Holy crap... that Eric Breindel guy is WEIRD. If I was sitting next to him on a bus, I would be very creeped out. He acts like he's sick or something. =P

 

I agree with Hitchens that Irving should have the right to be published and the right to be read, despite how wrong he may be. Even if Irving did print obviously wrong facts, it would still be his right to present his opinion. It is up to the critics and the general public to decide that Irving is retarded, not so much the publishing company.

However, I also understand that a publishing company is a business and probably does not want to be known as the company that printed the book that everyone hated, epecially when it's in regard to such a serious historical event as this one.

At no point, though, does Hitchens say that he supports what Irving says, nor does he suggest that Irving is anything less than crazy for thinking so. He simply says that if Irving wants to write something that's batshit fucking insane, he should be able to do that. If Hitchens then wants to read the book that is batshit fucking insane so that he can come to his own conclusions about them rather than rejecting them on impulse, he should be able to do that. I don't really see how that's a problem. We print bibles, after all.

I understand what Hitchens is saying and I don't think he should be discredited simply for saying that even psychotic people deserve to be heard. In fact, it's good to know that he's so open to other opinions.  For him, publishing companies have a public role as presenters of ideas. I can see where he's coming from. After all, if the book is printed, who are people going to think is insane: Irving or the company that published him?

Probably Irving.

 

Support Hitchens in what way exactly?  Many of his ideas resonate with me, esp. his stances on atheism and morality, the immorality of religious faith and holy texts, the separation of church and state and freedom of speech ... Hitchens is not a holocaust denier, but rather defended the right of someone who has unspeakable and offensive ideas.  I hate holocaust denial as I hate anti-semitism, but I would defend to my death a persons right, under the U.S. Constitution, to speak these lies - I would also challenge them with the facts of history, esp. with the gruesome figure that 12 million people died at the hands of the Nazi death machine and that the anti-semitism that move Hitler and the German people towards the 'final solution' was directly inherited from medieval Christianity ... I also find it a little troubling that you, as a Christian, with all its history of anti-Jewish violence, could, without any hint of irony, attempt to cast aspersions on someone for defending the freedom of speech of someone who has anti-semitic views ...

Do not compartmentalize when there are two seperate issues going on. As stated by serveral people here, and I agree:

There is a HUGE differance between being right, and having the right to say something.

Hitchens DOES NOT SUPPORT HOLOCAUST DENIAL, neither do I. But someone does have the right say stupid disgusting things. People aslo have the right to believe that ouiji board work. People have the right to believe that homosexuality is an abomination while ignoring Lev later on calling eating shellfish an abomination. 

Supporting free speech does not mean that you support what the person says. It only means that they have the right to say it.

Voiltair, "I may vehemetly dissagree with what you have to say but will defend to the death your right to say it".

"Blashpemy laws are the first sign of tyrany"

For anti-semtimism, or any form of bigotry to be defeated can not be done through "thought police" laws inforced by government gunpoint. To change society you use your own voice.

If you want to prove to me that Hitchens hates Jews(absurd claim) you'd need to show me a statement like, "Jews are scum".

Nothing posted here would indicate anything but Hitchens support of the rights of a dick to be a dick. 

 

 

 

To move on slightly, Christos, you seem to be under the (false, pernicious) impression that we atheists have to see in our "representatives" (I never chose Hitchens to represent me, but, as it were, we rarely choose the people who speak for us) the perfection you see in, perhaps, the image of Christ or the Prophets ... We do not hold that men can be perfect, and I do not require the perfection of a man in order to accept one or two or all of the man's positions.  

(And again that fact that a professed Christian can pass judgement on anti-semitism, without a hint of irony, is laughable ... Christianity is codified, packaged bigotry - and modern, evangelical Christianity's entire eschatology is based on the annhilation of the Jews and Israel in bringing forth the end-times.  I think as a new Christian your politics and theology are still in process to the extent that you should probably bow out of discussions like this before you get your ideas straight ...)

... & the fact that you can ignore most of our comments and then state that "this is not a freedom of speech issue", I think, disqualifies you from rational discourse - freedom of speech isn't just the "right to say and think what you want", its not being pruposefully and illegally excluded from the process.

Hitchens's argument in that debate seems to be that it's healthy to be exposed to different sources of research, regardless of the conclusions drawn by the researcher. At the end, he explicitely says Irving didn't change his view of the Nazis (which I'm presuming was a negative one). I don't disagree with the principles he's espousing here: that other opinions have the right to be heard, and that you owe it to yourself to hear them. There's a difference between listening to different ideas and simply adopting them wholesale because you've heard them. Note my sig:
"Americans read everything like Scripture: they grasp the book, shut their eyes and make a global decision to believe or not to believe, and once they've chosen to believe, all critical faculties are deactivated." ~John Dolan
If you want a point on which I can assuredly diverge from Hitchens, it's his support for the war in Iraq. This doesn't mean I can't read his essays on other subjects, indeed even on that subject, and draw my own conclusions and take from it what I as a (hopefully) rational, thinking person can.

Well Conn, I should mention that although a new Christian, I've been around the religion my whole life and I understand Christianity very well. Maybe you should check out some of my posts on other threads.

I agree that atheists are under no obligation whatsoever to follow Hitchen's example. However, Hitchens is held on a higher level among atheist activists along with Harris and Dawkins. Many times (mostly outside this forum) I have seen atheists defend every word that these three men speak/write (reminds me a lot of a fundie). I should also point out in response to the assertion that I hold Hitchens to Jesus standards: I doubt that Jesus of Nazareth was completely perfect throughout his entire life (but that discussion is for another time).

