We can be less restrained here.
Then why did you try to play a liberal-tu-quoque-gotcha earlier upthread?
The OP for the Hitchens thread set a respectful tone. The OP of the Falwell thread did not. Therefore, by the preference you just expressed, you can have had no real problem with the tone of the Falwell thread.
Unless of course you just make up your preferences on the spot.
FTR I don’t think there have been any real ‘religious dicks’ in the Hitch thread. Just attention whores.
I think he became a U.S. citizen fairly recently.
This thread:rolleyes:
What the heck
God without proof is a sure thing…But documentation is needed before a citizen can call some one a fraud?
Also someone needs to go back to civics class and learn what the heck an indictment even is.
Targets (not suspects, they have not been charged) of Grand Jury investigations have no right to a defense, the grand jury room only has the citizen grand jury and the AUSA (Assistant US Attorney) and all they decide is if there is PROBABLE CAUSE that a crime committed and that there is PROBABLE CAUSE it is the target.
So some how if at least 16 people in a locked room with the prosecution think that someone may have possibly committed a crime it is fine to call them a “fraud”…Get off your high horse, ITR champion, if you are thinking an indictment == guilty you are actually worse than those who make a casual claim of fraud.
As a GJ alumni and an admitted non-professional who is unqualified to do what follows I would say if the diversion of donations to the church is documented as Hitch claimed I would have returned a “true bill”
Seems to me with amount of money she was collecting, the situation of the poor in Calcutta should be vastly (or at least measurably) improved.
Is it?
Worse, she didn’t believe in improving their lives, even if they had a curable illness that could be cheaply treated she wouldn’t spend the money.
In fact she didn’t spend any of the millions people donated to her, she gave it all to the church and continued a willful denial of pain medication to people who were terminally ill.
She re-used needles, wouldn’t pay for hot water or soap…really anyone who was not a part of her order left in horror.
Mother’s theology glorifies suffering and in her eyes suffering (of others) is good. It is the kiss of Christ and helps the world. So in her mind it was gods work to HELP them suffer.
So lets make this clear…her HELP was MAKING THEM SUFFER, that is how she glorified god, by causing them to suffer and suffer longer, not through any attempt at healing.
Collect millions in the name of the suffering poor and not spending it on relieving their pain or restoring their dignity is fraud…unless your god wills it.
And to complement, a photo of Richard Dawkins.
I knew Sampiro was being snarky. Given that he was the first person in the thread to bring up Jesus, I just used his comment as a springboard to say what I wanted to say. It flowed.
I’m female. And citing a post in which I simply disagreed with your (flawed) analysis of a sound bite as an example of douchebaggery? Really? That’s some lazy research.
As for the OP: Hitchens, wherever he is at the moment, doesn’t give a rat’s ass what I think; I’m having a hard time figuring out why you do. If you’re right and there is no God, my hopes for Hitchens to have reconciled with God before he died are meaningless and a waste of my time. If there really is a God, I’m not sure what kind of moral calisthenics you’d have to do to arrive at the conclusion that hoping Hitchens 1. reconciled with God and 2. is now enjoying Heaven is a bad thing, or, as you put it, “douchey.”
It’s not for you to say whether or not my hope that he did get right with God before his death is sincere. Oh, you can have an opinion on whether or not you think I’m sincere, sure, but you know what they say about opinions …
This whole thing isn’t even about Hitchens anyway … other than the general well being that most of us wish for other people, I can’t really believe that you are all that deeply concerned about what people are saying about him online. This wasn’t Grandpa Hitchens for Pete’s sake. He’s dead, so anything, good or bad, that’s being said about him now is irrelevant. It appears you’re simply projecting your hope that I wasn’t sincere onto my statement so you can be justified in your righteous indignation not at what I actually said, but at my beliefs in general. I suggest you get a soft pillow and sit on it until your butt stops hurting from your own self-inflicted wounds. Ain’t nobody here hatin’ on anyone, except you.
I did not mention the Falwell thread. I am confident in asserting that there are RIP threads for conservative figures that begin with a respectful OP that also feature board liberals being dicks. I can’t be arsed to search for a particular example.
FWIW, I wouldn’t be offended by those posts at all, and I don’t think most atheists would, so don’t generalize the OP into some sort of outrage for the general atheist community.
I mean - for one thing - they could’ve been sincere. If you believe everyone who doesn’t believe in the right invisible dude in the sky is going to suffer eternally, it should drive you fucking insane with grief when someone dies who doesn’t. The fact that you guys can accept that billions of people will suffer this fate, including loved ones, and not go insane kind of makes you huge dicks actually. No one could possibly deserve that fate.
If they were insincere, and this was just a stealth way to cram in a smug little insult - that’s not really a big deal for someone who they must’ve hated. What actually would bother me more is when people get smug over really stupid shit. Like - imagine if people who believed that western medicine was a conspiracy to keep you sick and only sticking magic healing crystals up your ass works said about everyone who died of cancer “oh, I bet that idiot regrets his choice to go with chemo now. Maybe at the last moment he recognized the power of healing ass-crystals!”
In that case it’s not even the insult that bothers me, but how smug they feel about believing something that’s really fucking stupid, and how they somehow feel vindicated about it even though the source of this supposed vindication is imaginary.
Christopher Hitchens was an asshole who never had a kind word to say about the recently departed. To be upset that somebody might not hold his recent passing in respect simply shows the ill thought out combative hypocrisy I have come to expect from so many of the more strident atheists here. The following are excerpts from obituaries Hitchens wrote:
On Ronald Reagan:
Bob Hope
Princess Dianna
For idiots in this thread to have the fucking gall to get in a huff about the fact that some others might not have kind words to say on this asshole’s death simply shows how hypocritical they are. It’s all right if Christopher Hutchins does it, but if somebody does it to Hutchins, you just can’t abide it. Fuck that.
Before we start making generalizations about the atheist community, can we make a list of the people who are outraged about this? Because I’ve counted maybe one or two, with most people not bothered by it.
Not outraged at all*.
I initially thought - but also wasn’t outraged by - what I perceived to be a bit of religious smugness going around that despite what AMWaG says doesn’t in fact parallel Hitchens: he was blunt, honest and often nasty, but said what he meant**, rather than smugging it up. However if the religious statements were actually jokes, then I think we should take that at face value.
*Except for Shodan feeling the need to defend the memory of Jerry Falwell.
**I strongly suspect Hitchens would have been banned from the SDMB within a day, brilliant and articulate or not. Who knows, maybe he once was?
Wow, I can’t believe Hitchens posted all those things here. Wait… he didn’t? Oh, so I guess he had no expectation to conform to the particular culture of this board.
In post five, Czarcasm cites this post by ITR Champion as one of the posts that are inappropriate
That seems pretty blunt and honest to me.
Lobohan, you’re a moron. He “posted” those in a magazine with a large public circulation and in a forum where his words would most likely reach the families and loved ones of the deceased. He shit in a much larger punchbowl than a small thread on an anonymous message board.
I’m not Czarcasm.
No, you’re not, but his post proved my parallel.
I am going to let this go with one final thought. Me coming out and straight up calling that wormfood son of a bitch an “asshole” probably does him more honor than all of the mealy mouthed whining you douchebags have written here.
You’ve got a bug in your butt recently, Monkey.
Hitchens was an asshole. But he was a fucking talented one, self-consistent (at any given time) and almost certainly a genius. You can admire the work without admiring the man.
Never said I didn’t have grudging admiration for the man. I said I didn’t admire the hypocrisy I was reading here. Hitchens would probably call you douchebags, too. He’d say it more cleverly than I, though.