even it you entirely reject the Judeo-Christian tradition, if you live in the West, I can pretty much guarantee that you have a Judeo-Christian unconscious. (In the past, I have recommended Gil Baile's brilliant Violence Unveiled, which traces the profound anthropological consequences of the Christian revelation, which, in a certain very real sense, was the "cure" for religion -- including bad forms of Christianity)

So maybe what you SAID was your "bottom line", is not REALLY your bottom line because you also said, "I’m a loner at heart, my fantasy afterlife is just to wander around inside some weird, red-sky landscape that’s like a permanent sunset. Black trees. Silver, glittery ponds. Mountains on the horizon. Caves to explore. Very silent, no wind. Just me and my cats. That would be fine. I just want to be left alone. Most humans irritate me."

"...Christopher Hitchens' acknowledged immoderate consumption of spiritual lubricants to escape the implications of his own dead metaphysics comes to mind. In reality, he cannot tolerate the infrahuman, crimped little world he has created, so he must secretly escape it. If he were to be completely honest, he would say that this is his truth and his metaphysics: that there is an escape! You just call it God, I call it booze!

[My interjection: A_Perfect_lady would call it, "wandering around inside some weird, red-sky landscape that’s like a permanent sunset. Black trees. Silver, glittery ponds. Mountains on the horizon. Caves to explore. Very silent, no wind. Just me and my cats." End interjection. ]

"Likewise, I think we can agree on what would constitute "hell" for Hitchens. It may or may not be hot, but it would certainly be dry.

".. beneath [an] anorexic's rejection of food are issues of trust, control, and fear of dependency. Food is imbued with all of the ambivalence felt toward the original love object, so the control of food is ultimately a strategy for controlling this unconscious Other. ....

"When I saw Hitchens flogging his new anti-theistic puerilemic on the Daily Show the other day, it occurred to me that I was seeing the intoxicating power of the cosmic No in all its nakedly cynical glory. ...."

The Cosmic No: Truth and its Oppositional Opponents

<>

"..in the absence of God, there is no reason to be impressed by anyone or anything, since 1) there is nothing we can know with certainty, 2) loveliness and beauty are simply illusions of the nervous system, and 3) believing untruth is morally indistinguishable from believing truth, since there is no ground for truth or morality anyway.

[Matchett-PI]

"It seems that many atheists are very angry at God for creating an imperfect world; imperfect enough not to have shielded them from specific personal trauma."

I know that's one of the excuses they use.

C.S.Lewis "grew UP". :)

[betty boop]

"When I saw Hitchens flogging his new anti-theistic puerilemic on the Daily Show the other day, it occurred to me that I was seeing the intoxicating power of the cosmic No in all its nakedly cynical glory. ...."

"..in the absence of God, there is no reason to be impressed by anyone or anything, since 1) there is nothing we can know with certainty, 2) loveliness and beauty are simply illusions of the nervous system, and 3) believing untruth is morally indistinguishable from believing truth, since there is no ground for truth or morality anyway.

The fundamental "cosmic inversion," brilliantly analyzed by Dr. Godwin....

Thank you ever so much, dear Matchett-PI, for this splendid essay/post, and for the links to "GB!"

[Matchett-PI]

You’re welcome! :) bttt

[A_perfect_lady]

I really, really have no idea what you’re trying to say to me. It looks like word salad. Can you be BRIEF?

[A_perfect_lady]

Atheists getting all worked up over consequences they don’t believe in in places they think don’t exist...weird.

Okay, I am about to say this for the ninth time on this thread. No, literally, the ninth time. I went back and counted. 1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8 and here comes 9:

What makes me angry is that on Free Republic, there are all these threads where athiests are not allowed to post. Do you understand my words, and the order in which they came? Threads. On. F.R. Where. Atheists. Are. Not. Allowed. To. Post.

What I'd like, just once, is a thread where Christians would realize what tacky, snotty, disgusting bad taste it is to come on and gloat and sneer over the death of a well-known atheist. Even worse is that incredibly false, wide-eyed "Gosh, I just hope and pray that in his final moments he validated my beliefs." Man, you people just can't keep your smug mugs shut long enough to even bury the body, can you? And you can't be content with all the threads on this forum that are just for you. JUST FOR YOU! Your precious little selves have your precious little protected threads where you can coo at each other like brain-damaged doves all day and night.

I do not care if you spend your life waiting to see Heaven. I find it only mildly amusing that when you die, you'll just blink out like a snuffed candle and you won't ever even know it because you don't know it when you are dead. That is what dead IS.

But while you are alive, can you please, please have some manners?? Or FAKE some?

[Matchett-PI]

"I really, really have no idea what you’re trying to say to me. It looks like word salad. Can you be BRIEF?"

You deliberately (willfully) block any reality other than the one you've concocted for yourself. A "closed system" is a loop in which no new information is allowed; brief or long, it would make no difference.

[metmom]

But while you are alive, can you please, please have some manners?? Or FAKE some?

What an ironic ending for your little screed.

Physician, heal yourself.

[Future Snake Eater]

But while you are alive, can you please, please have some manners?? Or FAKE some?

No. Because I have the same respect for atheists and their beliefs that they have for me and mine. Sucks doesn't it?

[A_perfect_lady]

Let me give you two an example. A few hours ago, a story was posted on FR about a woman who was mowed down by a drunk driver. She was in her early 60s, by all accounts a very nice woman, very involved with her church, foster mother to many children, well loved in her community, and it's clearly a tragedy.

Presumably, plenty of Freepers weighed in on how we can only pray that God will comfort her family and how we must all have faith that she is in a better place now.

Now, I could go over there and be a butthead, and post something commenting on how it's a shame she's dead because there is no afterlife and her loved ones are NOT going to be seeing her again. I am quite certain this is true. But why would I do that, hm? What is the point? Why be RUDE on a thread about someone's death?

Now, either you understand what I'm saying and you're pretending not to because it pleases you to do so, or you haven't the intellectual oomph to carry your end of this conversation.

[A_perfect_lady]

No, I just don’t waste my time with cut-n-paste posters. If they can’t take the time to do more than Control-C/Control-V/SEND, then why should I? It’s just a sneaky way of trying to get me to read your favorite moralist and I’m not going for it. You put into your own words whatever your point is, you make it succinct and you address it to me, and not include me in some SpamPing where I’m supposed to wade through your samplings and figure out what is addressed to me and what is for the other people you pinged... or don’t bother.