I again disagree that Hitchens has any grounds to criticize a private company for a business decision. Irving wrote other books that undermine the Holocaust. Not to mention the Institute for Historical Review (infamous for their Holocaust denial) has a magazine. No one is hidden from their influence. For example, in Europe, Holocasut denial is such a problem that people can serve jail time for it (Irving had to temporarily drop his views to avoid a 10 year sentence in Austria). Why should a major publishing company subject more people to Irving's ignorance? They have no legal obligation to publish his views.

Also, no one really responded to the fact that in the interview, Hitchens never condemns the work of Irving as an anti-Semitic bigot.  

I also see some hypocrisy here. If a major Christian leader criticized a private publishing company for not producing a book that denied American slavery, all of you would be up in arms.

Finally, I completely recognize Christianity's responsibility for anti-Semitism through a 2-thousand year history of oppression and pogroms. I would argue that hatred and violence demonstrated to the Jews was a result of Christians ignoring the message of Jesus, not following it (but again, that discussion is not for this thread). Nevertheless, Hitchens cannot come out a criticize a private business for rejecting ignorance and hateful anti-Semitism.

Why should a company publish a book that no one would buy, and would possibly ruin their reputation?

I think a rational response to this issue is to say that Hitchens fucked up big time, and move on.

 

You contradict yourself: it's either about the man or it isn't. In the world of ideas, there are many despicable people who have demonstrated profound insight. That ideas can somehow be tainted by a person's actions is an emotional response one has to get over if they hope to have a conversation that doesn't disintegrate into ad hominem attacks. That's what you've set up with this thread, so don't dance around it.

They don't concern me because there is no philosophy of atheism, let alone a standards body.

And you can argue that point, but that's not what you're doing here. You're trying to discredit an author of a book on atheism--based on an unrelated, eleven year-old interview--and glossing over his actual intent in that debate to do so.

Which leaves a silence. Should we speculate to our own satisfaction? Your whole premise is a red herring. You're fishing for anti-Semitism in a debate about publishing and censorship. You can't even do that right, cos you're stuck acknowledging the original point of the debate--whether the publisher is obligated to represent unpopular views--and the shameful history of your own adopted religion.
[...]

I converted from atheism. I've always been the "Christos" user because I'm a religion major.  

I do not think Jews have to convert, for many reasons. I guess all I will say here is that I think Heaven probably doesn't exist. Same goes for Hell. I could go in to more depth on another thread. Most of Christianity is at odds with the majority of scholars about what Jesus meant by "The Kingdom of Heaven/God." Jesus focused a lot more on the present then on an afterlife. Which makes sense because Judaism doesn't hold to a belief in Heaven, and Jesus came from that Jewish culture and faith. I also have always found Jesus' statement about the Kingdom in Thomas 25 to be very profound and eye-opening.

Concerning Hell, I was just there this afternoon. I can see it from where I live. Hell in the first century was a real place: The Valley of Gehenna outside the walls of Jerusalem (So yes, that means I live in Jerusalem). People used to practice anti-Jewish child sacrifice, as well as throw their trash in Gehenna. People would light fires to burn away the trash, and dogs used to fight for food in Gehenna. Hence, "weeping (child sacrifice) and gnashing of teeth (dog fighting)."

Jesus talked about Hell metaphorically. When you hate, lust, steal, refuse to give, etc, you create a Hell for yourself on Earth.

Oh crap, I rambled. Oh well, I hope this was insightful.

Peace!

I can't speak for everyone else, but I could care less.  Seriously.  Religion isn't the issue here, anyway. 

I, in fact, don't agree with Hitchens' criticism of the publishing house.  I don't think publishing houses should be compelled to publish anything they come across - and to a certain extent, they, as a private company, are protected by their right to self-determine their catalogue.  Hitchens was, in fact, wrong wrong wrong about that, as he has been about many topics ...

My issue, which enhanced the tone of my response, has more to do with the way you framed the issue:  "Ha, see, your prophet of atheism defended the freedom of a holocaust denier, the worst scum on earth ... aren't you just so ashamed? ..."  Christopher Hitchens is at times brilliant and at other times a pain in the ass - he is an iconoclast, a contrarian, a sonofabitch & (paradoxically) has dreadfully good taste - I do not have to defend every thing he does or is because I find his writing witty and many of his positions agreeable; I simply do not.

 (In fact, the only people I would defend in toto regardless if they break most taboos, etc. are members of my family & my closest friends - ... I accept the charge of irrationality with respect to that ...)

... & I'm not at all interested in your anecdotes about atheists proping up any popular atheist authors or thinkers despite obvious character flaws or flaws in their arguments ... I guess they should have known better, but that's not my problem.

What texts/interpretations do you use to support this?

Well, lets see. Heaven and Hell are not concepts in the OT or in modern Judaism. Heaven and Hell were mainly Greek ideas. Concerning Heaven, you honestly could read lots of books by various authors talking about the subject. You could try David Wenham, Bart Ehrman, or Dominic Crossan (if you want a variety of beliefs behind the scholarship).  

For Hell, you could just go to Hell and ask almost any person and they would tell you what happened in Gehenna (refer to my last post if this is confusing). Seriously though, I've never read a book about it. Lots of professors have spoken to me about it. The word that the writers of the Gospels used the word Gehenna. In our english translation, we write it as Hell.