The Hated Late Christopher Hitchens on Hate Speech


The late Christopher Hitchens is a source of almost endless hatred on the religious right, and he wouldn’t want it any other way. But lest the socialist left should be too elated with the polemicist’s condemnation of religion, Hitchens had some choice words for the politically correct thought police of the left, especially pertinent for the eco-fascist “consensus.”

My own opinion is enough for me. And I claim the right to have it defended against any consensus, any majority, anywhere, any place, anytime. And anyone who disagrees with this can pick a number, get in line, and kiss my ass.

The video above is from his speech given at the University of Toronto in 2006 entitled, “Be It Resolved: Freedom of Speech Includes the Freedom to Hate.”

And what could inspire Hitchens’ own hatred more than religion? Alas, there are even pearls of wisdom for the religious right to contemplate, even in the desolate ashes of their most cherished shibboleths.

“So call me a neoconservative if you must; anything is preferable to the rotten, unprincipled alliance between the former fans of the one-party state and the hysterical zealots of the one-god one.”

Supporter of the Iraq War, unrepentant former socialist, and literary enigma. His vicious and remorseless pen will be missed.

Advertisements

6 thoughts on “The Hated Late Christopher Hitchens on Hate Speech

  1. I agree that you should be able to speak out against religions, but the myriad of humanitarian works that Christians do all over the world speaks for itself against his unsupported claim that “religion is the basis of all hatred”. I was not surprised when the crowed clapped for this because they are confused about religion and have been indoctrinated for decades by the very marxists you, Rogue operator, speak against against, to think that all “religious” people are self-righteous bigots. They do this to debase our moral values which religions like Christianity work so adamantly to enforce. He also says that “the bible says “you have to hate fags”. I have read the entire Bible, Old Testament and New Testament, and no where does it command anyone to hate anyone else for any reason. Yet he stated this claim as fact. It leads me to question everything else that he stated as fact. Therefore, although I agreed with his overly elaborated agreement with free speech, I lost all respect for this man and most of what he had to say. He defends free speech but then say he thinks that religion and religious speech should be “hated and treated with contempt”. Does he not see his own blatant hypocrisy?

    1. I think the point was that the people who cry “foul” the most are the ones primarily behind the real “hate speech”. Hitch never asked for religious nuts to be silenced. He loved it when religious nuts went out and said crazy things about beheading heathens and such. He wanted religion to be treated with contempt because it is blatantly false and filled with recycled stories from other earlier religions. I wasn’t an atheist until I started reading Aristotle, and then reading ancient parables that parallel Christian parables, but predated them by hundreds or thousands of years. Then I started watching documentaries with Richard Dawkins and my conversion was complete and irreversible.

      My biggest gripe with religious sorts is that they assume that since I don’t believe in god, I cannot be a good person or have a rigid moral code. I see it just the opposite way. My moral code is far stronger than that of a religious person because I am being good for the sake of being good–not because I am afraid I’ll be punished in some kind of afterlife. To me, saying if you’re bad you’ll go to hell is like telling a child to be good because Santa is watching.

      1. An educated and intellectually honest person would have a hard time arguing with you, Houghton. Of course there’s always the effective “I believe and you don’t, therefore I’m smart and you’re dumb/I’m right and you’re wrong/you’re misinformed, I’m enlightened/I’m good and you’re bad” argument. That one’s pretty hard to beat

  2. Overkill, you, along with many other people, conflate all Christians with medieval Catholics. Believe it or not, I have been to many churches and conventions in my life and heard dozens if not hundreds of speakers (none of the catholic) and have yet to hear anyone elaborate on how bad hell will be or try to scare people into being good. And to your argument that you were “reading ancient parables that parallel Christian parables, but predated them by hundreds or thousands of years.” I would argue that the first people (Adam and Eve) were pre-Christianity Christians, and so was Noah after the flood; so it is my belief that there can be no texts “predating Christians”. They may predate Jesus, but not the belief system. I have read little of Aristotle and you didn’t elaborate on what he said so I can’t argue with that. But I can honestly say that after reading the Bible I am more joyful and have been influenced to love people more and be kinder to people. I am legitimately starting to love people as much as I love myself, and not because I fear hell. I am sorry that you feel “irreversibly converted” but am quite sure that you aren’t.

    1. Jackson, I never conflate the two. I very much look at Protestants differently than Catholics, and even Baptists differently than Lutherans, and so on. But Cahtholicism was dominant for centuries, so if I’m talking about medieval history, and I say Christianity, it may be that I mean Catholic-dominated Christianity.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s