Christopher Hitchens has earned my undying love for announcing on national TV that Jerry Falwell deserved to be selling pencils out of a plastic cup in hell. The rest of his bullshit just sort of gets drowned out by that sweet, sweet music.
Why? If he proves himself to be a gullible fool, why accept anything he says? Is this like the monkeys typing Shakespeare? He may say something correct by accident, but how much shit do I have to sift throught to find the one true nugget? Why not wait for someone that knows his ass from his elbow?
Well, that particular opinion of his isn’t exactly a lone voice in the wild, though, especially if you turn it down a bit in degree; plenty of people dislike Falwell. I actually gained the most respect for Christopher Hitchens for his outspoken argument against the bizarrely universal veneration of Mother Teresa, a matter where there are far fewer willing to agree with him, but on which he seems to me absolutely correct.
What about this statement is admirable?
I was talking of religions, not higher powers. The two have little to do with each other.
Basically, the fact that it is true.
You’ve turned the argument around. I’m not saying “he only got one thing wrong; let’s just accept everything else he’s said anyway!”. I’m saying that being gullible on a couple of points doesn’t necessarily make you wrong; You would be wrong to completely dismiss him because of that. Basically i’m saying that yes, treat his claims with caution. Yes, be wary. But don’t start off with a totally closed mind. Accept the possibility that he could be right. Don’t say “he’s a gullible fool; everything he ever says must inevitably be wrong”. That’s all. I think we’re actually in agreement, although I think I might not consider Hitchens as gullible or foolish as you seem to.
I didn’t know Mother Teresa was Albanian.
And may I throw in the opinion that Hitchens would be a great movie Supervillain or assassin. He could just calmly and dispassionately tell you where you went wrong as he slit your throat.
It surprises most people, but, yes, it is true.
Mr. Hitchen’s case, as I understand it, is that her hospice was not a hostpital, it was only for those sure to die. And that Ma Theresa would trick them into a death bed conversion, saying words over them they didn’t understand, so that she could score a soul’s salvation. He mocked the legalistic concept of redemption, he sneers at the idea that one’s soul might depend on some particular ritualistic formula, such that an utter Hindu might unwittingly consent to his own salvation. Clearly, she went to a different Sunday School than I did.
I’m not surprised to hear that Hitchens doesn’t entirely know what he’s talking about. In a review of Hitchens’ book, Stephen Prothero said “I have never encountered a book whose author is so fundamentally unacquainted with its subject.”
So, a blind man goes to the Louvre, demands to be taken to the Mona Lisa. He leans forward, sniffs deeply, and announces…Yes!..it stinks.
I read it, agree it was an okay rant, was also irked at questionable “facts”, and generally like Sam Harris and Michael Shermer’s covering of the same topics much better. (I particularly like Shermer as he doesn’t seem quite as mono-manic.)
Anybody see Hitchens debate with Sharpton? Long version and 19 seconds of Sharpton’s famous comment on Mormonism (which if Mormons take offense for, he asserts, then it’s the fault of Hitchens and Mormonism).
While it doesn’t affect his argument of course, I just don’t like Hitchens. He’s such a bitter seeming drunken bastard (and of course there’s his domestic problems 
) and I think he gives Marxism a pass. When Gore Vidal removes his blessing because he thinks you’re too liberal, that’s a statement.
Because it’s a lot harder for people like that to get media buzz and book contracts, whereas if you’re a grandstanding blowhard with a British accent it’s a lot easier.
I think he was more irked by the fact she raised hundreds of millions of dollars (in US currency of course) from people who often thought they were donating to a hospital, but the vast majority went to building convents and churches for her order. With the money she raised (much of it from people like the Duvaliers of Haiti and Charles Keating- i.e. she had no doubts where it came from and would not return it to those from whom it was plundered even when asked) she could have build the greatest teaching and research hospital in India but prided herself on the primitiveness of her hospice. She also actively lobbied against any type of birth control or abortion for Indian women and denounced divorce as among the worst sins on earth, BUT said when Princess Di (her friend and benefactor) divorced that she was glad because the marriage had been so unhappy.
Of course Hitches goes overboard. I find all of the above quite genuine, but he bashes her for being “ostentatiously impoverished” in her meeting with the pope and other such “you’re really straining” nonsense.
I am not a Catholic, but I am a great fan of Mother T. If anyone can substantiate or give a verifiable, unbiased cite for her “tricking” Hindus (or anyone else) into deathbed confessions, subsribing to a formulaic salvation, raising money under false pretenses I will eat my hat.
I know a guy who went to India and worked with her daily for several months as she ministered to the forgotten dying in unspeakable slums.
As John Lennon once said,
“If you go carryin’ round pictures of Chairman Mao, You ain’t gonna make it with anyone anyhow…”
I suspect Hitchins will reach a decidedly small audience if he wants to disparage religion by demonizing Mama T.
And as I said, I am no Catholic and actually lean more agnostic. I have no axe to grind here.
You bunk it first, it’ll provide something to aim at.
Here is a piece he wrote for Slate.
Here’s an interview with Hitchens about his book, The Missionary Position: Mother Teresa in Theory and Practice.
Given the context in which Hitchens dropped the hole in the bedsheet turd, the OP is really a bit of a nitpick. His point was that religions in general presume to dictate sexuality, and that’s as true for Judaism as for any other.
In browsing the background on this particular UL, I found that most of the debunking articles went on to reinforce Hitchens’ point (even when they predate his book). For example, this Rabbi has an amusing take on the UL, but comes right back and articulates that “Jewish law does not allow any articles of clothing to be worn during lovemaking”!
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38069